Thursday, October 11, 2007

CRC Finds Something Else To Whine About

It looks like the votes are there for Montgomery County to add the words "gender identity" to the current nondiscrimination law. So now it will say something like "on the basis of age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, national origin, or marital status ..." where the words "gender identity" are not included in the current law. You can read the bill HERE.

Well, wouldn't you know the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum would be against it. I think they've reached the end of that "responsible curriculum" kick, it's time to move on to a new topic, this doesn't really have anything to do with that. It does have something to do with being fair to people who are different from them, so here they go ...

This morning's Washington Post:
Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, which has led opposition to the sex education curriculum in Montgomery County's schools, has a new target. In a recent e-mail, the group highlighted legislation before the County Council that would prohibit discrimination against residents based on gender identity.

"This bill has far-reaching implications, from allowing any male expressing as a female to use the women's bathroom, to forcing religious schools to hire gays and transgenders," according to the message to members.

The e-mail tells members how to voice objections with Council President Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County). The bill is sponsored by Trachtenberg, who has said she was inspired in part by her senior policy adviser Dana Beyer, who is a transgendered woman.

Beyer called concerns from the group "utter nonsense." The language in the bill has not been finalized and might touch on the issue of public accommodations such as restrooms, Beyer said.

The issue, she said, occurs when a transgendered woman is at the beginning of her transition and might still have a masculine appearance.

"Are you going to send her into the men's room? You'd be putting her physically in harm's way. Men do not like women in their bathrooms," Beyer said. "This is only an issue in people's fevered imaginations. You've got a lot of misperceptions and ignorance." Gender Bill Targeted (scroll down).

For some small number of people, and I heard it recently estimated that this might be about a thousand people in Montgomery County, their physical sex and their experienced gender do not match. They feel like a different sex than what they look like. There are a lot of different ways this happens, and it doesn't matter why they feel that way. It's not a joke, it's not a game, they aren't being evil, but after living a life that they experience as falsehood, some of them decide to go ahead and make the change, so that people will see who they are actually talking to.

There are degrees and variations of this, and it will never fit any system of black and white rules. Some men go through surgery and hormone treatments, and become, by any definition, women. They have breasts, they have a vagina, they are not men, they are women, and yes, they use the women's room. They aren't "expressing as" women, they're women.

But there's more than that. There are women who are masculine, men who are feminine, lots of variations on this theme. In fact, I think a lot of discrimination against gays is triggered by gender-role nonconformity, which is visible to people, more than sexual attraction, which is not. The new law will say you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

Listen to how the bill defines it:
Gender identity means an individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

The bill prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, cable TV services, and taxicab service.

The law is about discrimination. It gives the same rights and freedom to people whether they fit a gender stereotype or not. If they're raising hell or causing trouble, out they go; if they're incompetent or uncooperative at their work, out they go; if they smell bad or go around bothering people, out they go, just like anybody else. But if they stand on the curb and hail a cab, it stops. If they go into a restaurant and order a meal, they get it. Just like anybody else.


Blogger Tish said...

CRC's Dr. Ruth testified against this bill at a public hearing in Rockville last week. She tried then to claim that the bill would require churches and religious schools to hire "gays and transgenders." The exact Montgomery County code exempting religious institutions was read to her and yet, 6 days later, the CRC made the same claim in the email to its members.

She also claimed that the county code which empowers the Human Rights Commission to provide education about discrimination based on "age, race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, national origin, or marital status..." was actually a charge to educate religions about what their ideas about "gays and transgenders" should be. The council members were clearly bemused, but not amused, by this creative twist on the intent and letter of the law. You would think, since they explained it to her, that she would get it. It took her less than a week to lose it again.

This is a good law. This is a law that enhances the ability of workers to continue working. In practice, in places where laws like this one have been passed, worries about bathrooms and dress codes have proven to be unfounded.

October 11, 2007 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"CRC Finds Something Else To Whine About"

It's another Jim twist. The people actually whining are those who say that restaurants won't serve them because they dress like Milton Berle trying to get a laugh. Personally, I've haven't heard of a restaurant that wouldn't take a buck, regardless of where it's coming from. And, is the cable company actually declining to profit from guys that dress like girls? It's difficult to believe this is anything but whining.

As far as religious exemption goes, why would only churches and schools be exempt? Why can't anyone with religious convictions get the same consideration? Why not anyone with moral convictions, regardless of whether the motivation is religious? Why not anyone else for that matter?

Why do we need to pass laws for everyone who whines that everyone is unfair to them? If you want to be a non-conformist, you take a chance socially. Doesn't just apply to transgenders, it applies to all non-conformists. But most aren't whining about it.

October 11, 2007 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Does Weepy Ruth listen to anyone? I would hate to think that she is unable to process what she hears or reads in all situations. I find it interesting that CRC thinks that because Ruth is an MD that makes her an authority on everything. I guess with a lawyer, a dr and a bad actor- they have it all!

October 11, 2007 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you want to be a non-conformist, you take a chance socially. Doesn't just apply to transgenders, it applies to all non-conformists. But most aren't whining about it."

So I take it you're whining about it for them?

October 11, 2007 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"So I take it you're whining about it for them?"

Not at all. I'm a non-conformist myself. Social disaaproval is part of the fun.

Embrace life.

Here's a gay agenda story:

"Neither Rhode Island nor Oklahoma allows same-sex "marriage." Yet two lesbian couples are asking those states to grant them a same-sex "divorce."

On Tuesday, Rhode Island's Supreme Court heard arguments from Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers, who were married in 2004 in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. Last year, the couple filed for divorce in Rhode Island, The Associated Press reported.

"This is the new strategy on the part of homosexual activists," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action. "They have been unsuccessful, for the most part, in creating same-sex marriage via direct constitutional challenge. So, they are using the side-door method of bringing cases around the periphery of marriage, such as divorce cases.

"By asking the courts to hear the case and grant the divorce, they are slowly trying to change the public policy of both of those states. Ultimately, they want to shoehorn in legislation granting same-sex marriage.

"The truth is, they want to destroy traditional marriage."

Cait O'Darling and Stephanie A. Griffith appealed their same-sex "divorce" case to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Attorneys with ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief Monday defending marriage, which is defined in the Oklahoma Constitution as a union between one man and one woman.

"By a margin of more than 3-to-1, the people of Oklahoma voted to protect marriage as a union between one man and one woman," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin Nimocks. "By demanding that the court dissolve this counterfeit 'marriage,' these women are telling the court to ignore the laws of Oklahoma. The opponents of marriage aren't merely trying to redefine marriage, they're trying to eliminate marriage.""

October 11, 2007 11:13 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

Emproph, are you having as much fun with that one as I am? Either the FOFA Judicial Analyst is Stephen Colbert in disguise, or they actually want to protect Lesbian Marriage - because Lesbian Divorce is going to destroy Straight Marriage.

Lawks, I feel so threatened.

October 11, 2007 12:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just to add to that... I don't see any "ex-gays" having to go through what my transgender students do everyday (oh, wait!!! that is becuase we don't have any "ex-gays" in MCPS).

October 11, 2007 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't see any "ex-gays" having to go through what my transgender students do everyday"

What are they going through everyday?

BTW, how many transgender students do you have? How do you know they're transgendered? Are you talking with them about it?

October 11, 2007 2:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Why should you care what transpires between a teacher and his students? In this instance I can assure you that conversations such as the one you denigrate occur because the student is afraid for his/her life in a climate created by fools and ignorant bigots like you. You are so pathetic!!

October 11, 2007 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, I have three transgendered students in my school, Anon. I do talk to them about it, especially since I am one of the only people they feel comfortable with talking to when students call them names, make fun of them or physically/mentally abuse them. But no worries, that time is changing. We have a great administration as well as guidance and teaching staff at my school who are helping me in making our transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual and allied students feel just how they should: normal. We also foster an environment in MCPS where every student has the right to feel safe from harassment and learn in a multicultural and understanding atmosphere. So, how many "ex-gay" students can you just think of off the top of your head, Anon? I know that I have about 42 students who are GLBT and allied and celebrated National Coming Out Day today.
In MCPS we also value a school system where individuals can live open, genuine and healthy lives. CRC and PFOX, on the other hand, do not.

October 11, 2007 7:18 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Hey, stop picking on Milton Berle. My 84 year old father would deck you if he had the chance.

October 12, 2007 12:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh Tish, you should have seen the article in the FOF CitizenLink email before that:

“Joining him on the broadcast are Maggie Gallagher, writer, speaker and president of the National Organization for Marriage; Robbie George, author and professor of law at Princeton University; and Chuck Colson, author and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

"In a couple of years, a third of the country could easily be living under same-sex marriage," Gallagher says.”

Maggie Gallagher runs around the country with the anti-gay tribe saying that studies show children do better with a mother and a father. What she doesn’t say is that those studies compare kids with married parents, vs. kids living in single parent households as the result of having gone through DIVORCE - and not in comparison with two same gender parents.

But when I first read that line above, due to the way it was phrased, I got the impression that “a third of the country” would be forced to have only same-sex marriages. Then I realized that she was talking about SSM becoming legal in “a third of the country.” Still absurd, just less absurd.

And then you’ve got that characterization: “living UNDER same-sex marriage.” As though knowledge of legalized same-gender marriage in your state would be some imperial weight hanging over your every waking thought just waiting to pounce on you for any anti-gay thought that may happen to waft through your mind...

And then this Robbie George guy, whom I’m unfamiliar with, backs her up:

George says time is short.
"I think we have a window of between two and five years," he says. "The collapse of marriage, literally the abolition of marriage, is not 10 years down the road — it's two to five years down the road. It could happen, and it will happen, if we don't step forward."

Run for you lives, marriage will be criminalized in "two to five years!"

The more shrill they get, the more entertaining they get. It's a good show, and the seats here are great.

October 12, 2007 3:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for sharing all that Mr. Teacher Man, that means a lot for me to know.

October 12, 2007 6:07 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

If they abolish MY marriage I will be just ticked.

Robbie George is Stephen Colbert in disguise, too.

October 12, 2007 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, guys. Throughout this entire battle with MCPS and CRC/PFOX and Family-SHAM, I have often considered these people to be just like Ann Coulter. Take a look at this recent interview where she says, "Jews need to be perfected, that is what Christians are."
Promoting her latest book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," on "The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch" on CNBC, Coulter said the United States would be better if everyone were Christian.

Here's an NBC News transcript of the interview.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.

DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But, so we would be better if we were, if people, if there were no Jews, no Buddhists ...

COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by.

DEUTSCH: ... In this country? You can't believe that.

COULTER: You know, liberals on diversity ...

DEUTSCH: Here you go again.

COULTER: No, it's true.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.


DEUTSCH: You can't possibly. You're too educated, you can't. You're like my friend in ...

COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.

DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean ...

COULTER: We have the fast-track program.

DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.

COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.

DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" ...

COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.

DEUTSCH: Let's wipe Israel off the Earth. I mean, what, no Jews?

COULTER: No, we think, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.

DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners.

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued. When you say something absurd like that, there's no ...

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself.

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans." And if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally.

Deutsch gave Coulter another chance to elaborate after a commercial break.

DEUTSCH: During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe -- this is just a statement of what the New Testament is -- is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said, your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said. Don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic (that is)?


DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought.

Coulter also said during the interview that in her dreams, the country would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention in 2004.

"That's what I think heaven is going to look like," she said. "Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world."

October 12, 2007 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows.

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience. Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it."

October 13, 2007 1:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As software becomes more advanced and the relationship between humans and robots becomes more personal, marriage could result. "One hundred years ago, interracial marriage and same-sex marriages were illegal in the United States. Interracial marriage has been legal now for 50 years, and same-sex marriage is legal in some parts of the states," Levy said. "There has been this trend in marriage where each partner gets to make their own choice of who they want to be with.""

October 13, 2007 9:38 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Uh, yeah, fascinating, Anon. Please post something different next time, maybe something relevant to the topic, or I'm going to have to start deleting stuff here. Maybe you can express one of your intelligent and well-reasoned opinions.


October 13, 2007 9:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can assure Ms. Coulter that this Christian does not consider herself to be a perfected Jew.

When people make such hurtful statements, it makes me embarassed to admit I'm a person of faith. Most Christians I know are not filled with rage like she is and certainly do not judge who's "perfected" and who isn't.

Judging is not our job.

October 13, 2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

andrea- not anon
I think Ann Coulter is going to marry a robot.

October 13, 2007 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with that, Andrea, is that robots are programmed to be intelligent.


October 13, 2007 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Merle said...
“The problem with that, Andrea, is that robots are programmed to be intelligent.”

Which begs the question, will robots be persecuted by other robots for being attracted to humans? And will it be legal for humans to sign incomprehensible robot marriage contracts?

October 15, 2007 9:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought Jim told you guys not to discuss robot marriage.

He can't tolerate that kind of talk.

October 16, 2007 9:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home