Friday, November 09, 2007

Modesty Versus Decency: The Post Falls Down

Unbelievably sloppy reporting from the Washington Post yesterday. You know last weekend the CRC held a kind of protest at the Germantown Indoor Swim Center. We had a couple of people who got there when it started and left when it ended. They counted heads, took pictures (which we posted here), and even took notes about what they saw. No press showed up, it was pretty much a non-event, but it's our job to keep an eye on these people.

We counted seventeen people there.

The Post didn't go, but they talked to a lady who said she helped organize the non-event, and published what she said about it.
The County Council's plan to vote Tuesday on legislation that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity has continued to spark protest. Susan Jamison, a parent and lawyer from Poolesville, organized a demonstration at the county pool in Germantown that Jamison said attracted about 40 people. The group passed out hundreds of fliers to warn residents of the consequences of the bill.

Jamison, who has been battling the county's sex education curriculum, is concerned that the legislation will mean that her 10-year-old daughter would be forced to change in a locker room next to a transgender female.

"People don't understand the problem. There will be no decency here," she said. "If you really want separate facilities for transgenders, spend the money to build them, but don't put boys with male genitals in with our naked daughters."

Jamison said she is considering a lawsuit if the council approves the measure because of substantive changes made to the bill after the public hearing. Protest Continues Against Transgender Bias Bill

Listen, they didn't [pass] out hundreds of fliers to warn residents of the consequences of the bill, they handed out misleading fliers intended to alarm people about a nonexistent danger. This is pure biased reporting; out of nearly a million people in this county, seventeen feel strongly that it is important to keep discrimination on the basis of gender identity legal, and The Post quotes them as authorities, warning the reading public about dangerous consequences of a Council vote.

That lady's name might have sounded familiar to you. Susan Jamison was behind the wonderful letter-writing campaign a couple of years ago, where she sent letters to families of MCPS students, so all they'd have to do is check a box and put the card back into the mail, to complain to MCPS about the new curriculum. Naturally, the great majority of the letters that were returned to the school district had the negative message crossed out, replaced by text supporting the curriculum. It was a nice, spontaneous response by the public.

You might also have seen Susan Jamison's name on a notorious Nazi web site, where Nazi leader Bill White wrote about how he was helping her group, Parents Against X-rated [and R-Rated] Books in Montgomery County Public Schools. That disgusting web site recently experienced a well-publicized denial-of-service attack and is currently not in very good shape, so you can't read the stuff at the source, but I found this particular web page on the WayBack Machine, an archive of old web pages.

The Washington Post took this lady's word without checking anything. If you went there and counted heads, they had seventeen people, if you read about it in The Post there were forty, because that's what she told them.

That's a two hundred thirty five percent error. Not what you'd call accurate reporting.

I should mention that one of these reporters attended the most recent CRC public meeting as a participant, talking about his experiences with the school district, and not publishing any article about the meeting.
The office of council member George Leventhal (D-At Large), who chairs the health committee, has received a mixed response from residents in e-mails. Answering Jamison's concerns, Leventhal said in an e-mail that the bill was changed to clarify that "public accommodations must be appropriate for the gender that is 'publicly and exclusively expressed or asserted.'"

Leventhal added that he could not, "absolutely put to rest your concern that girls might find themselves in a locker room or dressing room in the presence of a person who expresses or asserts herself as a woman but who still has male genitals, but based on my own sense of the prevalence of that condition in the population, I think the likelihood of that occurring is remote. For the same reason, I do not think it would be cost-effective to build a third category of restroom, dressing room or locker room facilities."

According to the bill's sponsor, council member Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), 13 states and the District have laws that make it illegal to discriminate against transgendered individuals. Trachtenberg said in a news release that the measure continues to have strong support on the council. The county, she said, "has historically taken the lead in protecting its most vulnerable citizens."

The Post has taken the CRC's bogus assertions and treated them seriously, even though nobody else will.

This whole men-in-the-ladies-room idea is so wacky, I can't believe they even have the nerve to stand up and say it, and it is even more unbelievable to see a usually-respectable paper like the Washington Post promote the idea.

Let's talk about the CRC's worst nightmare scenarios. First, think about an actual transgender person, formerly a man now a woman, fully transitioned after surgery and the whole nine yards, going into the ladies room at a public place. This is just a lady using the ladies room, whether you like it or not. Sorry, this happens now, this is how it's supposed to work.

Another scenario. A transgender person who has not had surgery belongs to a gym, and uses the ladies shower room. This is actually probably the one that scares them the most. It seems that it is possible, in that case, that a lady would see a penis. Kids don't go to the gym, so no kids would see a penis, and I really don't think this would happen at, say, a public pool -- the "kid" part is really just saying the sky is falling. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I have to wonder ... what is so dangerous about seeing a penis? I mean, the chances of this happening are one in a gazillion, you've never heard of this happening and neither have I. What's the big problem? The alternative is to have somebody dressed as a woman using the men's room, which sounds pretty dangerous to me.

Last scenario. A perverted heterosexual dude in men's clothing goes into the ladies room leering at the ladies in the stalls, or let's make it better, goes into the ladies shower at the gym and leers at the naked ladies showering. I have an idea: kick him out of there. This bill does not make that legal.

OK, one more. A perverted heterosexual dude dresses up like a woman so he can go into the ladies room and see women peeing.

Do we need to talk about that? At some point, reality needs to raise its ugly head, somebody needs to say, nobody's actually going to do that. And anyway, a guy could do that now, who'd know? But nobody ever does it.

I think only the second scenario has any credibility at all as an issue, a transgender woman with male genitalia in a ladies shower room. It could happen that a lady would see a penis and be shocked. It's a poorly kept secret that lots of us have them, under our clothes ... but somebody might actually be surprised. Now let me point out that a real transgender person would almost certainly be entirely embarrassed to have their male genitals exposed to a roomful of women -- this isn't going to happen in reality. That's a fact that the CRC prefers to ignore.

So let's say, on the one hand, there is a tiny -- I'll bet less than one in a hundred million chance -- that any particular woman showering at a gym is going to unexpectedly see a penis.

On the other hand, people who do not conform to gender stereotypes are discriminated against in employment, they are refused service in restaurants, taxis won't stop for them. Not that they cause any harm, if they were doing something wrong then fine, the same rules apply to them as the rest of us. But as it is, the same rules don't apply, because they get hassled all the time.

To the CRC, the fact that a person is discriminated against as they try to do the things that everybody needs to do is nothing, compared to the severity of the one-in-a-gazillion chance that a lady will see a penis.

This is a trade-off between modesty and decency, where the CRC believes that it is better to treat people indecently, to malign them and discriminate against them, than to offend a hypothetical lady's sense of modesty.

47 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Get a grip, Jim. 40 vs 17 isn't really a substantive difference.

Sounds like you guys are getting nervous about this bill's chances.

You can tell the council is feeling pressure when it starts making changes like the addition of the term "exclusive."

Laughingstockdom is not far from where these council members are right now. It often subsequents ridiculous legislation.

No one believes it is a hardship for people with male anatomy to use the male bathroom.

No one believes the MC council definition of gender.

No one believes restaurants should have to hire someone with an evening gown and a five o'clock shadow as their hostess.

No one believes a single mother, with small children who wants to rent a room out to get by financially, should be forced to put up a transgender.

This is the real world, man.

November 09, 2007 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

“Let's talk about the CRC's worst nightmare scenarios.”

Let’s talk about a civilized society’s worst nightmare:

“Jamison, who has been battling the county's sex education curriculum, is concerned that the legislation will mean that her 10-year-old daughter would be forced to change in a locker room next to a transgender female.”

Such a common common concern these days in Montgomery County.

What I’m wondering is, what is Susan Jamison’s 10-year-old daughter changing ALONE in a locker room next to ANY naked adult? I’m not a parent, but is that supposed to be normal?

November 09, 2007 8:59 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymouse said...
"Get a grip, Jim. 40 vs 17 isn't really a substantive difference."

Yeah Jim, get a grip, everybody knows that a lie vs the truth isn’t really a substantive difference.

November 09, 2007 9:10 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

Yes, let's do talk about the CRC's worst nightmare: Someone might do the research and report on the bathroom atrocities that have occurred in the more than 100 other jurisdictions where laws like this have passed.

OK, conversation over. Nothing to talk about.

Nothing of this kind has happened in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia plus the 91 counties and cities that have already passed these laws. Something of another kind has happened, though: Transgender people feel a little less afraid when they need to use a multi-stall public facility.

The City of Baltimore has had a similar law since 2002. Where is the evidence of bathroom mayhem in Baltimore?

By the way, I attended the County Council hearings on this bill on October 2. Dr. Ruth claimed that bill number 23-07 would violate religious freedom by forcing churches to hire teachers and rent homes to people they disapprove of (in Jesus's name, I suppose). In response to the doctor, the County's legal staff read the full text of the clauses regarding exemptions. Remember please that this bill is an amendment to existing antidiscrimination code. Religious institutions have a huge big exemption loophole, as do private membership organizations. Furthermore, single rooms in owner-occupied homes are exempt, so let's not worry about that single mom with her room to let, OK?

If someone has a real concern to bring up, please do. Given that there are lots of other jurisdictions from which to gather data, just go out and find out what negative social consequences there have been and let the county know so that the language of the bill can be adjusted accordingly. Stop inventing worst-case scenarios and pretending that they are imminent.

November 09, 2007 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
I remember that letter Jamison wrote - I had to wonder where she got her degrees- her writing was disjointed and incredibly poor. Of course, her support of book banning(the list was incredible-Wonder if she attended the Harry Potter book burning in New MExico) probably accounts for it- a lack of good literature must be a hinderance to learning.

As to gyms, I find that many people do not undress in front of others- and I do not think this is a transgender issue. At my gym, quite a few women change in bathroom stalls and in the large shower(the accessible one). I think people are pretty sensitive to this issue- not in the CRC way.
I also don't get the bathroom concern-every bathroom(in this country) that I have ever been in- and that is a wide range of places- has separate stalls - with doors. Rural Asia and Egypt is a different story.

Emproph- Susan Jamison is not the concerned parent she likes to pretend. I think having bigotry in the forefront of your life makes you a questionable parent. Kids come into this world without hatred, without bigotry, but you can teach them pretty quickly that people who don't look like you ,talk like you or believe like you are bad.

November 09, 2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nothing of this kind has happened in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia plus the 91 counties and cities that have already passed these laws."

How do you know that?

November 09, 2007 9:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Religious institutions have a huge big exemption loophole, as do private membership organizations."

I believe the exemption is only for churches not for other religious institutions such as schools, pregnancy centers, shelters and other religious ministries. Furthermore, why should institutions get exemptions and not individuals or business owners with religious convictions? Is it just because the institutions have more money?

November 09, 2007 10:02 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

The exemptions read in the county council hearings specifically mentioned churches and religious schools, and also specifically includes "religious purposes" which thereby draws in the religious ministries of churches and religious schools. If you are a religious business owner and your business is religious in nature, then go to the lawyer you used in your incorporation and see if you are exempt.

November 09, 2007 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about if you're not particularly religious but have moral convictions? Why not just allow people freedom of association? There's seems in MC to be a very large core of liberals and gays of wealth and influence who are comfortable with these people. Is there any evidence transgenders in MC are having trouble finding housing or employment? Is there really any need for this law here?

November 09, 2007 10:54 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

If you want a law that specifically allows you to treat people face-to-face the same way you treat them here on this blog, go ahead and ask your councilman/woman to sponsor one. Maybe Susan Jamison will pass out fliers at the swimming pool.

You already have a constitutional right to free association. You don't have to join any private clubs that you don't want to join, and they don't have to let you join if they don't like you. You don't have to make friends with anyone you don't like.

You aren't particularly religious, but you have moral convictions? Bully for you! If you have convictions, then serve your time and come back a better person.

November 09, 2007 11:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If you want a law that specifically allows you to treat people face-to-face the same way you treat them here on this blog"

Such a law is not needed. The Constitution already guarantees freedom of speech. Oh dear, how badly I've mistreated the poor innocents here at TTF, though.

"If you have convictions, then serve your time and come back a better person."

I ain't going let'em catch me.


"You don't have to make friends with anyone you don't like."

Why shouldn't anyone be free to not have any type of dealings with anyone they don't like, based on things that are completely within a person's control, like dress or manner? If these transgenders are as supported as TTF says, here in MC, it shouldn't make any difference. If someone didn't want to hire a salesman who made their customers uncomfortable, why should they have to? Are we going to make a law that people are required to buy things from transgenders too? Why do we have to justify our reasons for hiring and doing business with ceratin people to the government?

The whole thing is ludicrous.

November 09, 2007 11:24 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
"Nothing of this kind has happened in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia plus the 91 counties and cities that have already passed these laws."

How do you know that?
___
Actually, how do you know that it has happened? It’s your charge, therefore the burden of proof lies with you. So how do you know that it HAS happened?

Or is this whole public dung flinging thing really all theoretical?

November 09, 2007 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the real burden of proof should be on those who want to enact legislation. Where is the proof that the problem the legislation tries to correct even exists? Everyone loves transgenders in MC, according to TTF, so what problems could they have with finding bathrooms, jobs and housing?

November 09, 2007 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
“How about if you're not particularly religious but have moral convictions? Why not just allow people freedom of association? There's seems in MC to be a very large core of liberals and gays of wealth and influence who are comfortable with these people. Is there any evidence transgenders in MC are having trouble finding housing or employment? Is there really any need for this law here?”

What a good point. In fact, why bother passing clean water laws. Since when do children need to be protected from bacteria, chemicals, and parasites in their drinking water? I don’t see any children dying around here, do you? Is there really any need for those kinds of laws?

Like my great grand pappy used to say about moral convictions, if you’re not aware of it, it doesn’t exist.

November 09, 2007 11:49 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"Everyone loves transgenders in MC, according to TTF, so what problems could they have with finding bathrooms, jobs and housing?"

The ENTIRE EXISTENCE of TTF is because of people who HATE HATE HATE transgendered persons, among OTHERS.

Are you new?

November 09, 2007 11:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Emproph .
You obviously don't have kids.
And clearly you haven't been in a ladies shower room at the pool (thank goodness)..

Look, I don't take my kids to the pool too much any more, they are too old. When they were young, this was a regular Saturday thing to do ... we were trying to teach them to swim. Sometimes I went by myself, sometimes my husband went with me.

I have 3 children and 10 years ago when I took them to the pool they were 2, 4 and 7. If you are going swimming it is very common to be naked while changing in and out of your bathing suit while in the lockerroom - the showers even are one big showerroom where everyone showers together, without stalls, and some ladies are naked - and the majority of the children are as well.

It is very difficult to keep track of 3 naked children in the lockerroom. Generally people used to not worry about it too much because it was largely Moms and their children... in my case sometimes my two year old little boy was running around naked too.

That all changes.

After all, the 99% of Moms in this situation not get to bend to the 1% of the transexuals that want to invade our privacy. that's what the law allows, after all.

THeresa

November 09, 2007 11:57 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Theresa, you're a hypocrite. That's the only problem I have with you.

-Patrick

November 09, 2007 12:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Answer the issue, Patrick.

Don't the 99% percent of use who are NOT confused about our gender have rights too ?


Don’t the 99% of biological females right to not be exposed to male genitals in their lockerrooms TRUMP the right of the 1% of gender confused individuals to expose them ? Don’t Moms have a right to take their four year old daughters swimming and not worry about running into the exposed male genitals of a drag queen in the shared shower area? What happened to the rights of 99% of the population?

November 09, 2007 12:25 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

Theresa,perhaps your pool has only an open changing and shower area, but the pools that I have joined, and the MoCo swim center pools that I have used have a few closed changing stalls and single showers in addition to the open areas and showers. All of the transwomen I know would prefer to use these, even if they have to stand in line for them.

When I took my sister to my neighborhood pool as my guest, she changed in private. No one saw a thing.

If moms are expected to take their small children into locker rooms to change at the pools, we should have the same expectations for dads. I take it that since you brought your small son into the locker room with you, your husband also took your small daughters into the locker room with him when it was his turn to take the kids swimming?

November 09, 2007 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Majority rules. So be it, just say so. Be honest.

It's not an argument though, it's a belief. Namely the belief that it is acceptable to sacrifice the literal lives of 1% of the population, and the peace of mind of their friends, and their families, to avoid the fears that you have conjured up in your own mind.

I'm not asking for you to admit to delusion or dishonesty. But if you want me to take you seriously, then you need to be honest about the damage that YOU are causing.

When was the last time a Christian was beaten within an inch of their life, JUST because they were a Christian?

Your obsession with genitals is disgusting. Regarding this issue and with the health curriculum. Just so you know. Reading the garbage on the CRC is like breathing in a fart.
___
I can appreciate the complaint as you state it. But are you willing to tell me that you wouldn't have a problem with this protection if the "public accomodation" portion of it was discluded?

Because ultimately that's what this seems to be all about. Bathrooms and locker rooms. So again, if there was no threat to any children accidentally seeing the genitalia of someone who is transgendered, just in case that were to EVER, EVER, EVER, happen,

then the CRC would be just hunky-dory with the whole idea of protecting transgendered persons in the workplace, and in housing, and services, etc.?

Is this what you wish for me to believe?

November 09, 2007 2:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous actually said:

"Why shouldn't anyone be free to not have any type of dealings with anyone they don't like, based on things that are completely within a person's control, like dress or manner?"

Indeed, why shouldn't people have the right to go to school without queer teachers? Without african-american teachers? Without hispanic students? Without Republican principals? Without Christian coaches?

The law in question discusses public accommodations, not private clubs. In private clubs, you can exclude all these people, though not in employment.

You ask why not? Are you from this country? Did you just miss that week in school on Jim Crow and the civil rights movement (and don't tell me that Jim Crow was just about governmental discrimination; go google Plessy vs. Ferguson). Don't you remembe lunch counter sit-ins? Oh yes, sexual orientation and gende-identity are a matter of choice, or mental illness, or something like that, and shouldn't be protected. Insulting, and a red herring; political affiliation, marital status, religion, all matters of choice, are protected.

Fact is, our country shouldn't allow discrimination in the public square.

You expose yourself as an unregenerate biggot. You just don't like queer people, I get it. America is changing, bucko. You can't legislate us out of existence anymore cf. Lawrence v. Texas).

Gee you're bobo-head.

The whole bathroom thing is the reddest of herrings. It's a straw man, a false issue. It should be ignored on this blog. It seems to me that it comes back to those terrible queers going after our children (I wonder if trans people caused the plague by poisoning the wells).

Theresa, you should be ashamed of this uncivil, irreligious attack on trans people. Jesus ate with centurions and hung with tax-collectors, didn't he?

Robert

November 09, 2007 2:54 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

“Don’t the 99% of biological females right to not be exposed to male genitals in their lockerrooms TRUMP the right of the 1% of gender confused individuals to expose them ?”

Or the unedited thought:

“Don’t the 99% TRUMP the right of the 1%?”

Democracy-wise speaking, I'd say that's indecent exposure.

November 09, 2007 3:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Jesus ate with centurions and hung with tax-collectors, didn't he?"

Yes, he did. And I wouldn't be surprised if he were here today and ate with transgenders. I don't think he be pushing for the Romans to enact a law requiring everyone to, though.

You might be interested in Acts 8:26-39 where the God leads a person who might be called a transgender to conversion to Christianity.

November 09, 2007 3:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jesus wouldn't be asking for a law, because that wasn't what you did in those days. He would step in the middle, though, when there was harassment, and demand that he who was without sin cast the first stone. Which is very similar, in effect, to what this law does.

November 09, 2007 4:13 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Some time back anonymous tried to justify his hiding behind everchanging pseudonyms, claiming that there was no problem with other people being unable to check one post for contradictions with a previous post, he tried to say that each post stood seperately on its own and that there was no need to compare different posts of his to see if he was lying.

Well, on this very thread we can see the contradictions between two posts of his and what a hypocritical liar he is and how he uses anonymity to hide that.

Anonymous said "Is there any evidence transgenders in MC are having trouble finding housing or employment? Is there really any need for this law here?"

In a seperate post he then said "If someone didn't want to hire a salesman who made their customers uncomfortable, why should they have to?".

Note the hypocrasy and lies between posts. On one hand he's asserting there is no discrimination problem for transgendered people and in another he's demanding the right to discriminate against transgendereds. This is why we need to be able to know which posts are made by the same person Anonymous, so people like you can't pretend to be different people in different posts and hide your the inconsistencies of your positions between posts.


To annswer your questions anonymous, Yes, when there are people like you who demand the right to not hire and associate with transgengereds because we make you uncomfortable there is a need for an anti-discrimination law.

Given the many other jurisdictions that have an anti-discrimination law that includes the transgendered it is clear that there has never been a problem with a pre-op transexual's penis being exposed in a ladies changing room - if that had happened the religious bigots would be screaming about it until no end, there's no way they'd let a single incident of that go without making a gigantic fuss about it, it clearly has NEVER happened.

The fact is that no pre-op transexual wants anyone to see her penis when she herself is offended by it. A pre-op transexual simply isn't going to allow any woman to see that she isn't an anatomically correct woman, a pre-op transexual is going to forgo the gym or swimming pool unless there's a way to change in private and prevent others from seeing that which she doesn't want to see herself.

November 09, 2007 4:37 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "No one believes it is a hardship for people with male anatomy to use the male bathroom.".

Your ignorance is profound. When a male to female pre-op transexual is presenting as a woman it is dangerous for her to use the male bathroom. A born male woman in a dress in a men's bathroom is like having a flashing neon sign that says to all the homophobes "Beat me! Beat me!". Of course that's not a concern for you, is it.

The fact is a transwoman is far less out of place in the ladies room than in the mens'. It may not he the ideal situation for all involved, but it is the best one by far.

November 09, 2007 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"Is there any evidence transgenders in MC are having trouble finding housing or employment? Is there really any need for this law here?"

Maryland doesn't collect statistics on transgender hate crimes but here's some data about such crimes around the nation and the DC area:

Violent crime against transgender people occurs with alarming frequency, but because these incidents are vastly under reported, there is little statistical data to quantify the precise number of such crimes that occur each year. One of the few attempts to determine the prevalence of hate crimes against transgender people is a 2000 study of Washington D.C. conducted by the District of Columbia Health Department. The Washington D.C. Transgender Needs Assessment Survey reported that 43 percent of respondents had been victims of violent crime—75 percent of these crimes were motivated by transgender bias. Seventeen percent had been assaulted with a weapon.

Jessica Xavier, “Final Report of the Washington DC Transgender Needs Assessment Survey,” Administration for HIV and AIDS, Department of Health of the District of Columbia, 2000.

...crimes committed in 2005 due to bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation represented 14.2 percent of reported hate crime incidents - the highest level in the 12 years since the agency began collecting these statistics. Violent crime throughout the United States has been declining in recent years, yet hate crimes against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people continue to rise.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table1.htm

Anti-transgender hate crimes continue to be under-reported. Unfortunately, data on anti-transgender hate crimes is not currently collected in Maryland.

According to law enforcement sources, an average of one transgendered individual is murdered each month in the United States. In our own backyard, Washington, D.C. has experienced a particularly high rate of anti-transgender violence in recent years:

In 2002, Stephanie Thomas and Ukea Davis, transgender teens, were brutally gunned down in Southeast Washington, D.C. In August 2003, Bella Evangelista, a popular entertainer in Washington, D.C. was shot to death multiple times at close range. Police have treated the murder as a hate crime. The same month, police discovered the nude body of Emonie Kiera Spaulding in a field. She had been shot but also had severe head wounds. That same evening, there was a second, near-fatal shooting of a transgender woman. These are just a few of the crimes against transgender individuals that rocked D.C.

In 1998, Marylanders were shocked to read about the murder of Lynn Vines. Leonard "Lynn" Vines, a 32 year-old cross-dresser and native of East Baltimore, was accosted in front of his cousin's home and shot six times by a group of 10 people asserting that "we don't allow no drag queen faggots in this neighborhood." Vines survived the attack, which police investigated as a hate crime, and received an outpouring of support from Maryland residents outraged by the violence.

In 1999, a group of six went on a crime spree in Baltimore that included over a dozen armed robberies and four carjacking incidents. While most of the victims were threatened at gunpoint and otherwise not injured, one man was hit in the head with a baseball bat, and Tacy Ranta, prominent transgender activist, was fatally shot in the chest. According to the detective on the case, one of the assailants asked the shooter why he had shot "that lady." The shooter replied, "That was no lady - that was a faggot." Some transgender activists believe that since Ranta was the only one killed, the murder was a hate crime based on her status as a transsexual.


http://www.equalitymaryland.org/hateviolence.htm

November 09, 2007 5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

suave anon said:

"Is there any evidence transgenders in MC are having trouble finding housing or employment? Is there really any need for this law here?"

A/B said:

"Maryland doesn't collect statistics on transgender hate crimes but here's some data about such crimes around the nation and the DC area"

You're really a scary creep, A/B. To equate lack of favoritism in hiring with violent crimes is offensive.

Here's the thought process:

"I'm trans.

I didn't get a job.

That's a hate crime!"

November 09, 2007 5:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a pre-op transexual is going to forgo the gym or swimming pool"

This is the appropriate step. There is no need to impose on others. After surgery, they can use the pool. take a break in the interim.

That's really not too burdensome.

Get real!

November 09, 2007 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When a male to female pre-op transexual is presenting as a woman it is dangerous for her to use the male bathroom."

Maybe in Saskatchewan. Here in MC everyone just loves transgenders so much that this won't happen. Just ask any TTFers. We don't need these laws in MC because everyone, except for 17 people, wants transgenders in the girls' room. (OK, 40, if you believe the Post- but that's out of millions)

If they're that scared, they can take a friend to the bathroom with them. Good practice.

November 09, 2007 5:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"her penis"

Anyone notice anything strange about this term, used by Randi above?

November 09, 2007 5:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Note the hypocrasy and lies between posts. On one hand he's asserting there is no discrimination problem for transgendered people and in another he's demanding the right to discriminate against transgendereds."

Not really, Randi. I do indeed think it is within a person's right to be discriminating as to who they hire and let use their property.

Truthfully, if only 17 people are discriminating against you, out of millions, you're doing better than most and it's not a problem. Some people will discriminate against you if you're overweight or tall or ripped or too bookish or speak with a Southern accent or any number of reasons. Te gustibus non disputantum. Generally, the numbers are greater than 17 for these types of discrimination. It's life. Everyone deals with it.

November 09, 2007 6:04 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

anonyomous said "You're really a scary creep, A/B. To equate lack of favoritism in hiring with violent crimes is offensive."

First, no one is asking that transpeople be favoured in hiring, simply that they not be disfavoured for reasons other than job performance.

Secondly the idea that a community can commit violent crimes against transpeople and somehow be moral enought not to discriminate against us is absurd. When there's a problem with violent crimes against transpeople it necessarily follows that there is going to be discrimination in jobs and housing as well.


Anonymous said ""When a male to female pre-op transexual is presenting as a woman it is dangerous for her to use the male bathroom."

Maybe in Saskatchewan. Here in MC everyone just loves transgenders so much that this won't happen.".

You saw the violent crimes that Aunt Bea listed. Your assertion that a pre-op transexual presenting as a woman is in no danger in the men's bathroom is absurd and you no it. I'd have more respect for you if you'd just forthrightly admit the truth - you don't care if transwomen are assaulted in the men's room - you'd be happy if that happened.

Anonymous said "If they're that scared, they can take a friend to the bathroom with them.".

Disregarding the fact that one can't always have a friend follow them to the bathroom, then there'd be two people to be assaulted by homophobes like you. Fact is the minimal disruption and only safe alternative is for a transwoman to use the ladies room.

Anonymous said "Not really, Randi. I do indeed think it is within a person's right to be discriminating as to who they hire and let use their property.".

And in previous posts you were insisting that there is no problem with transpeople being discriminated against in employment or housing - you've contradicted yourself several times now. You can't have it both ways, saying there is no concern for discrimination and that you would and people should be able to discriminate. That's why we want you to consistently use one pseudonym, to hold you accountable for your contradictions. You won't because you don't want to be accountable, you want to say one thing in one post and the exact opposite in another depending on what best suits your anti-lgbt agenda. You don't care if what you say is true or not as long as its anti-lgbt.

Anonymous said "Truthfully, if only 17 people are discriminating against you, out of millions, you're doing better than most and it's not a problem. Some people will discriminate against you if you're overweight or tall or ripped or too bookish or speak with a Southern accent or any number of reasons. Te gustibus non disputantum. Generally, the numbers are greater than 17 for these types of discrimination. It's life. Everyone deals with it.".

You just pulled that "17" out of your rear. Fact is its more like half the population that wants to discriminate against LGBTS. Polls consistently show that the vast majority of religious people and close to half of the population in general thinks its wrong to be LGBT.

And not everyone "deals with it". As a religionist you are protected by the existing anti-discrimination law. You don't deserve special status that LGBTs don't get.

November 09, 2007 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tish.

My husband did not bring my daughters into the men's room. We were a little uncomfortable with this.

He did take my son into the boys room when he came swimming with us.

I can't remember once he took the kids swimming without me. I don't think that was because of the lockerroom situation - it was just I think that usually I was the instigator of the pool trips, as I still am of most of the family trips....

I don't think there is the prevalence of naked little girls running around the men's locker rooms at the pools equivalent to that of naked little boys (usually 4 and under) running around the ladies lockerroom at the pool - but I wouldn't know .....

Theresa

November 09, 2007 8:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Similarly, Theresa, you wouldn't know the prevalence of trans women at the pool either, but you are part and parcel of a group using scare tactics that rival the worst the fascists managed in the 20th century.
If you were at all interested, you would know the scenarios that keep you up at night have never materialized, not in those states that have similar laws on the books, nor in those that don't.
Given that you're at least 50 years old and have spent the last 50 years using women's bathrooms, you also know that they all have stalls and that you have no idea about the genitals of the woman next door to you. Why you could possibly care is beyond me.
You also seem to have no clue that if your group's ridiculous demand ever did come to pass in any jurisdiction, stating that the genitals need to match the sex-specific restroom, you would need a gender police in the bathrooms strip-searching individuals. You would also find the women's bathrooms flooded with trans men, who would do far more to scare the bejeezus out of you and your friends than any trans woman would. But you haven't thought about that, because you really don't care. As one of your web postings made clear, you want "men to be men and women to be women," whatever the hell that means to you. To me it means you'd like all trans people to cease existing, because it is just too much for you to wrap your little engineer's mind around.

November 09, 2007 11:56 PM  
Blogger BlackTsunami said...

this is unbelievable to me. the bill is about being fair and some folks, who are obviously trying to be craft as to not say that they have an objection with the transgender community, have stooped to making this entire situation about bathrooms and changing rooms.

Folks, you may think you mean well but stop and listen to yourselves.you are using fear tactics disguised in religious beliefs and fancy words. these worse case scenarios are no different than folks claiming that integration will lead to black men raping white women.

and btw for the record, i am an african-american gay male so yes i think it is fair that i can bring up the similarity between statements made by racists and those made by folks against this bill.

November 10, 2007 1:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

"Te gustibus non disputantum."

You mean "De gustibus non disputandum", which means "There's no arguing about tastes." What you said means "By the tastes of those disputing you."

rrjr

November 10, 2007 4:40 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Emproph said to Theresa:
“Because ultimately that's what this seems to be all about. Bathrooms and locker rooms. So again, if there was no threat to any children accidentally seeing the genitalia of someone who is transgendered, just in case that were to EVER, EVER, EVER, happen---then the CRC would be just hunky-dory with the whole idea of protecting transgendered persons in the workplace, and in housing, and services, etc.?

Is this what you wish for me to believe?


I think it's a fair question Theresa. Would you support the measure if you felt confident that there would be absolutely no chance of you children coming in contact with the genitalia of anyone who is transgendered?

November 11, 2007 12:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Montgomery County is an amazing place. Despite the fact that millions of MC residents favored letting cross-dressing males get naked in front of young girls in the county, the county council has now yielded to the wishes of 17 people and dropped the public accomodations part of the new dubious discrimination bill.

Score Team CRC!!

November 11, 2007 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Councilmember Trachtenberg has removed the language about public bathrooms from the bill 23-07. This has not stopped the CRC's efforts to undermine the County Councils expandsion of Montgomery County's antidiscrimination law to include gender identity. I think this answers your question Emproph -- CRCers like Theresa still object to this bill because they want to be free to discriminate.

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

There is no language in the current bill without the amendment which specifically keeps biological males out of the ladies' rooms. The federal bill had such an amendment this one does not. There is also no exemption for religous organizations and schools.

November 11, 2007 1:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
When I go to a public bathroom, I go into my stall, do what I need to do, wash my hands and leave. I don't look at the other women to try to decide their gender. I guess CRCers and their ilk use public bathrooms for something else.

And N. Anon- has now clearly morphed openly to Bigot Anon. Really, why should anyone have to hire someone they don't like? Let's get that "hidden" bigotry out in front where we all know it has always been. Doesn't matter to me who you hate- you are a bigot. And you are stupid enough to think that people should be allowed to discriminate against people you don't like. See, it would be hard for me because I couldn't tell by just looking at someone or even talking to them in the usual manner-I wouldn't hire small-minded, bigoted morons.

November 11, 2007 9:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Really, why should anyone have to hire someone they don't like? Let's get that "hidden" bigotry out in front where we all know it has always been. Doesn't matter to me who you hate- you are a bigot. And you are stupid enough to think that people should be allowed to discriminate against people you don't like."

You make the classic liberal mistake, Andreary. Your binary thinking tells you that you either want something to be against the law or you support it. There are no other possibilities in your narrow universe.

Try defining your life in some way other than by government policy.

November 12, 2007 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymouse says...
"You make the classic liberal mistake, Andreary. Your binary thinking tells you that you either want something to be against the law or you support it. There are no other possibilities in your narrow universe."

Actually, that's only a mistake when it's not true. In your case, it is true. Which makes your accusation, projection:

"In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism in which one attributes to others one’s own unacceptable or unwanted thoughts or/and emotions. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted subconscious impulses/desires without letting the ego recognize them."

A liberal by nature considers all viewpoints, because they are "liberal" with their thoughts -- including the possibility for being wrong.

A conservative by nature (at least far right), "conserves" their perspective -- and by extention, "conserves" their ability to consider that they may be wrong.

November 13, 2007 3:24 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Aunt Bea said...
"I think this answers your question Emproph -- CRCers like Theresa still object to this bill because they want to be free to discriminate."

Which makes her “concern” for her children, little more than a ruse to disguise her love of hatred for transgendered persons.

I’ll take your silence as confirmation of that sentiment Theresa. No surprise there, but I was hoping (obviously in vain) for some measure of honesty about it.

Not only do transgendered citizens deserve to get beaten up in bathrooms, but they should be jobless and homeless too – In the name of Jesus.

Congratulations Theresa, CRC, PFOX, and FLN, you’ve made one thing clear to the "lost" among us. That your brand of Christian salvation means an eternity spent with people like you.

November 13, 2007 4:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Thank goodness- I know I won't be with CRCers when I die. I am not sure where we go but I am pretty sure it will be a hot place for bigots and those who claim hatred in the Lord's name.

November 13, 2007 8:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With blogs like this around I don't even need website anymore.
I can just visit here and see all the latest happenings in the world.

November 09, 2013 5:57 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home