The Poo-Poo Joke Goes On and On
These guys are like second-graders with their "butt" and "poo-poo" jokes. Nobody else thinks it's funny, but they just won't stop giggling. Montgomery County wants to stop discrimination. The local buffoons -- actually, one news report has more than half the letters to the County Council coming from outside the county -- want to talk about butts and poo-poo and nasty people in bathrooms.
Warren Throckmorton and several rightwing blogs have a document which appears to have been produced by a group called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," threatening to sue Montgomery County over the new nondiscrimination bill, which isn't even signed by the County Executive yet.
It starts like this:
then it gives some stuff we've seen before.
I just love it that the Women's Christian Temperance Union is in on this. That is so perfect.
This is a scanned document, you can't copy and paste text from it, and I'm not going to type the whole thing in...
Skipping down to the good part:
Well, look, they're just going to keep saying the same old potty stuff they've been saying all along.
The issue is discrimination. The bill prevents discrimination. If you support discrimination, at least come out and say it. It's not about someone seeing a penis in the ladies room, which everybody in their right mind knows isn't going to happen, it's a bill to stop discrimination.
This is a textbook wedge issue, trying to divide people when there is really nothing to disagree about. But nobody wants to have some creep in the ladies room, and so the nuts talk about that, over and over and over again, trying to convince the public that that's what this bill is about. Get over it, it won't happen. Perverts who want to hang around the ladies room can do it now, they're not waiting for a questionable legal loophole requiring them to claim to be "women on the inside".
This bill outlaws discrimination against a vulnerable minority of people. The CRC, the Women's Christian Temperance Union (yay, I'm so glad they're in this!), the FLN, PFOX, and the so-called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" (with a picture of the Capitol dome on their letterhead) want to be able to discriminate against transgender people. They think they've found something that the television-news zombies will show on TV, so the binary minds of the viewing audience can process one simple bit of information without getting confused, and they're probably right. Butts and poo-poo and bathrooms.
The County Council, elected by the people, adopted this bill unanimously. The County Executive is going to sign it, this is the kind of thing we elected him for. In our county, we really don't want to have discrimination against transgender people. Nobody's taking it back, nobody's having second thoughts about this.
The document ends with this:
The CRC has gone from being self-righteous betterthanyous to buffoons, pure and simple.
Yesterday they were saying they were going to hold a referendum, today they're going to sue. It has become a poo-poo joke that never stops being funny, nothing but bathroom humor to these clowns.
Warren Throckmorton and several rightwing blogs have a document which appears to have been produced by a group called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," threatening to sue Montgomery County over the new nondiscrimination bill, which isn't even signed by the County Executive yet.
It starts like this:
Dear Council Members:
Advocates for Faith and Freedom is a non-profit public interest law firm. We seek to resolve disputes through education of public officials of the constitutional rights our clients. When necessary, we proceed to litigation to secure these rights. We have been contacted by Derwood Alliance Church, Women's Christian Temperance Union of Maryland, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, and other interested individuals and organizations. They have sought our assistance concerning Bill No. 23-07.RELEVANT FACTS
It is our understanding that the County Council for Montgomery County is presently considering adopting revisions to Chapter 27 of the Montgomery County Code. Bill No. 23-07 will add a definition for "gender identity" as follows:"
then it gives some stuff we've seen before.
I just love it that the Women's Christian Temperance Union is in on this. That is so perfect.
This is a scanned document, you can't copy and paste text from it, and I'm not going to type the whole thing in...
Skipping down to the good part:
Chapter 27 fails to provide a religious exemption in the vast majority of circumstances upon which this ordinance would apply. In addition to the lack of a religious exemption, our clients are concerned with the threat to public safety that will result when persons suffering from gender identity disorder have the legal right to choose the restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that are normally reserved to persons based upon their natural gender. Further, our clients are very concerned that this reckless bill will give sexual predators access to individuals in the most vulnerable of situations.
Well, look, they're just going to keep saying the same old potty stuff they've been saying all along.
The issue is discrimination. The bill prevents discrimination. If you support discrimination, at least come out and say it. It's not about someone seeing a penis in the ladies room, which everybody in their right mind knows isn't going to happen, it's a bill to stop discrimination.
This is a textbook wedge issue, trying to divide people when there is really nothing to disagree about. But nobody wants to have some creep in the ladies room, and so the nuts talk about that, over and over and over again, trying to convince the public that that's what this bill is about. Get over it, it won't happen. Perverts who want to hang around the ladies room can do it now, they're not waiting for a questionable legal loophole requiring them to claim to be "women on the inside".
This bill outlaws discrimination against a vulnerable minority of people. The CRC, the Women's Christian Temperance Union (yay, I'm so glad they're in this!), the FLN, PFOX, and the so-called "Advocates for Faith and Freedom" (with a picture of the Capitol dome on their letterhead) want to be able to discriminate against transgender people. They think they've found something that the television-news zombies will show on TV, so the binary minds of the viewing audience can process one simple bit of information without getting confused, and they're probably right. Butts and poo-poo and bathrooms.
The County Council, elected by the people, adopted this bill unanimously. The County Executive is going to sign it, this is the kind of thing we elected him for. In our county, we really don't want to have discrimination against transgender people. Nobody's taking it back, nobody's having second thoughts about this.
The document ends with this:
CONCLUSION
Therefore, Advocates for Faith & Freedom is prepared to initiate a lawsuit on behalf of our clients in the event that Montgomery County adopts Bill No. 23-07. Please contact me if you have any questions
The CRC has gone from being self-righteous betterthanyous to buffoons, pure and simple.
Yesterday they were saying they were going to hold a referendum, today they're going to sue. It has become a poo-poo joke that never stops being funny, nothing but bathroom humor to these clowns.
posted by JimK at 9:36 AM
45 Comments:
"These guys are like second-graders with their "butt" and "poo-poo" jokes."
Your attempt at trivialization of a significant problem falls flat. I don't see anyone using these terms other than you. No potential plaintiffs in this potential lawsuit have made any jokes. They are the ones taking this issue seriously.
Their concerns are not without foundation. All males have seen the ubiquitous scribblings on and holes drilled into bathroom stalls of men's rooms by gays. We didn't need Larry Craig to tell us about it. Now that the government has granted unlimited access to women's rooms for effeminate males, will they flock to our county as a place that gives them free reign? Will this kind of stuff become as common in women's rooms as it is in men's rooms?
If so, only a fool would say this legislation doesn't further cheapen our society.
Anon = a complete ball of stupidity and hate.
It is not an extremist viewpoint to seperate bathrooms by biology Jim.
Wake up.
You are the one out in left field here.
Inanamouse said...
[JimK] "These guys are like second-graders with their "butt" and "poo-poo" jokes."
[Inanamouse] Your attempt at trivialization of a significant problem falls flat. I don't see anyone using these terms other than you. No potential plaintiffs in this potential lawsuit have made any jokes. They are the ones taking this issue seriously.
Perhaps then you could show us how to take “butt” and “poo-poo” jokes seriously too.
Let's try this.
A lot of transgenders are still attracted to women.
I belong to a club where it is very common for ladies to wear no clothing in the ladies lockerroom, esp while in the sauna.
The rulings on this say that if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can. If he is still attracted to women, what if preventing him from walking around with an erection...
Okay, you going to say that this isn't going to happen, but under the new law, its perfectly legal.
and my 17 year old daughter goes to that gym (alone) ... why should I have to put up with that ?
www.notmyshower.com
"The rulings on this say that if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can.
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!!"
Did they, or did they not drop the public accomodations part?
The rulings on this say that if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can.
A typical Anon lie.
Show us any such "rulings" from Montgomery County, Maryland, that say "if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can." Bill 23-07, which was unanimously approved by the County Council the other day, says the bathroom people are allowed to use is determined by "the gender identity that the person publicly or exclusively expresses or asserts." That's quite a bit more than "wants."
It is not an extremist viewpoint to seperate [sic] bathrooms by biology Jim.
It'd be pretty extreme to have gender separate bathrooms in the home. If boys and girls can use the same bathroom at home, they can use them elsewhere too.
While the Council was busy avoiding questions from the media, they had added language that specifically talked about bathrooms and lockerrooms and let folks go in whichever one they "exclusively expressed".
They did drop that amendment. however, the bill still includes "public accomodations", and gender identity, which the HRC as already told the council they will interpret to mean they are allowed in whichever shower they want.
But you know what, MC may have finally gone too far. Even the Dems are with us on this one.
"Show us any such "rulings" from Montgomery County, Maryland, that say "if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can." Bill 23-07, which was unanimously approved by the County Council the other day, says the bathroom people are allowed to use is determined by "the gender identity that the person publicly or exclusively expresses or asserts." That's quite a bit more than "wants.""
Actually, it isn't, AB. MC, the guru of political correctness, has now decided gender is whatever one asserts. Whatever they want to assert, we all have to play along.
Until the next election.
You're an idiot, once again, Inane Anon. The purpose of that amendment was to clarify that the bill pertained only to those who have transitioned gender in the requisite medico-legal manner, "publicly and exclusively." It was to deliberately exclude those people Regina is so much in fear of, the heterosexual guy like you who would put on a dress to go leer at girls in the bathroom.
The whole purpose of this exercise in hostility is to create an association between trans persons and pedophiles, which you know very well is false. But you do it anyway. The predators and pedophiles lurk among your kind, I hate to point out to you.
"A lot of transgenders are still attracted to women.
So be it. But let’s acknowledge that the majority of transgendered persons are transitioning to what they feel to be heterosexual status.
Some transgendered persons transition to homosexual status, but they are the minority, within the minority of transgendered persons.
Moving on:
“The rulings on this say that if a male now wants to enter the ladies locker room he can. If he is still attracted to women, what if preventing him from walking around with an erection...
Okay, you going to say that this isn't going to happen, but under the new law, its perfectly legal.”
Would you walk around with an erection in a ladies locker room just because it was legal? Is that the only thing that's preventing you from doing so now?
More to your point though, isn’t there legal recourse against that kind of indecent exposure. I would think that an erection would qualify. In addition, as was said earlier, why would a male to female transgendered person, who is transgendered specifically because she is uncomfortable with her own penis, feel comfortable with others even KNOWING she has a penis?
Yes, the possibility exists. So does winning the lottery. But if you’re going to discredit the very need for a law, it doesn’t make sense, at least to me, to base your entire argument on the potential abuse of that law.
You have a point, which is worthy of exploration, but it’s not a conclusion, It’s a hypothetical.
Getting kicked out of an establishment, or your apartment, or being fired from your job, for no other reason than the fact that you are transgendered, that’s a conclusion.
Dana.
What is your opinion on pre-op transgenders in areas of "shared nudity" ?
I actually don't have an issue with post-op transgenders... just anyone with functioning male genitals REGARDLESS of whether they perceive themselves to be female or not. I also am really not that concerned about bathrooms with stalls. It is the pools, lockerrooms (esp those at high school gym classes) that I have an issue with.
I don't know if you are pre op or post op, but at one point you were pre-op. So I hear you now have a girlfriend - which I can only assume means you are attracted to females. Were you pre-op atttacted to females as well, did this (given that you had functioning male equipment) result in an erection - and do you believe you have a right to join me naked in my ladies room sauna at Bethesda Sport and Health given all the above ?
YES OR NO ?
Theresa
Andrea- not anon
CRc and their ilk- N. Anon and Theresa- I mean you and your little buddies- why do you think transgender people are so insensitive and yet you are so sensitive- do you really think someone is going to wave their penis around a woman's locker room? You people literally make me ill- I am ashamed you live here and that people think that people like you represent the citizens of MC. And I have a daughter too- and a son- don't act like having kids is something only you can do.
By the way, guess what- there could be lots of non-transgender naked lesbians in the locker room as well. I suggest you get a home gym and never use public toilets.
The Women's Christian Temperance Union in Maryland has been hijacked by the right-wing loonies who operate in Montgomery County. Its (self-appointed?) "President" is Bunny Galadora who was one of the crazies who was on the Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development several years ago. Even then, before the advent of the saviour organizaton, CRC, she and one or two of her cronies on the committee worked arduously to prevent up-to-date HIV/AIDS materials from being introduced in the health curriculum, as well as other important sexuality information. These folks had a particularly insidious tactic of constantly presenting "Minority Reports" to the Board after one after the other of their crack-pot ideas were voted down by huge minority votes on the Committee. Does any of this sound familiar?
R.T.
"What is your opinion on pre-op transgenders in areas of "shared nudity" ?"
“Why woud anyone answer a question like that?... If you have the nerve to ask it, that pretty much speaks for itself.”
No one has answered the question.
Aunt Bea's response just proves how out there you guys are ... you believe that 99.9% of the population should have to give up their right to privacy (or stay home) to accomodate 0.1% of the population. I disagree. What happened to my rights, darn it ?
Hello Dana ?
What do you think ? Do you think you should have the right pre-op to come in the ladies changing area or not ? How about the sauna ? The lockerroom ?
And yes I have the nerve to ask it, SOMEONE should have !
FEDERAL EDNA had an exception for this, our BILL HAS NO SUCH EXCEPTION.
Do you think my insistence that we seperate lockers and showerrooms by biology makes me a rightwing loon - because I have news for you, most of the country agrees with me !
Theresa
xzyxpjAdditional information about the WCTU in Maryland. Does anybody see something familiar in the following agenda item of the WCTU:
(from: http://www.wctumd.org/)
"Stop the L.I.E.S.*©
(Stop the Lesbian/gay Indoctrination in Every School)
WCTU continues its battle to stop the homosexual agenda in Maryland's schools. Working with various other family organizations, including, Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum(CRC) the WCTU continues work to improve Health courses in public schools. WCTU believes the Health course should teach information based on scientific facts, not unreliable information created by special interest groups.
Stop the L.I.E.S. is a PowerPoint presentation which documents the flow of pro-homosexual materials into our schools."
Investigation is being conducted to see if this agenda item is in line with the objectives of the national WCTU.
The Presidency of this organization seems to rotate among 3 or 4 women. Ms. Galladora, having been elected twice before (1996-2000; 2001-2002), is the current President (2004 - current). And note...they work in conjunction with the CRC. That says it all!
R.T.
"More to your point though, isn’t there legal recourse against that kind of indecent exposure. I would think that an erection would qualify. "
I don't know, does walking around with an erection in the guys lockerroom qualify as an indecent exposure...
Okay Emproph, it is pretty clearly now legal for a pre-op transgender to walk around with male genitals exposed according to the new law. Ladies walk around naked in the steam room and the lockerrooms all the times at health clubs. So if it is legal under the new law for a guy to do this, what DID you just do the laws about indecent exposure ? Very good question, and one that our attorneys are studying. I think you have legalized personally, congratulations MCC and thanks for bringing up one of our points Emprophs...
Hey, Jim, you brought up the Poo-Poo Joke, are you sure you don't want to chime in ?
Theresa
From today's Gazette (11/14/07, p.A25): "Nevertheless, several members of a packed audienc3e yelled criticisms [at Council Members]. 'Heil Hitler!' Adol T. Owen-Wiklliams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted immediately after the vote from his third-row seat in the council chamber. 'Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature'."
If the Republican Central Committee does not repudiate these remarks, they deserve many more years in the political wilderness, thanks to voters in Montgomery County. It's ironic that these sentiments are similar to those made by the CRCers who love to take up space here. How sad and depressing it must be to live in such a constant state of fear, hatred, ignorance, and bitterness. Rob
it seems to me,theresa, that you are throwing out worse case scenarios.
First there were the fears about bathrooms. When the ordinance was changed to alleviate that fear, you are now talking about locker rooms and steam rooms.
Be real. You are not concerned with locker rooms or steam rooms or bathrooms. You are just trying to scare people to keep this ordinance from passing.
its sad, really
No one has answered the question.
Hey, Jim, you brought up the Poo-Poo Joke, are you sure you don't want to chime in ?
Sure, Theresa, for you I will.
I've been up in Baltimore all day, and am just checking in. What an ... interesting ... discussion.
Theresa, you seem to think that men who wanted to expose themselves in ladies showers were just waiting for an opportunity like this. I would be curious to see you place a bet that the number of men exposing themselves in ladies rooms (which might be zero for all I know) goes up after this law goes into effect.
I think you are smart enough to know better. The CRC is against this law, of course -- and everybody here sees this clearly -- because you favor discrimination against transgender people . So why don't you guys just come out and say it. Why carry signs that say "No Unisex Bathrooms?" Why not the yellow cardboard saying "No Chicks With Dicks?" "Boys Must Be Boys." Why don't you guys just campaign on the issues?
At least then people wouldn't laugh at you.
Well, yes they would, actually, sorry.
The CRC was bound to be against this bill, because they are against such things as gender identities that are hard to understand. We would have been shocked if your group had supported this. And it has nothing to do with men in the ladies room -- everybody knows that. Why don't you guys just come out and be straight with it?
JimK
I notice no one has answered Theresa's question.
Theresa do you believe you have a right to join me naked in my ladies room sauna at Bethesda Sport and Health given all the above ?
YES OR NO ?
...And yes I have the nerve to ask it, SOMEONE should have !
You didn't have to ask it Theresa. Maryanne Arnow answered it already, as have countless other transgenders.
I am not a gay male, nor any other sort of male in womens' clothes seeking any sort of sexual gratification via use of public facilities as such. I never was and never will be. I'm not a drag queen or female impersonator and was neither of those things for a single day in my life. I am not a sexual predator of any kind whatsoever, nor pose any threat to the safety or sanctity of public facilities for any other women or their children, as was recently implied in articles published nationally which claim that such legislation would open the door to fear of anyone that expresses his or herself outside of considered "normal" gender roles.
...In the course of my normal daily life, i regularly have to use public facilities such as toilets and locker rooms. I am an active person and use my community pool, gym, and locker room facilities as i wish and need to, and fairly often. As a legitimately transgendered woman, considered very well-adjusted, and following a "clinically correct" and clinically guided course of transition, I would never even consider the possibility of placing myself or others in any situation where any kind of inappropriate exposure would, or could, ever possibly occur.
When using public facilities, all of which always have closed stalls and/or private changing areas which also lock or have full curtains, it would never cross my mind to be less than dignified or reckless, much less openly invite or consider any sort of exposure which might place my life and the sensilbilites of others in danger or question whatsoever. I am there to do one thing and one thing only. Use the facilities as every other woman does, in as normal, relaxed, and inconspicous a manner as possible, and leave.
But we all know your intent was not to ask it a question; your intent was once again to INFLAME.
And yes I have the nerve [TELL YOU WHAT] SOMEONE should have ! The CRC's INFLAME tactic is growing old and tiresome.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I've been busy, so I missed the questioned directed to me. Maryanne has already answered more than adequately -- actually quite eloquently -- but since it was to me I will take my time and answer it.
Here are the facts, Theresa. Number one: whether you agree or not, trans women are women, not men, and therefore pose no threat at any time to any other women. Trans men, who you so cavalierly ignore, are men, and if you followed your dictum about genitalia determining bathroom use, you would have hundreds of real trans men who look exactly like men using the ladies rooms of the County. This would not, I assure you, make you happy. They would not be happy either, not for themselves or the consternation they would be causing the women in the bathrooms. We all actually care about our neighbors and fellow citizens.
Two: The amendment was written to apply only to those people in the medico-legal transition process, which requires that one live in one’s chosen reassigned gender for at least a year before genital surgery. Therefore, we have no choice BUT to use the appropriate bathrooms for our gender identity, which at this point happens to match our gender expression. Anyone who is not overwhelmed with anxiety who takes a moment to ponder this would recognize that everyone is most comfortable when people who use a sex-segregated bathroom look like those who normally use such a facility. The genitals of that person are irrelevant, whether in stalls in the women’s rooms or even at the urinals for the men, who make it a habit not to peer at those standing next to them.
Three: Once we have genital surgery, as Theresa admits, then we are anatomically as well as legally female, so there is no question about this except for those who are most extreme in their hatred.
Four: So the question is, Theresa, do you want women using women’s rooms even if you don’t know the status of their genitals (btw, there are intersex women out there whose genitals you wouldn’t recognize, either, but you are oblivious to that, too), or would you prefer to have trans men with beards, bulging biceps, bald heads, and deep voices using the women’s facilities because they still have vaginas? And do you really want women to use the men’s room, knowing the threat of physical assault?
That should take care of bathrooms. As Maryanne pointed out, she used the ladies room before genital surgery, as I did. No one was the wiser. I was safe, the other women in the room were safe, and there was no problem. As there has never been a problem in these United States. Ever.
Five: Areas of public nudity. The last thing a pre-operative trans woman would ever want to do, for her own sense of well-being, decency and safety, is to expose herself, advertently or inadvertently, in front of other women. After living our entire lives with the desire to have different genitals, the last thing we want to do is show anyone else that we have what are to us the “wrong” genitals. Is this really so hard to understand? The odds of any 10 year old girl ever being exposed to a pre-op trans woman’s genitals is less than getting struck by lightning – twice. So let’s get real.
Six: Every trans woman I know who is using such facilities, either at a place of employment or a gym, clears this with administration to make sure everyone is comfortable. We do NOT want anyone to be uncomfortable, so we go to great lengths to accommodate people. All this bill does, or ever did, was, to remove the burden from the trans woman and place it on the owner to provide that accommodation. Stalls, curtains, rooms – whatever. You don’t want to see us naked, and we don’t want to be seen naked. We’re on the same page.
Seven: In our society today sharing a sauna with a pre-op trans woman whose genitals are visible may very well be considered indecent exposure. This, too, has not happened, not in any of the states with similar laws, nor in those states without them. Having such laws does not embolden us to do what we fear to otherwise do; it protects our rights to employment, housing, and public accommodations that are everyone else’s rights. Btw, I cancelled my membership at the Bethesda Sport and Health Club because I did not want to be made uncomfortable nor to make anyone else uncomfortable, I would do the same today, but I can tell you I would not go out of my way to make someone like Owens-Williams comfortable. People who label me a pedophile or a predator will never get my respect.
Eight: Just for the record, I don’t have a girl friend. I’ve dated both men and women, and that’s completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Bottom line: We just want to fit in with everyone else. All we’ve ever wanted to be was just like the other girls. If you or your friends had noticed a consequence from the bill which made you uncomfortable, then you could have called or emailed politely and asked that the bill be amended to deal with the issue of saunas, or to provide accommodations for public changing areas in those few locations where they still exist. You would have been treated with respect and accommodated. Instead, you attacked, and the hate that is still coming in completely undermines any reasonable case you might want to make. Suing won’t help, either. And don’t keep saying that this was done stealthily; the process was as open and legal as that for every other bill that has appeared before the Council. And you know it.
There will be no problems, but if there are, the courts will deal with them just as they always do.
Just one last comment. There is nothing in anyone’s Bible about this, so those who write in with God’s condemnations and the like look even worse than the usual hysterics. When I presented to the state last year Pastor Rick Bowers, no friend of Equality Maryland, was in the room, and afterwards he took me aside and told me he had had no idea who I was or what I had gone through. He said he was with me on this. You should learn from him. I’ve offered to sit down with you and with Ruth on a number of occasions, but you’ve never taken me up on it. Why?
Go look at the bill Dana. YOu didn't need me to call you or send you an email. The whole subject had been discussed in detail by the council - as is quite obvious by the memo.
You left it completely open-ended, no documentation necessary.
The subject of lockerrooms and health clubs did come up, and the council did nothing to put reasonable guidelines in place.
So Theresa thinks asking personal questions about people's sex lives is OK. Back at you, babe. Have you always liked men or did you go through the LUG stage? I mean judging from the fact that you get naked with other women in the locker room, what should we think? Do naked ladies turn you on or what? Does your atheist husband cry out "Darwin" or "Evolution" when you work your charms on him??
Having the nerve to ask such personal questions in a public place is brashness, not bravery dear.
Anon, I know what the bill says. George Leventhal put it best when he wrote that we don't need instructions on how to go to the bathroom.
You have no idea about how legislation is written, particularly civil rights legislation. And you still haven't recognized that your concerns have never materialized and never will, so your foaming at the mouth is just an exercise in hostility. Laws are not written to deal specifically with events that have an extremely low chance of occurring, particularly when similar laws have been enacted and there is no evidence of the event ever having occurred. Your fear that it could possibly occur is a manifestation of your paranoia and not of the reality here in Montgomery County or anywhere else in this country.
Btw, there is no law against men using the women's room or women using the men's room, here or anywhere else in this country. If you find one please let us know. The restrictions are a matter of social convention. So give us a break and try for just a minute to recognize that we respect the same social conventions as everyone else.
"Laws are not written to deal specifically with events that have an extremely low chance of occurring"
But this one was. Transgender men, who feel like women, use women's rooms all the time. The chance of them being denied the opportunity is "extremely low." The law was written purposely to have a governmental body endorse the idea of gender as psychology rather than biology.
And the problem is, now that we've put this into law, there are those who test its limits. We will wind up with effeminate gays using women's room and defacing them with the same kind of moral gangrene we see in men's rooms. This is what young girls in the county we now be exposed to.
Of course, there will probably be a new MCPS course to prepare them for it.
All because "on a rare occasion" someone won't let a guy dressed as a girl use their restroom.
Any reason they couldn't just go next door?
BTW, there appear to be more than one anon opposing TTF this week so to avoid confusion, I'll be "Jimi H" for the immediate future.
In all the other US jurisdictions where transgenders have been added to antidiscrimination laws, there has never been an instance of "effeminate gays using women's room and defacing them" or of any "young girls" being exposed to anything untoward as a result. Your fears are irrational, Jimi Hater.
How do you know that?
Most homophobes are very messed-up closeted men who are resisting their natural inclinations. They are the ones who say such ridiculous things as: "We will wind up with effeminate gays using women's room and defacing them with the same kind of moral gangrene we see in men's rooms. This is what young girls in the county we now be exposed to."
The very irrationality of this screed makes me worry about the mental health of this particular "Anonymous" (Mr./Ms./Mrs.) poster.
"Most homophobes are very messed-up closeted men who are resisting their natural inclinations."
How do you know that?
Jimi,
We know it because we researched it. That's what we have policy and legal staff to do. We called those jurisdictions and asked.
Have you ever bothered to ask?
And I am and have always been a transgender woman, not a transgender man.
Theresa said ...do you believe you have a right to join me naked in my ladies room sauna at Bethesda Sport and Health...
...Aunt Bea's response just proves how out there you guys are ... you believe that 99.9% of the population should have to give up their right to privacy (or stay home) to accomodate 0.1% of the population. I disagree. What happened to my rights, darn it ?
...Do you think you should have the right pre-op to come in the ladies changing area or not ? How about the sauna ? The lockerroom ?
...Do you think my insistence that we seperate [sic] lockers and showerrooms by biology makes me a rightwing loon
Good grief, Theresa. If you parade around a public restroom, sauna, showerroom, lockerroom or whatever buck naked, you already gave up your right to privacy. Your incessant fear that trans women, who want to look exactly like other women, will want to show other women that they don't look just like them is what makes me agree with others on this thread that you are irrational. No pre-op trans woman is going to parade around naked in a public facility displaying the wrong genitalia. There are plenty of other places with this antidiscrimintation law in place and NO ONE has ever experienced your irrational fear.
Transgender women will behave like Maryanne Arnow, Dana Beyer, and every other trans woman; with great modesty. Unlike you with your desire to parade around naked in front of other women in public facilities, trans women are much more reserved.
lots of people go in the steam room without clothes on at bethesda sport and health.
I would say of those frequenting the steam room, half don't have any clothes on.
they of course use towels.
Theresa said...
Emproph said: "More to your point though, isn’t there legal recourse against that kind of indecent exposure. I would think that an erection would qualify. "
Theresas said: “I don't know, does walking around with an erection in the guys lockerroom qualify as an indecent exposure...”
Gee, I don’t know. A better question might be how stupid someone would have to be to do that cavalierly and openly, which is what you’re obviously suggesting is true of transgendered persons who don’t want people to know that they are transgendered.
So an even better question than that might be: How stupid does someone have to be to use the least likely scenario as the entire basis of one’s argument?
“I think you have legalized personally, congratulations MCC and thanks for bringing up one of our points Emprophs...(sic)”
My point? So you admit that people who use the least likely scenario (to the tune of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning, twice) as the basis for their argument, are complete idiots?
Note that while I have answered Theresa's question directly, she has as yet failed to answer mine. Nor has Ruth, from month's ago.
Theresa apparently anonymously shared:
lots of people go in the steam room without clothes on at bethesda sport and health.
I would say of those frequenting the steam room, half don't have any clothes on.
they of course use towels.
So the story has evolved from "me naked in my ladies room sauna" and "Ladies walk around naked in the steam room and the lockerrooms all the times at health clubs" to half of the patrons wear some sort of clothing and the other half covers up with towels. Is anyone surprised??
Theresa, it sounds like there could be trans women in there already and you'd never know it because everybody's covered up. So what?
oh for goodness sake, Bea, you clearly have never belonged to an upscale gym with a steam room.
People use towels walking around the lockeroom, if they are changing while in the lockerroom they are typically exposed. If they are in the steam room/sauna they are typically exposed laying on towels.
This is probably what made Dana uncomfortable - good - it makes me uncomfortable to know Dana may have been in there pre-op and I am curious if Dana asked permssion.
And know, I don't think Dana pre-op or Jennifer has any right to be in those rooms - regardless of whether they change in a stall or not. They are other WOMEN or have always been WOMEN there who don't want to have to think about the fact that a Dana or a Jennifer or a Mary Ann might be present. Period.
I am going back to working on the referendum, this is waste of time.
Theresa
Theresa,
Have fun working on your referendum.
You still haven't answered my question. Why haven't you ever sat down with me?
No, I never asked if I could use the facilities -- not because I am any less a woman than you -- but because doing so would have made me uncomfortable and forced me to behave in a manner that would have made others so as well.
I understand full well that many people don't understand sex and gender yet, but they will. All you do is generate hate and vitriol and interfere with that, but we will get there, however long it takes. You and yours have been trying to undermine science for thirteen years now, but your era is coming to an end. In a few years we will be living in a country where our representatives believe in accepting people for who they are rather than denigrating them if they happen to be a little different.
One more question for Theresa:
As the only semi-sane member of your group, I will ask you what it is your problem actually is right now? If you could sit down with the County Council, what would you ask for?
I know what some of your friends want, but, no, we're not going away. But I ask you -- what do you want?
I believe you know now that, as before, there is an infinitesimal chance of your being exposed to a woman with a penis in a hot tub at the Club.
That this law doesn't change that - it's silent on such circumstances - and will not embolden a pre-op trans woman to do something she wouldn't have done before anyway for personal and social reasons.
That if a dispute ever arises it will go before the Human Rights Commission.
That the HRC will not force club owners to welcome pre-ops into your sauna.
You're an engineer -- you know this.
So what do you want?
Theresa said....
“And know, I don't think Dana pre-op or Jennifer has any right to be in those rooms - regardless of whether they change in a stall or not. They are other WOMEN or have always been WOMEN there who don't want to have to think about the fact that a Dana or a Jennifer or a Mary Ann might be present. Period.”
“don't want to have to think about the fact”
Theresa, you just made history.
“Don’t want to think about it” has been the beginning and end of your “argument” all along. That’s just the first time, according to my recollection, that you have admitted it.
So be it.
JUST SAY SO.
And yes, you will catch hell for it. But at least people like me will be able to respect you for at least being honest about taking such an unpopular stance.
Again, you will catch hell, but nothing like the hell you already catch for trying to hide how you really feel.
It’s when you don’t take the time to be honest, or respond at all, that demonstrates intentional disrespect.
It is ok to say that you do not understand and that you do not WANT to understand. But it's not fair to consider that to be a fair argument.
Ignorance is not an argument. Especially not willful ignorance.
You’ve been given everything you’ve asked and more as far as information goes, yet as far as I can tell, the only thing you want is for us to capitulate to your demands.
Is there any possible way in your mind that both sides could be happy?
If not, then why are you here? I can’t imagine that there’s not at least a small part of you that sincerely wants to try to understand.
I'm sure that most likely I’ll be mocking you in short order, so I realize I’m not the best person to be delivering this message, but there are a lot of good people here who would love to be friends with you if you would let them.
“a Dana or a Jennifer or a Mary Ann”
Or a Theresa.
The so-called "referendum" will have as much success as the aborted "recall" episode of a couple of years ago. Leave it in the hands of Citizens for Reprehensible Churlishness and it will die a deservedly discredited death.
Post a Comment
<< Home