Sunday, November 18, 2007

A Test for the Media

Sunday mornings I usually waste a bunch of time talking about whatever thing is on my mind that week, some music I like or something that happened to me. But this week I am thinking we have something serious to talk about. (Though I must say, Aaron Neville's soulful "I Shall Be Released" on Sunday morning WPFW, rising above the homely white noise of crackling bacon, is just ... perfect.)

I know that people in the media read this blog, and I want them to think carefully about the moment in Montgomery County history that we are coming to.

Let the record show that at this time, November 18th, 2007, it is obvious to observers that a strategy to deceive is in place and is being perpetrated; anyone who falls for it is either hopelessly ignorant, or is a willing accomplice. It will not be possible in the future to declare that you didn't see it coming: everybody sees it coming.

We are seeing a nefarious and blatant attempt by a tiny minority of people to change the subject on an important issue. Their change of subject will be sensationalistic, it will be simple, it will appeal to consumers of the news media at a base level, but it is a lie.

We need to see our media rise to the situation. We need the press to inform the public as this situation unfolds, not to propagate lies but to report them in their full context.

A new bill is being adopted in Montgomery County, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It simply adds another term to the existing law. You may or may not believe in the usefulness of laws about discrimination, and you may or may not agree that transgender people need protection; those are debates the public can and should engage in, and are not the topic at the moment.

Nobody in their right mind believes that this bill is about men lurking in ladies rooms.

We are seeing an energetic attempt to re-frame the law, to make people believe that the bill legalizes perverted men lurking in ladies room. We have seen one of the leaders of the local Republican Party saying that this bill will result in "little girls ... showing up dead all over the county." We have seen the CRC claiming that women will be unsafe in public showers because of perverted exhibitionists and voyeurs and transgender individuals in transition, with male genitals, exposing themselves in ladies rooms and peeking at undressed ladies and girls.

This re-framing project is a pure work of fiction, a complete change of subject from the actual bill it is intended to oppose. These groups want to retain the right to discriminate, but they know they can't just say that straight out. So they have latched on to a frightening image and are trying desperately to convince the public that this image will become reality if discrimination against transgender people is prohibited.

To pull this off, the groups that are undertaking this project need the complicity of the press. The law says you can't discriminate in certain situations, but the CRC and their colleagues need somebody to publish the fiction that the law is about the violation of privacy in ladies rooms.

In our several years of fighting this fight in Montgomery County, we have met a couple of biased reporters. None that are working this beat now, but it is not unheard of. There are a couple of media outlets in the Washington area with an agenda, I'm not worried about that, somebody'll read that junk, watch that, listen to that, whatever, it's a business. I'm talking about the objective media, the sources that the public depends on for information so we can make decisions in our lives and understand what's going on in the world around us.

It makes an easy headline, angry people with inflammatory phrases on signs make a quick and easily understood photograph. The interview with the outraged parent -- easy, stick a microphone in front of them and they'll give you some attention-grabbing video, red-faced and indignant, speaking in short, easily edited slogans. I can understand, as the crew hops in and out of the van, going from scene to scene, why they like this sort of story. Perverted men in the ladies rooms! Live at eleven. It is tempting.

There is a certain dangerous philosophy of journalism that says reporters should just repeat what happens without interpretation, as if there was no sensible narrative to tie the facts together. So if ten people have a demonstration, a newspaper should report that, and maybe interview a few of them, and report some quotes. But when the people demonstrating are lying, when they are the tiniest bizarre minority of the community, when they are simply making up a story to scare people, journalists have a higher calling -- their higher calling is to inform the public. They aren't there to take dictation, and when somebody lies it is okay -- it is the journalists' responsibility -- to interject a paragraph that states the facts of a situation.

The pro-discrimination groups seem to be lining up along two lines of attack. We saw a letter the other day from a group out in California calling itself "Advocates for Faith and Freedom," threatening to sue the county if this law goes into effect. I'm no lawyer, but I'm not seeing a big opening there. There are lots of places with the same kind of law, and I don't know who will have standing to sue if nothing happens, no men lurk in the women's showers, which is what will happen. But whatever, it's back to the old CRC strategy of suing, "merit or no merit," it will force the county to spend money and it will attract attention.

The second line of attack is an attempted referendum. This is where it gets more interesting, and where the media come into play. Most people in Montgomery County believe in being fair and kind, and are opposed to discrimination. We elected the current County Council members by wide margins, and we elected a progressive County Executive who has taken an active position in supporting LGBT rights; there's no doubt what kind of county this is, what kind of people live here.

On the other hand, nobody in any county wants perverted men lurking around ladies rooms.

You can bet that the pro-discrimination groups are getting petitions written up, and you can bet how they're phrasing this. We haven't seen the petitions, but ... here's a clue. If you go to the web site for the Citizens for Responsible Curriculum (just use www.teachthefacts.com if you don't have the URL), you'll see a big red box that says:
*Action Alert -- Legalized Indecent Exposure *
Gender Identity Bill 23-07
Click here for full information

The bill 23-07 is about discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity. The CRC is trying to change the subject to something scary. "Legalized indecent exposure." Anybody who falls for that is a fool.

This is a test for our area's journalists. I understand that if the petitions get so-many signatures, or if a court date is actually reached, the media need to carry the story, but they will need to be extremely careful how they report it.

This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms, nothing to do with indecent exposure -- absolutely nothing to do with little girls being killed. It is about discrimination against a group of people who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes.

As this anti-transgender pogrom unfolds, we the public need the press to be thorough, accurate, perceptive, we need the media to be our ears and eyes and to tell us what we would actually see if we were there at the demonstrations, if they knocked on our door with a petition. Would we see rational people backed with facts? Or would we see people who are terrified and threatened by people who are different from them? Would we see humble soldiers for Christ spreading righteousness, or would we see a gang of bigots? We need the press to tell us, accurately, objectively, and thoroughly, what's going on.

This story has all the qualities that appeal to the worst in journalism; it will be a test, we will see which media outlets are informing the citizenry, and which are willing to inflame them for a buck.

83 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The federal EDNA law has an exemption for religous organizations and places of shared nudity.Our bill has no exemption.

Indeed, they were going to explicitly include bathrooms and lockerrooms until we made them pull it out. So, what we are saying is accurate Jim. The council is lying and spinning, and the details and legal analysis of this bill WHICH STILL lets "humans with male genitals" into ladies rooms as you were so kind to point out. Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.

You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry.

Most of the media is biased and quite on your side, Jim. You know that. But even they are a little taken aback by this.

Want a good test of the accuracy and fairness of the media ? The gazette ran a story on the United Church of Rockville sending a petition of 69 names to the BOE in support of the curriculum. However, they didn't publish that the Catholic church came out and called the curriculum IMMORAL. That's right IMMORAL. They put that in a circular distributed to all the churches and its posted on the website of a few of them as well as ours. Pretty strong words. Isn't Sharon Cox a Catholic ? I wonder if she is proud of herself and what her parish thinks of her ?

Theresa

November 18, 2007 1:11 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"However, they didn't publish that the Catholic church came out and called the curriculum IMMORAL."

U.S. Says Pope Immune From Molestation Lawsuit

ROME — The U.S. Justice Department has told a Texas court that a lawsuit accusing Pope Benedict XVI of conspiring to cover up the sexual molestation of three boys by a seminarian should be dismissed because the pontiff enjoys immunity as head of state of the Holy See.

[T]he Vatican Embassy in Washington had asked the U.S. government to issue the immunity suggestion and do everything it could to get the case dismissed.

The lawsuit alleges Ratzinger, who headed the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith before becoming pope, was involved in a conspiracy to hide Patino-Arango's crimes and help him escape prosecution."


Have you always considered child rapist protectors to be an authority on morality?
:::
"what we are saying is accurate Jim. The council is lying and spinning"

Once again:

"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."

November 18, 2007 1:56 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

You are clearly a bigot, Theresa.

Before this legislation was considered, there were women (not just humans, but women) with male genitals using the women's bathroom without consequence to anyone. Ever. Anywhere. You know this because you have never produced one iota of evidence to the contrary.

Since you lost the sex-ed battle, you've decided to turn on us, because most people still don't understand the issues of human sexuality with which I've lived my entire life. You don't care, however. You are no more likely to be in a bathroom at the same time with a trans woman tomorrow than you were yesterday, but now it's a threat to you and to little girls everywhere.
You're not going to change science with your fears. You're not going to change medicine with your screeds. We will still continue to exist, which is what really bothers you, as you so thoughtfully pointed out.

You don't want to have to think about us? Then don't.

And whether you like it or not, the bill still is silent on bathroom issues. Nothing has changed between what was before and what will be in three months. It is not up to the Council to make detailed regulations; it is up to the Executive branch.

And contrary to your lying and misrepresentations , all the amendment was intended to do was to distinguish full-time trans women undergoing transition from cross-dressers, those MEN whom you so fear. So all you managed to do was to make things worse for your fevered mind.
If this ever gets to the HRC, they will probably rule as other jurisdictions have, and we will live with the consequences. All of us, including you.

November 18, 2007 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.

You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry.


Only an irrational person would think that a fringe group is aligned with the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and many more mental health and medical professional associations. No Theresa, yours is the fringe group, aligned with the quacks at NARTH. Real doctors know that intersexuality exists and deal with it on a rational basis.

Your OCD is kicking in again, after you decided I am going back to working on the referendum, this is waste of time.
Theresa November 17, 2007 1:48 PM

November 18, 2007 2:58 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Teacher Man said...

I don't think religious organizations should be exempt from this anti-discrimination law. The church has long been used to spread hate and lies... Like when "Columbus" came to the Americas and the time period of black slavery. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

November 18, 2007 3:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, this morning's post is a masterpiece of humor. This is why those of us in the opposition keep reading your blog. The entertainment level is so high.

Well, I'll do a dissection of it from a responsible point of view tonight. More important, for now, is the music comment:

I know you share my passion for good gospel music. You should check out "Gotta Serve Somebody: The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan." It is an album with some of the biggest stars in gospel music doing songs all written by Bob Dylan. Dylan himself only sings on one song, a duet with Mavis Staples. I thought of it because of your comment about Aaron Neville singing a Dylan song. On this album, Neville does a terrific version of Dylan's great song, "The Saving Grace That's Over Me." It would sound perfect over "the homely white noise of crackling bacon." Check it out. If you're not going to church on Sunday morning, this album would be the next best way to hear the gospel.

November 18, 2007 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the homely white noise of crackling bacon"

You'll probably hear from the pork association for this little piece of slander. Personally, I've always agreed with Bill Clinton's famous declaration:

"I do so dearly love bacon!"

November 18, 2007 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dana, Theresa is not a bigot because she holds a different view than you. That does not make her a bigot. Chastising others for calling people names is exactly what your colleagues were complaining about in the other thread and lo and behold you are doing the same thing. Maybe you need a lesson on tolerance.

November 18, 2007 10:14 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anonymous, Theresa has commented here many times before. She defines the word "bigot."

Merle

November 18, 2007 10:26 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon, I have tried, I have really tried to to watch my tongue. I have given Theresa many opportunities to meet and talk with me, but she has refused. What do you call that?

Is she entitled to a different opinion? Of course she is. Is she entitled to lie? No. Is she entitled to associate me in the public eye with predators? No. Pedophiles? No. That is bigotry.

Is she uncomfortable with pre-op trans women? Yes. Does that make her a bigot? No.
She wants to not have to think about the possibility of me. Does that make her a bigot? Yes.
She wants her sensibilities protected. Does that make her a bigot? No.
She wants to deny me my existence. Does that make her a bigot? Yes. She wants to put me in physical danger because she doesn't want to think that people like me exist. Does that make her a bigot? Yes.

There have been plenty of opportunities for dialogue, but she doesn't have the courage to meet with me. Other communities totaling a population of 104 million have worked this out. She thinks she's special? No, sorry. She's not. She's a coward.

November 18, 2007 11:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"She wants to not have to think about the possibility of me. "

I didn't say that. What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom (supposed to be reserved for women only) while I am changing and exposed. Or my 17 year old daughter who frequents the gym on her own having to worry about the same thing. And the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.


And that's makes me a bigot ?
Please.

Theresa

November 19, 2007 12:18 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
~Joseph Goebbles
:::
Poor persecuted supremacist said, yet again...
"lockerroom
changing
exposed
gym
male parts
parade
lockerroom
sued
danger"


Argument By Repetition (Argument Ad Nauseam):
"if you say something often enough, some people will begin to believe it. There are some net.kooks who keeping reposting the same articles to Usenet, presumably in hopes it will have that effect."

November 19, 2007 6:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We are seeing a nefarious and blatant attempt by a tiny minority of people to change the subject on an important issue. Their change of subject will be sensationalistic, it will be simple, it will appeal to consumers of the news media at a base level, but it is a lie."

CRC been saying the same thing since the beginning when a TTF officer created this bill. CRC has many objections but the most egregious part of the bill is that it will force business owners to allow males who dress as women to use women's bathrooms.

"We need to see our media rise to the situation. We need the press to inform the public as this situation unfolds, not to propagate lies but to report them in their full context."

And what is the lie you feel might be propagated by the media?

The real liars are the council members who, after CRC publicized the bathroom provision, dropped the amendment which said this explicitly and tried to convince the public that the restroom provisions wouldn't apply but now admit that this is the actual intent of the bill.

"A new bill is being adopted in Montgomery County, which bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity. It simply adds another term to the existing law."

In addition to adding this term, it also defines it saying gender is whatever one feels like. Since only one person can truly know how a person feels, this basically turns gender into a club you join. Effeminate gays will now be able to able to use women's restrooms in any establishment and the owner will be powerless to prevent it because the MC government will say that anyone is a woman if they say they feel like one.

Of course this is also true of the employment and rental portions of the bill too. What to stop guys from going the Klinger or John Ritter route pretending to feel like a women so they will get preference for a job or apartment.

"Nobody in their right mind believes that this bill is about men lurking in ladies rooms."

People in their right mind believe this is one of the many unfortunate things that would be enabled by this bill.

"We are seeing an energetic attempt to re-frame the law, to make people believe that the bill legalizes perverted men lurking in ladies room. We have seen one of the leaders of the local Republican Party saying that this bill will result in "little girls ... showing up dead all over the county." We have seen the CRC claiming that women will be unsafe in public showers because of perverted exhibitionists and voyeurs and transgender individuals in transition, with male genitals, exposing themselves in ladies rooms and peeking at undressed ladies and girls."

These are all possible consequences of not allowing business owners to set their own policies regarding their bathrooms.

"This re-framing project is a pure work of fiction, a complete change of subject from the actual bill it is intended to oppose."

If so, then why doesn't the County Council shut CRC up and amend the bill to say it shouldn't be construed to create a right for biological males to use women's restrooms.

"These groups want to retain the right to discriminate, but they know they can't just say that straight out."

I don't think anyone has hidden the fact that they don't believe the bill should pass. Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion.

"So they have latched on to a frightening image and are trying desperately to convince the public that this image will become reality if discrimination against transgender people is prohibited."

The Council members themselves agree that biological men will have the right to use women's rooms under this bill.

"It makes an easy headline, angry people with inflammatory phrases on signs make a quick and easily understood photograph. The interview with the outraged parent -- easy, stick a microphone in front of them and they'll give you some attention-grabbing video, red-faced and indignant, speaking in short, easily edited slogans."

Yes, TTF would love it if you didn't publicize the real reaction of the public to this bill. An old ruse of theirs is to pretend that the general public in MC supports a radical gay agenda.


I can understand, as the crew hops in and out of the van, going from scene to scene, why they like this sort of story. Perverted men in the ladies rooms! Live at eleven. It is tempting.

"There is a certain dangerous philosophy of journalism that says reporters should just repeat what happens without interpretation, as if there was no sensible narrative to tie the facts together. So if ten people have a demonstration, a newspaper should report that, and maybe interview a few of them, and report some quotes. But when the people demonstrating are lying, when they are the tiniest bizarre minority of the community, when they are simply making up a story to scare people, journalists have a higher calling -- their higher calling is to inform the public. They aren't there to take dictation, and when somebody lies it is okay -- it is the journalists' responsibility -- to interject a paragraph that states the facts of a situation."

Jim, you don't have a PhD in Journalism. Stop trying to tell professionals how to do their jobs.

"The bill 23-07 is about discrimination against people on the basis of gender identity. The CRC is trying to change the subject to something scary. "Legalized indecent exposure." Anybody who falls for that is a fool."

Again, Council members themselves have conceded that this bill will enable men who dress like women to use women's restrooms over the objections of the owners of the restroom.

"This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms,"

How many times can the same lie be repeated in one post? Some men will be allowed in all women's rooms in the county under this bill.

"nothing to do with indecent exposure -- absolutely nothing to do with little girls being killed. It is about discrimination against a group of people who do not fit traditional gender stereotypes."

And not letting a guy who says he feels like a lady use the women's room is one of the types of "discrimination" the bill is aimed at.

"As this anti-transgender pogrom unfolds,"

Wow! Now Jim really takes off into La-La Land. Opposing a law letting men use women's restrooms is the equivalent of a massacre of innocents?

This is an example of why TTF qualifies as a radical fringe group.

"we the public need the press to be thorough, accurate, perceptive,"

Indeed, we do.

November 19, 2007 7:36 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom (supposed to be reserved for women only) while I am changing and exposed.

So don't think about it, Theresa! Surely you realize that in all the years you've been hanging out at your "upscale gym with a steam room" no trans woman has EVER exposed herself to you.

There is therapy available for people who cannot control their obsessive irrational fearful thoughts. Get some.

November 19, 2007 7:42 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I've said it, Theresa, and Aunt Bea, said it -- just don't think about it. It hasn't happened to you, and it won't happen to you. It has never happened in this country, and this bill won't make it happen. And you know it. The bill is SILENT on this issue and earlier law is operative. So stop making things up and calling the Council "liars." "Public exposure" is still public exposure, and "indecency" is still indecency. Raising the specter of being sued is old-time Republican propaganda. I'm sure the County would take the time to put you at ease on this issue, but you'd lose your soapbox, so I know you won't accede to that, either.

You said this "Parading around the female lockerroom." That, my dear, is bigotry. You could have said, "become inadvertently exposed," or something of the sort, but you didn't. You always revert to something like this, where you are implying that we are perverts. If you weren't a bigot, you wouldn't speak this way.

I've spoken to a number of people who have been agitated by you and your friends, and I've allayed their fears. How could I do that? Because they were ignorant, they admitted it, and they were willing to listen. They didn't come to the dialogue with a bias as you have. They did not assume trans women were perverts, as you do. And you repeatedly make that clear.

You still haven't answered my question -- do you want trans men with vaginas changing next to you at Bethesda Sport and Health? Or do you want all of us to find a transgender health club somewhere so you can put your mind at ease?

I hope your daughter doesn't share your prejudices, but that you are speaking for her without her permission.

November 19, 2007 7:59 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
N.B. Anon and Theresa- you are both pathetic. There is no point in explaining or discussing anything to/with either of you. Why don't you two get your own blog and write to each other.

November 19, 2007 8:02 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anonymous, you come close to answering one of my main questions about all this: do these people really believe this crap?

You give a convincing performance. I would be willing to conclude, reading your comments, that yes, you really believe that banning discrimination against transgender people will create a real threat to women and children. In other words, you aren't just pretending to be nuts, you really are nuts.

The fact is, nobody knows what the nondiscrimination law is now, and nobody thinks about it when they decide to go to the bathroom. You gotta pee, you go in, close the door, and pee. Changing this law will not change a single thing. Nobody is going to go into the ladies room now who isn't already. There's no problem now, and there won't be any problem when this law goes into effect.

I am fascinated by your passionate defense of a delusion, and am curious to see just how far you guys are going to be able to take this. It all pivots on the cooperation of the press.

JimK

November 19, 2007 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"I didn't say that. What I said was I didn't want to think about a pre-op Trans woman with male anatomy being in my female lockerroom...which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.

And that's makes me a bigot ?"

::
Bigot: a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.

Prejudiced: 1) preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2) unjust behavior formed on such a basis.
::
So yes. Demanding that other citizens be put in PHYSICAL danger, for the sole purpose of protecting yourself from the “danger” of your own thoughts (your ‘prejudice,’ what you have ‘pre-judged’ to be true), makes you a bigot.

As has been noted countless times before, and as Dr. Beyer just said again:
"Before this legislation was considered, there were women (not just humans, but women) with male genitals using the women's bathroom without consequence to anyone. Ever. Anywhere. You know this because you have never produced one iota of evidence to the contrary.

You are no more likely to be in a bathroom at the same time with a trans woman tomorrow than you were yesterday, but now it's a threat to you and to little girls everywhere."

:::
So it’s also the timing of your concern Theresa that makes it so revoltingly disingenuous. Because the only thing that WILL change is the ability for supremacists like you to OPENLY discriminate in any way shape or form that your bigoted little minds desire.

Your locker room fantasy “threat.” is a red herring, plain as day, to hide the ugliness of your motives from public view. Those motives being the eventual imprisonment and execution of all LGBT Americans. Laws to protect fair housing and employment opportunities for transgendered citizens tend to send the message that they deserve to be treated fairly. So what do you people do? Demonize transgendered persons as child predators in order to send the message that they deserve to be treated like criminals. And what do we do with child predators, we execute them.

People like you, the CRC, PFOX, FLN, and all the other “family” hate groups, would re-enact and enforce (but only for LGBTs) sodomy laws in a heartbeat if you could. That’s the imprisonment part. The CRC also quotes the Bible on it’s website, but only in regard to homosexuality, which is a clear endorsement and promotion of genocide – in the name of Jesus:

Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

There you have it. The CRC believes that they can kill us, AND that it will be our fault when they do. They just want to make it legal first.

The only thing standing in the way of fulfilling that Biblical mandate is that "wretched" Constitution that protects those of us who are “inferior” to you, from you.

Not all people who feel the way you do identify themselves as Christian you say? Well I’ve got news for them. Just switch KKK with Christian, and African American with atheism or any other religion:

From Holy Bullies and Headless Monsters:
African-American pastor Gregory Daniels: "If the KKK opposes gay marriage, I would ride with them."

A letter to Pastor Daniels from an African-American woman: "What do you think they gonna do to you after the ride?"
:::
Supremacism: Beliefs and ideas:

If someone believes something is true whilst someone else believes it is false, each will probably regard the evidence and reasoning for his or her belief to be superior (more informed, more considered) than that of the other. For instance, if person X believes the Earth is flat whilst person Y believes it isn't, X would probably consider the evidence and reasoning for his or her belief to be superior to that of Y.

Supremacism, however, goes much further. A supremacist not only holds that any evidence and reasoning for his or her beliefs is superior to any other, but that those holding such beliefs have rights over those who do not.
:::
And for the record, I'm a supremacist too. I believe that logic, reason and truth are superior tools for decision making than are fantasies based on fear.

I also believe that equal opportunity for all is a superior ethic toward the goal of maximizing freedom for all, as opposed to accomplishing that goal via special rights for religious supremacists.

November 19, 2007 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These various "anonymous" bloggers, in the name of Christian charity and values, have absolutely trashed the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Typical of their hypocrisy, they "pick and choose" which "moral precepts" they want to adhere to and conveniently forget the others. If they profess to be Christians they need to go back to Sunday school and start all over. Their hatred condemns them to eternal damnation. Vile Hypocrites!

November 19, 2007 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" said: "Effeminate gays will now be able to able to use women's restrooms in any establishment and the owner will be powerless to prevent it because the MC government will say that anyone is a woman if they say they feel like one." As if any gay man (effiminate or masculine...whatever those labels mean) would be interested in going into a women's rest room. An incredibly ignorant, ludicrous, and infantile statement...meant, no doubt, to elicit FEAR. You really do HATE gay men (women, too, I suspect), don't you? That's what all of this froathing at the mouth campaign by the CRCers is all about...hatred of GLBT people. Pitiful!

November 19, 2007 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr./Ms/Mrs. "Anonymous" has said (in his/her diatribe telling us why he/she favors discrimination in the public arena): "Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion." Absolutely...there are lots of business owners of your persuasion who would like not to hire women, Blacks, immigrants who have become citizens, Jews, GLBTs, maybe even Methodists, and countless others (in the name of their own perceived legitimacy) who make them uncomfortable. It is for this exact reason why there are laws to protect those who are in the minority against bigots and haters like you.
R.T.

November 19, 2007 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here in our workroom we have been having some discussion (or I would say, lectures) about whether the natural position of a toilet seat is up or down. My suggestion is that the singular occupancy bathroon, room 459A, which is labelled with the little guy and a wheechair, be the location for up toilet seats, and that room 459B (labelled with the little gal and the wheechair) be the place for the down toilet seats. A serious bathroom controversy, and people have discussed such issues as "respect", but no one has says anyone else is connected with child molesters or peeping toms (is there such a person as a peeping sara?). Perhaps Virginia's bigots are more polite than those in MoCo; but then again, we exported Regina to y'all.

rrjr

November 19, 2007 11:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Jim, Dr Beyer and their various irrational minions obscure, with their allusions to Nazis and KKK and bigotry and et al, is that all CRC suggests is to maintain the status quo and not enact the new discrimination laws proposed by Dr Beyer’s boss, Councilman Trachtenberg. Does anyone really believe that the current state of affairs is anything resembling a fascist dictatorship?

Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects. The threshhold for resorting to these type of laws should be high. Racial discrimination, for example, was once rampant in our society and caused real deprivation. We are still in transition to a society where racial discrimination will be, basically, an irrelevancy and, so, these type of laws are still necessary for racial discrimination.

There is no evidence of a widespread problem, however, with discrimination against those who want to change genders and, even if there were, there is no consensus that it is an area where discrimination may not, in some circumstances, be justified. Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly. Better to leave this area to individual judgment. Certainly, if public opinion is as TTF asserts, this would not be an unreasonable hardship.

November 19, 2007 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Theresa said:

"Most of the county, contrary to the TTF hopes, still believe that anyone with a penis is a man.

You guys don't. You are the fringe group here, sorry."

Anon-B said:

"Only an irrational person would think that a fringe group is aligned with the American Psychiatric Association, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association and many more mental health and medical professional associations. No Theresa, yours is the fringe group,"

Actually, anon-B, none of those groups have endorsed the idea that one's gender is other than their biology indicates. The APA, as a matter of fact, lists transgenderism as a mental dysfunction.

November 19, 2007 1:03 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Theresa said "the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger. I resent that.


And that's makes me a bigot ?"

Of course you're a bigot Theresa. You just made the unfounded statement that transwomen are a danger to you and your daughter - that's a bigoted lie. You made the unfounded statement that transwomen are going to "parade" their naked bodies in front of you, that's a bigoted lie as well. You are a bigot.

November 19, 2007 1:25 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

You're wrong, again. This bill, as all other such bills, allows for dress codes FOR EVERYONE. Trans women dress like other women; trans men dress like other men. That's why you would have a serious problem if you were able to force trans men with female genitals to use the women's rooms. This bill specifically does not allow for cross-dressing on the job.

As for the APA, they do not list GID as a mental disorder. It is a mental condition, like all other mental conditions, and is an illness only when it cause severe, prolonged distress.
The treatment, accepted by virtually the entire medical profession, is just the same, strict, medico-legal protocol that I underwent, and which at the time didn't seem to bother the likes of Theresa.

So making those claims is nothing more than lying and fear-mongering, and it will come back to bite you.

November 19, 2007 1:35 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "the most egregious part of the bill is that it will force business owners to allow males who dress as women to use women's bathrooms.".

There's nothing egregious about that. No one is harmed by transwomen using the ladies room and transwomen most certainly would be harmed if they were forced to use the mens room and end up being assaulted or murdered. There's never been an incident of a transwomen harming anyone but there have been many many incidences of transwomen being assaulted or murdered by homophobes.

Anonymous said " What to stop guys from going the Klinger or John Ritter route pretending to feel like a women so they will get preference for a job or apartment.".

Ridiculous. The law doesn't give transwomen preference for jobs or apartments, it merely puts them on a level playing field with everyone else. Assuming the law works perfectly a transwoman is no more likely to get a job or apartment than a biological woman or man.


Anonymous said "These [perverted exhibitionists and voyueurs] are all possible consequences of not allowing business owners to set their own policies regarding their bathrooms.

Wrong. That will still be against the law just as it was before. There has been no such incidences in jurisdictions that have passed these laws, that is simply a lie.

Anonymous said " Business owners may have legitimate reasons to not want to hire guys who dress like women. There are positions where that wouldn't be appropriate. It should be left to their discretion.".

There is no legitimate reason to discriminate against transpeople. People should hire and fire only based upon job performance period. Transpeople can perform jobs just as well as people born with matching psychological and physical genders.

Jim said "This bill has nothing at all to do with men lurking in ladies rooms,"

Anonymous replied "How many times can the same lie be repeated in one post? Some men will be allowed in all women's rooms in the county under this bill.".

You're the one lying anoymous. The transwomen using ladies rooms are going there to pee, not to lurk and stare at women as you and yours keep suggesting. There's never been any complaints of transwomen learing at women in ladies rooms - it simply doesn't happen.

Anonymous said " Does anyone really believe that the current state of affairs is anything resembling a fascist dictatorship?".

It certainly is when you're a transwoman and bigots like you are trying to force us into the men's room where we risk being assaulted or murdered.

Anonymous said "Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects.".

Ridiculous. This law will burden no one save those who want to oppress transpeople without out of bigotry. Transpeople are rare, this law will have virtually no effect for anyone other than transpeople ourselves.

Anonymous said "There is no evidence of a widespread problem, however, with discrimination against those who want to change genders".

There most certainly is as Aunt Bea posted in this thread

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9797121&postID=3459799657563395544

at November 09, 2007 7:48 AM.

Anonymous said "Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly. Better to leave this area to individual judgment.".

The law isn't about males in general using the ladies room, its about transwomen using the ladies room, a small harmless minority of people. The law won't force anyone to hire an outlandishly dressed transwoman, transwomen dress just as other women do and meet the same dress codes.

If we left all discrimination laws to individual judgment we'd still have segregated schools, water coolers, restaurants and places that don't serve jews, blacks, Christians, etc.

November 19, 2007 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's pretty clear to anyone who reads the above exchanges that TTF finds itself isolated and on the defensive with this gender identity bill. The public, in general, doesn't want to give up on the idea of gender. We reject an androgynous society as it is missing a crucial element.

A couple of misunderstandings that TTfers keep going back to and which need correcting:

1. No one said transgenders are more likely to attack or molest children. My guess is that guys who have convinced themselves that they are not guys are probably less aggressive than general and less likely to do something like that.

The point being made is that there will be no way to distinguish these guys from other guys who may have malicious plans. This bill is open to manipulation by these types.

2. No one said that discrimination against transgenders doesn't exist. The point instead is that it is as easily coped with as the discrimination that virtually all people suffer from based on their various idiosyncrasies and that it is in a category of characteristics of which it is acceptable to discriminate about if one so chooses. People should be free to choose what types of characters they wish to have dealings with.

Tom B.

November 19, 2007 4:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon

Tom B.- wow- you are certainly a CRC clone- it is okay to discriminate certain people?? I choose the CRC bigots like you- okay? Please move away so you don't taint our children with ignorance and hatred.

November 19, 2007 4:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea

Certainly you can't be ignorant enough not to know that everyone discriminates based on something. It's really impossible to live any other way. The question is: what is it legitimate to base one's discriminations on?

If an employer has two candidates applying for a job, there will always be some way used to discriminate between the two. What factors combine to make for a successful employee is a matter that people will disagree on. If some believe that a mental "condition", which is what the APA terms transgenderism, makes it unlikely that a job candidate will succeed in that job, that is a matter of individual judgment. It is the burden of the job candidate to convince an employer that they possess the qualities needed to succeed in the position.

Not saying I would use this factor to discriminate myself. Just saying that leaving it between individuals is the ideal legal situation.

Tom B.

November 19, 2007 4:46 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Tom B. said " No one said transgenders are more likely to attack or molest children.".

Tom, you obviously didn't read all the comments. Theresa said exactly that. She said "the fact that whatever person with male parts who wants to can now parade in my female lockerroom and the owner of the establishment probably won't stop them because they are afraid of getting sued - which puts myself and my daughter in danger.".

Only transwomen are going to be in female washrooms etc. Theresa is saying we put her and her daughter in danger - that's a bigoted lie.

Tom said "The point being made is that there will be no way to distinguish these [pre-op transexuals] from other guys who may have malicious plans.

Of course there is. Pre-op transexuals have to be under the care of a psychiatrist to be eligible for sex reassignment surgery. That psychiatrist can vouch for the validity of a pre-op transexuals presence in a ladies room.

Tom said "No one said that discrimination against transgenders doesn't exist. The point instead is that it is as easily coped with as the discrimination that virtually all people suffer from based on their various idiosyncrasies and that it is in a category of characteristics of which it is acceptable to discriminate about if one so chooses. ".

It is not easy to cope with being denied a job or place to live. Most people don't have idiosyncrasies that result in such discrimination. It is never acceptable to discriminate on any other basis than one's ability to perform a job or be a responsible tenant. To suggest that virtually everyone has to put up with the same amount of discrimination as transpeople do is to be profoundly ignorant of reality.

November 19, 2007 4:51 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Tom b. said "If some believe that a mental "condition", which is what the APA terms transgenderism, makes it unlikely that a job candidate will succeed in that job, that is a matter of individual judgment...leaving it between individuals is the ideal legal situation."

It is not a matter of individual judgment any more than its a matter of individual judgment to assume blacks are mentally inferior and incapable of doing a job requiring intelligence. The APA most certainly doesn't support the idea that being transgendered makes a person less able to do ANY job.

November 19, 2007 4:56 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

And Tom, gender identity disorder is not a "mental condition" - its a disorder of the body, the body does not match the gender of the mind. The problem is with the body, not the mind.

November 19, 2007 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Beyer:

"As for the APA, they do not list GID as a mental disorder. It is a mental condition"

Un-Dr. Schimnosky:

"gender identity disorder is not a "mental condition""

Oh dear, how will we settle this one?

November 19, 2007 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is not a matter of individual judgment any more than its a matter of individual judgment to assume blacks are mentally inferior and incapable of doing a job requiring intelligence."

One problem with your insult to African Americans: no medical associations say blacks are intellectually inferior but a medical association does say transgenderism is a mental condition. Blacks are not like transgenders.

November 19, 2007 5:19 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Anon, are you making the point that it should be okay to discriminate against people with medical conditions?

Merle

November 19, 2007 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pre-op transexuals have to be under the care of a psychiatrist to be eligible for sex reassignment surgery. That psychiatrist can vouch for the validity of a pre-op transexuals presence in a ladies room."

One can't stop and consult a psychiatrist everytime someone strange-looking person tries to go in a ladies' room. Of course, I guess they could carry a notorized document.

Did you ever see "The Great Pumpkin"? Just before Lucy pulls away the football, Charlie Brown says "I guess you can't go wrong with a signed document."

Enough with this foolishness. When these guys have their surgery, they can start using the ladies' room. Until then, wing it.

November 19, 2007 5:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, are you making the point that it should be okay to discriminate against people with medical conditions?"

If it affects their ability to do their job. Mental conditions have broad-based effects. It should be left to the employer to deterine if an individual is suitable for a certain position.

November 19, 2007 5:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Only transwomen are going to be in female washrooms etc."

Or people pretending to be one. How can you tell?

November 19, 2007 5:32 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous, I'm not insulting black people, its people like you that make that kind of assumption.

And no medical association says transpeople are in any way incapable of doing any job.

Anonymous said "When these guys have their surgery, they can start using the ladies' room. Until then, wing it.".

Now THAT'S foolish! A pre-op transexual has to undergo a one year real life test that requires her to live as a woman for a full year to qualify for the surgery. Anyone dressed as a woman going into the men's room is in danger of being assaulted or murdered. A pre-op transexual in the ladies room endangers no one. Pragmatism dictates that pre-op transexuals must use the ladies room. If you want to argue any differently I suggest you put on a dress and go use the men's room in your local red-neck bar and see how that works out for you.

November 19, 2007 5:32 PM  
Anonymous Merle said...

Nice change of subject. I believe we are talking here about somebody who needs to pee.

Merle

November 19, 2007 5:33 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "How can you tell?"

I already explained that to you. A psychiatrist can vouch for that person. Mine gives a letter explaining the condition to all pre-op transexuals for just such an instance where someone might question their right to be in the ladies room.

November 19, 2007 5:34 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Oh, dear?

GID, or Gender Identity Disorder, is a condition made up by psychiatry in the late 80's when they chose to no longer use the category of "transsexualism." It is acknowledged today that there is no disorder of gender identity, just an intersex condition where the brain doesn't match the genitals. Anyone with any knowledge of sexual development would expect there to be transsexual men and women. It's inevitable.
Because of the history of the classification of sexual variations within psychiatry, we are still lumped within psychiatry. That is why this is listed as a condition in the DSM, but not an illness. Like other conditions listed within the DSM, the condition has to be causing intense and prolonged dysfunction to be classified as an illness. And the treatment for that condition is medical, surgical and social, making it as clear as anything can be that there is and never has been any mental illness involved.

So there is no conflict between what we've said. You just haven't been reading my blogging here for the past three years.

It's also pretty clear that there are many trans men and women who are far more mentally stable than many of the Anons who blog here regularly. There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else.

As for the fact that we all discriminate, that's just a red herring. Yes, we discriminate all the time, when we choose salami over bologna, but that's irrelevant.

Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal? Let's start discriminating against people on the basis of their religion; after all, it's the major classification of a protected class that is completely a choice.

As has been pointed out by others, most trans women carry documentation from their physician prior to legal ID change should they ever be challenged by any authority. It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future. Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Your insanity has not gone unnoticed at the Council and the Executive.
But I guess you just can't help yourselves.

November 19, 2007 6:03 PM  
Anonymous youwish said...

Hate crimes up 8% last year... this is exactly why we need law protecting people: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/19/hate.crimes.ap/index.html

I lost someone who I loved (and still love) very much due to hateful people like anon...

November 19, 2007 6:35 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

What happened, youwish?

JimK

November 19, 2007 7:03 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Evil flourishes when good men do nothing -- Edmund Burke
::
Anonymous said...
“What Jim, Dr Beyer and their various irrational minions obscure, with their allusions to Nazis and KKK and bigotry and et al, is that all CRC suggests is to maintain the status quo and not enact the new discrimination laws proposed by Dr Beyer’s boss, Councilman Trachtenberg.”

Aw, you make the status quo sound so sweet and innocent. "Why oh my stars, I don't rightly see what all the fuss is about. All the CRC wants to do is maintain the current level of unfair discrimination and violence against people of transgender."
::
“Discrimination laws impose burdens on society and have unintended effects.”

Argument From Adverse Consequences (Appeal To Fear, Scare Tactics)

Nary a reason, fact or example to be found, as usual. So “believe me” is your argument is it? In addition, you’re only talking about antidiscrimination laws that you don’t like -- lie of omission. And the overt lie of pretending you have a concern for society when you don’t even consider certain members of that society to be worthy of their own lives.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that you have once stated that transgendered persons should NOT be beaten up or killed.
::
“The threshhold for resorting to these type of laws should be high.”

So you consider the current risk for transgendered persons of being homeless, jobless, and murdered to be too low of a threshold to warrant protections?
::
"Racial discrimination, for example, was once rampant in our society and caused real deprivation."

As opposed to the unreal deprivations transgendered persons face, not to mention that racial discrimination IS STILL RAMPANT. It's just not as rampant because of integration and anti-discrimination laws.
::
"There is no evidence of a widespread problem"

You mean there is no evidence of a widespread problem in your life. Did you type that with a straight face? Are you actually suggesting that laws protecting others should be based on your non-transgender life experience? And again, this is an admission that you consider the problems that already exist to be perfectly acceptable. You haven't said otherwise.
::
“Few people, for example, believe that a business owner should be compelled to allow biological males to use their women’s rooms”

Red Herring, and covered ad nauseam. And it is nauseating.
::
“or hire someone for a public relations position who dresses outlandishly.”

So now the measure compels business owners to hire absolutely anyone who dresses outlandishly, whether transgendered or not, no matter what the position? If you think people are stupid just because they are transgendered, SAY SO, don’t “obscure” by dancing around the subject. Especially not while you're accusing other people of "obscuring."
::
One thing I’ve noticed about the supremacist type is that in their attempt to refute the charges levied against them, they instead confirm it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

You say we are irrational and obscure, and then do nothing but obscure irrationally in your “defense.”

You didn’t refute anything that was said, you confirmed it, again.

November 19, 2007 7:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I lost someone who I loved (and still love) very much due to hateful people like anon..."

I don't know what happened, youwish, but the bill we been discussing has nothing to do with hate crimes. If it's an incidence of violence you're talking about, I hope the person has been caught and locked away.

Violence is reprehensible but it is and always has been against the law. Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.

Explain to me how I'm like whoever did whatever you're talking about.

November 19, 2007 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

The 2006 report on hate crimes is out. Just wanted to make this a link. I think it's relevant.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hate crime incidents in the United States rose last year by nearly 8 percent, the FBI reported Monday, as racial prejudice continued to account for more than half the reported instances.
::
youwish said...
Hate crimes up 8% last year... this is exactly why we need law protecting people: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/11/19/hate.crimes.ap/index.html

November 19, 2007 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's sad when people dilute terms. Not letting you use a bathroom is not a hate crime.

Of course, if you believe Jim Kennedy, it is a pogrom. ?!?!?

November 19, 2007 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"I don't know what happened, youwish, but the bill we been discussing has nothing to do with hate crimes."

The extent to which that the “bill we been discussing” has to do with hate is the extent to which it has to do with hate crimes.

But you say that “Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”
::
"Hate crimes laws are a bad idea."

Given that the word “some” was not employed, the word “all” is implied by default.

Therefore:

You’re saying that you believe that ABSOLUTELY ALL hate crimes laws in the U.S. should be rescinded, including, obviously, protections for race and religion. Is this or is this not what you meant when you said: “Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”

I would very much like to hear the Yes or no answer to that question.

And there really is no inbetween, you have a choice between “some” and “all.” As in:

“all hate crimes laws are a bad idea”

and

“Some hate crimes laws are a bad idea”

Which statement do you feel most clarifies your position that “hate crimes laws are a bad idea?”

November 19, 2007 10:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, dear?

So there is no conflict between what we've said."

Guess you Democrats must be playing with the definition of "is" again. You said earlier that transexualism is "mental condition." I repeated and your bizarro double said it is not a mental condition.

Uh, yeah, we get it. There's no conflict because....

"It's also pretty clear that there are many trans men and women who are far more mentally stable than many of the Anons who blog here regularly."

You mean like you, randi and improv. Oh yeah, I've noticed how stable you are.

"There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else."

Well, it may depend on the job and what you mean by doing a job "well." Employers should be free to assemble teams of people by mere instinct if they desire.

There is really no crisis here. Transgenders are finding jobs, shelter and plentiful bathrooms. No cause for irresponsible legislators and their lunatic assistants to try to interfere with the decision-making processes of small businessmen in the county.

"As for the fact that we all discriminate, that's just a red herring. Yes, we discriminate all the time, when we choose salami over bologna, but that's irrelevant."

We also choose between partners, employees, tenants, associates. We should be free to deal with and associate with those whose values we share, if we so desire.

That's freedom. It's not red- it's red, white and blue.

"Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal?"

Sign me up.

"Let's start discriminating against people on the basis of their religion; after all, it's the major classification of a protected class that is completely a choice."

That already goes on. It's no big deal. Few religious groups don't have an adequate internal support base.

"As has been pointed out by others, most trans women carry documentation from their physician prior to legal ID change should they ever be challenged by any authority."

No one is suggesting that the government enforce bathroom segregation. The only "authority" at a business is the owner. The government shouldn't be over-riding his rights.

"It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future."

What has?

"Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls."

No one on this blog said that. Jim dug up somebody who said that so he could use them as a tackle dummy. The only thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility, and only after Jim raised the issue. Absurd as it may seem to you, most people don't want males dressed like girls in the county's restrooms.

"You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Your insanity has not gone unnoticed at the Council and the Executive."

They've noted the opposition alright. They're probably sitting around thinking: how did we let these lunatic fringe people talk us into this?

"But I guess you just can't help yourselves."

You lost perspective long ago, Dr.

November 19, 2007 10:30 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

"There is nothing inherent in being transsexual that precludes one from doing any job as well as anyone else."

Well, it may depend on the job and what you mean by doing a job "well."

“as well as anyone else,” was that not clear the first time it was typed out into words that could be read? Or do you not understand transgenderese, normally referred to as the English language?
::
"Btw, I'd be happy to give up my trans protections if you give up your religious ones. Fair deal?"

“Sign me up.”

The right to discriminate freely is your baby. The question is, where do we sign up? Besides, we wouldn’t want anyone to think that the evil “gay agenda” was part of such a noble cause now would we?
::
"It has worked for the past forty years, and it will work in the future."

“What has?”

Exactly.
::
“Claiming that all of a sudden it won't is just part and parcel of your fear-mongering. And of everything that has been said on this blog and to the Council, the most absurd is that men will suddenly dress like the Hogettes and invade womens' bathrooms to rape and murder girls."

"The only thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility”

Again, exactly. The ONLY “thing opposition posters have said here is that it is possibility”
To my knowledge, it hasn’t been condemned. Thus, to that extent, your silence speaks louder than your words.

November 19, 2007 11:29 PM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

From BoxTurtleBulletin.com:

National Transgender Day of Rememberance

With all this talk about hate crime statistics, now’s a good time to mention that tomorrow, November 20, is the annual Transgender Day Of Remembrance. This day is set aside to remember those who have been killed due to anti-transgender violence. Those deaths, by the way, don’t show up in the FBI’s hate crime statistics because the current federal Hate Crime Reporting Act doesn’t address gender, gender identity or expression. You can learn more about transgender hate crimes at the Remembering Our Dead web site.

Additional links included at the site.

November 19, 2007 11:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow. Twist the truth don't you... here's the full story on hate crimes ... the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!) Hate Crimes Rose 8 Percent in 2006
> Since the FBI began collecting hate crime data in 1991, the most
> frequent motivation has been racial bias, accounting for 51.8 percent
> of incidents in 2006, down from the 54.7 in 2005.
> Also in 2006, religious bias was blamed for 18.9 percent of the
> incidents; sexual orientation bias for 15.5 percent, and ethnic or
> national origin - for
> 12.7 percent.
>
> NOW lets look at Montgomery County
> 2003 report
> Race Religion Sex. Orientation Ethnicity Disability
> 21 16 1 1 0
>
> 2006 Report
> Race 18
> Religion 20
> Sex. Orientation 0
> Ethnicity 3
> Disability 0
>
> Religion went up, Sex Orientation went to zero
>
>

Man, and you are bringing up the hate crimes report and not pointing this part of the report out ? LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.

November 20, 2007 12:43 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
”Wow. Twist the truth don't you... here's the full story on hate crimes ... the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!) Hate Crimes Rose 8 Percent in 2006"

"Also in 2006, religious bias was blamed for 18.9 percent of the incidents; sexual orientation bias for 15.5 percent”


Interesting that you consider 15.5% to be equal to zero. Did you figure that out on your own or did you use a calculator?

Anonymous said...
”Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”

National

Religion: 1,597
Anti-Jewish 1,027
Anti-Catholic 81
Anti-Protestant 62
Anti-Islamic 191
Anti-Other Religion 140
Anti-Multiple Religions, Group 88
Anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc. 8

There are about 300 million people in the US, about 70% of which identify as Christian.
That’s 240 million Christians.

So as far as Christians go (and I’m not including any other religion because "Christian" supremacists believe that like homosexuals, anyone of any other religion is going to hell and therefore doesn’t count as anymore than human garbage in need of salvation), according to the chart above, we have Catholic and Protestant. That’s a total of 143 hate crimes against Christians out of 240 million.

Vs.

Sexual Orientation: 1,415
Anti-Male Homosexual 881
Anti-Female Homosexual 192
Anti-Homosexual 293
Anti-Heterosexual 28
Anti-Bisexual 21

According to anti-gay sources, about 3% (if not less) of the US population (300 mil) identifies as homosexual. That’s 9 million homosexuals.

So as far as homosexuals go, according to the chart above (and I didn’t even include bisexual), that’s 1366 hate crimes against homosexuals out of 9 million.

That’s about 1 out of every 7000 homosexuals who will be the victim of a hate crime.

vs.

about 1 out of every one and a half million Christians who will be the victim of a hate crime.

And you have the audacity to assert that “the religous ones are the most persecuted and sexual orientation (ZERO !!!!!)”

On top of your assertion that (whether or not you wrote this is irrelevant, you obviously agree with it):

Anonymous said...
”Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.”

And then this:
“Man, and you are bringing up the hate crimes report and not pointing this part of the report out ? LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE.”

“not pointing this part of the report out ?”

Exactly, nobody made a claim. You did, and then you knocked your own claim down, ergo, strawman.

You’re accusation of “liar” is a lie. Projection on your part, AGAIN.

Like I said:

"One thing I’ve noticed about the supremacist type is that in their attempt to refute the charges levied against them, they instead confirm it beyond any shadow of a doubt."

In addition, do you really think that Montgomery County Maryland is separate from the U.S.? Sounds rather treacherous to me.
:::
And on TOP of all that, we aren't even talking about hate crimes in regard to sexual orientation, we're talking about hate crimes committed against transgendered persons -- WHO AREN'T EVEN COUNTED!

So that's the REAL argument. No hate crime / non-discrimination laws protecting LGBT Americans = no record of hate crimes or discrimination against LGBT Americans = no need to protect LGBT americans from violence or discrimination. (in Jesus name of course)

But keep flinging those fish, people are bound to see the appeal of delusion sooner or later.

November 20, 2007 4:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a Montgomery County law we are adding - AGAIN : lets look at Montgomery County
> 2003 report
> Race Religion Sex. Orientation Ethnicity Disability
> 21 16 1 1 0
>
> 2006 Report
> Race 18
> Religion 20
> Sex. Orientation 0
> Ethnicity 3
> Disability 0 It is relevant to look at what the statistics were locally when we are talking about a local bill.

November 20, 2007 5:50 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

November 20, 2007 6:00 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

Hi all - Here is an edited version of what i have already shared with the members of this forum. Some areas have been expanded, and some shortened. It is still quite long, and if you can get through it, maybe it will give someone out there a different view and allow for greater understanding and a better non-conflict based dialogue.

I understand from some of this dialogue that Dr. Beyer wishes to have an open and intelligent exchange of dialogue with Theresa and also useful to include Dr. Ruth Jacobs, vocally one of the primary opponents locally and lately. Dr. Beyer has been unable to get such a meeting with you, although she tells me that she has tried repeatedly for some time.

This constant bickering and rock throwing is continuing to degenerate into a real mess, when open discussion is needed in a very civilzed and highly intelligent manner.

I am going to openly ask this of you in front of this entire forum. Will you, Theresa, and if applicable, Dr. Jacobs, be willing to meet and openly and peaceably discuss our differing viewpoints in the interest of better understanding if nothing else.

I would be willing to meet with you, accompanied by Dr. Beyer, and anyone else here with a mature and non-violent interest in attending such a meeting.

If you are willing, please select a venue that you personally are most comfortable with. If you are not willing to engage in such a meeting, please tell us why in a completely open manner so that we will simply know where next to direct our efforts at helping others have a better understanding of these issues from our very personal and therefore valid experiential viewpoints.

The dialogue begins:
This is part of the follow up letter that i entreated the council with after my testimony back on October 1st.

It has been expanded, edited, and modified to better suit this forum.
-----------------------------------


I am not a gay male, nor any other sort of male in womens' clothes seeking any sort of sexual or predatory gratification via use of public facilities as such. I never was and never will be.

I am not a drag queen nor female impersonator and was neither of those things for a single day in my life. Gay does not mean transgender and transgender does not mean gay, first of all.

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 many articles which claim that such legislation would open the door to fear of anyone that expresses his or herself outside of considered "normal" gender roles.

This is, at least for me, an utter fallacy, and hypothetical situation based on lack of real facts. This must be exposed as such for effective and intelligent decisions to be made as regards this legislation.

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 very closely monitored 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.

This would be considered routinely commonplace for anyone meeting such criteria for "Gender Transition". Such an occurrence could easily compromise all the risks taken by me or anyone else that has begun such a rigourous and mentally and emotionally trying and exhausting process as this - including the already mentioned constant denigration,lies, rumors, distortions, sniggering and humiliation, and torment and insult continuously experienced by those like myself in open society, and all for nothing more than snap judgement from the vast majority of fellow citizens we meet, and based on nothing more than outward appearance.

THAT ? is acceptable ethical standard of behaviors and thinking ? Must be - that's how all the kids i went to school with were towards me personally, and SOMEONE - MAYBE YOU - had to teach them, or allow them, to be that mean, rude, shallow, cruel, judgemental, and inconsiderate.

Now they are aduts and largely act the same way whenever faced with things they do not understand or that fall outside of what should be considered as "normal".

What no one else has bothered to mention is that, at least in this country, the screening standards prior to even beginning gender transition are so high that the vast majority of people that think they may wish to undertake such a process do not, nor will ever pass the American Psychiatric testing standards of both criteria that specifically fit and justify such a radical change in ones gender and biology.

Not only that, much less the IMMENSE sociologic, economic, and psycholgical strain involved in such a process, not to even begin to mention the overwhelming physical and medical risks.

One must already inherently posess enough of the NATURAL (UNCONTRIVED) characteristics of the related gender that it cannot be denied that it will vastly improve the mental and emotional health of the person in question to seek the process, whereby which any level of real "self-congruence" can finally be achieved in(MY)the person's life .

Just going to go about it willy-nilly, and flambouyantly parade around in ridiculously "outlandish" clothing of the desired sex to make it a reality, eh ?

hmmm... another ridiculous and entirely innacurate representation of people like myself. You see, Drag queens and effeminate males are just that. Happy to be gay males, and genrally with NO desire or compulsion whatsoever to change entirely one's gender or gender identity. Not only that, but most would probably never attempt such a risk as using a ladies facility as such simply because they do not posess the naturally inherent characterisctics which would allow them to be inconspicouous in such an environment. Not only that, but since GAY MALES are INTERESTED primarily ONLY in OTHER MALES, what would one of them want in a ladies facility to begin with ?? Vice versa for any female to male transperson.

I see not one person has addressed that very simple bit of logic thus far. There are other even far more valid points. Gay men tend to be very respectful of femal boundaries and are widely respected as ideal friends for many women, why suddenly will the most predatory of them all flock to dress as girls (most do not, nor will ever - which is another misrepresented stereotype about gay men) and then invade the girls rest and locker rooms where they will find nothing but the sex they sexually desire THE VERY LEAST ?

NEXT - Male cross dressers. Typically consider hemselves heterosexual and are deeply closeted(maybe some of you ladies out there that have husbands or friends that keep this little secret - that is very likely, by the way). First of all, the idea of even going out in public dressed "as a girl" to these guys is TERRIFYING - much less awkward -couldnt walk in heels (or any other girl's shoes less than a size 10)if they tried, don't know a thing about how to use makeup, and sure as jiminy dont sound, move, or look like a girl much to begin with, much less ever consider giving up their lives as straight males to pursue a life as a woman - Can you imagine them even TRYING to get into a women's facility in open public, much less daylight ? Makes no sense whatsoever and largely an untirely unreasonable idea to advance or consider.

Another complete fallacy and distortion not mentioned or detailed. The list really could go on and on for quite awhile, covering almost every demographic, and effectively debunk almost every single line of fear that you all are being spoon fed by the chunkloads.

This is a stereotype that hurts both gays and transgendered, and that has become so commonplace in misperception that it is accepted as overriding logic of all other factors.

Now about ME and people like myself going through change of gender identity:

When using public facilities, all of which always have closed stalls and/or private changing areas, most or all of which have areas which also lock or have curtains, it would never cross my mind for ONE MOMENT to be less than dignified, or reckless, much less EVER openly invite or consider any sort of exposure which might place my life and/or the sensilbilites of others in danger or question whatsoever. Not only THAT, but:

A.) i ALWAYS have my wallet and ID with me which is legally now gender marker "F" On my driver's license, and only gained after having sucessfully lived and worked in open society in my naturally related "target" gender, and then submitted substantial paperwork of clinical oversight and rigorous standards to the Maryland Motor Vehicle Medical Advisory Board for review and approval.

B.)I always carry letters form everyone in my clinical team neatly folded in my wallet should the impossibly unusual circumstance actually occur that i would be stopped or questioned for any reason whatsoever.

I am there to do one thing and one thing only. Use the facilities as every other woman in this entire COUNTRY does, in as normal, relaxed, and inconspicous a manner as possible, and leave.

Should i have to be forced to consider endangering my own self by using male locker and restroom facilities when i already live as 'normal' a life as possible, as any other woman in this country does ?

That is unreasonable at best, and DOES put me personally at severe and very real risk for hate crimes such as assault or rape, public conflicts, further humiliation, and ridicule, as well as completely compromising any validity that I've gained by openly and successfully living as an intelligent, comfortably well-adjusted, and professional woman in public society for several years now.

I have every right and legitimate reason to use the same facilities as every other woman does. I do so in a discreet and quiet manner without exception, and present a threat to no one, at no time, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

In my life, gender identity and sexuality are distinctly different facets of my life as a human being. Supporters agree with the right of any individual to express gender and/or sexuality in any way that an individual sees fit for themselves, as long as it does not involve being a harmful, or detrimental person to themselves or society at large.

Opponents continue to claim that sexuality and gender identity are individual "life"style" "choices", that there is no difference between the two, and may sometimes be based on certain "moral" and "ethical" precepts, possibly originating from certain "religious" viewpoints.

I believe that if one wishes to be a good person of true conscience to themselves and all others, then taking the ultimate risk(s) to live true to onself is not a "choice" at all, per se, and never was...

I've read by opponents that anything that falls outside of the range of "normal" and human heterosexuality is aberrant, abhorrent, abominable, and should be admonished and discouraged at all cost if possible, as to not endanger any percieved view of what "normal" society should be like for all peoples.

Unfortunately this continued lack of personal awareness may also take the forms of fear, hatred, violence, discrimination, bigotry, humiliation, ridicule, gossip, and frankly, outright distortion and continued misperception - from a total lack of personal or clinical experience whatsoever than what has been taught or learned as the "only" "correct" way to live this life as a human being.

How any such qualities can be equated with morality, ethics, fairness, unconditional love, understanding, or forgiveness, is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I strongly disagree with such views. If any person of color, race, religion, sex, or differing gender expression, is deprived of any single human comfort or right as a result of another's view, this then inherently deprives all people of the gift of freewill, which as i understand is one of the cornerstones of many spiritual teachings, and part of the basis of the relationship between God and Mankind as a whole.

Angry, sometimes violent, and pervasive judgementalism, which flies in the very face of all such "spiritual" teachings of fairness, freewill, forgiveness and understanding, also flies in the face and the very basis of an equal and free democratic society for all peoples, and must not continue to stand as acceptable behaviors by any standard of true kindness or decency that i am aware of.

I openly oppose such unfairness, ignorance, and hatefully misguided hypocrisy. Change must occur through intelligent and non-violent dialogue. I must excercise the expression of my own God-given freewill, and with the help of any person that also has a willingness and any ability to help enact any form of positive change and expanded awareness for others.

Please do not bend under pressure of any that wish to make such decisions without having ever met or talked with someone like myself that can lend true validity of actual personal experience, as opposed to percieved experience of others.

I will do my best to give personal experiences as valid referential material, so that others may have a better understanding of the issue from people like myself, that are affected most by this issue.

I DO struggle daily with continued misperceptions and stereotypical views which plague me and hurt me deeply, every day of my life in open society. That is a plain cold fact of what i have to face.

Between the ages of 4 and 5, i became acutely aware of an overwhelming and soul-searing level of real and very conscious mental and emotional anguish due to apparent lack of percieved congruence between my physical self and my mental and emotional self. This would be considered as years before any such "lifestyle choice" or "sexuality" could possibly apply. I had no sisters and was not encouraged in this nor was i ever forced to do anything which would have placed this compulsion so deep within me.

Not only that, but as is common for most people similar to myself, this level of personal anguish and lack of self-congruence never goes away - just the opposite. It usually intensifies as we age, and in most cases, only beginning some form of transition from one biological gender to the other is the most commonly accepted form of therapeautic resolution or relief.

This is now accepted throughout the entire medical and psychiatric establishment at this point, regardless of current classification, or prior classification as any form of "disorder".

I do not personally believe that this is a mistake or an aberration of nature. I do not believe that God makes mistakes and that this was, at least for me, one of the great blessings of my life, even for all of the pain and hardship involved in dealing with such an issue for all of my life. I was given this unique perspective and the innate ability to deeply understand both sexes.

The fact that for me at least, being female - is and always was much more naturally predominant, and so therefore i am obviously now able to express my real internal nature as female in "gender identity", than i was ever any sort of "real" male at all, in almost all ways.

As an adult, i was finally overwhelmed with the weight of what i had carried for so long that it literally broke me down.

As a result, I had to decide to risk giving up my marriage, my home, any positive relations with my entire family on both sides of my marriage, professional standing, and almost any social capital that i had gained thus far as a male person. I was entirely willing to give up any sense of "male privilege" in this society altogether. I was never truly happy in my entire life in the male gender.

As an open, loving, highly intelligent, and expressive child i suffered severe physical, mental, and emotional abuse for many years growing up, for simply being "different", and never able to fit into any "typical" "male" mold whatsoever. Should i be chastised and denigrated further for this ? I did not "CHOOSE" to be that different. I was MADE that way. People call us "freaks of nature".

If everything in nature is a part of God, and God never makes mistakes - please tell me the sense of that catch-22.

I essentially LEARNED to REPRESS truthfulness in every form of my natural self-expression, from basic survival instince because i learned i was never rewarded for real honesty of unconditional self-expression with nothing but fear and ridicule, harm and humiliation. Real Moral and Ethical, Huh ?

Real good moral and ethical societal values of fairness and understanding all of you Godly good parents out there taught the people that acted that way towards anyone like me.

Every day of my life i HAD to consciously and methodically hide all of my natural self-expressions from extreme fear of further ridicule and abuse, so that no one would ever detect i was actually a girl always somewhere deep inside where they could never really see me.

I somehow managed to become a more functional "male" persona by my twenties, but still deeply struggled my whole life thus far, and barely ever felt a true sense of happiness within or about myself.

Why would i now, give up everything in my life ? My marriage of more than 10 years to my best friend and soulmate - an incredibly beautiful and superintelligent woman. A home and profession which i deeply love. Why would i consciously re-invite all of the ridicule and scorn of my childhood again as an adult - and all for nothing more than "sexual kicks" of some kind ? I think not. Think about that and try to tell me you know my mind and heart better than my own self. I will call you an outright liar in front of the world and make you prove you are a psychic or retract your assertions.

People ask me why i would want to be something i am not, nor was really meant to be. I am not being someone that i am not. I simply stopped "editing" everything i do and say, how i naturally would act and move, and finally for once, am being true to my self, everyone else in my life, and my own conscience of self.

I am the same person i always was, except now more openly visible and completely vulnerable to the entire world than ever before in this life except as a very young child.

Once again, i am constantly targeted for misunderstanding, and frankly, probably more "at-risk" than all of the other groups of opposition put together.

I literally must take my life in my hands every time i step foot out of my own front door, for the irrefutable reality that people WILL and DO hate, ridicule, talk and gossip about, and try to judge and denigrate me in every way possible - and for no other good reason than being "different".

I am now more openly straightforward, and truer in total self-expression than i have ever been before.

I thnk that any kind of belief system which promotes such behaviors simply should no longer stand as any form of acceptable ethical or "moral" behavioral standard, no matter what belief system, science, theology, or philosophy it may be rooted in.

This will continue. This is only part of my answer to what i have seen here.

Theresa - Dr. Dana Beyer and I await your response. Please accept an open invitation - to my own home if necessary - where you and yours will be treated with kindness, respect, warmth, and true hospitality, regardless of our differing views.

That is the way it should be in my book.

I hope you have read the same book.

Most Sincerely and respectfully to all,

I AM,


Maryanne A. Arnow

November 20, 2007 6:04 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

For JIM -
I'm a little Tech-slow sometimes - i unintentionally DOUBLE POSTED MY COMMENT IN THIS SECTION. IT WAS NOT INTENDED. My apologies for any inconvenience to you or the group. Please delete one of the two identical postings.

Thank you,

Maryanne

November 20, 2007 6:30 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Ask and it shall be done.

JimK

November 20, 2007 6:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Thus, to that extent, your silence speaks louder than your words."

Improv

I don't know if you've caught on yet, but I've decided to discriminate against you by not responding to your posts.

Hope that's not illegal.

November 20, 2007 7:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not illegal but it is illuminating.

WTG Emproph, your arguments are irrefutable and have shut pro-discrmination-Anon up! Yea!!!

November 20, 2007 7:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I literally must take my life in my hands every time i step foot out of my own front door, for the irrefutable reality that people WILL and DO hate, ridicule, talk and gossip about, and try to judge and denigrate me in every way possible - and for no other good reason than being "different"."

Maryanne, while I wouldn't doubt that there is a social cost to you among those who know you are actually a male, you are really in no danger here in Montgomery County. Look up at the statistics posted by some guy above, there are actually no incidents of sexual orientation related hate crimes here in Montgomery County last year. I don't know how you guys keep a straight face when you keep saying there is no incidence of problems with transgenders in restrooms and then project a dangerous situation which really doesn't exist here in MC to justify your own irrational fears.

Furthermore, you know as well as anyone that you've had no trouble finding a public restroom. If you pull off the female impersonation well, no one would know the difference and if you don't, really most people wouldn't want to risk the confrontation with someone who may just be a homely female. In short, there is no justification for this bill. If you've had any problems being denied public restroom facilities in MC, let us know.

"Most Sincerely and respectfully to all,

I AM,"

I know you are probably just doing this to boldly assert your female name but if you want to be sincere and respectful and have a dialogue with religious conservatives of Judeo-Christian heritage, you might want to stop signing this way. A capitalized "I AM" is a name of God in Judeo-Christian scripture, so your referring to yourself this way might be considered offensive.

Just a suggestion.

November 20, 2007 7:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Transgender women continue to be murdered with horrifying frequency in Washington, DC. Nationally, a transgender woman is murdered on an average approximately once per month.

http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/lgbt/section/2/release/10405/year/2007

November 20, 2007 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Transgender women continue to be murdered with horrifying frequency in Washington, DC. Nationally, a transgender woman is murdered on an average approximately once per month."

The link you posted had one murder of a transgender in DC, with the qualification that it is not known if it is a hate crime or a domestic crime. The latter is more likely since the body was found inside the victim's apartment. Gay relationships, which are usually sado-masochistic, tend to have violent aspects to them. They sometimes get out of hand. I have no idea whether that happened here but, apparently, neither do the authorities. In any case, there is no indication that any transgender is threatened by violent straights.

November 20, 2007 9:04 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

What a despicable human being you are, Anon. "gay relationships, which are usually sadomasochistic . . ." Keep projecting, bro.

While we're at it, let's say for the record that there are no known trans pedophiles. But let's also say that the vast majority of pedophiles come from the group to which you belong -- heterosexual white men. 99.3%, to be precise.

As usual, your Biblical exegesis is completely off the mark. Maryanne was not saying anything that would be taken as offensive by anyone who knows their Bible. Nowhere is it said that God's name is "I am."

November 20, 2007 9:53 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Anon,

You took me to task for calling Theresa a bigot. I didn't like doing so, but she's so irrational that the label fits.

You, however, have the gall to repeatedly insult Maryanne. "Who know you are a male." "Who pull off female impersonation . . ." Why don't you try impersonating a decent Christian for awhile? You and your co-religionists have created a wave of disgust in this country at Christianity, and you are the ones who are fully responsible for that.

November 20, 2007 9:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"As usual, your Biblical exegesis is completely off the mark. ...Nowhere is it said that God's name is "I am.""

No, it says his name is I AM.

Exodus 3:13-15:

"Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?

God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you,'

God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations."

November 20, 2007 10:21 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

Maryanne, I believe that Dr. Ruth and Theresa are too afraid of what might happen if they get to know you and Dana as people. After all, look what happened to me! One transwoman made friends with me and I started to understand. I started to meet other transgender people, and learn their stories. I accepted invitations to dinners and Christmas parties at their homes - Christmas parties, for heaven's sake - did you ever? Then, when a member of my own family came out to me it never occurred to me to do anything except stick with her.

If something like that could happen to me it could happen to anyone. That's what they're afraid of.

November 20, 2007 10:26 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Oh, Anon, you took the bait. Too bad for you. It just highlights how ignorant you are of your scriptures, and how you base your lifestyle on an inaccurate translation.

Nowhere does it say, "I am." It says, in rough translation, "I will be that which I will be." Your complete ignorance of Hebrew leads you to live an inaccurate fundamentalist life. Whether that is worse that an accurate fundamentalist life, I will leave for others to decide. But it's one hell of a lifestyle -- beliefs based on mistranslations.

November 20, 2007 12:33 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "Hate crimes laws are a bad idea because they give more protection to certain groups of people than others.".

Your hypocrisy is made apparent as people like you never once complained about the hate crimes law prior to the proposal to add gays and/or transpeople to it. We can be certain that if the provision to add transpeople to hate crimes law was defeated that that would be the last time you ever opposed hate crimes laws.


Anonymous said "Employers should be free to assemble teams of people by mere instinct if they desire.

Anonymous said "There is really no crisis here. Transgenders are finding jobs, shelter and plentiful bathrooms. No cause for irresponsible legislators and their lunatic assistants to try to interfere with the decision-making processes of small businessmen in the county...We also choose between partners, employees, tenants, associates. We should be free to deal with and associate with those whose values we share, if we so desire.".

Congratulations on contradicting yourself so quickly. In one breath you say there is no problem with discrimination against transpeople and in the next breath you state your desire to discriminate against us. Your hypocrisy is once again readily apparent to all. Its precisely because of the prevalence of people like you that we need the protection of anti-discrimination laws. You've stated repeatedly your desire to deny us jobs, shelter and safe bathrooms. You are proof that there is a problem that must be addressed.

November 20, 2007 1:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Oh, Anon, you took the bait. Too bad for you. It just highlights how ignorant you are of your scriptures, and how you base your lifestyle on an inaccurate translation."

Well, yeah, I guess that's too bad for me. I knew the point was too obvious for you not to have some claim you wanted to make. For now, however, I'm going to trust the myriad of English translators in the many translations who have translated it this way. Whether the translation is correct or not, the advice to Maryanne remains the same.

An interesting thing about translations. I don't know Hebrew but I meet alot of people from other countries who have Bibles translated into other languages. Out of curiosity, I've often asked them if they will read a verse from their foreign language Bible translating into English. I then compare it with my Bible. I've found that the English Standard Version, published in 2001 seems most in synch with translators in other languages.

"Nowhere does it say, "I am." It says, in rough translation, "I will be that which I will be."

What do you think the rest of verses I cited say?

"Your complete ignorance of Hebrew leads you to live an inaccurate fundamentalist life."

Like when, for instance?

"Whether that is worse that an accurate fundamentalist life, I will leave for others to decide."

Oh, go ahead and take a shot at it yourself.

"But it's one hell of a lifestyle -- beliefs based on mistranslations."

Could you elaborate? What beliefs do you have in mind that are based on mistranslations? We all want details.

November 20, 2007 8:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"While we're at it, let's say for the record that there are no known trans pedophiles. But let's also say that the vast majority of pedophiles come from the group to which you belong -- heterosexual white men. 99.3%, to be precise."

Any statistics to back this up, Dr?

November 20, 2007 9:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What a despicable human being you are, Anon. "gay relationships, which are usually sadomasochistic . . ." Keep projecting, bro."

They really are. Did you want to expand the discussion?

November 20, 2007 9:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon,

You took me to task for calling Theresa a bigot. I didn't like doing so, but she's so irrational that the label fits."

Wasn't me who said that. Compared to some of the abuse you guys have slung at Theresa (who you claim to like), that was actually mild.

"You, however, have the gall to repeatedly insult Maryanne. "Who know you are a male." "Who pull off female impersonation . . .""

Didn't mean to insult this person. I was just describing the situation as I see it. You've got to stop insisting that disagreeing with your point of view is the ultimate offense.

"Why don't you try impersonating a decent Christian for awhile?"

Could you tell me how I've fallen short of your vision of "decent" Christianity"

"You and your co-religionists have created a wave of disgust in this country at Christianity, and you are the ones who are fully responsible for that."

And who would these people be?

BTW, are you moving up to Canada with Randi when Huckabee's sworn in? Did you read Richard Cohen's article today complaining that Huckabee doesn't believe in evolution? I love reading Cohen. He's got a very entertaining writing style. I also have observed he's usually arguing for the losing side!

It's going to be fun!

November 20, 2007 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Your hypocrisy is made apparent as people like you never once complained about the hate crimes law prior to the proposal to add gays and/or transpeople to it."

How would you know that, you idiot? I've always opposed hate crimes laws.

"Congratulations on contradicting yourself so quickly. In one breath you say there is no problem with discrimination against transpeople and in the next breath you state your desire to discriminate against us. Your hypocrisy is once again readily apparent to all."

Well, number one, I've said repeatedly that there may be some discrimination against transgenders but that it doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention. It is easily adapted to and has caused no real deprivation.

Secondly, I've never said I "desire to discriminate" against transexuals. I merely said people should be free to if they don't share their values and feel this discrepancy in values would adversely affect the working relationship. The onus of accomodation should be on the employee.

"Its precisely because of the prevalence of people like you that we need the protection of anti-discrimination laws."

Yeah, it's because of people who oppose a law that we need that law. Who can argue with such brilliance?

"You've stated repeatedly your desire to deny us jobs, shelter and safe bathrooms."

Never said I desire to do any of those things. I said the government shouldn't forbid such discrimination.

"You are proof that there is a problem that must be addressed."

Well, you are precisely the type of irrational hothead that discriminating folks try to avoid!

November 20, 2007 9:44 PM  
Anonymous Truthiness said...

An interesting thing about translations. I don't know Hebrew but I meet alot of people from other countries who have Bibles translated into other languages. Out of curiosity, I've often asked them if they will read a verse from their foreign language Bible translating into English. I then compare it with my Bible. I've found that the English Standard Version, published in 2001 seems most in synch with translators in other languages.

Of course you'd settle for an informal poll of translations instead of reading what scholars have learned after decades of study about the evolution of scripture that became "The Bible."

A Testament To Change: Early Scraps Of the Bible
Rare Fragments Show Evolution of Scripture


By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; C01

If 40 percent of Americans refuse to believe that humans evolved from earlier hominids, how many will accept that the book we know as the Bible evolved from earlier texts and was not handed down, in toto, by God in its present form?

The fossil evidence for human evolution is permanently on display at the American Museum of Natural History. Hard evidence that the Bible took its present shape over centuries will be on display for the next 11 weeks, from today through Jan. 7, across the Mall at the Smithsonian's Arthur M. Sackler Gallery.

They are rarer than dinosaur bones, these fragments of papyrus and animal skin that tell the Bible's story. With names such as Codex Sinaiticus, the Macregol Gospels and the Valenciennes Apocalypse, they evoke lost empires and ancient monasteries as surely as archaeopteryx and ceratosaurus conjure up primeval swamps and forests.

The Sackler's exhibition, "In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000," is one of the broadest assemblages of this material ever brought together in one place. "It has not happened before, and we will not see its like again in our lives," said guest curator Michelle P. Brown, professor of medieval manuscript studies at the University of London.

These are documents with the proven power to shake faith. That's what happened to Bart D. Ehrman, author of the 2005 bestseller "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001756_pf.html

Where does faith reside? In the soul? The mind, the marrow of the bones?

In the long hours of the night, the voices of the evangelical preachers on the AM dial seem to know. Believe, they say. Then daylight comes and the listeners' questions fade.

Bart Ehrman is a sermon, a parable, but of what? He's a best-selling author, a New Testament expert and perhaps a cautionary tale: the fundamentalist scholar who peered so hard into the origins of Christianity that he lost his faith altogether.

Once he was a seminarian and graduate of the Moody Bible Institute, a pillar of conservative Christianity. Its doctrine states that the Bible "is a divine revelation, the original autographs of which were verbally inspired by the Holy Spirit."

But after three decades of research into that divine revelation, Ehrman became an agnostic. What he found in the ancient papyri of the scriptorium was not the greatest story ever told, but the crumbling dust of his own faith.

"Sometimes Christian apologists say there are only three options to who Jesus was: a liar, a lunatic or the Lord," he tells a packed auditorium here at the University of North Carolina, where he chairs the department of religious studies. "But there could be a fourth option -- legend."

Ehrman's latest book, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why," has become one of the unlikeliest bestsellers of the year. A slender book of textual criticism, currently at No. 16 on the New York Times bestseller list, it casts doubt on any number of New Testament episodes that most Christians take as, well, gospel.

Example: A crowd readies itself to stone an adulterous woman to death. Jesus leans down, doodles in the dust. Says, let the one without sin cast the first stone. The crowd melts away. It's one of the most famous stories in the Bible.

And it's most likely fiction, says Ehrman, seconding other scholars who say scribes added the episode to the biblical canon centuries after the life of Christ.

There are dozens of other examples in "Misquoting Jesus," things that go to the heart of the faith, things that have puzzled scholars for centuries. What actually happened to Jesus of Nazareth, there on the sands of Judea? Was he a small-time Jewish revolutionary or the Son of God? Both? Neither?

...One afternoon he went to a party at the house of a popular kid. It turned out to be a meeting of a Christian outreach youth group from a nearby college. In private talks, the charismatic young leader of the group told the 15-year-old Ehrman that the emptiness he felt inside was nothing less than his soul crying out for God. He quoted Scripture to prove it.

"Given my reverence for, but ignorance of, the Bible, it all sounded completely convincing," Ehrman writes.

One Saturday morning after having breakfast with the man, Ehrman went home, walked into his room and closed the door. He knelt by his bed and asked the Lord to come into his life.

He rose, and felt better, stronger. "It was your bona fide born-again experience."

The void in his heart was filled. The more he read the Bible, he says, the closer he felt to God.

His devotion soon engulfed him. "I told my friends, family, everyone about Christ," he remembers now. "The study of the Bible was a religious experience. The more you studied the Bible, the more spiritual you were. I memorized large parts of it. It was a spiritual exercise, like meditation."

He soon became a gung-ho Christian, a fundamentalist who believed the Bible contained no mistakes. He converted his family to his new faith. Schoolmates went off to the University of Kansas, but he enrolled in the Moody Bible Institute, an austere interdenominational institution in Chicago that forbade students to go to movies, play cards, dance, or have physical contact with the opposite sex.

It was spiritually thrilling.

For the next 12 years, he studied at Moody, at Wheaton College (another Christian institution in Illinois) and finally at Princeton Theological Seminary. He found he had a gift for languages. His specialty was the ancient texts that tried to explain what actually happened to Jesus Christ, and how the world's largest religion grew into being after his execution.

What he found there began to frighten him.

The Bible simply wasn't error-free. The mistakes grew exponentially as he traced translations through the centuries. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts.

"Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament," Ehrman summarizes.

Most of these are inconsequential errors in grammar or metaphor. But others are profound. The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death.

Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible -- but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

November 21, 2007 1:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You still banking on Huckabee, Anon? His pal convicted rapist Wayne DuMond will do for him what Willie Horton did for Mike Dukakis. The hometown press knows him best and tells about his record for all to ponder:

The dark side of Mike Huckabee
The national media seems to have a crush on our ex-governor, but here in Arkansas, we know better.
By Max Brantley

Nov. 13, 2007 | The Pony Express has reached us here in the Arkansas backwoods with the latest journals from the big cities. So the country correspondents have taken a break from hand-setting lines of type to read the Beltway boys and girls rave about our former governor, Mike Huckabee.

"Easy to like," wrote Newsweek's Jonathan Alter. "Who Doesn't Heart Huckabee?" said the headline over Gail Collins' column in the New York Times. And those are restrained commentators. If you Google the names Ronald Reagan and Mike Huckabee in tandem, I understand you get better than 600,000 hits.

OK. I exaggerate. I have a phone and a computer (and it's 208,000 hits). But you'd think from national press comments that our friendly state is unreachable by phone or Internet. Do national commentators do homework? Or is a smiling, shoe-shining parson all it takes to generate such fluff?

Come to Arkansas. You'll have to look hard to find a long-term political analyst who'd subscribe fully to the national media narrative about the latest man from Hope -- fresh face, funny, nice.

Mike Huckabee is fresh to you, maybe. Funny? If barnyard humor is your shtick of choice. Nice? Well, he did do some good things in his 10 years as governor, but ... read on.

Before we begin, though, a word of warning to any reporters who might want to repeat, on air or in print, any of the facts recounted below. Huckabee does not take kindly to journalists who practice journalism.

Even editorialists and columnists at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state's dominant (and Republican-friendly) daily paper, use words like "petty" and "thin-skinned" to describe Huckabee. Then again, he's compared hard-hitting (and accurate) news reporters for the Democrat-Gazette to the press fabulists Jayson Blair and Janet Cooke. He called liberal columnist John Brummett of Stephens Media "constipated" when that early admirer commenced some gentle criticism. His administration paid $15,000 to settle a suit filed by Roby Brock, the host of a public TV news show whom Huckabee's people tried to force off the air for his critical commentary.

Then there's me. I'm the editor of an alternatively weekly, but I began covering Huckabee when I was a columnist for the now-defunct daily Arkansas Gazette in 1991, and Mike and I have been on the outs pretty much ever since. He once called me and the Memphis Commercial Appeal bureau chief "junkyard journalists" for our reporting. He also compared me, in print, to serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer and, I've been told on good authority, has wished aloud for my early and violent demise.

It all began 16 years ago for Mike and me. Huckabee, in his political debut, was preparing to become the Bible-thumping, abortion-decrying Republican challenger to U.S. Sen. Dale Bumpers, the Democratic incumbent. With a playbook straight out of James Dobson, he tried to portray Bumpers as a pornographer for his support of federal grants to the arts.

More important, Huckabee revealed an enduring weakness as glaring as that other Arkansas governor's fondness for women. Huckabee seems to love loot and has a dismissive attitude toward ethics, campaign finance rules and propriety in general. Since that first, failed campaign, the ethical questions have multiplied.

In the 1992 contest with Bumpers, Huckabee used campaign funds to pay himself as his own media consultant. Other payments went to the family babysitter.

In his successful 1994 run for lieutenant governor, he set up a nonprofit curtain known as Action America so he could give speeches for money without having to disclose the names of his benefactors. He failed to report that campaign travel payments were for the use of his own personal plane.

After he became governor in 1996, he raked in tens of thousands of dollars in gifts, including gifts from people he later appointed to prestigious state commissions.

In the governor's office, his grasp never exceeded his reach. Furniture he'd received to doll up his office was carted out with him when he left, after he'd crushed computer hard drives so nobody could ever get a peek behind the curtain of the Huckabee administration.

Until my paper, the Arkansas Times, blew the whistle, he converted a governor's mansion operating account into a personal expense account, claiming public money for a doghouse, dry-cleaning bills, panty hose and meals at Taco Bell. He tried to claim $70,000 in furnishings provided by a wealthy cotton grower for the private part of the residence as his own, until he learned ethics rules prevented it. When a disgruntled former employee disclosed memos revealing all this, the Huckabee camp shut her up by repeatedly suggesting she might be vulnerable to prosecution for theft because she'd shared documents generated by the state's highest official.

He ran the State Police airplane into the ground, many of the miles in pursuit of political ends. Inauguration funds were used to buy clothing for his wife. He once took control of the state Republican Party's campaign account -- then swore the account had been somebody else's responsibility when it ran afoul of federal election laws. He repeated the pattern when he claimed in a newspaper story that his staff controlled the account to stage his second inauguration. When I filed a formal ethics complaint over what appeared to be an improper appropriation of donated money, he told a different story, disavowing responsibility for the money. He thus avoided another punishment from an Ethics Commission, which had sanctioned him on five other occasions. He dodged nine other complaints (though none, despite his counter-complaints, was held to be frivolous). In one case, he was saved by the swing vote of a woman who left the chairmanship of the Ethics Commission days later to take a state job. She listed the governor as a reference on the job application. Finally, unbelievably, Huckabee once sued to overturn the ban on gifts to him.

My newspaper chronicled all this and so much more. Since my paper wrote critically about him, I didn't often experience the "nice" Mike Huckabee that so many national commentators have enjoyed. In fact, ultimately Huckabee ended press services, which are publicly financed, to my newspaper. The Arkansas Times received no news releases from the governor's office, no notices of news conferences, no responses to routine questions. He was condemned for this by journalism organizations.

Truth is, we were happy to be thrown into the governor's briar patch. The world is full of disaffected Huckabee campaign workers, former employees and garden-variety Republicans who love to pass on tips about a governor they'd found self-centered and untrustworthy. If you think he left a well of warm feelings in Arkansas, note that Hillary Clinton had raised more money in Arkansas at last report and that a recent University of Arkansas Poll showed her a 35 to 8 percent leader over Huckabee in the presidential preferences of Arkansas residents. Only one-third of 33 Republican legislators have said they will support him for president.

Thanks to such unhappy people, we've broken numerous stories about Huckabee, from the first early word of his destruction of state computer hard drives (more fully reported by the Democrat-Gazette); to the time and place of his announcement for president; to his sale and purchase of homes; to his infamous "wedding registry." About the last: Three decades after the Huckabees' wedding, his wife registered at department stores so their new home, post-governor's mansion, could be stocked with gifts of linens, toasters and other suitable furnishings. In early 2007, our reporting also prompted the former first lady to decline dozens of place settings of governor's mansion china and Irish crystal that had been purchased with tax-deductible contributions to the Governor's Mansion Association, nominally set up to improve the mansion, not to buy going-away presents for former occupants. (Huckabee's governorship ended on Jan. 9, 2007.)

Ironically, I have many good things to say about the governor. The Bush administration would have done well to emulate Mike Huckabee's speedy and successful relief effort for Hurricane Katrina refugees. He raised taxes for schools, highways and children's health. Inevitably, this expanded government. I say bravo on all counts, though the conservative Club for Growth has delighted in quoting my liberal newspaper when it attacks Huckabee's fiscal record.

He was kind to immigrants and favored state help for college-going children of illegal immigrants. He once even briefly departed from Republican dogma to suggest to a newspaper in libertarian New Hampshire that, while he opposed gay marriage, he was open to civil unions. He's since denied he ever intended such apostasy, but the comment is on tape. At the Arkansas Times, we welcomed the governor's conversion to devoted school consolidator. When our state system of school finance was ruled unconstitutional, he initially decried the ruling as a usurpation of local control. But he flip-flopped -- and we applauded the somersault -- and led his Education Department to a significant reduction in the number of tiny, inefficient school districts and on the path to more demanding graduation standards.

But a paddling administered by a brute who sometimes smiles still hurts. Huckabee insists he's not one of those harsh, punitive, "angry" conservatives, but again, there are witnesses who might say otherwise if anyone's interested.

Ask the retarded Fort Smith teenager, raped by her stepfather, who sought Medicaid funding for an abortion as federal law required. Huckabee stood in the hospital door, at least figuratively, to prevent state funding. Ask the gay people belittled by his cracks about "Adam and Steve." Ask the scientists who've seen evolution virtually disappear from the textbooks and classrooms of Arkansas with his administration's acquiescence.

Social issues alone should give moderates pause. He championed a law in Arkansas making it harder to get a divorce, the so-called covenant marriage law that has been widely ignored except when he and his wife recommitted in a Valentine's Day publicity stunt held in a 17,000-seat arena.

Huckabee's administration worked hard and unapologetically to prevent gay people from being foster parents. He avidly supported the state amendment that bans gay marriage as well as civil unions and bans any equal treatment under the law -- such as in health insurance coverage -- for same-sex partners. He professed opposition to alcohol and gambling, but he allowed passage of legislation that made it easier for restaurants to obtain private-club mixed-drink permits in dry counties. Over the angry objection of the church lobby, he sped final action on a bill to allow video poker at the state's racetracks, an act followed not long afterward by a $10,000 campaign contribution from the owner of the state's biggest race track, at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs.

All this is sometimes done with humor, but rarely the sort of gentle humor the national media has encountered. Huckabee prefers sarcastic putdowns and hyperbole. Because Arkansas Democrats tried to enfranchise more citizens with weekend voting in Arkansas, he called his home state a banana republic on the Don Imus show. He's compared weight loss with a concentration camp. Abortion, even in the earliest microscopic stages, he's called a holocaust. He referred in a Farm Bureau speech to "fruits and nuts" and "wacko environmentalists" in decrying environmentalists as a threat to agriculture. (Yes, this is the same man that gullible mainstream columnists praise for his ringing environmental proclamations.)

But the national press has more to examine than rhetoric when it comes to Huckabee. He is not the man of principle that credulous commentators describe. Though Huckabee doesn't support embryonic stem cell research, he took a hefty honorarium and bulk book sales this year from a diabetes drug maker, Novo Nordisk, which performs embryonic stem cell research. He has lied when there's been no other way around admitting embarrassing missteps, such as his advocacy of freedom for a convicted rapist.

There are also legitimate questions about his skills as a manager. He left Arkansas with a bill of more than $40 million for overcharges of the federal government's Medicaid program. A State Police director left after a tiff over Huckabee's demand that the agency improve his private lake property in the name of security. Troubles dogged both the state's computer services agency and its workforce agency. Youth services have been an unending series of tragedies. The buck never stopped at Huck's desk, you can be sure.

The governor's office records -- triumph and tragedy, sage advice and venom-filled screeds about members of the press and Legislature -- would tell this tale. But, as I've mentioned, the computer hard drive destruction ensured that would never happen.

If I could resurrect one batch of files, it would be those reflecting the advice of his staff that he not pursue his desire to free convicted rapist Wayne DuMond. By "advice," I mean I think some of them all but pleaded with Huckabee not to do it.

Though DuMond's prior record included a conviction for assault and his alleged involvement in a slaying and one other rape, by the start of Huckabee's governorship DuMond had become a national figure thanks to Republican efforts to depict him as a victim of the Bill Clinton machine. The rape victim was a distant relative of Clinton's.

Huckabee, perhaps persuaded by DuMond's supposed conversion to Christianity, announced his intention to commute DuMond's sentence without talking to the victim. Outraged, she stepped forward to protest publicly. The backlash was swift and powerful. Huckabee backed away from commuting DuMond's sentence, but in a private meeting lobbied the state Parole Board to release him. Huckabee said, in writing, that he supported DuMond's release. DuMond moved to Missouri in 2000, where he molested and killed one woman and was suspected of doing the same to another, but died in prison before he could be charged in the second case.

To this day, Huckabee tries to minimize his responsibility for DuMond's release. Huckabee's 2007 book "From Hope to Higher Ground" also fudges the facts, implying that DuMond died before being convicted of either Missouri murder. In one recent interview, he even suggested that he had fought DuMond's parole, a statement his own writings prove to be a lie.

Speaking of Huckabee's writings: I'd recommend the Huckabee catalog to the national press. It's a ready representation of the man -- quip-filled, shallow, factually challenged and full of the chip-on-the-shoulder mentality that has marked so much of his public life. In "Character Is the Issue," published in 1997, he complained bitterly about how some congregants of the Baptist church he left in Texarkana to seek public office didn't want to continue paying his health insurance. Funny, no employer of mine ever kept paying me after I quit work.

I digress. It's easy to do. In 10 years as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee left a rich and complicated history. It is not without points to praise. But there's so much more, a record that the national media -- so ready, since 1992, to plumb the tiniest cranny of Bill Clinton's past -- seems uneager to discover. It's a measure of the loving kindness with which he's been treated so far by the coastal punditry that Huckabee has not yet had one of his famous self-pitying public meltdowns about the unfairness of the media.

But then, you don't have to believe me about any of this. After all, I live in Little Rock and, as Huckabee has often said, I'm just the editor of a trashy, throwaway liberal tabloid. Why not look instead to a conservative voice from the national media? At the American Spectator, once home to the anti-Clinton Arkansas Project, senior editor Quin Hillyer, a former Arkansas Democrat-Gazette editorial writer, wrote recently, "National media folks like David Brooks [of the New York Times], dealing in surface appearances only, rave about what a nice guy Huckabee is, and a moral exemplar to boot. If they only did a little homework, they would discover a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics."

At last, something the national media and the Arkansas media can agree on.

November 21, 2007 1:34 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "I've always opposed hate crimes laws.".

That's not even remotely believable. No way did you ever complain about hate crimes laws prior to it being proposed to add LGBTs to them.


Anonymous said "I've said repeatedly that there may be some discrimination against transgenders but that it doesn't rise to a level requiring governmental intervention. It is easily adapted to and has caused no real deprivation.".

Assault and murder are serious deprivations. Not being a transperson you're in no postion to say its easily adapted to or that its no deprivation. You are simply ignorant. You've gone on and on about how most people in Montgomery county think like you, that being the case an anti-discrimination law that covers LGBTS is an absolute necessity.

Anonymous said "I've never said I "desire to discriminate" against transexuals.".

That doesn't pass the laugh test. You've gone on and on about how you want the ability to discriminate against transexuals, obviously you desire to do just that and any protestations to the contrary aren't even remotely believable.

Anonymous said "Yeah, it's because of people who oppose a law that we need that law. Who can argue with such brilliance?".

You wouldn't be opposing the law if you didn't desire to discriminate against transexuals - that's indisputable.

Anonymous said "Never said I desire to [deny transexuals jobs, safe bathrooms, or shelter]. I said the government shouldn't forbid such discrimination.

You're a liar, you've repeatedly stated your desire to do exactly that. You wouldn't be opposing this anti-discrimination law if you didn't desire to discriminate against transexuals - that's just common sense.
You're not fooling anyone with your BS, its painfully obvious what a hate filled bigot you are.

November 21, 2007 5:42 PM  
Anonymous Maryanne said...

A truly Happy Thanksgivng wish to all here - -

Just Wanted to say thank you to everyone that has posted here on this issue - positive or negative, no matter what or depending on your view - I must inherently respect that, even if i strongly disagree, or ever hatefully dislike some things i might see and hear and face, as a result of dealing with such sensitive issues for so many of us.

I was stongly reminded of two really important things tonight. One came from the father of a child away at a camp, that is going through some incredible challenges for a young boy - he is sorely missed at home and he misses them too - His father told him in a letter simply - just remember, son - -

"It's not how many times you get knocked down or off the saddle, but how many times you get back up that really matters"

Just a difference of ONE time getting back up even if fallen or crushed or hurt or heartbroken 99 times - all i have to do is find the strength and the will somehow to get back up - just once more -that 100th time, to show myself and my own world my own true colors as an individual with hopes and thoughts and feelings and dreams and hopes and heartbreaks and worries and everyday life in a diifuclt world - just like everyone else here, no matter what we may all think of one another at times.

To just be one that really cares about themself and can therefore about all others somehow too...

I think that in most ways, we all are like that, and tend to let emotion and conviction see each other as something(s) else other than the human beings we ALL are, (Unless of course, visiting from another galaxy or what not - know a couple of people like that in my life - im sure you all do too - :)...

This really struck a chord in my heart and gave me a lot of hope for everything else yet to still come in my life...

The second thing, one of my dearest freinds and fellow Chef - A Truly talented hardcore commercial and artistic professional - A good man - a beautiful son, and a good family that loves him dearly - he told me to make sure to take tomorrow - and basically regardless of belief or anything else - and that he knows that i have deeply struggled with many difficult and often overwhelmingly painful issues in my life - just to make today a day to be thankful.

Thankful for all the blessings i DO have.

Thankful for the people closest to me like my wife - one of he most incredible women you could ever possibly meet in your life.

She is most often regarded as such by all that meet (or have ever met her)and work with her in her own profession - a very high end mainstream service industry - - -

This beautiful thing happens for her regardless of political, theological, or philosophical viewpoint - - a stunningly beautiful, superintelligent, quick witted and hard-headed stubborn girl, from a nearly rural background that has found the strength to stick by me because she loves me. Plain and simple.

To just think about and be Thankful for some truly honestly good friends in my life that are like family to me. Thankful for all the blessings of my own life no matter how diificult.

To take tomorrow, shelve all the issues if at all possible, and just be thankful, period.

Happy thanksgivng all.

Safe travels and many blessings for all the rest of the holidays and all the New Years' coming.

Lovingly always,(somehow)
LoveForever,


Maryanne

November 22, 2007 1:33 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Maryanne said...
"A truly Happy Thanksgivng wish to all here - -"

Thank you Maryanne, you're an inspiration. You exemplify the Soulforce ideal of relentless nonviolence resistence.

You may already be aware of, and / or apart of the Soulforce community, But if not, please check us out if you feel lead too. It's an excellent community where I think you'd fit right in.

It's welcome to all btw, well, I can at least say that they love and accept me just the irascible way I am. And there's atheists there too.

It's not always, but there's definitely a safe haven mentality there.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/

November 22, 2007 9:28 AM  
Anonymous Emproph said...

Anonymous said...
Dr. Beyer said: "While we're at it, let's say for the record that there are no known trans pedophiles. But let's also say that the vast majority of pedophiles come from the group to which you belong -- heterosexual white men. 99.3%, to be precise."

Anon said: "Any statistics to back this up, Dr?"

Sure, just as she said, 99.3% hypothetical. A perfectly equal response to the claim that:

"gay relationships, which are usually sadomasochistic . . ."

You didn't include that part though did you? Because then it would have been apparent that usually = usually, and 99.3% = usually. Both perfectly irrelevant without verification.
:::
But let's see what those on the front lines have to say about the "usual" factor involved when it comes to pedophilia:

Hello Steve,

While you are putting together articles of opinions, we are putting together action on the ground against pedophiles and internet predators. What we've found:

- Vast majority of adult males who solicit our underage male decoys are married, usually with children. We've been at this for over four years, everyday, in the chat-rooms and social networking websites across the internet. Rabbi David Kaye, shows up for an underage male... married, with children. Clifford Wallach, shows up for sex with an underage male in Florida, brings his son along. Still with his wife to this day. I could spend all day giving case after case of married men with children showing up for sex with underage males. Most retain their marriage after arrest. The amount of out homosexuals that have hit us up for underage males is dwarfed by the amount of married men with children who have done so.

- The idea that areas which accept homosexuality are more prone to adult males molesting underage boys is not borne out by our many experiences. When we worked Northern California, we were exactly an hour away from San Francisco and Oakland, the largest concentrated amount of open and "out" homosexuals in the country. We had figured we would be awash with homosexual men arriving to have sex with underage minors. This wasn't the case, those who showed up were, in almost all cases, married men.

- We had more males show up to molest underage male decoys in Georgia and Florida than we did in Northern California. The reason? Societies which discriminate against homosexuals and push them into a "closet", create individuals who have no access to traditional gay areas of interest, say gay bars or any sort of well-established homosexual community from which they can draw adult interest. The closeted homosexuals, pushed into a corner by fundamentalists, then act out in whatever way they can. I fully believe that if Clifford Wallach lived in San Francisco rather than a traditionalist area of Florida, he likely never gets married, never has his kid and most importantly, likely never goes after a minor to begin with.

- The idea that there are "more" males out lurking for underage boys vs. underage females doesn't bear witness to the facts on the ground. Each sting operation we do, pedophiles with a heterosexual orientation outnumber pedophiles with a homosexual orientation. However, there is one interesting note. Heterosexual females and homosexual females have never approached our decoys and shown up. Homosexual and heterosexual males have. The problem with pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality, but rather gender and cultural stereotypes. The high importance male culture places on virginity or having "pure" relations is a driver for many individuals to approach underage females and males.

- We chronicle actual stories of molestations that occur due to internet solicitations. Over 90% of cases we've seen are males luring females. Our foundation helped locate a 13 year old girl who was lured over a year by a 47 year old man. She was abducted, chained, tortured and raped over a two week period. The vast majority of internet abduction cases we've seen are focused on luring females.

- Pedophiles have long sought to attach themselves to homosexual groups and causes. However, you make the mistake of noting this as a result of "homosexuality" and not as a result of their attempts to compare themselves to every beleaguered group in hopes of gaining mainstream support for pedophilia. For example, Perverted-Justice.com is listed as an anti-gay hate group by one so-called homosexual who claims that we're "anti-gay" because we target individuals who seek to have sexual relations with minors. We could be completely illogical like "Americans for Truth" and say that means there is a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, well, if we were dumb. At the end of the day, pedophiles wish to associate themselves with beleaguered groups in order to try to gain support from those groups and those who support such groups. Your argument is easily turned back upon you... if a Nazi claims to be Christian and not a Nazi and says that Christianity is all about "helping white people avoid minorities"... would I not then be completely incorrect by attacking Christianity as racist? Scum of all groups will try to masquerade as others in order to try to gain acceptance of their viewpoints.

- Confusing the above is exactly what pedophiles want you to do. We wrote that there are only two groups that try to associate pedophiles with homosexuals. Right-wing religious organizations and pedophiles themselves. You do it to try to demonize homosexuals. They do it to try to gain acceptance for their desires. When you sit there and try to claim that pedophilia has a common cause with homosexuality, you are literally playing right into what pedophiles WANT you to do. We cover this more in-depth with the pedophiles own writings at the following link: http://www.wikisposure.com/The_Persecution_Delusion

- The idea that pedophilia has "exploded" recently is beyond the pale. World history and yes, American history have the fight against pedophiles as a new endeavor, based upon the civilized and modern notion that relations with underage kids are negative. They are negative and quite destructive. It is a scourge. But it is not by any means a new scourge, mere generations ago it was the church and religious society that would arrange marriages between older males and younger females. Those females being stripped of all rights, all ability to make their own choices. Commonly in history, it was western churches arranging such things, even today break-away sects of the Mormon religion and many Christian cults still engage in these practices. That's not to mention Islam, which deified a man who in their mythology had sex with a nine year old. Today in Iran, for example, the age of consent for females is still nine years of age. We would like to see that being argued as a result of the acceptance of homosexuality in Iran. Heh.

- We don't have personal opinions randomly. Our "opinions" are based on years of being the boots on the ground in the fight against online pedophiles and internet predators. No organization or group has dealt with more of them than we have. We've dealt with pedophiles and predators of every type. We've made this fight our lives, and the idea that we've not considered these arguments a hundred times is insane. We've encountered the very argument you've made. If there were truth to it in our experience, we'd say so. There simply isn't any truth to the argument people like Americans for Truth and yourself make. You can put together all the off the wall research from political think-tanks you wish, we're the guys on the ground getting the job done and we're the ones dealing with these guys directly.

Lastly, I suggest you click the following link:
http://www.wikisposure.com/Category:Annabelleigh.net_Members

This is a partial list of Annabelleigh.net members. It is one of many "Girl-love" websites that exist online. Vast majority of these individuals are male, online, organizing to try to have sexual relations with extremely underage females. Again, the idea that "accepting homosexuality" fuels this is just... dumb.

We take the fight against pedophiles and predators seriously. Those trying to fracture the movement against pedophiles and predators by attempting to lump in random groups due to their own bigotry illustrate that they have no idea the seriousness of the problem of pedophilia. It shows a lack of first-hand knowledge and experience fighting them. If tomorrow every person who was bigoted towards homosexuals became enlightened about the nature of pedophilia and put even a tenth of the effort and passion they put into gay-bashing and hatred of homosexuals into the fight against pedophiles... well, let's just say that within a week we wouldn't have anything close to the problem regarding this issue that we have today.

Unfortunately, however, that won't happen anytime soon with people being more inclined to fundamentalist "sin-preaching" rather than actual harms to society and kids. So if we have to choose between lying to society about the problem of pedophilia in order to gain the support of short-sighted fundamentalists in this fight or telling the truth about the issue and gaining their ire, we'll choose the truth everyday of the week. At the end of the day, we'll take a hundred gays that are committed in the fight against pedophiles over a thousand hardcore fundamentalists who are stupidly more worried about thirty-five year old males and females trying to get married.

Regards,
Xavier Von Erck
Director of Operations
Perverted-Justice.com

November 22, 2007 10:21 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne Arnow said...

As is most commonly misperceived of women like myself, I am not a gay male, have never been that, nor am i any other sort of “man in women’s clothes” seeking any sort of sexual or predatory gratification via use of public facilities as such. I never was and never will be.

I am not a drag queen, nor a female impersonator, and was neither of those things for a single day in my life. I say this because first of all, that seems to be predominant in people’s judgments of me that I have to face in open society every day of my life. Gay does not mean transgender and transgender does not mean gay, first of all.

As well, the continuous association and misperceptions constantly made, that just because someone is transgender, gay, bi, or otherwise, must somehow also immediately mean, that any of us, that fall outside of “acceptable” gender or sexual “norms”, would automatically be more of a “threat” to other’s safety, sanctity, or privacy in some way, is both continuously insulting, and is also a continued fostering of untruth and total misperception that makes my life in public society much more dangerous and difficult because of the fear and hatred that this sort of belief instills in others..

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 many articles which claim that such legislation would open the door to fear of anyone that expresses his or herself outside of considered "normal" gender roles.

This is, at least for me, an utter fallacy, and hypothetical situation based on lack of real facts. This must be exposed as such for effective and intelligent decisions to be made as regards this legislation.

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 very closely monitored 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.

This would be considered routinely commonplace for anyone meeting such criteria for "Gender Transition". Such an occurrence could easily compromise all the risks taken by me or anyone else that has begun such a rigourous and mentally and emotionally trying and exhausting process as this - including the already mentioned constant denigration, lies, rumors, distortions, sniggering and humiliation, and torment and insult continuously experienced by those like myself in open society, and all for nothing more than snap judgment from the vast majority of fellow citizens we meet, and based on nothing more than outward appearance alone.

All people of color once had to endure such denigration, torment, enslavement, and still even today often face continuous discrimination, and all because of the justifications somehow created in the minds of certain “good Christians” in our past history, that these people were somehow “less than” all others, and for no other good reason than the color of their skin.

THAT ? is acceptable ethical standard of behaviors and thinking ? Must be - that's how all the kids i went to school with were towards me personally, and SOMEONE - MAYBE YOU - had to teach them, or allow them, to be that mean, rude, shallow, cruel, judgemental, and inconsiderate. All just because I was always “different” somehow.
I was more sensitive, more emotional, more thoughtful, more advanced in my learning, and openly warm and expressive. Weaker and less developed than all the other boys, and prefeerd to be friends with girls anyway, although few ever wanted to be my friend anyway because I was the “freak”, the “outcast”, ohhhh yucckky…. – I was tormented for having these qualities my entire childhood. Great way to set an example of moral and ethical standards if you ask me… What a great way to raise such good children full of love, and values of forgiveness and acceptance. Most of us had people be mean to us when we were kids – some – many have had it much worse – but imagine not having a single friend, and being beaten up and down, tormented and teased, and totally rejected by EVERYONE in your entire peer group almost every day of your entire childhood – all just for being “different”, a “sissy”, a “loser”… I just wanted to be understood, but no one would ever listen.

Now they (you) are all adults, and largely act the same way whenever faced with things they do not understand or that fall outside of what should be considered as "normal".

What no one else has bothered to mention is that, at least in this country, the screening standards prior to even beginning gender transition are so high that many of the people that think they may wish to undertake such a process do not, nor will ever pass the psychiatric testing standards of both criteria, that specifically fit and justify such a radical change in one’s gender and biology.

Not only that, but much less be able to endure and survive the IMMENSE sociologic, economic, and psychological strain involved in such a process, not to even begin to mention the overwhelming physical and medical risks.

One must already inherently posess enough of the NATURAL (UNCONTRIVED) characteristics of the related gender that it cannot be denied that it will vastly improve the mental and emotional health of the person in question to seek the process, whereby which any level of real "self-congruence" can finally be achieved in(MY)the person's life .





Just going to go about it willy-nilly, and flambouyantly parade around in ridiculously "outlandish" clothing of the desired sex to make it a reality, eh ?

hmmm... another ridiculous and entirely inaccurate representation of people like myself. You see, largely speaking from any personal experience that I have had, Drag queens and effeminate or flamboyant gay males are just that. Gay males, and generally with NO desire or compulsion whatsoever, to change entirely one's gender or gender identity. Drag queens are usually always gay, or much more rarely straight men that portray women for a variety of different reasons, including professionally, and as a direct expression of great admiration for women in general. Being a gay man that seems to others to be effeminate or flamboyant in an effeminate manner, does not mean that they have ever for one day dressed or presented themselves in the appearance of the opposite gender.

Not only that, but most would probably never attempt such a risk as using a ladies facility as such, simply because they do not possess the naturally inherent characteristics which would allow them to be inconspicuous in such an environment, and they know that.
Not only that, but since GAY MALES are INTERESTED primarily ONLY in OTHER MALES, what would one of them want in a ladies facility to begin with ?? Vice versa, for any female to male transperson in the men’s facilities, or possibly even a lesbian woman that is usually attracted only to other women. Should they also not ever be allowed in the women’s facilities ???

I see not one person has addressed that very simple bit of logic thus far. There are other even far more valid points. Gay men tend to be very respectful of female boundaries and are widely respected or known as ideal “safe” friends for many women. So please, tell me, why suddenly will the most supposedly “predatory” of them, all flock to dress as girls (most do not, nor will ever - which is abovementioned misrepresented stereotype about gay men) and then invade the girls rest and locker rooms where they will find nothing but the sex they sexually desire THE VERY LEAST ? OK – so that rules out gay men. What about others ?

NEXT - Male cross dressers. There are many degrees of cross-gender behaviors in the human population. Not just in men, but in women as well. This is not the point. Typically the majority of male “cross-dressers” consider themselves heterosexual, often live straight lives, and are usually in most or at least many cases, deeply closeted(maybe some of you ladies out there that have husbands or friends that keep this little secret - that is very likely, by the way).

First of all, the idea of even going out in public dressed "as a girl" to these guys is usually TERRIFYING - much less awkward – they couldn’t walk comfortably in heels (or any other girl's shoes less than a size 10 without a lot of practice) if they tried, usually don't know much about how to use makeup, and sure as jiminy don’t sound, move, or look anything like a girl much to begin with, much less ever considering giving up their lives as straight, often married males, to pursue a life as a woman…


Can you imagine them even TRYING to get into a women's facility in open public, much less broad daylight, and thereby immediately risking full exposure, ejection, embarrassment, and possibly arrest as they would be read immediately, and unless able to produce an appropriate clinical reason for using that facility at all.

Makes no sense whatsoever and largely an entirely unreasonable idea to advance or consider. There are “male” cross-dressers that may be more deeply involved in doing this sort of thing, and possess a higher degree of cross-gender behavior, as it were, and may even have other friends, girlfriends, and sometimes wives that are openly supportive, and may even therefore occasionally go out in public “dressed” this way. So, all of a sudden, just because this law is passed, even though these kinds of men generally do not pursue a course of complete gender change, once again, all of a sudden, the most “predatory” of this population segment will go rushing to take advantage of this law, and take all the risks to prey upon women and children en masse, when they are terrified of even having to consider using the ladies’ facilities to begin with, because they actually do recognize A.) that they are in fact male, and will most likely never try to change genders, even if they have considered it, and B.)that they therefore do not belong there…?
Hmmmm……

Another complete fallacy and distortion not mentioned or detailed. The list really could go on and on for quite awhile, covering almost every demographic, and effectively debunk almost every single line of fear that you all are being spoon fed by the chunkloads.

This is a stereotype that hurts both gays and transgendered, and that has become so commonplace in misperception that it is accepted as overriding logic of all other factors.

Now about ME and people like myself going through change of gender identity:


When using public facilities, all of which always have closed stalls and/or private changing areas, most or all of which have areas which also lock or have curtains, it would never cross my mind for ONE MOMENT to be less than dignified, or reckless, much less EVER openly invite or consider any sort of exposure which might place my life and/or the sensibilities of others in danger or question whatsoever. Not only THAT, but:

A.) i ALWAYS have my wallet and ID with me which is legally now gender marker "F" On my driver's license, and only gained after having sucessfully lived and worked in open society in my naturally related "target" gender, and then submitted substantial paperwork of clinical oversight and rigorous standards to the Maryland Motor Vehicle Medical Advisory Board for review and approval.

B.)I always carry letters form everyone in my clinical team neatly folded in my wallet should the impossibly unusual circumstance actually occur that i would be stopped or questioned for any reason whatsoever.

I am there to do one thing and one thing only. Use the facilities as every other woman in this entire COUNTRY does, in as normal, relaxed, and inconspicuous a manner as possible, and leave.

Should i have to be forced to consider endangering my own self by using male locker and restroom facilities when i already live as 'normal' a life as possible, as any other woman in this country does ?

That is unreasonable at best, and DOES put me personally at severe and very real risk for hate crimes such as assault or rape, public conflicts, further humiliation, and ridicule, as well as completely compromising any validity that I've gained by openly and successfully living as an intelligent, comfortably well-adjusted, and professional woman in public society for several years now.

I have every right and legitimate reason to use the same facilities as every other woman does. I do so in a discreet and quiet manner without exception, and present a threat to no one, at no time, in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

In my life, gender identity and sexuality are distinctly different facets of my life as a human being. Supporters agree with the right of any individual to express gender and/or sexuality in any way that an individual sees fit for themselves, as long as it does not involve being a harmful, or detrimental person to themselves or society at large.

Opponents continue to claim that sexuality and gender identity are individual "life"style" "choices", that there is no difference between the two, and may sometimes be based on certain "moral" and "ethical" precepts, possibly originating from certain "religious" viewpoints.

I believe that if one wishes to be a good person of true conscience to themselves and all others, then taking the ultimate risk(s) to live true to oneself is not a "choice" at all, per se, and never was...

I've read by opponents that anything that falls outside of the range of "normal" and human heterosexuality is aberrant, abhorrent, abominable, and should be admonished and discouraged at all cost if possible, as to not endanger any perceived view of what "normal" society should be like for all peoples.

Unfortunately this continued lack of personal awareness may also take the forms of fear, hatred, violence, discrimination, bigotry, humiliation, ridicule, gossip, and frankly, outright distortion and continued misperception - from a total lack of personal or clinical experience whatsoever than what has been taught or learned as the "only" "correct" way to live this life as a human being.

How any such qualities can be equated with morality, ethics, fairness, unconditional love, understanding, or forgiveness, is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I strongly disagree with such views. If any person of color, race, religion, sex, or differing gender expression, is deprived of any single human comfort or right as a result of another's view, this then inherently deprives all people of the gift of freewill, which as i understand is one of the cornerstones of many spiritual teachings, and part of the basis of the relationship between God and Mankind as a whole.

Angry, sometimes violent, and pervasive judgementalism, which flies in the very face of all such "spiritual" teachings of fairness, freewill, forgiveness and understanding, also flies in the face and the very basis of an equal and free democratic society for all peoples, and must not continue to stand as acceptable behaviors by any standard of true kindness or decency that i am aware of.

I openly oppose such unfairness, ignorance, and hatefully misguided hypocrisy. Change must occur through intelligent and non-violent dialogue. I must exercise the expression of my own God-given freewill, and with the help of any person that also has a willingness and any ability to help enact any form of positive change and expanded awareness for others.

Please do not bend under pressure of any that wish to make such decisions without having ever met or talked with someone like myself that can lend true validity of actual personal experience, as opposed to perceived experience of others.

I will do my best to give personal experiences as valid referential material, so that others may have a better understanding of the issue from people like myself, that are affected most by this issue.

I DO struggle daily with continued misperceptions and stereotypical views which plague me and hurt me deeply, every day of my life in open society. That is a plain cold fact of what i have to face.

Between the ages of 4 and 5, i became acutely aware of an overwhelming and soul-searing level of real and very conscious mental and emotional anguish due to apparent lack of perceived congruence between my physical self and my mental and emotional self. This would be considered as years before any such "lifestyle choice" or "sexuality" could possibly apply. I had no sisters and was not encouraged in this nor was i ever forced to do anything which would have placed this compulsion so deep within me.

Not only that, but as is common for most people similar to myself, this level of personal anguish and lack of self-congruence never goes away - just the opposite. It usually intensifies as we age, and in most cases, only beginning some form of transition from one biological gender to the other is the most commonly accepted form of therapeutic resolution or relief.

This is now accepted throughout the entire medical and psychiatric establishment at this point, regardless of current classification, or prior classification as any form of "disorder".

I do not personally believe that this is a mistake or an aberration of nature. I do not believe that God makes mistakes and that this was, at least for me, one of the great blessings of my life, even for all of the pain and hardship involved in dealing with such an issue for all of my life. I was given this unique perspective and the innate ability to deeply understand both sexes.

The fact that for me at least, being female - is and always was much more naturally predominant, and so therefore i am obviously now able to express my real internal nature as female in "gender identity", than i was ever any sort of "real" male at all, in almost all ways.

As an adult, i was finally overwhelmed with the weight of what i had carried for so long that it literally broke me down.

As a result, I had to decide to risk giving up my marriage, my home, any positive relations with my entire family on both sides of my marriage, professional standing, and almost any social capital that i had gained thus far as a male person. I was entirely willing to give up any sense of "male privilege" in this society altogether. I was never truly happy in my entire life in the male gender.

As an open, loving, highly intelligent, and expressive child i suffered severe physical, mental, and emotional abuse for many years growing up, for simply being "different", and never able to fit into any "typical" "male" mold whatsoever. Should i be chastised and denigrated further for this ? I did not "CHOOSE" to be that different. I was MADE that way. People call us "freaks of nature".

If everything in nature is a part of God, and God never makes mistakes - please tell me the sense of that catch-22.

I essentially LEARNED to REPRESS truthfulness in every form of my natural self-expression, from basic survival instincts, because i learned i was never rewarded for real honesty of unconditional self-expression with nothing but fear and ridicule, harm and humiliation. Real Moral and Ethical, Huh ?

Real good moral and ethical societal values of fairness and understanding all of you Godly good parents out there taught the people that acted that way towards anyone like me.

Every day of my life i HAD to consciously and methodically hide all of my natural self-expressions from extreme fear of further ridicule and abuse, so that no one would ever detect i was actually a girl always somewhere deep inside where they could never really see me.

I somehow managed to become a more functional "male" persona by my twenties, but still deeply struggled my whole life thus far, and barely ever felt a true sense of happiness within or about myself.

Why would i now, give up everything in my life ? My marriage of more than 10 years to my best friend and soulmate - an incredibly beautiful, and super intelligent woman.
A home and profession which i deeply love. Why would i consciously re-invite all of the ridicule and scorn of my childhood again as an adult - and all for nothing more than "sexual kicks" of some kind ? Why would anyone that was beaten down just for being different ? I think not. Think about that and try to tell me you know my mind and heart better than my own self. I will call you an outright liar in front of the world and make you prove you are a psychic or retract your assertions.

People ask me why i would want to be something i am not, nor was really meant to be. I am not being someone that i am not. I simply stopped "editing" everything i do and say, how i naturally would act and move, and finally for once, am being true to my self, everyone else in my life, and my own conscience of self.

I am the same person i always was, except now more openly visible and completely vulnerable to the entire world than ever before in this life except as a very young child.

Once again, i am constantly targeted for misunderstanding, and frankly, probably more "at-risk" than all of the other groups of opposition put together.

I literally must take my life in my hands every time i step foot out of my own front door, for the irrefutable reality that people WILL and DO hate, ridicule, talk and gossip about, and try to judge and denigrate me in every way possible - and for no other good reason than being "different".

I am now more openly straightforward, and truer in total self-expression than i have ever been before.

I think that any kind of belief system which promotes such behaviors simply should no longer stand as any form of acceptable ethical or "moral" behavioral standard, no matter what belief system, science, theology, or philosophy it may be rooted in.

This will continue. This is only part of my answer to what i have seen here.

Theresa - Dr. Dana Beyer and I await your response. Please accept an open invitation - to my own home if necessary - where you and yours will be treated with kindness, respect, warmth, and true hospitality, regardless of our differing views.

That is the way it should be in my book.

I hope you have read the same book.

Most Sincerely and respectfully to all,

I AM,
Maryanne A. Arnow

February 18, 2008 1:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home