Friday, February 01, 2008

The Sentinel Digs Into It

Besides their editorial, The Sentinel this week had a news article about the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever's big referendum drive. Most of this we already knew, but the reporter, Nathan Carrick, did interviews with a number of people and got some insightful quotes and details. From the headline on down, you can see they tried to be fair and balanced on this one.

The story is long, I'm only going to copy and paste pieces of it.
Citizens for a Responsible Government, a community group pushing for the repeal of a county bill passed in November guaranteeing the rights of transgender individuals, says it is about 3,500 signatures short of getting a referendum question on the ballot this February. The bill, they say, "grants special rights to cross-dressers, transvestites and transgenders under the cover of granting them 'civil rights.'"

The bill, 23-07, was introduced by Council member Duchy Trachtenberg and was passed unanimously by the Council. "It allows the laws that exist to remain in place," Trachtenberg said. "We wanted to ensure that these people weren't discriminated against in housing, employment or the use of public facilities."

CRG needs 12,500 signatures by Feb. 3, and 25,000 total to get a referendum vote on repealing the bill. A spokesperson for the group says they currently have about 9,000 signatures.

Michelle Turner a spokesperson for CRG says the group is most upset about language in the bill that allows people to choose what rest room or locker room they use according to their gender identity.

"This bill gives transgender people access to private areas that they shouldn't have access to," Turner said. "How do you determine if a person is a cross-dresser or a pedophile? It gives pedophiles an easy pass into someplace they shouldn't be." Prejudice or poor legislation? [pay to subscribe]

Michelle Turner, you might remember, used to be president of the Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum -- she chaired the original organizing meeting of the group that wanted to recall the Montgomery County Board of Education because of a new health curriculum. So it's not like she suddenly became concerned about transgender people in the "areas that they shouldn't have access to," whatever that means. She's opposed to gay and transgender people, no matter whether you're teaching about them in school or granting them equal rights under county law.

And ... do you see the loophole that give pedophiles an easy pass to anything? No, there's nothing about pedophiles in this bill. But that was smart to mention them, they might get a few more signatures on their petitions if people think they are opposing pedophiles.

Now -- watch the logic here:
However, according to Neil Greenberger, spokesman for the county council, says the issue doesn't exist because the bill says nothing about bathrooms.

Trachtenberg says, the original bill did mention bathrooms, but that portion of the bill was removed prior to the measure's passage in council.

That apparently isn't good enough for the members of the CRG. "It still doesn't specifically deny access. It's still pretty broad," Turner claims.

Reasoning with negatives is always difficult, but this one takes the cake. The idea is that because the new law does not specifically forbid people going into the wrong restrooms, it permits it.

In fact, no MoCo law has ever said who can go into what bathroom. This statement is true of every law in Montgomery County -- every single one of them "doesn't specifically deny access." No wonder they're so upset!

And just a minute, don't transgender people have to pee sometimes?

The article talks about the hoax that the CRW staged at the Rio Sport and Health Club a couple of weeks ago, where they had a guy in a dress go into the women's locker room, even though the place actually has a third locker room that can be used by ... guys in dresses. The Sentinel doesn't say it's a hoax, they are trying to be level with this. They let the experts speak.
Trachtenberg was skeptical of the event's veracity. "It's highly suspicious that an incident occurred at a gym and there happened to be a CRG member there almost immediately after it happened. It does make one wonder if the whole thing was a set up."

Dan Furmansky, Executive Director of Equality Maryland, agrees with Trachtenberg. "It's such an obviously fabricated publicity stunt," he said. "These laws exist for the majority of people in the county. Men in dresses and Peeping Toms don't do this kind of thing. These things don't happen."

When asked about Trachtenberg's skepticism, Turner said, "She's delusional. Her poorly worded, unfortunately timed bill is coming back to bite her in the butt. We [CRG] had nothing to do with it [the incident at Rio]."

Hee hee hee hoo hoo hoo. Nothing ... to ... do ... with ... it.

Oh, that's rich. That's good.
A flyer produced by CRG outlines four reasons it is opposed to the law. They are: "Religious organizations such as churches, Christian schools, and book stores are not exempt; Freedom of speech is diminished; Women's privacy and safety rights are jeopardized; Indoctrination of our kids."

Turner said religious organizations, under this bill, are forced to hire transgender individuals who are otherwise qualified for the position. "There are churches that view this sort of thing as sinful," she said.

Greenberger says the claims are bunk.

"Nobody is ever forced to ever hire anyone in the United States. People choose who they want based on qualifications. Similarly nobody should be denied employment on basis of race or gender," Greenberger said.

Mm, that seems easy enough.

This is the first article I've seen that actually talked to people and describes the situation accurately. The CRW wants to pretend the transgender nondiscrimination bill is something it's not.

One thing I would want to point out here is how many people have had to stop what they're doing, often important government business, to address the whining complaints by this nutty group.
Supporters of the CRG are confused as to why the county chose to fight this fight.

"Why did they choose to introduce this bill? There's so much more hate crime related to race and religion. There are more fat people discriminated against than transgenders," Turner said.

Gender Identity Disorder is classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, which Turner points out.

But Furmansky said the treatment for Gender Identity Disorder is gender reassignment surgery. "This law is for people who present themselves full time as the gender they feel they are," he said.

Most of us have not given this whole topic of gender identity a lot of thought, but there are some distinctions that matter.

The Sentinel did a cool thing. They went to a psychologist to get some information about all this confusing stuff.
Dr. Denise Dewhurst, Chair of the Psychology Department at Montgomery College and practicing psychologist, said there are some common misconceptions about gender identity.

"A man with a female gender identity doesn't necessarily cross-dress. Transgender people are people who feel they were born with the wrong body. They're not gay or transvestites. Because a person is a cross-dresser or transvestite don't mean they are transgender," Dewhurst said.

Cross-dressing and transvestism, Dewhurst said, are classified as fetishes. She added, "Pedophilia has nothing to do with cross-dressing, transvestism, Gender Identity Disorder or simply being gay."

Yes, the only reason the CRW mentions pedophilia is because -- everybody is against it. It's just another way they can stir up negative emotion, which is, in the end, their big goal.
"What we have here is a group who don't have a comfort with LBGT [lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender] individuals. It seems to be a loosely held together group of a few individuals with personal prejudices against LBGT individuals," Trachtenberg said.

CRG is a grassroots group with about 50 members who meet each week at a Baptist Church on Montrose Road. The members then go to shopping centers, grocery stores and other churches to get signatures for the petition, Turner said. The group, however, is not church-affiliated.

That number fifty obviously came from a CRW member. They don't have any 50 members. They might not have a dozen members.

In general, I don't like to see the press give these idiots free publicity. Somebody scanning this article uncarefully might think there's something to it, and it's best just to ignore them. But they're working under the radar, going into the churches and lying about what this law says and what its effect will be, getting people to sign their petitions to put the referendum on the ballot. So if there is going to be publicity, at least it ought to be factual, like this, rather than just repeating the CRW's talking points, like Channel 7 and The Examiner have done.

29 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

""What we have here is a group who don't have a comfort with LBGT [lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender] individuals. It seems to be a loosely held together group of a few individuals with personal prejudices against LBGT individuals," Trachtenberg said."

Why is this discomfort any less valid than the discomfort trans supposedly feel going into bathrooms assigned to their birth gender?

Could it be that discomfort with GLBT is an innate characteristic?

If so, why does it deserve less protection than the discomforts of GLBT?

Why can't the government leave relations between individuals between individuals? Let everyone associate with whomever they please?

February 01, 2008 10:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""What we have here is a group who don't have a comfort with LBGT [lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender] individuals. It seems to be a loosely held together group of a few individuals with personal prejudices against LBGT individuals," Trachtenberg said."

Why is this discomfort any less valid than the discomfort trans supposedly feel going into bathrooms assigned to their birth gender?

Could it be that discomfort with GLBT is an innate characteristic?

If so, why does it deserve less protection than the discomforts of GLBT?

Why can't the government leave relations between individuals between individuals? Let everyone associate with whomever they please?

February 01, 2008 10:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The article talks about the hoax that the CRW staged"

TTF has no proof that this was a hoax.

"they currently have about 9,000 signatures"

Actually, they now have 11,500.

"And ... do you see the loophole that give pedophiles an easy pass to anything?"

Out of context. She said this would happen because there is no way to prove who is actually trans, which a subjective mental state, and a pedophile could take advantage of this law that way. You may disagree but I think the average citizen would agree with Turner.

"A flyer produced by CRG outlines four reasons it is opposed to the law. They are: "Religious organizations such as churches, Christian schools, and book stores are not exempt; Freedom of speech is diminished; Women's privacy and safety rights are jeopardized; Indoctrination of our kids."

Turner said religious organizations, under this bill, are forced to hire transgender individuals who are otherwise qualified for the position. "There are churches that view this sort of thing as sinful," she said.

Greenberger says the claims are bunk.

"Nobody is ever forced to ever hire anyone in the United States. People choose who they want based on qualifications. Similarly nobody should be denied employment on basis of race or gender," Greenberger said.

Mm, that seems easy enough."

Thanks for clearing this up, Jim. There has been a lot of double talk from proponents of this bill saying that religious organizations are exempt. I thought they were being honest but I should have known.

I hadn't signed any of these paper petitions but I think I might print one off and get some signatures this weekend.

"But Furmansky said the treatment for Gender Identity Disorder is gender reassignment surgery."

The effectiveness of this treatment is debatable.

February 01, 2008 10:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It was a hoax... If it wasn't, why are people not up-in-arms and trying to find this man who dressed up as a woman to go into the woman's locker room???

You sound a little scared, AnonFreak. You should be becuase MC does not like bigots, haters and liars-- and you happen to clearly be each of those.

February 01, 2008 11:39 AM  
Blogger Tish said...

This is legal now, and will be legal after February 19 when the new amendmant to our anti-discrimination code takes effect:

A woman walks into an men's room (maybe she's 8 months pregnant and so desperate that she doesn't read the sign) realizes that she's gone through the wrong door, and leaves.

or:

A man, wearing clothes for humans of any gender, walks into a women's room, goes into a stall, closes the door, uses the facility as it was designed to be used, leaves the stall, washes his hands, and leaves the women's room.

This is legal now and won't be after February 19:

A transman who has been undergoing treatment with a medical team that includes a Psychologist specializing in Gender, an Endocrinologist, and a General Practitioner or Internal Medicine Specialist, and possibly a voice therapist, goes to his employer and explains that he is going to begin transition and will be living and presenting full-time as a man.
About a month after this meeting he is told by his supervisor that there have been complaints from his co-workers about his job performance. He asks what the complaints are and is told that the sound of his voice as he talks to clients over the phone is "disturbing" other people in his cube. He is placed on a probationary status, despite the data that show that his work is being completed as effectively as ever and that there are no complaints or comments of any kind from the clients. At the end of the probationary period, he is let go because "his appearance does not inspire confidence" in his coworkers and the company's clients.

That is what this bill is about.

February 01, 2008 12:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly, Tish!

February 01, 2008 12:13 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "Why is this discomfort any less valid than the discomfort trans supposedly feel going into bathrooms assigned to their birth gender?".

There's no evidence that people sharing the bathroom with a trans-person feel any discomfort. Odds are they don't even know it. A trans person needs to use the bathroom consistent with their gender expression to avoid violence.

Anonymous said "Why can't the government leave relations between individuals between individuals? Let everyone associate with whomever they please?".

Yeah, let people put up "Whites Only" signs and have segregated drinking fountains and schools, that'd be the right thing to do.

You'd never argue for that kind of discrimination yet somehow you want people to think its okay when it comes to LGBTS.

Anonymous said "The effectiveness of this treatment is debatable.".

Wrong. The latest studies show that gender reassignment surgery is overwhelmingly a success.


http://www.springerlink.com/content/g40k461746677054/


http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4347n067550n604/

February 01, 2008 12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There's no evidence that people sharing the bathroom with a trans-person feel any discomfort."

Well, let's put it to a vote and see. That's what CRC wants.

"Odds are they don't even know it."

I agree with you there. So why make a law?

"A trans person needs to use the bathroom consistent with their gender expression to avoid violence."

Could we at least wait until one case of this is confirmed in Montgomery County before we jump to this conclusion? Personally, I think even the world's biggest redneck would want nothing more than to get away from them. They certainly wouldn't want to draw bllod and risk exposure to something.

"Yeah, let people put up "Whites Only" signs and have segregated drinking fountains and schools, that'd be the right thing to do.

You'd never argue for that kind of discrimination yet somehow you want people to think its okay when it comes to LGBTS."

That's because that would be duscrimination based on who you are. Bias against certain types of behaviors and attitudes and desires is the right and obligation of free people.

"Wrong. The latest studies show that gender reassignment surgery is overwhelmingly a success."

Save it for the gay pride parade speeches. We're not buying your propaganda.

February 01, 2008 1:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's Ike Legget's reply to CRW's request to sign their petition and their response to him.

Dear Dr. Jacobs:
I am receipt of your letter of January 23rd that expresses, once more, your opposition to Bill 23-07, passed by the Council and signed into law by myself.
Your reading of the terms of the bill is in error. The legislation as passed and signed does not include locker rooms and showers. Moreover, the County Attorney has indicated that the law does not apply to those facilities. That is County policy, period. The fact that the County’s Human Rights Commission, in the bill’s early stages, declared that, in their view, the legislation would cover these facilities is irrelevant. The County Council and the County Executive make policy, not the Commission.
If you are in disagreement with this, that is your right. However, you have an obligation to state the facts.
Sincerely,
Isiah Leggett
County Executive


Here’s CRW’s Lawyer’s (Susan Jamison—who is she?)

Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government January 31, 2008
Dear Mr. Leggett;
Thank you sincerely for your response. Contrary to your claims, the transgender legislation at issue does not specifically exclude locker rooms or showers. Although the County Council could have easily included an amendment to exclude these areas as we had requested, they failed to do so. Nor is there any legislative history in the bill’s proceedings indicating that locker rooms or showers are excluded from the bill, or that any other facilities of public accommodations are excluded from the bill. On the contrary, the legislative history clearly shows that the County’s Human Rights Commission, which is in charge of enforcing the legislation when it becomes law, stated that the legislation does indeed cover locker rooms and showers. As you are aware, courts use legislative history when interpreting the intent and meaning of laws, so such legislative history is not “irrelevant.” It is the Human Rights Commission which will interpret and enforce this law, long after the current Council has gone and been replaced by other members. Hence, our concerns remain valid.
Sincerely,
Dr. Ruth Jacobs
President, Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government
For your reference, sir,
“Bathrooms” web page analyzing the public accommodations and their facilities language in Bill 23-07
Montgomery County’s new Public Accommodations Code which you signed into law
Attachment A - Attorney’s Response to Mr. Leggett Assertion
Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government
ATTACHMENT A – ATTORNEY’S ANALYSIS
Open Letter to
Mr. Isiah Leggett
County Executive
101 Monroe Street
Rockville Maryland 20850
Dear Mr. Leggett:
On behalf of Dr. Ruth Jacobs, I am responding to your letter to her dated January 30, 2008 on Bill 23-07.
With all due respect Mr. Leggett, it is important that we clarify exactly what the issues and risks here truly are. Your assertion that Dr. Jacobs is in error when she contends that there are serious locker room and rest room issues concerning this law for the many of us in the county who want our decency and our children protected is simply unfounded. The truth is that, unless our referendum effort is successful, any transgender could enforce his rights under this law in a court of law next month and, relying on the plain reading of the statute, obtain entry into female locker rooms and rest rooms with little to stop him or the many who would follow him.
What would he argue? The plain wording of the county' s anti-discrimination statute specifically states that a public accommodations provider (such as the Germantown Pool or Walmart) can not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc., and now “gender identity”, in the use of its facilities. Will the county be so quick in court to argue that locker rooms and rest rooms are beyond the purview of its anti-discrimination law? That they are private and personal accommodations, rather than what they really are: public facilities at public accommodations? It seems to me that few judges would agree in light of the many serious race and religious discriminatory practices such a holding could engender. Please remember that the interpretation of the law will apply to, and have, serious long lasting ramifications for, all protected classes not just “gender identity”. Perhaps the county will, in such court case, argue that “facilities” means rest rooms and locker rooms for every other protected class (race, religion, etc) except the protected class of gender identity. There is no support in the statute for such a convoluted approach. The fact remains that the term “private and personal accommodations” traditionally signifies private clubs and associations rather than public rest room facilities. Your argument that this term refers to rest rooms, and that rest rooms are not public facilities at public accommodations, seriously threatens to engender discriminatory practices against other protected classes. Such an argument contravenes the clear and unambiguous language of the statute. Under settled legal principles, the court will apply the plain meaning of a statute. Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government
You indicate that legislative intent is somehow significant here. Even if a court would entertain arguments based on legislative intent, it will surely be informed that the head of the enforcement office reviewed the exact wording of the statute as it was passed (not a different earlier and discarded version as your letter seems to infer) and informed the county council's legislative committee before the bill's passage that the bill would afford access of transgenders into rest rooms and locker rooms of their gender choice. This is a matter of public record. Furthermore, all efforts and requests on our part to have a locker room and rest room exemption were ignored. The intent here is far from clear.
You seem to rely on your executive policy in the enforcement of the law. Such policy does not have the same force as law and will not be binding on a court. Furthermore, any such policy could be easily changed by your successors. It certainly would not have the enduring force of the law with which we must now contend. We also have yet to see an official formulation of such policy
Dr. Ruth Jacobs has spear-headed an effort which has succeeded in bringing over 10,000 citizens together who want assurance that this law will not place biologic males in female rest rooms and locker rooms in public places and in public schools, and our numbers are growing. This number was achieved by a very small group since the bill passage despite a long delay in having a petition form approved, the intervention of Christmas and other holidays, and adverse weather conditions. We will not stop until this law is defeated or amended. While you have already signed this bill into law, we urge you to act decisively now to do what is left in your power to do to protect our decency and our children, as well as prevent the other inequities that this law can and will cause. We are hopeful that you will hear us and promote legislative amendments to the county council which will make this law more equitable for everyone involved.. Specifically, we seek the following amendments:
With respect to the public accommodations section, we seek a specific exemption from the public accommodations provisions for rest rooms and locker room and other places of shared nudity (i.e.: “Notwithstanding the above, public accommodations operators shall not be prevented or hindered from enforcing a policy of segregation of biologic males and biologic females in rest rooms, locker rooms and other places of shared nudity.”

With respect to the employment non-discrimination provisions, we seek

1) a broader religious exemption which will exempt religious corporations and private schools from the employment provisions (as it stands, for example, Catholic Schools can not take gender identity into account except for the limited circumstance where the transgenders and transvestites are not Catholic) (ie: “Religious Corporations and private schools shall continue to have the legal right to consider gender identity of job applicants and employees in making employment decisions.”, and Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government
2) that all employers of employees working primarily with children in day care or educational positions have the continue right to consider gender identity of job applicants and employees in making employment decisions. (ie. “Notwithstanding the above, employers of employees working primarily with children in day care or educational positions have the continue right to consider gender identity of job applicants and employees in making employment decisions.”)
With respect to the Housing non-discrimination provision, Renters looking for roommates to share a residential dwelling should have the continued right to consider gender identity in choosing a roommate (ie: add “In a rental situation of a residential dwelling where roommates will be sharing such dwelling, nothing in this section shall prevent a landlord or renter from stating a preference and renting to same sex roommates for cohabitation of such dwelling.)

Statutory assurances that citizens will not be targeted or re-educated for their personal views on this subject and the right to express their viewpoints.

Finally, we would also like your support in stopping the recent county policy to encourage public accommodations operators to formulate their own individual rest room policies with respect to transgenders. This seems to be pointed at opening up female public rest rooms around the county to biologic male transgenders. We seek a reformed official policy statement at this time clarifying that rest rooms and locker rooms which are marked as being for “women” shall be for the use of biologic women only and vice versa for males. Your constituents overwhelmingly desire this and our children deserve it.
Sincerely,
Susan S. Jamison
Citizens for a Responsible Government
Attorney at Law

February 01, 2008 1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The responses of Jacobs and Jamison are so random and lied-filled. Ike is a smart guy and he seens right through their transparent Red Neck Agenda.

We are happy to have a fair-minded man like him in office! As a gay teacher in MCPS, I appreciate him viewing and treating me as a human being and not a second-class animal like PFOX, CRW(eirdos) would LOVE to have it.

Truth wins.

February 01, 2008 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the past post was mine.. Mr. Teacher MAN.

February 01, 2008 1:48 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

I pointed out to anonymous that odds are someone using the bathroom next to a trans person doesn't even know it.

Anonymous replied "I agree with you there. So why make a law?"

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you this law is primarily about employment discrimination, not about bathroom access. No matter how well a trans-person passes there will always be people who know their past and choose to discriminate against them on this basis, and to deny them access to the bathroom consistent with their gender expression. This is why the law is needed.

Anonymous said "That's because that would be duscrimination based on who you are. Bias against certain types of behaviors and attitudes and desires is the right and obligation of free people.".

Transgenderism and gayness are who you are. Religion is a chosen behavior, atttitude and desire. By the same token we don't here you screaming how its the right and obligation of free people to put up "No Jews Allowed" signs or "We don't serve Muslims" signs. If someone discriminated against you for your chosen Christian behavior you'd be screaming to high heaven - don't give me this "right and obligation of free people" BS.

Anonymous said "Save it for the gay pride parade speeches. We're not buying your propaganda.".

All reasonable people accept the facts. People like you have decided in advance what conclusion you want and you reject any evidence that shows your conclusion false. That's the essence of prejudice and is the type of anti-scientific thinking drilled into you by years of religion which is itself based on choosing conclusions first rather than looking at the evidence first and seeing which conclusions that leads to.

February 01, 2008 1:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Jamison is a lawyer of sorts who rambles a lot. She wrote the poorly written, rambling letter about the new health curriculum that went out to many parents when Recall/CRC misused PTSA directories. She is/was involved in the banning books groups. Guess Johnny G is letting someone else do the "legal" work on this one.

She and Weepy Ruth show that advanced schooling and receiving professional degrees are not proof of real intelligence, character or honest

February 01, 2008 2:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"not a second-class animal like PFOX, CRW(eirdos) would LOVE to have it.

Truth wins."

Not in teacherman's mind.

It is a lie to say anyone has treated him like a "second-class animal."

"People like you have decided in advance what conclusion you want and you reject any evidence that shows your conclusion false."

Gee, randi, I know you're an athiest and all but don't you sometimes wonder if your hypocrisy will get you hit by a lightning bolt. You consistently reject any evidence that contradicts the hatreds you've carefully cultivated over the years. Witness your discussion the other day of how the "table talk" accounts of Hitler's private conversations must have been altered by anti-Christian assistants. You have absolutely no proof of this but jump up at some amateurish looking atheist website that says so because it fits neatly into your preconceived notions. I have rarely encountered someone who so desperately needs to read outside their zone of comfort.

February 01, 2008 2:25 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Anonymous said "Gee, randi, I know you're an athiest and all but don't you sometimes wonder if your hypocrisy will get you hit by a lightning bolt.".

No hypocrisy here, that's all your area. And as far as being hit by a lightning bolt, Now that's funny. I command your god/Jesus to strike me dead at this very instance and begin to torture me eternally or fail to do so and demonstrate for all his non-existence.

Red Baron said "Witness your discussion the other day of how the "table talk" accounts of Hitler's private conversations must have been altered by anti-Christian assistants. You have absolutely no proof of this."

The facts speak for themselves. The supposed conversations are not preserved on audio, film, or radio broadcast, the anti-christina Bormann is on record stating that he would edit the transcript for "approriateness", the anti-christian statments in Table-talk mirror his own. Hitler affirmed his Christianity again and again in deed and word, table-talk is entirely alone and inconsistent with everything ever recorded about Hitler's Christianity, the church never excommunicated Hitler, or any Nazi for that matter, for their actions, some of the anti-christian quotes in table talk only appear in the english translation and not the earlier german copy, elsewhere in the table talk transcripts Hitler praised Jesus and nowhere in it did he renounce his christianity. The evidence for Hitler's Christianity is overwhelming, you like the liar you are make the absurd claim that Hitler was an atheist when the vast preponderence of evidence shows he was a devote Catholic.

February 01, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow.

Blatant misrepresentation.

True the bill no longer says bathrooms. It says facitilies.
facilites are bathrooms. too difficult for the sentinel to follow or blatant misrepresentation. I'm voting for the second.

Besides Dana has admitted on this blog that it covers bathrooms and cross-dressers are included.

I wonder wich ?

February 01, 2008 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"the church never excommunicated Hitler,"

They wouldn't do that unless Hitler did something to confuse matters like actually attend church. He never did. How exactly are you suggesting Hitler practiced his religion?

The Pope at the time did issue a forceful denunciation of Hitler's "postive Christianity" which Hitler made up to replace Christianity with his own ideas.

Ever read Nietzche, the guy who said "God is dead"? Hitler loved him and tried to make his predictions come true.

February 01, 2008 3:14 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron said "They wouldn't do that unless Hitler did something to confuse matters like actually attend church. He never did. How exactly are you suggesting Hitler practiced his religion?"

Your lies are so obvious. As I posted in another thread here is proof Hitler attended church:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Note the picture of Hitler leaving the Marine Church in Wilhelmshaven. Note the picture of his Brownshirt army in church, the pictures of him celebrating Christmas, the pictures of him and the Nazi party with the "Church of our lady" in the background showing that it represents the foundation of the party, note the picture of Hitler praying, Note the Hitler oath:

I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler...

Red Baron "The Pope at the time did issue a forceful denunciation of Hitler's "postive Christianity" which Hitler made up to replace Christianity with his own ideas.". Yeah, right, that's why they never excommunicated him. You lie. The Vatican signed the concordat with the Nazis as you can see in the photos above. Note the picture of the Catholic bishops giving the Nazi salute in honour of Hitler - not something an organization who disagrees with him would do. The Catholic church was in bed with Hitler throughout the war and the pictures here prove it.



Note these photos of the Nazi "god with us" belt buckle and the Nazi medals prominantly displaying the Christian cross


http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

February 01, 2008 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
""What we have here is a group who don't have a comfort with LBGT [lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender] individuals. It seems to be a loosely held together group of a few individuals with personal prejudices against LBGT individuals," Trachtenberg said."

"Why is this discomfort any less valid than the discomfort trans supposedly feel going into bathrooms assigned to their birth gender?

Could it be that discomfort with GLBT is an innate characteristic?

If so, why does it deserve less protection than the discomforts of GLBT?

Why can't the government leave relations between individuals between individuals? Let everyone associate with whomever they please?"

---------
"Could it be that discomfort with GLBT is an innate characteristic?"
-
Yes, it’s called being a heterosexual, but the discomfort at issue is with GLBT individuals -- as Trachtenberg clarifies -- and NOT discomfort with the objective reality of GLBT individuals.

To argue for protection of discomfort with reality as a reason to protect your discomfort with individuals is where you cross the line into supremacy.

To argue that your supremacy should be protected is to argue that Americans like you should have the special right to deny other Americans equal rights. Which is as anti-American as it gets.

It is clear that your bathroom issue is a canard to hide this fact, in that you feel the entire issue of transgender protections revolves around using it.

February 01, 2008 3:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Wow.

Blatant misrepresentation.

True the bill no longer says bathrooms. It says facitilies.
facilites are bathrooms. too difficult for the sentinel to follow or blatant misrepresentation. I'm voting for the second.

Besides Dana has admitted on this blog that it covers bathrooms and cross-dressers are included.

I wonder wich ?"

------
By not hunting down and investigating the man in a dress who supposedly walked into the Rio Health Club women‘s locker room, whom, according to Michelle Turner could be a pedophile, the CRW has fully demonstrated that their concern has absolutely nothing do with protecting women and children. They have evidence of a potential pedophile in Montgomery County’s midst and they couldn’t care less.

It was never about that for the CRW anyway, but now we have proof.

In addition, I'd be VERY concerned about having a neighbor, who upon learning of a pedophile, thought it prudent to call the media as opposed to the police.

February 01, 2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly how would you suggest we hunt this person down ?

We have no idea who it is.

If you are interested in knowing who it is, I would suggest you call Rio. They know.

They obviously aren't going to release information about their members.

February 01, 2008 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh come on now Theresa. He's the guy you put up to commit the stunt.

I heard confession is good for the soul. Maybe you should try it.

February 01, 2008 7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"Exactly how would you suggest we hunt this person down ?"
--
By calling the police! What any "responsible citizen" would do when they are convinced someone is a threat.

February 01, 2008 8:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would be happy to take a lie detector test.

I have no idea who it was.

February 02, 2008 12:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I would be happy to take a lie detector test.

I have no idea who it was."

---
Because you don’t care who it was, because you don’t think cross dressers in the lady’s locker room are a threat to women and girls, BUT YOU SAY YOU DO.

The results are now in, you and the CRW lie when you say this bill would be an increased threat to women and girls.

Thank you for taking this lie detector test.

February 02, 2008 4:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
“I would be happy to take a lie detector test.”
--
In no particular order…
Wouldn’t that be redundant, we already know what the test results would be?

Dearest, you don’t even answer the questions we pose to you on this blog.

I’m sure you’d also be happy to blame the lie detector or the administrator of the test for any results you don‘t happen to like.

You do realize that the first control question of the test is, “is your name Theresa Rickman,” and you’re not even concerned enough to provide the simple 'honesty control' of signing your posts.
--
Running with the test theme…

This is a test of the emergency bigotry system, this is only a test…
…Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
…eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
…eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Had this been an actual emergency, you would have heard this:

“Hello, Channel Seven News? This is Theresa Rickman of Citizens for a Responsible Government, and we just found out about an imminent and unfolding threat to the safety of women and girls in Montgomery County! How fast can you get here to film the looks on our faces in light of the concrete evidence we have of this dangerously dangerous da-(click-click-errrrrr)- hello? Hello?………….“Hello, Channel Five News?….”

February 02, 2008 5:15 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Theresa,

I just love how everyone attributes statements to me that I haven't made.

Ike is correct -- the law as it is written does not change the law regarding bathroom access. Earlier drafts don't count. What is the law now regarding public accommodations will be the law on February 19th.

I never said the law included cross-dressers. One of the iterations of the bill included language to specifically exclude cross-dressers, but Theresa and Ruth made such a stink that it was decided not to be more specific but less specific. So now it says nothing, and you're unhappy.
We call that law the "law of unintended consequences." Which, by the way, is less of a scientific law than the "theory" of evolution.
Once more Susan Jamison rambles on, but her willful ignorance and hatefulness shine through. What is a "biologic male or female," Susan? Care to dive into the pool of science, or are you more comfortable in the shallow creationist wading pool? Theresa thinks she can impose an outdated religious definition of sex on the courts, but they have been moving forward globally on this issue, slowly but surely incorporating the latest scientific information into the promulgation of new laws.

This is one of the fundamental driving forces behind CRC/CRG -- fear of modernity and science and all the new ideas associated with it. I expect now we'll see some screed railing against Einstein's Theory of Gravitation (it's only a theory, dude) or maybe even quantum mechanics. Wouldn't that be fun!

February 02, 2008 10:07 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Theresa,

I just love how everyone attributes statements to me that I haven't made.

Ike is correct -- the law as it is written does not change the law regarding bathroom access. Earlier drafts don't count. What is the law now regarding public accommodations will be the law on February 19th.

I never said the law included cross-dressers. One of the iterations of the bill included language to specifically exclude cross-dressers, but Theresa and Ruth made such a stink that it was decided not to be more specific but less specific. So now it says nothing, and you're unhappy.
We call that law the "law of unintended consequences." Which, by the way, is less of a scientific law than the "theory" of evolution.
Once more Susan Jamison rambles on, but her willful ignorance and hatefulness shine through. What is a "biologic male or female," Susan? Care to dive into the pool of science, or are you more comfortable in the shallow creationist wading pool? Theresa thinks she can impose an outdated religious definition of sex on the courts, but they have been moving forward globally on this issue, slowly but surely incorporating the latest scientific information into the promulgation of new laws.

This is one of the fundamental driving forces behind CRC/CRG -- fear of modernity and science and all the new ideas associated with it. I expect now we'll see some screed railing against Einstein's Theory of Gravitation (it's only a theory, dude) or maybe even quantum mechanics. Wouldn't that be fun!

February 02, 2008 11:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
But we know CRrecall/Shower doesn't think the guy is a threat- he was some CRABCDEFG dupe in a skirt. And what "club" wouldn't turn over a member who they thought was a threat? Health clubs depend on memberships- they aren't going to protect one person when lots of people would quit if something was really wrong. However, now the whole Recall my Shower movement is going down the drain(please feel free to use that remark), no more of their members will be dressing up in skirts and going into the locker room at Rio to drum up signatures.

February 02, 2008 5:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home