Thursday, July 24, 2008

CRW Not Happy With Wording

You could've seen this one coming. Turns out the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever don't like the referendum wording that will appear on the ballot in November, if there is a referendum.

Kathleen Miller at The Examiner has the story this time around:
Leaders of a group seeking to overturn a new Montgomery County law that bars discrimination against transgender people object to how local leaders worded a ballot referendum that could overturn the rule.

The referendum's wording, as approved by Montgomery County Council members Tuesday, mimics the language of the law itself, saying: “Shall the Act to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations, cable television service and taxicab service on the basis of gender identity become law?”

Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for the social conservative group that spearheaded petition signature collection to allow the public to vote on the law, said the ballot measure's language focuses too much on the discrimination angle, and should center more on personal privacy.

Her group, Citizens for a Responsible Government, has told people the law would allow men to enter women's restrooms. The group is an offshoot of the socially conservative Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum that unsuccessfully tried to bar Montgomery public schools from teaching students that homosexuality is a biological trait. Conservative group objects to wording of referendum on transgender law

Oh my. Where'd they get that? There was nothing and is nothing in the sex-ed curriculum that says "homosexuality is a biological trait." Sounds like the reporter let the person she was interviewing define the frame for her.

Oh well, it doesn't matter, that battle's behind us. And I should note that The Examiner has erred consistently, let's say, in the conservative direction regarding the sex-ed controversy. I hope they're going to pay a little better attention to the nondiscrimination referendum.

So the CRW thinks the referendum should talk about "personal privacy" and not discrimination. Wouldn't that be something! The fact is, the law is about discrimination. There is no "personal privacy" aspect to it at all, nobody's "personal privacy" will be affected. They'd like you to think that's what it's about, but they're just making that whole thing up. It is a classic red herring.
County leaders say the law would not change current restroom protocol and changed the measure to exclude “distinctly private and personal” settings after initial protests from the group.

“They make it sound like we are trying to deny these individuals basic everyday rights,” Turner said. “All we are asking is that the citizens of Montgomery County, primarily women and children, be afforded privacy in bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, etc. We are not advocating that anybody be denied a taxicab.”

I should point out that CRW members frequently say that we're exaggerating the importance they place on the "locker-room" aspect of this law. It's not all about locker-rooms, they say, liberals like Teach the Facts just make it sound like that's what we say.

No, in fact, that's what they say. Their web site is notmyshower-dot-net, it isn't keepdiscriminationlegal dot net.

Hold the presses. This just in. We have just reeived a copy of the CRW's proposed wording for the referendum on the ballot: Do you believe that deviants and sodomites and sissy-men in dresses should be allowed to wave their festering penises at our womenfolk and children anytime they want to, and there's nothin' the rest of us normal people can do about it? Huh? Do you? If you do, vote Yes. If you are a decent God-fearing American, vote No.

Let me state the obvious: they need for the issue to be locker-rooms because the people of Montgomery County will never vote to support discrimination on the basis of gender identity. We're not that kind of county. Keeping perverted men out of the ladies room, maybe you could people to vote for that. But that's not what this law is about. The referendum wording may be a little hard to understand, but it does reflect the actual content of the bill in question, and not some fairy-tale the shower-nuts want you to believe about pedophiles and predators in the ladies room.
Mary Anne Arnow, a transgender woman and employee of gay rights group Equality Maryland, said she is not surprised to hear Turner's group has a problem with the referendum's language.

“The fact is the people who are the most conservatively opposed are always going to take issue with anything that validates the public existence or presence of transgender individuals, regardless of political or legislative precedent,” Arnow said, adding that Montgomery followed 13 states, the District, Baltimore City and 90 other local jurisdictions in approving protections for transgender people.

Both sides of the measure are sitting tight right now waiting for Circuit Court Judge Robert Greenberg to decide whether the November ballot referendum can legally proceed. Gay rights groups argue that the county's Board of Elections improperly calculated the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the November ballot, relying on a percentage of the total number of active voters, rather than registered voters.

I'll have word on that ruling in just a minute.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regina Riggs has also been caught lying about scientific evidence regarding Gay-Straight Alliances. As many of you know, I am the sponsor of my Gay-Straight Alliance at my school and we have been harassed by PFOX on a number of occasions.

I posed this on the last blog but here it is again...just adding to PFOX's plethora of lies:

A scientist has accused Parents and Friends of ExGays and Gays (PFOX) of distorting his research by claiming that high school gay-straight alliances increase risk of suicide for teens.

PFOX President Regina Griggs said that “the risk of suicide decreases by 20% each year that a person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling,” and criticized schools for affirming teens who self-labeled.

However, Dr Gary Remafedi, a pediatrician at the University of Minnesota, whose research Griggs cited, told Wayne Besen that the claims did not line up with his study:

My work has been cited by PFOX in response to a Washington Post article on gay-straight alliances (GSA). … PFOX misuses one of my studies on suicide attempts in gay youth to argue that people should not identify their sexual orientation at young ages. Our findings do not support the contention that young people choose their identity or the timing of events in identity formation. Nor is there any evidence that the availability of GSAs influences those developmental processes.

Misrepresenting scholarship in order to cast suspicion on LGBT persons is nothing new to anti-gay groups. In 2006, University of BC professor Elizabeth Saewyc accused James Dobson’s Focus on the Family of twisting her findings to claim that embracing lesbianism led to suicide. Dr Robert Spitzer has made the same complaint towards FotF. Robert Hogg is another researcher whose studies have been manipulated by the Religious Right to give credence to myths about the “gay lifestyle.”

Truth Wins Out has been keeping an archive of Focus on the Family’s unscholarly distortions, including statements from scholars whose own work has been misrepresented by James Dobson et al, at


July 24, 2008 2:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"on the basis of gender identity"

This wording is incorrect. The bill, 23-07, refers to "expressed gender" not "gender identity".

The two concepts aren't the same and that "expressed gender" phrase isn't used by "13 states, the District, Baltimore City and 90 other local jurisdictions".

"the people of Montgomery County will never vote to support discrimination on the basis of gender identity. We're not that kind of county."

Jim's a liar. The idea that not supporting 23-07 is the equivalent of supporting discrimination on the basis of gender identity is a bunch of crap. For one thing, the proposed bill adresses expressed gender not gender identity. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't want something to be illegal doesn't mean they support it. To say so is to take the position unless something is illegal, you must support it.

Oh, and btw, discrimination based on gender identity is legal now so we must be that kind of county.

July 24, 2008 2:44 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I didn't lie about anything, that is about the lowest road you could have taken, not that we're surprised. The law inserts the phrase "gender identity" into the usual list of race, religion, etc. in the existing nondiscrimination law. That's all it is, a nondiscrimination law, and to oppose it is to support the right to discriminate. The logic there is simple, straightforward, and valid.


July 24, 2008 3:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, you lied. You said:

"Montgomery County will never vote to support discrimination"

and now you say:

"That's all it is, a nondiscrimination law, and to oppose it is to support the right to discriminate"

Opposition to 23-07 is support for the right to discriminate but not support for discrimination.

It's not the first thing you've lied about here and it's not helping your cause.

The judge wasn't impressed!

July 24, 2008 3:32 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Red Baron, no one's more dishonest than you. If you didn't want to discriminate against trans people you wouldn't be opposing this law. You couldn't be more transparent.

July 24, 2008 3:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, let me get this straight. Because in one place I said "discriminate" and in another place I said "the right to discriminate," I'm a liar?

The bill makes discrimination illegal. Those opposing it want to make discrimination legal. If this is the worst lie you can catch me in, I'm doing pretty good!

Also, Anon, saying "the judge wasn't impressed..." The judge doesn't know who I am, I'm not part of any of this. The judge ruled, that's his job. In fact he said he was impressed with the quality of the legal arguments. There is a black hole in the law, a 10-day deadline but no way to know when the ten days start. I disagree with his opinion, but he's a judge, that's what they do.


July 24, 2008 4:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

testy, testy

if the judge wanted to rule in TTF's favor, he could have made use of other black holes in the law

he ruled as he did because the benefit of the doubt goes to democracy

on the lying front, perhaps you don't understand the vast difference between supporting discrimination against transgenders and supporting the legalization of discrimination but that's because you have a common liberal misunderstanding about the appropriate role of government

maybe you didn't lie consciously

heck, pro-family forces can afford to be magnanimous on this celebratory night

you coming down to the Memorial?

party starts at midnight!

dress is gender appropriate

July 24, 2008 9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

party starts at midnight!


July 24, 2008 9:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home