Tuesday, September 16, 2008

CRW Newsletter: No Explanation for Signature-Gathering

We're wondering why the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever are still trying to collect petition signatures. Maybe there's a clue in the newsletter they sent out a couple of days ago.

At the top, a big box with a brown background says:
Maryland High Court rules that dead voters should be counted - Appeal Planned
START COLLECTING SIGNATURES AGAIN

That last sentence is in yellow. Huge fonts, all.

The "dead voter" thing again, we've seen that. In case you forgot, the Board of Elections keeps records of "active" and "inactive" voters. Inactive ones haven't voted in the last two general elections and didn't return a letter asking if they still live here. There are thousands and thousands of them. Some may be dead. Most aren't. The law says you need five percent of registered voters, which includes both active and inactive. They didn't have that. More than two hundred "dead voters" signed the CRW's petitions, which didn't seem to bother them.

We note that the headline says "Appeal planned." I hope they tell us who they're going to appeal to, since the appeals court has already ruled against them.

Then they link to a number of articles about the gender identity nondiscrimination controversy, including, oddly enough, the Washington Blade and Equality Maryland's web site, then they accuse The Gazette of "factually inaccurate reporting."

Well, whatever, what we want to know is why they were out in front of the Giant Sunday, gathering signatures for a referendum that's not going to happen.

Okay, maybe this what we're looking for. Read this and see if you can explain to me the sense of it:
Sep 13,2008
Greetings!

Last Tuesday morning, Maryland's High Court ruled in favor of Equality MD, finding that the Board of Elections should have included inactive voters when tabulating how many signatures were needed for the referendum. Thus, months after the signature deadline MCRG was given in November, the Court decided that approximately 2500 more signatures should have been collected. The original target was 25,001 signatures. The new target the Court handed down would be approximately 27, 600. The board originally certified 26,892 signatures. The delta is about 800. So ladies and gentlemen, go get them !

Start collecting again
sign petitions Go get more !
If you didn't get a chance to sign the petition, now's your chance. We will announcing collection locations tomorrow, but if you haven't walked your street or brought the petitions to the football or soccer game, do so ! Download the PETITIONS and get started folks. We are trying to do this very quickly.

It sounds like they think they just need more signatures and they can still get the referendum on the November ballot. But the deadline for submitting petitions is long past, the Court of Appeals has said there won't be a referendum, the law has gone into effect already, the election is in something like six weeks.

I'm looking down the page ... here's this ...
Watch out for FINES
FINES
Be careful what you say !

Washington DC's gender identity law punishes users of the "wrong pronoun" with a fine - if you refer to man in women's clothing as a he, DC's Human Rights Commission can levy a substantial fine. Montgomery County's gender identity law goes further.

According to the Maryland based Gordon Feinblatt,"The ordinance provides for significant liability if employers or places of public accommodations engage in discriminatory conduct. For example, an individual who prevails on a claim can recover up to $500,000 in damages for humiliation and embarrassment, in addition to damages for any economic harm which was suffered and the attorneys' fees which have been incurred."

First, it doesn't matter what Washington DC's law says. Our law doesn't say anything about pronouns.

Let me comment on the "wrong pronoun" thing. Some transgender people are very comfortable and convincing in their current identity, some are less so. Sometimes when you're talking about a transgender person, if you're human and speak the English language fluently you might say "he" instead of "she" or vice versa. I don't know how transgender people feel about this, but it's a fact that our language bifurcates by gender, and sometimes you'll make a mistake, I'd figure it's something they learn to put up with. It's a subtle thing, sometimes you get talking fast and the wrong word slips out.

On the other hand, we have witnessed at least one occasion where Ruth Jacobs, one of CRW's leaders, intentionally referred to a transgender woman, a friend of ours, as "he." They go out of their way to do this sometimes, to insult the person, it's like in the CRW's affidavit to the appeals court where they said someone "claimed to be transgender," when the person has changed their gender by any measure you can think of, social, medical, or legal. This is rude and reveals the CRW's true feelings, which is just to express negative attitudes about a group of people they are prejudiced against

They link to a Baltimore lawyer's web site, but he doesn't say anything about pronouns. Anyway, nobody's going to pay a half-million dollar fine for saying "he" instead of "she," that's just dumb.

I think something is obvious here. Those people in the parking lot are not collecting signatures for a referendum. The highest court in the state has said there will be no referendum. They're out there to scare people, to make people shopping at Giant associate transgender citizens with sexual predators and pedophiles. They stop you and talk to you and tell you how dangerous this new law is, when all it does is to prohibit discrimination. They tell you that you can sign to have a referendum, but that isn't going to happen, this is just an excuse to stand out in public and say ugly things about people based on their gender identity. Let's see how long Giant continues to allow their property to be used to promote bigotry.

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, they were notified last week that the court has ruled them short of signatures.

Before then it was up in the air.

They now have ten days from the ruling to get the extra 800 signatures and submit them to the BOE.

It's a done deal.

The ref goes forward.

Justice prevails.

"Let's see how long Giant continues to allow their property to be used to promote bigotry."

Yes, let's see.

You could boycott them.

That should scare the heck outta 'em.

Maybe you could have a member of a councilman's staff call the stores and try to intimidate them into suppressing any freedom of speech on their property.

It's worth a try!

September 16, 2008 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, Wyatt, Wyatt. I know you're an accountant; you might want to get some advice from a lawyer other than Johnnie.

Just a bit of friendly advice from someone who "claims to be transgender."

September 16, 2008 12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The highest court in the state has said there will be no referendum."

Based on the previous case.

If the Board recertifies the new signatures based on 10 day notice, that becomes a new case.

Strange but true.

September 16, 2008 12:53 PM  
Blogger Tish said...

One transgender person I know is working as a technician with a company in Howard County. She was hired there after she transitioned. When she started the job, people weren't quite sure how to react to her. She is a little shy but she is friendly and she is very experienced in her profession. Her co-workers quickly came to like her. She started informally mentoring the younger technicians, helping them along by working with them on the more challenging tasks so that they could grow their on-the-job knowledge more quickly. She asked the manager to institute a formal mentoring program, and the suggestion is being reviewed by the company owners. Her willingness to share her experience with others has made her a valued member of the company.

About a month ago the manager who hired her left the company. The new manager learned that she is a transgender person. Since that time the new manager has used only male pronouns in referring to her, and makes a point of doing so loudly where she can hear. The new manager took her aside and told her that she is not to interact with any clients unless she is in uniform. Now that's something she wouldn't choose to do anyway, but she alone was singled out for this advice. It would be perfectly acceptable for the company to require all technicians to interact with clients only when in uniform, but this new rule seems to apply only to her. If a client saw her leaving work after she had clocked out and was leaving the locker room in her street clothes, and if the client asked her a question, she would have to chose between being impolite to a client and risking her job by "interacting" out of uniform.

We don't know how far this will go. My friend will stay put and try to stick it out, but she was harassed out of the job she had while she was transitioning. It appears that right now her years of experience in her field, her excellent work ethic, her contributions to the company and her value to her co-workers all together mean less than her status as a transgender person.

What is happening to my friend in Howard County is typical of what happens to transgender people in all kinds of jobs: little discourtesies grow into special rules, disrespectful behavior goes unchecked. If this happened in Montgomery County, there would be an easy best possible solution: my friend could go to the human resources department and explain the problem. The HR department would counsel the new manager and explain that the work histories of workers is more important than their medical histories. The manager would be told that the company does not discriminate against its employees. If the verbal harassment and unwarranted new rules stopped, my friend would put it behind her and it would be all over.

I am sure our troll will come out from under his bridge and tell us that this real example is an example of no problem. It's a problem he doesn't have to deal with. No one is going out of his or her way to make the troll fear that his job will be pulled out from under him. When the people you work try to drive you out of work it is a big deal. When Duchy sponsored this bill she knew what she was doing.

September 16, 2008 1:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim, they were notified last week that the court has ruled them short of signatures.

They were notified they were short on signatures in Judge Greenberg's decision on July 24, 2008, when he wrote: "...it is inescapable that five percent of the registered voters in Montgomery County on November 21, 2007, was not 25.001; it was 27,615. Plainly, MCRG did not gather enough signatures to meet the five percent threshold.

A bit later in his decision, Judge Greenberg arbitrarily and wrongly said Doe had to file papers on the issue of the petitions on or before February 20, 2008, even though there was no decision rendered on February 10. 2008, that might have triggered a 10 day filing period. The Court of Appeals corrected that error on Judge Greenberg's part and said the 10 day period began when the BOE ruled the final set of petitions met the threshold, which was March 6, 2008. Doe had until March 16 to file their complaint. Doe filed their complaint on March 14. At best, MCRG should have filed additional petitions within 10 days of Judge Greenberg's decision, but they failed to do so.

Nobody gets a second bite on the apple.

September 16, 2008 3:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
Ballot language had to be certified by last week so there is nothing going on the ballot in November about this poc.

September 16, 2008 3:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" said: "They now have ten days from the ruling to get the extra 800 signatures and submit them to the BOE.
The ref goes forward
If the Board recertifies the new signatures based on 10 day notice, that becomes a new case."
Please cite your source for this information. Also give the names of any individuals who gave this information to you. It is, after all, public information (sic) - so you can't say something inane like "I can't tell you that right now."

September 16, 2008 3:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" - What part of the Court of Appeals decision don't you understand?:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
No. 61
September Term, 2008
JANE DOE, et al. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
Bell, C.J.
Harrell
Battaglia
Greene
Murphy
Adkins
Barbera,
JJ.
PER CURIAM ORDER
Filed: September 9, 2008

PER CURIAM ORDER
For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it is this 9th day of September, 2008, ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring, that the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County be, and it is hereby, reversed, and the matter remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Appellants. Costs to be paid by the Appellee. Mandate to issue forthwith.

/s/ Robert M. Bell
Chief Judge


Is it the statement: "the judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County be, and it is hereby, reversed..." or is it: "the matter remanded to the circuit court with directions to enter judgment in favor of Appellants. Costs to be paid by the Appellee."
In case you have forgotten, CRG was not the Appellants. When do you intend to pay for the costs of this case?
Just wonderin'

September 16, 2008 4:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At best, MCRG should have filed additional petitions within 10 days of Judge Greenberg's decision,"

No, at that time CRG had good reason to believe it was all academic.

They get 10 days from the time the government made clear they needed more signature.

You may think this is uncharted waters but you're in for a surprise.

"Ballot language had to be certified by last week so there is nothing going on the ballot in November about this poc."

Hahahaha!

Thanks, dreary.

I needed a good laugh!

"Please cite your source for this information. Also give the names of any individuals who gave this information to you."

Helping lunatics get a jump start on building their legal case is not part of the game.

"What part of the Court of Appeals decision don't you understand?"

This is a completely new case with a different batch of signatures. EM can challenge them but the whole thing is new.

September 16, 2008 5:29 PM  
Blogger Zoe Brain said...

How do you know it's only 800?

The case was remanded to the circuit court with instructions that judgement be entered for the appellants. But no reasons were given.

Until the appeals court gives reasons - say that the whole process was so fatally flawed that none of the previous signatures should be deemed valid - you don't know.

I agree it's worth a try. IANAL.

September 16, 2008 9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, ok. I'll play.

Maybe the showerheads know something nobody else knows, and the referendum question will - somehow - appear on the ballot in November after all.

I've got the best campaign ad ever! You're really going to love it. But you won't get any details about it until the appropriate time, anon - so don't ask!

September 16, 2008 9:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"IANAL"

What's this, Zoe?

September 16, 2008 10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"At best, MCRG should have filed additional petitions within 10 days of Judge Greenberg's decision,"

No, at that time CRG had good reason to believe it was all academic.


Oh that'll be a great argument before the Supremes, "we had reason to believe it was all academic so we sat on our butts and didn't file anything within 10 days of that ruling as required by Maryland State law."

IANAL

ROFL, Zoe

September 17, 2008 7:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's not going to the Supremes, bea.

The BOE will certify upon receiving the signatures that the government last week told CRG it needed.

It's simple. Follow along.

September 17, 2008 7:49 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

The "government" has never told you how many signatures you needed. One woman at the BoE did, and, foolishly, you trusted her. And then we trusted that the number was correct. Nevertheless, it didn't stop you from collecting as many signatures as you could, so it's a moot point. In addition, no one has ever determined exactly what the number of registered voters was on November 21st. Sloppy work.

Unfortunately for you, the "government" has now obligation to get it right, and, as a result, neither you nor anyone else has a case against the "government" for getting it wrong.

The Court didn't do anything last week except pull the referendum off the ballot. We have no idea why, and won't know for months. Right now it's speculation.

I wonder what those who are following this from afar make of your delusional behavior. Oh, right, you're the same group that thinks in the midst of the worst financial meltdown in 80 years that John McCain and Sarah Palin, acknowledged as incompetent by their economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, would handle matters just fine.

September 17, 2008 8:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The "government" has never told you how many signatures you needed."

Yes, the government in the form of the BOE did. And then the government in the form of the court changed the number.

That started the ten days.

"The Court didn't do anything last week except pull the referendum off the ballot."

Oh, so you think the ten days hasn't even started yet.

"We have no idea why, and won't know for months. Right now it's speculation."

Well, if that turns out to be right then they'll be a case for having the bill struck down by the court without a referendum.

Then you and Duchy could get it passed again and with the education you received, put reasonable exemptions in so we don't have a deja vu.

"I wonder what those who are following this from afar make of your delusional behavior. Oh, right, you're the same group that thinks in the midst of the worst financial meltdown in 80 years that John McCain and Sarah Palin, acknowledged as incompetent by their economic advisor, Carly Fiorina, would handle matters just fine."

In the particular crisis at hand, you think the junior Senator from would not be in a tizzy? Based on what evidence? McCain would clearly be better equipped than Obama.

As far as overall economic policy, McCain's proposals would create and sustain growth and strengthen the dollar. Obama's would do the opposite.

September 17, 2008 9:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous"
When I was teaching 9th grade Civics we studied propaganda techniques. "Sweeping or glittering generalities" was always the easiest to illustrate. You are the master user of "sweeping or glittering generalities" in ALL of your Troll posts (too numerous to cite here, but readers know exactly what is being referred to.)
You avered that "As far as overall economic policy, McCain's proposals would create and sustain growth and strengthen the dollar. Obama's would do the opposite."

"Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all." (from:http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html)

This technique describes the entirety of the substance and content of the McCain campaign...say nothing, say more of it, and then repeat it. Perhaps our beloved "Anonymous" is, in reality, a fantasy speech writer for the McCain campaign?
RT

September 17, 2008 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come on, RT.

I've been specific in this post about which policies of McCain would "create and sustain growth and strengthen the dollar".

To repeat:

McCain would reduce marginal tax rates. Economists worldwide agree that high marginal rates suppress economic growth. Obama wants to increase them.

Indeed, Obama, is very historically lonely in his suggestion that a recession can be cured by raising taxes.

It's never happened.

Furthermore, Obama wants to repeal NAFTA, an agreement that has lead to high growth in the U.S, Canada and Mexico since enacted. McCain favors fair trade.

Finally, the biggest source of our trade deficit is the large amount of oil we import and, yet, Obama opposes tapping the vast stores of oil we have offshore. The amount is conservatively estimated by geologists to be enough to replace all the oil we import for 25 years.

That would strengthen the dollar greatly.

Do I have to spell out all details in every statement I make, as if no conversation had previously happened or otherwise it's "propaganda"?

This, btw:

"Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason."

applies to virtually everything said by TTFers here.

September 17, 2008 11:22 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Wyatt, you really need to get an education and learn a little something about the government.

You cannot successfully sue the Board of Elections for giving you the wrong information, even if it were relevant, which it isn't.

You can't sue the judiciary either; all you can do is appeal, and you've gone as far as you can go.

What you can do is get some goose-stepping Republicans like Owens-Williams to run for Council in 2010! Enjoy.

Where you should be expending your energy is getting your people to behave politely to all their neighbors so they don't run into any uncomfortable situations. It's amazing how much you can accomplish by treating others with respect.

September 17, 2008 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Jim that CRG's purpose is to increase fear of and prejudice against trans citizens. To verify that, all you have to do is look at their websites. Anonymous' ridiculous comments here about 800 signatures is simply a cover.

As for McCain, there's an article in today's Post about his leading the efforts for deregulation of the financial markets, which has resulted in the burgeoning economic meltdown; now he's babbles something about "changing the way Washington works." Republican policies are to blame for the crisis in the markets.

September 17, 2008 12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You cannot successfully sue the Board of Elections for giving you the wrong information, even if it were relevant, which it isn't.

You can't sue the judiciary either; all you can do is appeal, and you've gone as far as you can go."

I don't think anyone has suggested suing either the BOE or the judiciary.

That won't be necessary.

Don't let your imagination get the best of you.

"What you can do is get some goose-stepping Republicans like Owens-Williams to run for Council in 2010! Enjoy."

Again, the low road of comparing your opponents to Nazis. Insults the memory of those who actually suffered under the Nazis.

"Where you should be expending your energy is getting your people to behave politely to all their neighbors so they don't run into any uncomfortable situations. It's amazing how much you can accomplish by treating others with respect."

Well, CRG aren't "my people" but the interesting thing is that all of you always remark how wonderfully civil they are when you encounter them. When did they fail to treat you with "respect"?

"I agree with Jim that CRG's purpose is to increase fear of and prejudice against trans citizens."

I doubt anyone's afraid of transgenders. There is a bias in society against androgyny though. CRG wouldn't need to get petitions to create something that already exists.

"Republican policies are to blame for the crisis in the markets."

I'm glad we have an expert among us.

Can you explain how these policies are to blame?

Someone here is complaining that the type of generality you just made is, well, propaganda.

It's a little hard to disagree.

September 17, 2008 1:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wyatt or whatever,

Do you really have such a short attention span? There is an example of such rudeness cited in this very post. Perhaps you should read it again, and then spend some quality time with Miss Manners.

As for fear, it was and continues to be the only emotion to which you and your friends are appealing, to wit: "Sign our petition or a scary monster will get you!"

I know it's hard to give up when you've put so much into this emotionally, and that's why you're lashing out. But at some point you are going to have to rejoin the world. When you are ready to do so, maybe you can gather a few of your friends and take Dr. Beyer up on her offer.

September 17, 2008 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"When you are ready to do so, maybe you can gather a few of your friends and take Dr. Beyer up on her offer."

Will you throw in a ride on the pedicab with Duchy?

September 17, 2008 2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the government in the form of the BOE did. And then the government in the form of the court changed the number.

July 11, Karpinski finally fessed up in court before Judge Greenberg that there were approximately 52,000 inactive but registered voters in Montgomery County who were not included in the BOE's number of "registered voters" to calculate the 5% figure given to the showernuts last year. That's why in his July 24, 2008, decision Judge Greenberg publicly announced it is inescapable that five percent of the registered voters in Montgomery County on November 21, 2007, was not 25.001; it was 27,615. Plainly, MCRG did not gather enough signatures to meet the five percent threshold

Best case, you showernuts had 10 days from July 24, 2008. Worst case, you had 10 days from November 21, 2007. Continue to ignore these inconvenient truths all you want, we already know how facts you don't like simply cease to exist for you.

"What you can do is get some goose-stepping Republicans like Owens-Williams to run for Council in 2010! Enjoy."

Again, the low road of comparing your opponents to Nazis. Insults the memory of those who actually suffered under the Nazis.


Got a memory problem AH? Adol Owens-Williams is the local GOP hate-activist who gave Duchy the Nazi salute in front of the entire County Council in a public meeting last November.

If it salutes and insults like a Nazi, what do you call it, a GOP friend?

Adol Owens-Williams ran for Montgomery County Council in 2006, but he gave up the campaign for Steve Abrams, who by the way shortly thereafter left the GOP, like hundreds of thousands of other former GOP supporters.

NYTimes reports:

In several states, including the traditional battlegrounds of Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004. No states have switched to the Republicans over the same period, according to data from 26 of the 29 states in which voters register by party. (Three of the states did not have complete data.)

In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined. In only three states — Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma — did Republican registration rise while Democratic registration fell, but the Republican increase was less than a percentage point in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Louisiana was the only state to register a gain of more than one percentage point for Republicans as Democratic numbers declined.

September 17, 2008 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Again, the low road of comparing your opponents to Nazis. Insults the memory of those who actually suffered under the Nazis.

Tell that to your co-hater, Adol. Here's a refresher for you, AH.

Council bans transgender bias; opponents plan to lobby for veto
by Janel Davis and C. Benjamin Ford | Staff Writers
Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007

The County Council approved a controversial anti-discrimination provision broadening the county’s human rights laws to include transgender people in an 8-0 vote Tuesday.

Gone from the legislation is a provision banning discrimination against transgender individuals in public bathrooms and locker rooms.
The vote ended more than a month of heated and emotional protests over the legislation. The bill leaves it up to managers of public facilities to decide who is accommodated in restrooms and locker rooms. The bill next goes to County Executive Isiah Leggett (D), who is expected to sign the legislation, and would take effect 90 days later. The county’s Commission on Human Rights could order violators to pay damages.

The vote took just a few minutes, after an opening statement by Councilman Roger Berliner (D-Dist. 1) of Potomac, who was filling in for Councilman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park, who was absent Tuesday following a car accident more than a week ago. No additional council comments were made before the vote, and most council members quickly left the room afterwards.

Nevertheless, several members of a packed audience yelled criticisms after council members.

‘‘Heil Hitler!” Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted immediately after the vote from his third-row seat in the council chamber ‘‘Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature.”

Angry shouts from other protesters followed the council out of the room.

As approved, the bill would prohibit discrimination against transgenders in housing, employment, cable television service and taxi service.

After aggressive lobbying efforts, e-mail and letter campaigns and radio segments from critics, a council health committee, headed by Leventhal, removed the restrooms and locker rooms provision from the legislation late last week. But critics said the change does little to protect women and children.

They say the new law means women and girls would be exposed to male genitalia either from transgender people who had not yet undergone a sex change operation or from men who would claim to be transgender in order to gain access to locker rooms and restrooms from which they would normally be prohibited.

Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg, who sponsored the bill, said the legislation is similar to laws in about 100 other communities where there have been no incidents such as the ones the critics say could occur.

‘‘It’s hyperbolic hypothetic rhetoric,” Trachtenberg (D-At large) of North Bethesda said.

‘‘If a daughter comes out and tells her father that a man is in there exposing himself, somebody could end up getting hurt,” said Michelle Turner, spokeswoman for Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum, which also protested the county schools sex-education curriculum. ‘‘He’s liable to go in there fists swinging.”

But protesters disagreed over who should be allowed in restrooms and locker rooms. Turner said CRC is opposed to discrimination of transgender people and those who have undergone surgery should be allowed to use the restrooms and locker rooms appropriate to their anatomy.

Other protesters said transgender people should either use a restroom appropriate to their original gender or find a private bathroom.

‘‘There are places that have family restrooms where they can be locked [for privacy] when in use,” said Sue White, 48, of Darnestown. ‘‘Perhaps they could use those.”

Rosemarie Briggs, 38, of North Potomac, executive director of the Family Leader Network, said the language of the bill is too open, meaning people could use any restroom they wanted.

Trachtenberg said the debate over the restrooms reminded her of similar complaints she heard in the 1970s over the Equal Rights Amendment.

‘‘They were saying then if it passed, women would have to use the men’s room,” she said.

Before the vote on Tuesday, CRC and other opponents of the legislation held a protest outside the council building, a demonstration that drew about 15 people, and nearly as many reporters and photographers.

When one transgender woman, Gennifer Edwards, 51, showed up, protesters complained when reporters began interviewing her. They stood behind her with their signs and shouted.

Edwards said a law protecting transgender people is needed. ‘‘You don’t know discrimination until you’ve been spit on in a public street,” she said.

Edwards said she could not imagine that any person undergoing a transition in gender would use a public restroom or locker room until after the change was complete.

Following the vote, the protesters vowed to press Leggett to veto the bill.

September 17, 2008 4:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have a point, Bea

anything?

September 17, 2008 4:58 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

I'm sure I can arrange a pedi-cab for you, Wyatt.

September 17, 2008 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you have a point, Bea

anything?


Yes AH, I do have a point.

When Dana mentioned "goose-stepping Republicans like Owens-Williams," you said

Again, the low road of comparing your opponents to Nazis. Insults the memory of those who actually suffered under the Nazis.

My point is that the side that first brought Nazis into the discussions of Bill 23-07 and "insult[ed] the memory of those who actually suffered under the Nazis" was the showernuts. I republished the Gazette article, which documented that fact.

September 18, 2008 8:27 AM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

A comparison between Obama's and McCain's tax plans.

If you're not wealthy and vote Republican because of taxes, you're confused.

September 19, 2008 4:46 PM  
Blogger Lisa Harney said...

"confused" is my dog whistle for being "more polite than I'd prefer."

September 19, 2008 4:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home