Monday, September 29, 2008

Dana On TV

Dana Beyer went on Chris Core's show this last weekend to rebut some of the things that shower-nut Michelle Turner had said on the show the week before. In case you don't know Dana, she is a retired surgeon and current County Council staffer who has run for office in our county and remains active in politics. She is also a transgender woman and a nationally known spokesperson on gender identity topics.

I don't know the whole story, but it sounds like after Michelle's interview Dana sent a letter to Chris Core. He read it at the start of the segment, and then asked Dana some questions and the two of them discussed the issues. Core kind of tried to defend the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever (he was their earliest supporter, back when they were the Citizens for a Responsible Something Else fighting the school district over sex ed), and actually did a fair job of presenting Dana with the other side's arguments, allowing her to refute a number of statements that are often made and rarely challenged.

I loved the part where Core thought he had her with the XY chromosome thing -- you do not want to argue with Dana Beyer about the medical and physiological aspects of sex and gender identity! I don't know if DC50 archives old interviews, but for now you can see the whole thing HERE. There is a box with interviews you can watch, find "Dr. Dana Beyer" -- it's only a few minutes.

The real problem here is ignorance, and the cure is knowledge. Thanks go out to Dana for providing that.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great job Dana!

Thank you,


September 29, 2008 9:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, Dana made a good presentation of her views. As far as the chromosome issue goes, regardless of whether you agree or not, we must remember that Dana is suggesting we change our definitions.

And, no, Jim, it's not a matter of ignorance and knowledge.

BTW, Dana, I saw that Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel were on the show that day too. Did you run into them?

September 29, 2008 10:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm hoping someone with the smarts and the ability to write cogently, intelligently, and experientially (and that would be any one of the 10 or 12 TTF respondants on this blog site) will respond to yesterday's (9/28) Post: Outlook - Close to Home screed by Robert Nelson, "Montgomery's Faulty 'Gender Bias' Bill" (he sounds an awful lot like our infamous "Anonymous" - same vocabulary, same syntax, same distortions of fact, etc.)
One wonders why there was any necessity to take up space in the Post to lament and whine over a battle lost! And, btw, it is now a LAW, not a Bill!

September 29, 2008 10:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"One wonders why there was any necessity to take up space in the Post"

The totalitarian impulse among gay advocates is remarkable. Not content to have achieved passage and enactment of this law, they think any mention of opposition to the bill should be eradicated and forbidden from every obelisk, pylon and tablet in the kingdom.

Scary bunch of lunatics.

September 29, 2008 11:16 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Yes, I did have the pleasure of meeting both Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel. I offered to discuss the financial crisis with Chris but he preferred the topic at hand.

Btw, I'm not changing any definitions. My definitions are, and always have been, scientific. The cultural default definition has been genitalia, but we're advancing past that, and, as I've pointed out, it doesn't always work -- so you need to have a system in place to rectify those situations.

As for chromosomes, that's never been an accepted exclusive definition of sex. Various institutions, such as the International Olympic Committee, have tried in the past, but run into a wall of reality.

Courts, such as this Judge Robertson's federal district court, a Florida judge, and the European and Australian High Courts, have all ruled that gender identity is a component of sex and the determining one. That's called progress. You can't argue with the science; you can only debate how that science be applied to law.

As for Mr. Nelson, he has every right to write what he wants, and The Post can publish what it pleases. I will respond.

My offer to Mr. Nelson and the other CRG leaders is still on the table -- I am happy to meet with them any time.

September 29, 2008 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, poor poopsie, "Anonymous": Just as you have the right to post something in the newspaper so I have the right to disagree with your opinions. Because I do so does not support your lament that:
"The totalitarian impulse among gay advocates is remarkable." That's hyperbole of the worst kind.
And your argument that: "any mention of opposition to the bill should be eradicated and forbidden from every obelisk, pylon and tablet in the kingdom." is so romantic, so Monty Python!
Anyway, suck it up and try to obey the law.

September 29, 2008 2:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, you weren't just suggesting that someone write a counter letter. You were acting like the Post should never have printed it in the first place.

September 29, 2008 3:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" (or would you prefer that I address you as Mr. Nelson?)...I wasn't questioning your right to say what you have to say but rather stating a judgment of the Post's decision to print an editorial that is about 6 or 7 months too late. What is the purpose of rehashing this issue when it is over and done with? The law is in effect.
We have had lots of cryptic hints here about how CRG has found a way to negate the Maryland Court of Appeals decision concerning the referendum question. I'm pretty sure that writing an editorial for the Post about how aggreived you are about the "bill" will result in doing that.

September 29, 2008 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corection to above: "I'm pretty sure that writing an editorial for the Post about how aggreived you are about the "bill" will NOT result in doing that."

September 29, 2008 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The county did extensive research on similar but quite different gender identity and gender expression bills from communities across the country, but the County Council needed to look no further than the city of Baltimore, the only other jurisdiction in Maryland with such a "gender identity" law.

Baltimore's definition of discrimination includes five exemptions that would have protected Montgomery County residents, but the County Council chose not to include them in its bill."


Do you have any disagreement with this portion of Mr Nelson's letter?

September 29, 2008 8:53 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...


Every jurisdiction has its own code. For the states it's called "federalism," and it drops down to the county, township, city, town . . levels as well. That MoCo regulations don't look exactly like Baltimore's or anyone else's is to be expected.

Check out the Baltimore City Code 1-1-f for those 5 exemptions for all classes of discrimination.

It refers to:

a) religious institutions devoting their own facilities to members of their own religion

b) physical or mental disabilities making an employee unsuited for the job

c) school sex segregation

d) special ed programs

e) “any person to provide separate toilet facilities for males and females.”

My response:
1)CRG never said it wanted these five exemptions, so Nelson’s throwing out “five exemptions” is specious.
2)CRG never offered to come in and talk about these issues; they only issued demands.
3)The County Code does not include exemptions for any category, so adding exemptions just for gender identity would be wrong and grossly unfair and discriminatory
4)There’s nothing in the above exemptions that would have satisfied the core beliefs of CRG, that transwomen are predators and pedophiles.
5)(b) could be a loophole used by any religious extremist calling any trans person unsuited for any job. Judge Robertson just made it clear that’s illegal under Title VII.
6)All (e) provides is to allow separate male and female bathrooms. No one has an argument about that. This was to eliminate the old “unisex Bathroom” canard used as a club to beat down the ERA.

I would like to hear from Mr. Nelson exactly what he meant by "trampling the privacy, security and religious liberties" of MoCo residents. No talking points, no generalities, no "lifelines." Specifics, please.

September 29, 2008 10:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for the response, Dana.

I was actually just wondering if you had researched and considered the laws of other jurisdictions and consciously rejected them.

September 29, 2008 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll take a Dana interview over a Palin interview any day.

Interestingly, even Palin knew "inaction is not an option" about the Wall Street/Main Street bail out. Too bad those "maverick" GOP House members didn't listen to her.

September 30, 2008 8:32 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Not only had I (we) considered Baltimore's, but we considered DC, Boulder, Boston, Portland, and a half dozen others. If you had read the packet, which was available online, you would have discovered this. It's what we call "doing our jobs."

And we didn't "consciously reject them," as you say, we were informed by them, even contacted those cities to ask how the politics had gone and what had happened since the laws were passed.

We decided on ours based on input from the Council and County attorneys, the Human Rights Commission, and the rather strident voices of your side. I have said it before, and I will repeat it -- had you behaved responsibly like most other citizens, and joined in the work on this bill as most do on others, you would have been respected and your concerns would have been given a fair hearing. You would have been given some of what you wanted, even though you are a small minority, because, as I've said, we had no inherent problem in being more rather than less explicit.

You keep assuming the Council was trying to pull a fast one, that the process was manipulated, that you were somehow rudely ignored. Quite the contrary. It was finally the obstreperousness of Ruth and Theresa that caused the Council to throw up its hands in disgust and decide to just move on in as simple a way as possible.

There is a lesson here, and I suggest you learn it for the next phase. We can work together to please most of the people most of the time, or we can re-engage the battle. It's your choice.

If you can't do it, nor Ruth or Theresa, why not said Bob Nelson?

September 30, 2008 8:41 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home