Saturday, March 28, 2009

Shower-Nuts Win One in New Hampshire

New Hampshire legislators voted this week on a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Republicans framed the bill in terms of men going into ladies' locker-rooms, and that was enough to beat it. From the Concord Monitor:
House lawmakers yesterday rejected a bill that would extend protection to transgender individuals under the state's anti-discrimination and hate-crimes laws. The bill failed by a 15-vote margin, largely along party lines.

Opponents dubbed the measure the "bathroom bill"; they painted a picture of men and women walking into bathrooms and saunas as they pleased.

"I don't want a man coming, sitting next to me in the sauna. Do you?" said Rep. Nancy Elliott, a Merrimack Republican. "How many male prisoners would suddenly become a female to get into the girls' prison?" Transgender rights defeated: It sought protections in workplace, rentals

This is a new twist, prisoners claiming to be female so they can get into the women's prison. Like, first of all, we are so concerned about women prisoners. And, sure, like some perverted guy is going to put on a dress and makeup so he can take the abuse that women prisoners get.

I lived in New Hampshire for a summer, back in the day. I loved it. Took my family back up there a few years back to retrace my steps, see if my old friends were still there (they weren't). People up there have a way, two guys can stand together leaning on a fence for hours without saying a word. They don't blab a lot, they don't waste their breath, they are down to earth and straightforward. Look, their license plates say "Live free or die," they're not messing around!

Now I am wondering why the New Hampshire legislature has enough shower-nuts to beat a law like this.

Turns out there are stupid people everywhere.
Sponsoring Rep. Ed Butler called it something else: "a simple little nondiscrimination bill." He told stories of New Hampshire residents losing their jobs after they go public as identifying with the other gender.

"They're asking for our help and the basic protections this bill will provide," said Butler, a Hart's Location Democrat.

The bill would have banned landlords, employers and others from discriminating against individuals who are born into one sex but identify as the other, some of whom undergo sex-change operations. Such individuals could take discrimination complaints to the state Human Rights Commission, which now handles complaints on discrimination based on sex, race and religion among other factors.

The bill fell by a 15-vote margin of 172-157, with five Republicans joining Democrats on the pro side and 19 Democrats joining Republicans to vote against it. House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, a Concord Democrat, made the final plea for the bill; Minority Leader Sherm Packard, a Londonderry Republican, made the final case against it.

In New Hampshire it sounds like the shower-nuts were able to frame the issue totally in their terms. I guess our little corner of the world, Montgomery County, Maryland, might have been the first place they tried this distortion of the issue, and it seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions. Though the bill was about discrimination on the basis of gender identity, I myself heard them standing outside the Giant saying, "Would you like to sign a petition to keep men out of women's bathrooms?" Our law, like the one in New Hampshire, had nothing to do with bathrooms, but if they can scare people then it doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.
Supporters described themselves as shocked and taken aback by the opposition campaign to the bill. Rep. Lucy Weber said she was mystified when she got an e-mail about the "bathroom bill," an e-mail that urged her not to back a bill to protect sexual predators.

"I was horrified to find out that this e-mail was about our bill. I just can't believe it," said Weber, a Walpole Democrat.

She said that opponents' claims about the bill were "just not true" and that the bill would give no protection to criminals.

See, this is the thing. This Democrat is standing there, jaw dropping, saying it's "just not true," but it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Our side can't win by making a reasonable argument, this isn't about reason.

Transgender nondiscrimination is a test-tube case for understanding how to move voters. The Republicans have found that there are enough people who will vote without thinking, they call them their "base" and they are learning to manipulate those voters. Our side can't be "horrified" when we find out that people are walking in their sleep, we have to know people are walking in their sleep. Even in New Hampshire, people are willing to believe that legislators would pass a law to allow men to use the ladies room. And of course they're against that.

Logic is one tool for persuasion, but it is not the only tool or the most powerful one, in the short run. In this case, the image of a perverted man waving his festering penis around the ladies room is enough to overrule any logic about the effects of discrimination and the necessity for fairness. It does not matter that the law does nothing to encourage pedophiles and predators, it really doesn't matter at all. Republicans attached that image to the bill and people were willing to oppose it on that basis.

It is reasonable to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of their gender identity. Some women wear pants, some guys carry a handbag, whatever, there are all kinds of people out there and it just. does. not. matter how masculine or feminine somebody is, or if they call themselves a man or a woman. The revolution was fifty years ago, women and men are equal in every way now, it does. not. matter. But in a battle between the amygdala and the frontal cortex, amygdala wins.

Our side has the reasonable argument, but we can't win public opinion with reason alone. The other side found a vivid image that beat us. There are equally vivid images that could be used to support fairness and objectivity, and I hate to tell you but we need to use those images. The law in New Hampshire would support women, for instance, who wear their hair short, or women who wear pants, guys with high voices, men without facial hair, skinny men. It's not just one or two percent of the population that would benefit here, it's good for everyone if gender identity ceases to be grounds for discrimination. But our side thinks being reasonable is enough, like a vote is an algebraic variable that can be calculated from the values of the other variables in an equation, like if you just make sense you'll win public support.

Oh, and this is so cute.
Opponent Rep. Fran Wendelboe offered a tongue-in-cheek amendment, trying to add a clause that would make the third-floor women's restroom in the State House unisex. That bathroom, she said, recently underwent a $72,000 upgrade and is nicer than anything available to men.

Wendelboe, a New Hampton Republican, called the amendment a demonstration of the House's "commitment to putting our money where our mouth is."

Her amendment failed 79-251.

The Republicans in New Hampshire were utterly successful in framing the nondiscrimination bill as "the bathroom bill." Take two topics, discrimination and peeing. Tell me, which one do people think about more? Which one is more personal to them? Which one is easier to think about? By defining the law in terms of peeing, the Republicans were able to make their position popular. In the meantime, real people are discriminated against because they do not meet stereotypical expectations.

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Our side has the reasonable argument"

Actually, it doesn't.

Discrimination against people based on their behavior and desires should only be illegal in rare cases.

Otherwise, government should back off and leave inter-personal relationships to individual discretion.

March 28, 2009 12:07 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon stated:

“Discrimination against people based on their behavior and desires should only be illegal in rare cases.”

And unwittingly made the argument that we should all be able to discriminate against people for their religious behavior, “except in rare cases.”

When you boil them down to their essence, Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, and all other religions are nothing more than a set of chosen beliefs and behaviors, sometimes accompanied by restrictions in what clothing people decide to wear, what foods to eat, and . Some people were “born” a Jew, Mormon, Episcopalian or whatever, and some later decide to “change” their religion. (OMG! How can the DO that? Don’t they know that God MADE them a Baptist and they could NEVER be a Quaker?!)

Laws in every part of this country are in place to protect people for their CHOSEN religious behavior, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s Amish, Heaven’s Gate, or Branch Davidian. My step father even managed to get some tax breaks by starting his own church: the “Evergreen State Christian Fellowship.”

Over the years our politicians have decided that it’s in our best interest NOT to discriminate against folks because they choose to wear holy underwear, a prairie dress, a hijab, or a yamika, and happen to believe that only people that behave as they do will be granted passage to a Holy Kingdom for eternity after they die, and people that disagree with them are likely to burn in purgatory.

Yet despite all of these disparate, irreconcilable belief systems, we still somehow have to put all of that aside and treat them as just another human being when we decide who to hire, rent or sell a house to, or feed in a restaurant.

If “Discrimination against people based on their behavior and desires should only be illegal in rare cases,” why don’t we try a little experiment? Why not pick a month and a religious group to discriminate against? How about April for Christians? People could then deny Christians access to bus services, restaurants, jobs, and anything else they felt like based on their annoying “holier than thou” Christian behavior. Maybe then they could start to appreciate the non-discrimination laws they have so long taken for granted.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

March 28, 2009 12:49 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon stated:

“Otherwise, government should back off and leave inter-personal relationships to individual discretion.”

I agree whole-heartedly Anon. Government shouldn’t be forcing gay people to only marry people of the opposite sex. If Bob wants to marry Garry, that should be left up to their individual discretion. Government shouldn’t be able to deny them that.

Peace,

Cynthia

March 28, 2009 12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cynth

I for one think it's fine if people want to discriminate against me on the basis of my religion

if it becomes a problem, I'll let you know

government isn't stopping anyone from calling some kind of strange arrangement marriage

they just aren't willing to extend preferences to any other arrangement other than real marriage

if you want to start the Church of the Purple Polka Dot Kangaroo and "marry" two ACs, no government is going to stop you

just don't expect any governmental endorsement

you ain't getting it

March 28, 2009 2:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey, Cynthia

I was watching an NCAA tournament game last week

at the end, they showed one of the benches and a fan behind them was holding up a sign that said John 3:16

a guy in a CBS jacket rushed over and grabbed the sign and rolled it up and walked away

looked like assault to me

was it also discrimination, in your view?

March 28, 2009 2:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"and it seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions"

LIAR.

PROVE IT.

A total of 80 signatures were challenged for forgery Jim. 80 out of 30,000 signatures. That is exactly 00.26%. 1 out of every 500 signatures. They were challenged for fraud. That fraud was never proven, the judge accepted it as a matter of course because the circulators of the petition WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. Their attorneys were kicked out of court.

At least 1/2 of those challenges were for cases where it appeared that the wife signed for the husband or vice versa. Wrong, clearly, if it was the case. However, if you called those folks into court you might find out that some of the husbands and wives were older, and insisted they signed for themselves. You just might find that. Or you might find out that a daughter printed the name for her 91 year old mother but the mother signed for herself while balancing on a walker. Lots of reasons. However, to imply that "the petition was disqualifed for forgery" is JUST BULLSHIT. Amazing how you have ZERO COMPUCTION when it comes to repeating OUT RIGHT LIES.

TTF and EM succeeded in disqualifying the right of Marylanders to run ANY referendum on ANY subject in the future pretty much, by tossing out nicknameS - like Chris instead of Christopher - etc. good job, hope you are proud of yourself. You succeeded in enforcing an unreasonable set of technicalities on the entire MD population.

YOU ARE A LIAR. HOW DO YOU LOOK AT YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR EVERY MORNING ?????

NO MORALS WHATSOEVER.

March 28, 2009 2:36 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anonymous asked:

“a guy in a CBS jacket rushed over and grabbed the sign and rolled it up and walked away

looked like assault to me

was it also discrimination, in your view?”

As I have practically zero interest in spectator sports, I can not claim to have seen the incident. One of the guys at work asked me if I wanted to enter in their NCAA pool, and I said “What?! You want me to become involved in your illegal gambling scheme?!”
As for “assault,” I went and found this useful page: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Assualt It has this useful information about assault:
“At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and Tort Law. There is, however, an additional Criminal Law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful Battery.

Statutory definitions of assault in the various jurisdictions throughout the United States are not substantially different from the common-law definition.

Elements
Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.”

As such, I don’t think taking away a person’s sign at a basketball game can really be considered “assault.” From what you’ve described, there appears to have been no threat to harm the sign-holder. They just “grabbed the sign and rolled it up and walked away.”

For all we know people behind him were complaining about this guy in front of them holding up a sign and blocking their view of the game. I don’t know the rules for behavior in that stadium and it could be that signs aren’t allowed.

I’m a huge fan of Tori Amos, and they don’t allow cameras or recording devices in her concerts, in fact, they typically ask folks to open up their jackets and purses before entering to search for them – they’ll take them away if you try to bring them in. At one concert I was washing my hands after using the facilities when the attendant asked me how I was enjoying the concert. I said “Tori was wonderful, but there’s this drunk chick yakking away behind me that just won’t shut up.” She told me I should tell security because they’ll quiet her down or remove her. That was tempting. However I just wanted to get back and enjoy the concert, not spend time looking for a security dude and potentially making a scene arguing with an inebriated woman. There were a bunch of empty seats in the back so I went there instead. It turns out the sound quality was better there – I had previously been closer to the stage but way off to the side. I went to the center back and found all of the high notes I was missing. :D (The tweeters in their sound system didn’t cover the sides well.)

Without knowing the rules of the auditorium, the intent and attitude of the guy taking the sign, and whether or not people were complaining about the view-obstructing behavior of the sign waving dude, it’s really impossible for me to say if it was some kind of discrimination or not.

I do hope you enjoyed the game though, and didn’t get involved in some illegal gambling scheme!

Take care,

Cynthia

March 28, 2009 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"and it seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions"

LIAR.

PROVE IT.

A total of 80 signatures were challenged for forgery Jim. 80 out of 30,000 signatures. That is exactly 00.26%. 1 out of every 500 signatures.


Calm down Theresa. barryo, get her some of your self-medications, the poor girl is having reading comprehension problems leading to a public display of hysteria.

Theresa, the quote you went ballistic over said and it seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions. Got it? That's "forgeries AND IRREGULARITIES."

March 28, 2009 4:55 PM  
Anonymous http://www.youtube.com/user/Cyntillation01 said...

For anyone who hasn’t had the joy of listening to Tori Amos (either live or on the radio or CD), please allow me to introduce you to just a few of her songs. These are from her RAINN benefit concert, just after the end of her Dew Drop Inn Tour of ‘97:

Silent All These Years (Tori solo with her Bosendorfer piano): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpnDFATa-E

Talula (played on a 200 year old harpsichord along with a drum track and recorded vocals): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN8uB-GHark&feature=related

Corflake Girl (with guitarist Steve Caton): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1tNLnWHDzM

It was a WONDERFUL concert – I was there. It was an expensive trip though. I had just paid the toll for the Lincoln Tunnel and was still putting my money away when I started going through. Traffic was a single lane in both directions and so I kept toward the right side while my eyes adjusted and I put away the cash. Bad idea. The poorly maintained concrete curb slashed though BOTH of my right side tires. According to the guy attending the station at the end of the tunnel, that happened a couple of times a week. It cost me $300 to get my car towed 5 blocks, one new rim and two new tires.

Enjoy,

Cynthia

March 28, 2009 4:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

glad to see crazy old Aunt Bea back off on the allegations of forgery

Cynthia, it wasn't a stadium official that grabbed the property of someone else, it was a guy in a CBS jacket

furthermore, not only are signs generally allowed, the cameraman regularly focuses on them

it's part of the fun

does any of that change your mind?

and, despite your hopes, I'm definitely involved in some illegal gambling scheme involving the madness that is March

I remember it was one of those upsets or near upsets that went down to the wire so it definitely was a lot of fun

March 28, 2009 5:04 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

In response to Capslock Anon who called me a liar and other things for saying that their campaign "seemed to be working except for all the forgeries and irregularities on their petitions."

The Citizens for Responsible Whatever submitted 32,087 signatures to the county election board. 5,274 signatures were rejected right off the top by the Board of Elections and a circuit court judge. More than sixteen percent were so bad that they failed to meet a minimum standard.

Here's what the Mayland Court of Appeals said when they got it:
"Even were we to agree with the Circuit Court that only 26,813 signatures are valid, which we do not, the petition would fail to meet the requisite 27,615 signatures necessary to meet the 5% requirement.

The judge in the present case, however, also determined that 10,876 signatures that did not comport with the voter’s registration identification were valid, because the dictates of Section 6-203 were suggestive rather than required. We disagree.
...
Because we hold that Jane Doe’s judicial review action was not time-barred, that “inactive” voters should have been included in the total number of registered voters and finally that the 10,876 challenged signatures were invalid as a matter of law, the reversal of summary judgment entered on behalf of the County Board and entry of summary judgment on behalf of Jane Doe was mandated by this Court on September 9, 2008."

In a footnote they added this:
"The Circuit Court found that there were 26,813 valid signatures after disqualifying 70 signatures from the February 19, 2008 submission for various signature defects such as the circulator’s affidavit predating the voter’s signature, affixing signatures to pages where there are signs of possible fraud or other irregularities by the signer or circulator and miscellaneous problems. It should be noted that the Court did not disqualify 59 other signatures from the February 4, 2008 submission that the court found were invalid, yet time-barred."

Given these numbers, we can calculate that 16,150 signatureswere rejected for fraud or failure to follow election law, aka, "irregularities." That's more than half of the submitted signatures.

I do not expect the hyperventilating CRW commenter who just called me a liar to apologize. At the same time this commenter calls me a liar and immoral person, they find it acceptable to state that "TTF and EM succeeded in disqualifying the right of Marylanders to run ANY referendum on ANY subject in the future pretty much..." TTF had nothing to do with any of this, other than sitting in the courtroom watching the hearings and reporting the goings-on here on the blog. And Marylanders can have a referendum anytime they want, they will just have to obey laws that were written a long time ago. If the Citizens for Responsible Whatever had followed the law in collecting their signatures, maybe discrimination would still be legal in our county now. But they didn't. And now they would like to blame us.

Oh, and as for "How am I able to look at myself in the mirror every morning," at my age I look in the mirror as little as possible. I check that my head is still attached to my neck, that's about it.

JimK

March 28, 2009 6:22 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon wrote:

“Cynthia, it wasn't a stadium official that grabbed the property of someone else, it was a guy in a CBS jacket”

That may well be. The guy could have been violating a “no non-team related signs without paying CBS for advertising” policy. CBS guy might have done the same thing if the sign read “Visit Pets.com”. It could have been that the CBS guy was Jewish and didn’t like the reference to Jesus being his savior, or the CBS guy could have been Catholic and took offense at the thought of God and Jesus being injected into a game that has inspired so much illegal gambling. We still don’t have enough information to determine if there was any real discrimination or not.

Even in the Christian churches I’ve been to, a guy waving a “John 3:16” sign around might be thanked for his enthusiasm, but would most likely be asked to put the sign away. It’s distracting to the other parishioners who are trying to watch the preacher. And I certainly don’t think anyone would consider having him hide his sign (or have it taken away for the duration of the service) discrimination. It’s just not appropriate for that time and place.

Somehow though I think if the sign read “Allah Akbar” or “Hail Satan,” a lot of people would be applauding CBS guy’s actions.

I’m glad you enjoyed the game. If you happen to win anything from your illegal gambling though, I hope you will give it to a worthy charity. You might consider giving it to your local school system. One of my personal pet peeves is the fact that our society is willing to pay men millions of dollars a year to run around throwing, catching, or hitting balls all over the place, but our teachers are often barely paid living wages. This set of priorities seems totally out-of-whack considering how important our children are.

Peace,

Cynthia

March 28, 2009 6:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I check that my head is still attached to my neck, that's about it."

Haven't you taken any readings to find if your mind's still fairly sound?

"I’m glad you enjoyed the game. If you happen to win anything from your illegal gambling though, I hope you will give it to a worthy charity."

Nah.

I'll probably take all the losers out for a round.

I might even have a JD straight up just for crazy old Aunt Bea.

"You might consider giving it to your local school system."

Money's not the problem there.

There are too many gay teachers.

"One of my personal pet peeves is the fact that our society is willing to pay men millions of dollars a year to run around throwing, catching, or hitting balls all over the place, but our teachers are often barely paid living wages. This set of priorities seems totally out-of-whack considering how important our children are."

Cynthia, we're in 100% agreement here.

Why do we pay these guys so much money to play with a ball?

A warped society, I must say.

March 28, 2009 6:57 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I'll hand it to you, the quote from "Me and Paul" was pretty good.

JimK

March 28, 2009 7:12 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

glad to see crazy old Aunt Bea back off on the allegations of forgery

You mean you're glad Aunt Bea gave you another lesson and pointed out the words Theresa ignored, namely "and irregularities." Facts, words, data, you barryo types all have trouble with it. But don't worry, I'm here to help teach the facts.

March 29, 2009 9:47 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Yay for gay (and lbt) teachers; and Yay for Aunt Bea.

rrjr

The idea of not giving money to a non-profit because there are too many gay people is just funny. On that count, there are just too many gay everything. I've got bad news for you: queer people are everywhere. One gets the impression that god meant it that way. Yay for God.

March 29, 2009 10:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Discrimination in the private sector is none of the government's business. The government should not be able to tell me to whom I can rent my apartment.

If your behavior is an anomaly, so be it. You suffer the consequences. If enough people find it undesirable, that's society's way of picking and choosing, and it's natural law.

March 29, 2009 1:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

NH news in brief
March 29, 2009 6:00 AM
Police: Man peeked into dressing room

NASHUA (AP) — A Massachusetts man has been arrested on charges he peeked at a woman dressing in a Nashua store.

Police told WMUR Friday that Noe Guidel Regalado of Waltham, Mass., is charged with lying on the floor and looking into a fitting room at Kohls.

Police said the woman did not see him, but her mother spotted a man lying on the floor looking into the changing room.

Police said Guidel Regalado was arrested in Natick, Mass., in January on similar charges. He told police has been in the United States for about two years and is from Guatemala.

Police are looking into his immigration status.

LOL! Had the transgender bill passed, he could have just said he was a woman and walked in!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for illustrating why this transgendered bill is just nuts.

March 29, 2009 2:15 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

People, I have to tell you, we didn't post that last comment to prove our point.

There is somebody who really thinks that a guy peeking at women in the ladies room has something to do with discrimination on the basis of gender identity. This is why we have to stay vigilant. They don't just say this stuff, there are people who believe it.

JimK

March 29, 2009 2:24 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon dreamt:

“LOL! Had the transgender bill passed, he could have just said he was a woman and walked in!!!!!!!!!!!”

Except for the fact that laws protecting against discrimination for gender identity do not restrict or repeal existing Peeping Tom laws. Those are still in full effect. Even if the perpetrator was a “biological female” she could still be charged with an offense. In some places Peeping Tom laws are a bit out-dated and they need to be reworded to account for today’s technology. This incident from a year ago illustrates that case:

http://www.woodwardnews.net/local/local_story_075073517.html

Basically a guy taking pictures up girls’ skirts had to be let go because the “Appeals court judges voted 4-1 in favor of his appeal to his conviction based on a statute that indicated they could only charge him under the “Peeping Tom” law if the alleged victim was in a place where she should have been able to have the reasonable “expectation of privacy”.

Fortunately “One day later, on Thursday, Oklahoma lawmakers closed a loophole in the law by outlawing the practice of using cameras or electronics to take photos under people’s skirts or area that they have covered with clothing.”

Despite the propensity of heterosexual males to engage in this type of disgusting behavior, we still allow most of them to roam free in our society.

Peace,

Cynthia

March 29, 2009 10:47 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home