Monday, August 17, 2009

CRW: No, I Mean Yes, Unisex Bathrooms

The City Paper had a little article last week that is generally forgettable but there is a twist down in the text. It's about the fact that people ignore the signs on public restrooms, and that in DC you aren't supposed to have signs anyway for single-stall restrooms. As any adult has noted, typically there is a line down the hallway for the ladies room even while the men's room is empty, and it is not unusual for a lady to use a stall in the men's room. Sometimes it's the other way, guys have a way of destroying the plumbing I guess, and you'll see the men's room out of order, so a man will use the ladies room. There is a certain traditional modesty involved in all this but it doesn't go very deep -- there are lots of places in Europe where men pee right along the sidewalk, there is actually nothing very lurid about it. We separate the sexes for eliminative functions out of modesty but if the situation is urgent most people don't get too freaked out if somebody uses the other room.

More relevant for our ongoing discussions, not everyone neatly fits into a gender category. Intersex individuals may have physical characteristics of both sexes, there are numerous states that a transitioning transgender person could be in, and it is often said that masculine-looking lesbians meet the most resistance of all when they try to use the ladies room. As noted, it's not any big deal if somebody uses the unexpected restroom, but if you were to force the issue you would find enough questionable cases to make unambiguous assignment impossible.

So this article describes a DC nightclub that has a blue human-sized exclamation mark on one door and a pink one on the other.
Human beings, however, do not always fit the color scheme. That raises something of a grammatical problem for [club owner] Miskinyar: Policy’s subtly gendered punctuation may be inconsistent with a little-known provision of D.C. human rights law.

Since 2006, the D.C. Human Rights Act has protected transgender men and women from discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations—including restrooms. Since public bathrooms are traditionally gender-specific, gender nonconforming clientele have faced harassment, attack, and even arrest for picking the “wrong” gendered stall. Restaurants with multi-stall bathrooms segregated by gender can work to eliminate discrimination by ensuring that even when rooms are marked for ladies or gentlemen, they’re free of harassment for the spot’s gender-variant pissers.

Miskinyar says he would be happy to open his pink and blue doors to a unisex flow. “We’re in a predominantly gay neighborhood, so why not?” he says. “When it gets busy, the restrooms are effectively unisex anyway—everyone just goes straight to the first open stall.” But restaurants equipped with single-stall restrooms, like Policy, are required to go a bit further in ending discrimination—they must eliminate the gendered bathroom sign entirely. According to the regulations, “All entities covered under the Act with single-occupancy restroom facilities shall use gender-neutral signage for those facilities (for example, by replacing signs that indicate ‘Men’ and ‘Women’ with signs that say ‘Restroom’).” D.C. Bathroom Signs: Ignored By Many, Hated By Some, Expensive, and Possibly Illegal

It gets a little interesting here, as the City Paper at least seems to think that transgender people and anti-transgender people agree on this.
While local business owners and the OHR may disagree over forced redecoration, the unisex single stall is a welcome fixture for two groups that have clashed over toilet turf: transgender activists, and the people who refuse to share a restroom with them.

Last month, the D.C. Trans Coalition launched its “Pee in Peace” campaign to raise awareness about the three-year-old restroom requirements in local accommodations. For the DCTC, “Peeing in Peace” means navigating the bathroom line “without having to worry whether someone is going to assault or arrest us for using the ‘wrong’ one.”

Really, it is such a silly thing, isn't it? It's hard to imagine that the shower-nuts have actually made this an issue, whether transgender people should pee in the bathroom corresponding to the sex assigned them at birth or the one they have transitioned to.

We will remember not so long ago when the Citizens for Responsible Whatever in our county campaigned against unisex bathrooms. Here's a fuzzy picture of John Garza, one of the group's leaders, speaking in front of their famous yellow signs. The one on the left says, "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS."



But now the City Paper interviewed CRW president Ruth Jacobs, who had this to say on the subject:
Last year, the Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government launched its own awareness campaign over transgender bathroom use: the “Not My Shower” initiative. Ruth Jacobs, the group’s president, says the campaign is meant to publicize the flip-side of transgender rights—privacy infringement for “normal people.” “If somebody with an opposite body part is allowed in to a ladies’ restroom—a guy who has a penis, who could put his penis inside my vagina—what am I to do?” says Jacobs. “We need to be able to retain the right to speak up about men in our bathrooms without being labeled bigots.” Jacobs does, however, approve of the gender-neutral single-stall. “That sounds like a reasonable compromise that doesn’t cause any problems for anybody, and that’s a fine thing to do,” she says.

Please go back and read that paragraph over again, see if you can absorb the implications of it. Pause over this sentence: “If somebody with an opposite body part is allowed in to a ladies’ restroom—a guy who has a penis, who could put his penis inside my vagina—what am I to do?” says Jacobs. I'm sorry but I can't not think of something funny to say when I read that. I will stifle myself, just this one time.

It is fascinating that the Citizens for Responsible Whatever are now in favor of unisex bathrooms. Apparently it doesn't really matter if a guy who has a penis uses the same restroom as a lady with a vagina unless the door has a sign stating that the room is for women only.

39 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

here's a guy that just doesn't get it:

"WASHINGTON (Aug 17) - Former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, a leading figure in the liberal wing of his party, said Monday he doubts there can be meaningful health care reform without a direct government role.

Dean urged the Obama administration to stand by statements made early on in the debate in which it steadfastly insisted that such a public option was indispensable to genuine change."

Of course, Dean's a doctor too.

Maybe we'd listen if he'd start shouting.

August 17, 2009 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you think, guys?

Should we intervene militarily?:

"BAGHDAD (Aug. 17) -- Militiamen are torturing and killing gay Iraqi men with impunity in a systematic campaign that has spread from Baghdad to several other cities, a prominent human rights group said in a report.

The bodies of several gay men were found in Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City earlier this year with the Arabic words for "pervert" and "puppy" — considered derogatory terms for homosexuals in Iraq — written on their chests.

The New York-based advocacy group said the threats and abuses have since spread to the cities of Kirkuk, Najaf and Basra, although the practice remains concentrated in the capital.

"Murders are committed with impunity, admonitory in intent, with corpses dumped in garbage or hung as warnings on the street," the 67-page report said.

A well-informed U.N. official said that the death toll was probably "in the hundreds."

The campaign has been largely blamed on Shiite extremists who have long targeted behavior deemed un-Islamic, beating and even killing women for not wearing veils and bombing liquor stores.

Shiite militiamen have for the most part stopped their violence against rival Sunnis after radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's forces were routed by U.S. and Iraqi forces last year and declared a cease-fire. But the report indicated they were conducting a less publicized campaign of social cleansing.

"The same thing that used to happen to Sunnis and Shiites is now happening to gays," said a doctor who had fled Baghdad and was interviewed for the report.

But he told The Associated Press that the ministry does not have numbers "because in most cases the family members themselves are either involved in the killing or prefer to keep silent, fearing shame.""

August 17, 2009 10:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“If somebody with an opposite body part is allowed in to a ladies’ restroom—a guy who has a penis, who could put his penis inside my vagina—what am I to do?”

Does she wonder the same thing about the man standing behind her in line at the grocery store?

August 17, 2009 11:02 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Dr. Dean is correct. Too many small business owners cannot afford the high premium rates charged by health insurance companies (to cover their health industry CEO bonuses). This leaves employees of many small businesses, the backbone of the US economy, without health insurance coverage. Not having health insurance coverage means that if an accident or a catastrophic illness comes along, it will very likely bankrupt the individual and/or family.

CBSNews reports that a free medical clinic set up in LA has been doing booming business, seeing 1500 patients a day at no charge thanks to some doctors, dentists, and nurses willing to volunteer their services (which means they were paid even less than Medicare covers).

"...The program is run by Remote Area Medical, a non-profit group established 24 years ago to take modern medicine to the third world. Today they do some 40 multi-day free clinics a year - 65 percent of them now in the U.S.

"There are about 49 million people who don’t have access to the care they need. They simply can’t afford it," says Stan Brock, founder of Remote Area Medical.

Family physician Natalie Nevins has worked in villages in India and Africa and says there’s as much need here, as in remote areas of India.

"Most of these people work. They have jobs," she says. "But they work for small companies who can’t afford to give them insurance. Or they work three or four part time jobs so they don’t qualify for health insurance."

For doctors and patients here the shouting over health care reform is incomprehensible..."

August 17, 2009 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Speaking of Medicare, did anybody catch Dick Armey, the head of the Freedomworks lobbying group that encourages people to be aggressive at town hall meetings, on Face the Nation yesterday?

Unbelievably, Dick said, "Medicare is tyranny."

Yes, he really did say that.

I doubt most grannies who depend on Medicare feel that way about it. Medicare is a lifeline to many seniors, which is about as far from **tyranny** as you can get.

Let's go to the transcript:

MS. MADDOW: Do you really think that there’s a major uprising of seniors wanting to get out of Medicare? I know you’re suing the government for your right personally to get out of Medicare.

REP. ARMEY: Right.

MS. MADDOW: But do you really think that’s the problem...

SEN. COBURN: Is it...

MS. MADDOW: ...that Medicare—that seniors hate Medicare and they want out?

REP. ARMEY: No, I didn’t say that. Most seniors—I was talking to my minister the other day. My minister says, “Dick, I’m so fortunate I’m in Medicare.” I said, “Bless you, my, my friend that you get to be in it if you choose to be so.” But if you give a government program and you let me choose to be in or choose to be out, that’s generosity. If you force me in, irrespective of my desires, that’s tyranny. Now, if Medicare’s $46 trillion in the red, with no idea how we’re going to pay for it, why, why do they not let people who don’t want to be in out?

MS. MADDOW: This is...

MR. GREGORY: Let me—I want to get it...

REP. ARMEY: I mean, that’s...

MS. MADDOW: Just—I—very briefly.

REP. ARMEY: This, this, this defies logic.

MS. MADDOW: This is a really important point. The anti-healthcare reform lobby thinks that Medicare is tyranny, OK?

REP. ARMEY: I did—I said...

MS. MADDOW: This is an—I mean, you said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”

REP. ARMEY: Right. Absolutely right.

MS. MADDOW: You said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”

REP. ARMEY: And I’m going to enumerate exactly what I’m talking about. Medicare...

MS. MADDOW: Americans need to know this is your position and this is the position of the anti-healthcare reform lobby.


Grannies and Grandpas need to know that Dick Armey, who sends rabble rousers to "aggressively" advance their positions (no healthcare reform, the status quo is working, and a litany of lies designed to scare seniors) at town hall meetings on healthcare reform, actually wants to phase out social security and said in 1995 and confirmed again yestereday that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”

Lookout Granny! If Dick Armey and his minions have their way, your Medicare lifeline would be gone and you'll be on your own.

August 17, 2009 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surprised you'd want to post that, Anon-B.

Sounded like another lesbian rudely interrupting someone and not giving them a chance to speak.

If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know how screwed up the wasteful and inefficient Medicare system is.

Ever talk to anyone who does Medicare billings?

August 17, 2009 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding unisex bathrooms...this is not complicated or mysterious, people.

Virtually no one is against a unisex bathroom that has one toilet and four walls.

Most people, on the other hand, do not want to turn a multi-stall women's or men's bathroom into a unisex bathroom.

August 17, 2009 6:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exactly, the only issue was having different genders in the same bathroom at the same time.

"LONG BEACH, Calif. (Aug. 17) -- Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley received a standing ovation from thousands of police officers Monday as he opened a five-day Fraternal Order of Police convention with brief remarks."

August 17, 2009 10:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So they didn't really mean "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" did they

August 17, 2009 10:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, they meant "TTF is a bunch of jackasses"

August 17, 2009 11:10 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

And I'm surprised you'd want to mention people who interrupt others given that you support the industry-backed interrupters screaming lies to scare seniors at "town hell meetings."

Do you support "About a dozen people packing heat, including one man with a semi-automatic rifle, milled with protesters outside Phoenix's convention center, where Obama was speaking Monday" too?

If you had any idea what you're talking about, you'd know how screwed up the wasteful and inefficient Medicare system is.

Oh yes I do know, Anon, because I listen to President Obama, who has been saying for many months now that by cutting waste in Medicare, substantial money could be saved. In fact, he just said it again in Grand Junction, CO:

...let me give you one particular example. We right now provide $177 billion over 10 years -- or about $17 billion, $18 billion a year -- to insurance companies in the forms of subsidies for something called Medicare Advantage where they basically run the Medicare program that everybody else has, except they get an extra bunch of money that they make a big profit off of. And there's no proof, no evidence at all that seniors are better off using Medicare Advantage than regular Medicare. If we could save that $18 billion a year, that is money that we can use to help people who right now need some help.

Tell us Anon, do you agree with Dick Armey. Do you think **Medicare is tyranny** and that Social Security should be phased out? Or do you agree with President Obama that there's waste in Medicare that could be safely cut without jeopardizing care and used for better purposes than paying billions more to insuance companies?

August 18, 2009 8:16 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

no, they meant "TTF is a bunch of jackasses"

Spoken like a truly sore loser from the CRW. Your feckless leader has publicly expressed support for unisex bathrooms! Oh no, whatever shall you do??

What does Anon do? She comes to Vigilance and insults TTFers, demonstrating for all the world just exactly who the jackass is.

August 18, 2009 8:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon said: "So they didn't really mean "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" did they"

They should have said: "NO MULTI-STALL UNISEX BATHROOMS"

However, everyone who opposes gender identity legislation understands the sign, so using this shorthand is perfectly fine. There was no ambiguity amongst their intended audience.

Just like -- if you're in the subway and you see a sign that says NO SMOKING, everyone knows that this means that you can't smoke in the train, and that it doesn't mean that you can't go home and smoke. If your audience knows what you mean, then this form of shorthand works perfectly.

August 18, 2009 8:55 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, let me tell you why the CRW had those signs. The MCPS sex-ed curriculum has a section on gender identity which includes a vignette about a male-to-female transgender student named Portia. When she decides to transition publicly she speaks to the principal, who agrees to accommodate her. The vignette includes the sentence: "She [the principal] gave me a new student ID and a key to the teachers' single-stall restroom."

This vignette inspired the "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" signs. You will note that the vignette refers to a single-stall restroom.

JimK

August 18, 2009 9:43 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Ruth asked, and Jim quoted:

“If somebody with an opposite body part is allowed in to a ladies’ restroom—a guy who has a penis, who could put his penis inside my vagina—what am I to do?” says Jacobs.

Wow. Where does one start with this comment? I’m hoping the reference to “a guy who has a penis” is simply acknowledging the fact that some guys (i.e. mostly some percentage of transmen) don’t have a penis. Does this mean she’s o.k. with guys that don’t have a penis in the womens’ room? Who’s going to check that?

Back in June I went to the 8th annual Philadelphia Trans Health Conference ( http://www.trans-health.org/ ). I had expected to see people of all different shapes, sizes, ages, and colors of the rainbow, and indeed I did. I even saw some folks from the ultra-violet and infra-red parts of the spectrum… I was disappointed that I didn’t get a chance to chat more with some of those folks while I was there – there were so many presentations to go too!

This year there were about 1000 people at the 3 day conference. It included trans folk of all kinds as well as their parents, children, spouses, friends, and loved ones.

While I was there I couldn’t help but think of all my friends back in Montgomery County. In order to make everyone feel welcome and comfortable at the conference, the two (multi-stall) restrooms had the “Men” and “Women” signs at eye-level covered with paper signs that said “Gender Neutral.” There will still signs above the area (about 12 feet above the floor) that read “Men” and “Women,” and for the most part, folks still went the restroom that one would expect for their appearance.

1000 people, 3 days of conference, 2 gender neutral bathrooms with kids and adults of all ages. 0 problems. Not one… nada… zilch. Go figure. It seems there are at least some people in this society that use restrooms for (gasp!) bodily evacuation and hand-washing.

That’s not to say I’m in favor of unisex multi-stall bathrooms. Frankly I appreciate the fact that the womens’ rooms are usually cleaner and less odiferous than the mens’ rooms. I’m not of an inclination to have men using the womens’ room either. Single stall restrooms however, where they are available, provide a perfect opportunity to provide everyone a private place to perform bodily functions without discrimination or fear of harassment.

Peace,

Cynthia

August 18, 2009 10:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cynthia -- Saying that you went to a trans conference and everybody liked sharing the bathrooms is like saying you went to a peanut conference and you didn't find anyone who was allergic to peanuts. It's called self selection.

August 18, 2009 10:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim -- Your explanation is absurd. No one has any problem with single stall bathrooms.

August 18, 2009 11:07 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

No one has any problem with single stall bathrooms.

No, Anon, I am absolutely right. The "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" signs were a reaction to the Portia vignette.

The CRW's RoseMarie Briggs said this about the Portia vignette to the school board: "The principal gives this boy a key to a private restroom and a new student ID identifying him as a girl. The lesson implies that schools should create new student IDs and unisex bathrooms for cross-dressing students. Is this ethical when the American Psychiatric Association says transgender is a gender identity disorder?"

In a legal appeal to stop the MCPS sex-ed curriculum, the CRC said, "In the lesson plan, boy calls himself “Portia,” receives a new
student ID identifying him as a girl, and is given a key to a private unisex restroom by the
principal."

PFOX's Regina Griggs wrote a letter to the editor of The Sentinel in 2005 that said, in part, "Another approved resource recommends that schools establish unisex bathrooms for transgender students." That would be the Portia vignette.

The "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" signs were a reaction to a vignette -- not even a real policy or suggestion -- about a single-stall unisex bathroom. Yes, somebody did have a problem with single-stall bathrooms.

JimK

August 18, 2009 11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

PLEASE, Jim! Those quotes show that those people were opposed to this student being assigned another gender, and then, on top of all that, being given very preferential treatment with luxurious bathroom quarters. It in no way shows that they're opposed to true, unisex, one stall bathrooms.

In this case, if the school wanted a place for trans students, they should have opened up the one stall bathroom to EVERYONE! Everyone would like a little privacy from time to time, and then everyone would have the same advantages.

If you want to talk discrimination...I'd say that men would have a case for real bathroom discrimination. They are given separate but unequal restroom facilities.

August 18, 2009 11:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From those quotes, it looks to me as if those people didn't want multi stall school bathrooms to go unisex.

August 18, 2009 11:44 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

From those quotes, it looks to me as if those people didn't want multi stall school bathrooms to go unisex.

All the quotes refer to the Portia vignette, which talks about a faculty restroom that was already unisex.

Twist it however you want, Anon, the CRW was against it before they were for it.

JimK

August 18, 2009 11:47 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Jim -- Your explanation is absurd. No one has any problem with single stall bathrooms.

You're lying again, Anon. Contrary to your false assertion, the CRC, who sued MCPS over revisions of the sex education curriculum has a web page with the heading:

Montgomery County’s reworked sex ed curriculum is still filled with sexual material that many of the county’s parents would find objectionable:

The first item is:

• Students read the undocumented “personal” stories of students who discovered they were lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender. (Click for stories). The stories suggest that MCPS should establish unisex bathrooms for transgender students.

And on another of their web pages, the CRC said:

What, specifically, is wrong with the tenth grade curriculum? Children are asked to read and analyze five “coming out” stories; the stories include bi-sexual and transgender kid, and suggests Montgomery County should establish unisex bathrooms for trans-sexual students (read “Portia”).

When you read the Portia vignette, you learn that the principal gave Portia the key to a single stall unisex bathroom. As Jim has noted and as the CRC's own webpages linked to above demonstrate, the CRC objects to "unisex bathrooms" because of this passage:

"...We (Portia and her supportive parents) had a meeting with the principal. I explained to her that I was transgender and that I wanted to be known as a girl and not use my birth name. I expected resistance, but the principal was incredible! She said that the staff had received LGBT training and wanted to be sensitive. She gave me a new student ID and a key to the teachers’ single-stall restroom..."

August 18, 2009 11:50 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

PLEASE, Jim! Those quotes show that those people were opposed to this student being assigned another gender, and then, on top of all that, being given very preferential treatment with luxurious bathroom quarters. It in no way shows that they're opposed to true, unisex, one stall bathrooms.

More lies! Pure bulloney!

Follow the links to the CRC's website and read their words yourself.

On one page of the CRC's website, they say "...many of the county’s parents would find objectionable...: "The stories suggest that MCPS should establish unisex bathrooms for transgender students." And on another page they say What, specifically, is wrong with the tenth grade curriculum? Children are asked to read and analyze five “coming out” stories; the stories include bi-sexual and transgender kid, and suggests Montgomery County should establish unisex bathrooms for trans-sexual students (read “Portia”).

The CRC doesn't mention **luxurious bathroom quarters** or anyone being **assigned** anything at all. What the CRC does object to is the unisex bathroom in the Portia vignette, which was the "teachers' single-stall restroom."

Try sticking to the facts for once.

August 18, 2009 12:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one wants to spend public money to build one stall bathrooms in all schools simply to accommodate a few people. However, this does not mean that people oppose one stall bathrooms when they are installed by businesses or in new buildings, etc.

Stop trying to blur the facts!

August 18, 2009 12:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, by the way, if there are a thousand students, and two get to use a one stall bathroom, then that is, indeed, "luxurious."

August 18, 2009 12:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Similarly, if there are thousands of students who have to attend sex ed class every day but two students get to go to the library instead, that is indeed, "luxurious."

August 18, 2009 1:02 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, you're being silly now. The CRW has paraded in public several times carrying signs that said "NO UNISEX BATHROOMS" to protest a vignette in the curriculum where a transgender student was given the key to the teacher's single-stall unisex restroom. Now your president is saying single-stall unisex bathrooms are just fine. Of course they are, they always were, it was a stupid point to try to make in the first place.

There's nothing for you to salvage here. It might be time to start talking about how Sarah Palin's going to win the next election, or something.

JimK

August 18, 2009 1:23 PM  
Blogger Jason D said...

um, right now there is no force field to keep the men out of the ladies room or women out of the mens room.
The only thing that is keeping that order is social conformity. Someone who wants to go into the ladies room to assault, rape, or molest women could do so, right now.

Although it would be illegal, and he would go to jail.

Letting anyone use any bathroom they wish doesn't change the fact that assault, rape, and molestation are still illegal. It doesn't matter if you walked in ignoring a sign on purpose or you walked in when there was no sign.

Funny thing about criminals, they tend to ignore social constructs (they get in the way of crime).

I'm sorry to disappoint the paranoid women out there, but no, men are NOT all a bunch of sex-crazed thugs waiting for the right opportunity to rape anyone and anything. Rape is a horrible, terrible crime that should not happen, however someone is seriously naive if they think a sign will stop it, or that regular, mild-mannered men suddenly morph into rapists if they happen to be in the vacinity of an exposed vagina.

August 18, 2009 1:25 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

No one wants to spend public money to build one stall bathrooms in all schools simply to accommodate a few people.

Once again, Anon makes an argument with no facts to be found. Perhaps if Anon ("...build one stall bathrooms in all schools...") or Miss Briggs ("...schools should create new student IDs and unisex bathrooms ...") or Miss Griggs ("...recommends that schools establish unisex bathrooms...") could tell us how many MCPS public school dollars have been budgeted to "build," "create," or "establish" even one single-stall restroom in an MCPS school that doesn't have one already, in order to accommodate any transgender students, ya'll would have a point. But we all know the answer is ZERO, not one red cent. MCPS has not added any single-stall restrooms as a result of the recent curricular revisions.

The only mention of unisex bathrooms in the entire MCPS sex ed curriculum is in the Portia vignette.

But that mention was enough for the CRWhatevers to **create** a falsehood and use it as a scare tactic to try to influence others to support their view.

...someone is seriously naive if they think a sign will stop it, or that regular, mild-mannered men suddenly morph into rapists if they happen to be in the vacinity of an exposed vagina.

You got that exactly right, Jason! Someone **is** "seriously naive."

August 18, 2009 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim --Those quotes you provided do NOTHING to make me believe that any of those people quoted would mind at all if schools allowed all students access to the one stall bathroom. They are obviously objecting to the school's sanctioning of a gender change, and then giving such strange, preferential treatment to one student.

And Jason -- Check out some blogs on this site from late 2007 through around mid 2008. Your argument is a well worn one and the anons on this website have gone into great detail about why your argument isn't adequate.

August 18, 2009 5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What does Anon do? She comes to Vigilance and insults TTFers, demonstrating for all the world just exactly who the jackass is."

TTF is twisting words.

TTFers are jackassi.

hee haw!

August 18, 2009 6:04 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Check out some blogs on this site from late 2007 through around mid 2008. Your argument is a well worn one and the anons on this website have gone into great detail about why your argument isn't adequate.

What a laugh! Jason would do much better to check out the battle over Montgomery County's non-discrimination Bill 23-07 to see which side's arguments are "adequate."

August 19, 2009 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These CRC folks never quit! They live in some fantasy world which they believe will come about after unrelentless carping, moaning, yelling "Heil Hitler" at public meetings, lying, employing unethical and often immoral tactics to get what they want. And what they want is THEIR WORLD...one in which everybody is a cookie-cutter "Father Knows Best" prototype.

That is what the loonies at the Town Meetings want, too. The 1950's sure look good in retrospect to them. A simple reading of the facts about that period would change their whacko and selfish desires to recreate those "good old days"; but then they would never read, much less agree to, anything that upsets or contradicts their limited grasp of reality.
Maybe the CRCers are considering changing their name (once again) to something like BBTGOD - Bring Back the Good Old Days. That is really at the heart of their obstructionist issues and efforts and and constant carping about lost efforts to oppose changes in the curriculum (and that is, when all is said and done, not their real objective).
Time moves on...so should they!

August 19, 2009 10:08 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon argued:


“Saying that you went to a trans conference and everybody liked sharing the bathrooms is like saying you went to a peanut conference and you didn't find anyone who was allergic to peanuts. It's called self selection.”

I re-read my post just to make sure and I could find no place where I said “everybody liked sharing the bathrooms.”

In fact, if one reads the entire post, you’ll find the following:

“That’s not to say I’m in favor of unisex multi-stall bathrooms. Frankly I appreciate the fact that the womens’ rooms are usually cleaner and less odiferous than the mens’ rooms. I’m not of an inclination to have men using the womens’ room either.”

Here it seems pretty clear to me that my statement indicated I do NOT like the idea of sharing bathrooms in general. I don’t know if anyone else actually “liked” sharing bathrooms or not. Quite frankly it’s not a question that occurred to me while I was there, and I didn’t ask anyone – nor did I overhear anyone offering an opinion either way.

In the context of a Trans Health Conference, I think having Gender Neutral restrooms is a helpful thing to do. There were many people there who were very early in transition and / or had never been outside of their own bedroom presenting as the person they needed to be. It is very intimidating to be “out” for the first time and can be quite nerve-wracking as you worry about how badly society is going to react to you. Worrying about the gender-politics of which restroom to use is an issue they didn’t have to concern themselves with at the conference, and I think that is a good thing.

It was a little bit odd for me at first since I’ve only used womens’ rooms for the past 6 years, but I’ve met hundreds of trans folks over that time and I know they are far more careful about restroom privacy than so-called “normal” people, so I was pretty sure there weren’t going to be any problems, and indeed there weren’t.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

August 19, 2009 10:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea- not anon
The Weepy Ruth quote is priceless--as I mentioned last week- it had me laughing out loud at Mexicali Blues. Maybe she should be writing for Jon Stewart

August 21, 2009 8:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

keep talking about that quote

it's about all you've got left after the APA has supported therapy for religious gays and the Obama presidency balloon has dropped into JimmyCarter Land

looks like someone needs to retire and stand in the rain

August 21, 2009 9:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"looks like someone needs to retire and stand in the rain"

I doubt Ruth could stand it. She'd drive herself crazy with worry about what all those people were going to do with their umbrellas.

August 22, 2009 9:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

August 25, 2009 3:27 AM  
Anonymous Maryanne said...

I love the fact that no anon usually ever responds precisely and on honest equal footing with the nearly faultless logic that Svelte Brunette applies when attacked.

August 25, 2009 3:29 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home