Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Showernut Ugliness Continues

Somebody forwarded a newsletter to me from the group that now apparently calls itself Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government. The email came from their president Ruth Jacobs, and the subject line was:

Here's the meat of the email.

There was a terrible rape on the Takoma campus of Montgomery College in January. A guy crawled into the stall of a ladies restroom in a quiet building and attacked a student for an hour. It was a terrible crime, and the college community was shocked by it.

Dr. Ruth Jacobs and her group want you to believe that that rape had something to do with the Montgomery County Council unanimously passing a bill prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender identity in employment and other things.

This is evil, people, this is hate in its purest form. The rapist was not transgender, nor did he pretend to be. He went into the women's restroom to attack somebody, he didn't go in disguised as a woman or justifying his presence there by claiming to be transgender. He is a violent criminal who went into the restroom to commit a crime.

Yet Ruth Jacobs and her group hate transgender people so much that they will use this horrible crime to justify discrimination against them.


Anonymous i see stupid people said...

I remember that incident. They closed the whole campus down to search for the guy.

The point is that there is no way to tell if a guy dressed as a woman is doing because they have the mental disease of gender-identity disorder or if they have more nefarious intent.

I don't see why you can't concede that this would be an easy law to abuse.

The Takoma incident show the need to protect women who use public restrooms.

A law that allows men to use the girls' room is not a step in the right direction.

February 24, 2010 4:24 PM  
Anonymous had o-nough yet? said...

I don't care what they. President Obama can take credit for at least three new jobs since he's been in the White House: one in Massachusetts, one in Virginia and one in New Jersey:

"(Feb. 24) -- In 1946, Republicans ran on a campaign slogan of "Had Enough?" to mobilize voters who had grown tired of 16 years of Democratic control of Congress.

Yet only one year after electing him to office, voters have grown tired of President Barack Obama, or more precisely, his agenda to "transform" the United States. So much so, in fact, that the 1946 slogan is again finding traction. With a nod to the ubiquitous Obama campaign logo, the simple question that frustrated Republicans, Democrats and Independents are asking family and friends is now: "Had O-nough?"

Evan Bayh was surprisingly honest about why he's deserting the Democrats on CBS' Early Show last week: "If I could create one job in the private sector by helping to grow a business, that would be one more than Congress has created in the last six months." It sounds like Bayh has had O-nough.

The Department of Labor announced last week that 473,000 new unemployment benefits applications were filed. Picture the crowd at this year's Super Bowl in Miami's Sun Life Stadium. Now multiply by six. Yet, the White House insists that 2 million jobs have been created, and Vice President Joe Biden assures us that "the best is yet to come." Biden may believe this, but almost nobody else does. A recent CBS News poll notes, "just 6 percent say the stimulus package has created jobs ..." Had O-nough?

When the Bush administration put forward a plan just before he left office on energy exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf, public comments ran two-to-one in favor (which is in line with public surveys on the question). But as the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reported, Obama's Interior Department was more interested in hiding this fact than acting on it. "The Secretary may get questions about this ... while he's in Houston," an e-mail said. "We do have a preliminary tabulation of the comments, it has not yet gone to the Secretary. So the Secretary can honestly say in response to any questions that he's ... not yet seen the analysis of the comments." Had O-nough?

Americans' frustration with Obama's agenda goes beyond jobs. A week after the Justice Department announced 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be tried in a federal court in New York City, the Gallup organization found, "By 59 percent to 36 percent, more Americans believe accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should be tried in a military court." Yet, the White House adamantly defends the rights of terrorists. Had O-nough?

Let us not forget the health care debate. Rasmussen Reports noted "61 percent of U.S. voters say Congress should scrap that plan and start all over again." But Obama insists on trying to ram it through. Had O-nough?

Evan Bayh took the easy way out. The question remains whether or not American public opinion will rise to such a boil that President Obama changes his agenda – but one thing is for sure, and that is the question every American is asking: Had O-nough?"

February 24, 2010 5:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A woman being violently raped in a bathroom is relevant to bathroom safety. And this gender identity law is counter to bathroom safety.

It's hard enough to keep bathrooms safe, without inviting men in.

And Jim --it's the ridiculously broad definition of "gender identity", which allows someone to change his or her gender from minute to minute, which is worriesome. The law should state that those who have gone through transition surgery can use the bathroom of their new identity.

It's tiresome when you pretend you don't know this, Jim. It's like a kid clinging to a silly argument.

February 24, 2010 5:56 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Some of us think it is unreasonable to imagine absurd hypotheticals -- male voyeurs who will dress as women to ogle women on the toilet, people changing their gender identity from minute to minute -- and then use those to keep discrimination legal.


February 24, 2010 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a post-op Transsexual, I find your article extremely offensive. I have never had a problem using the women's restroom. Using the restroom in a public place is a public health issue. There are literally NO cases that I'm aware where a Trans person has assaulted, peeped on, or sexually harrassed anyone in a public restroom in ALL the cities, counties, townships, businesses etc that protect against discrimination of GLBT people. It is just not an issue; however, it is a fear tactic used by anti-Trans activists to create hysteria.
There are already laws on the books to protect the public against such criminal behavior and should be vigorously enforced.
Public restrooms have stalls with locks. If you have some irrational fear that a man in a dress is going to come in and photograph you or peep, I suggest that you close and lock the stall door and take care of business. That seems to be the most sensible solution unless you want to require businesses to go to the expense of adding a gender neutral or family restroom. That would be ideal but cost prohibitive in many cases. There will always be Transgender people so unless you want them relieving themselves on the floor, I suggest you take my advice and close and lock your stall door or just wait till you get home to pee.

February 25, 2010 7:57 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anon retorted:

“The point is that there is no way to tell if a guy dressed as a woman is doing because they have the mental disease of gender-identity disorder or if they have more nefarious intent.”

From the description of the attack Jim linked to, the victim was unlikely to have seen the perpetrator (who was NOT dressed as a woman) until he was crawling under the stall on his way to attack her. From a security video I saw on America’s Most Wanted, a teenage boy (again, not dressed as a woman) followed a girl into a restroom without any indication she even knew he was there. Obviously this is too small a sample to draw broad conclusions from, but it seems reasonable to surmise that if a guy is in the restroom to do a someone harm, there’s a good chance the attack will have already started before she has the opportunity to ask “is that a man in here with nefarious intent, or is it just the neighborhood transsexual?”

Here’s a little word of advice though: If someone is crawling under the bathroom stall towards you, immediately get off the pot and start jumping up and down as hard as you can on the person’s face, head or groin, whichever comes through first. Do NOT stop to ascertain their gender, intent, or critique their fashion style. Keep jumping up and down on them until they seem incapacitated, then run like h___ and call 911.

“I don't see why you can't concede that this would be an easy law to abuse.”

Indeed, the CRG abused it when they dressed up a guy and sent him for a walk through the ladies’ room at a local gym as a publicity stunt. Other than that I have seen no indications or reports of criminals or judges abusing these laws – i.e., someone claiming their gender identity should allow them in the restroom so they can do questionable things. We know that the CRG has been scouring the intertubes to find evidence of this, but so far the closest thing they’ve found was a non-registered sex offender who crossdressed:

“Sgt. Brian Schmautz said that Thomas Lee Benson was arrested on one count of invasion of privacy, one count of misuse of a public restroom and one count of failing to register as a sex offender after police responded to a report of a suspicious person at the Mount Scott Community Center at 5530 S.E. 72nd Ave.”

February 25, 2010 10:18 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Despite the fact that the jurisdiction had gender identity protections in place, they still charged the perve with “misuse of a public restroom.” If the criminal’s intent was to “abuse the (GI) law,” (and I have found no indication that there was) it met with a resounding failure.

Of course we’ve seen the “bathroom perve” scare tactic before. It seems to work well among ultra-right wing conservatives and those who can’t scrape together 3 digits for an IQ score. After all, someone intent on committing felony rape or assault is going to carefully check local discrimination laws so that they don’t get their wrist slapped with a “trespassing” or “misuse of a public restroom” charge along with the felony – that just wouldn’t look good on their record now, would it?

“The Takoma incident show (sic) the need to protect women who use public restrooms.”

And the Virginia Tech shooting incident shows that we need to protect girls in their own dorms and classrooms. ( )

And the Yale incident, where a young woman’s body was found stuffed into a wall ( ) shows we need to protect women working in labs.

“A law that allows men to use the girls' room is not a step in the right direction.”

Or perhaps, given the above three incidents at universities (Tacoma Park, Virginia Tech, and Yale) where women were attacked or killed by heterosexual men, we shouldn’t allow heterosexual men anywhere near a college campus. The opportunities for them to attack innocent women is simply too great. (I’m sure I could find more incidents if you don’t think 3 is enough to ban heterosexual men from college campuses.)

Or perhaps it shows that women aren’t safe anywhere from heterosexual men and we need to be careful and be aware of who is around us at all times, no matter where we are.

Have a nice day,


February 25, 2010 10:19 AM  
Anonymous i see wannabes said...

no pre-ops in the wrong rest room

all sane people agree

you'd like to be sane, wouldn't you, CZytnthia?

February 25, 2010 2:00 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

CRC's tactics may increase violence against transgender people. They are horribly irresponsible in this.

What would Jesus do?

February 26, 2010 4:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

has there been any such incident reported, Robert?

you constantly attack CRC for arguing about hypothetical situation and then hypocritically do so yourself

do you actually care what Jesus would do?

February 26, 2010 8:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How does the CRC propose knowing who is pre-op or post-op? Will they ask for crotch checkers to check the private regions of folks who enter ladies rooms? Does the CRC, with their NO UNISEX BATHROOMS rants imagine women who use unisex bathrooms are less safe than those who use ladies rooms?

February 26, 2010 8:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrea-not anon
How typical of weepy Ruth and her pathetic followers. A man rapes a women in a bathroom- and she and her lynch mob turn it into a diatribe against transgender people. It is the showernuts who have a mental disease.

February 26, 2010 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Daphne Decker said...

I can tell you I do not care what Jesus would do, I can however tell you what I would do. This "Creep" perpetrated a crime against a young woman, his sole intent and for Dr. Jacobs group to use this as Political Fodder on some out moded Agenda "Shows a disrespect for the Victim and Tries to Demonize 1000's of Innocent Transgender Persons", She should be ashamed. The Nazi's where bad enough but the "Juden-Capos" where equally as Hated. It's the 21st Century and some people jump back to the 19th Century "Political Persecution" against those who are different. I am ashamed that this kind of thing still exist! and we call ourselves a Civilized Society.

February 26, 2010 9:42 AM  
Anonymous how dreary to be andreary said...

"How does the CRC propose knowing who is pre-op or post-op? Will they ask for crotch checkers to check the private regions of folks who enter ladies rooms?"

this misleading comment shows how dishonest the whole TTF position is on this issue

CRC doesn't propose any rules concerning restroom use

they propose that there be no rules other than what the owner of the restroom makes

"Does the CRC, with their NO UNISEX BATHROOMS rants imagine women who use unisex bathrooms are less safe than those who use ladies rooms?"

unisex bathrooms are generally one user at a time with a locked door

the issue is multi-user bathrooms

"A man rapes a women in a bathroom- and she and her lynch mob turn it into a diatribe against transgender people."

actually, this is no diatribe against transgenders

it's just an example of what's wrong with a certain law

"It is the showernuts who have a mental disease."

according to the APA, it is transgenders who have a mental disorder

February 26, 2010 9:48 AM  
Anonymous daphne might be a ditz said...

"Shows a disrespect for the Victim and Tries to Demonize 1000's of Innocent Transgender Persons",

they didn't demonize transgenders, Daphne

they pointed out that the law will allow someone to pretend to be one with neferious purpose

it's a common sense point and you make yourself look bad by asserting it

February 26, 2010 9:51 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Anonymous claimed:

“A woman being violently raped in a bathroom is relevant to bathroom safety. And this gender identity law is counter to bathroom safety.

It's hard enough to keep bathrooms safe, without inviting men in.”

A copy of House Bill 474 may be found here:

I defy you to find the paragraph where it is “inviting men in” to the ladies’ rooms. Or where the penalties for men invading women’s privacy have been reduced or eliminated.

“And Jim --it's the ridiculously broad definition of "gender identity", which allows someone to change his or her gender from minute to minute, which is worriesome. (sic)”

Indeed it would be worrisome. I’ve never met anyone like that, and I’ve met hundreds of trans people. If that condition actually exists, you’re probably talking about someone who has Multiple Personality Disorder at that point, not someone with Gender Incongruence.

“The law should state that those who have gone through transition surgery can use the bathroom of their new identity.”

Well, that takes care of all the trans folks rich enough to pay for their surgery, but what about all those transmen who will never be able to save up enough cash for a phalloplasty?

“It's tiresome when you pretend you don't know this, Jim. It's like a kid clinging to a silly argument.”

Indeed it is tiresome, having to deal with people’s delusions that anti-discrimination laws are somehow going to lead to a rash of perverts in the ladies rooms claiming they should be there because of their gender identity. It didn’t happen after 23-07 passed in spite of all the hullaballoo the CRG created. We’ve heard no reports of this happening in Salt Lake City, Kalamazoo, or Gainesville, which also passed these laws recently. Nor has it happened in New York, Baltimore, or DC which have had these laws for years. I know you keep HOPING it will happen, just so you can post it on your website. But darn it, it just doesn’t seem to work that way!

February 26, 2010 11:03 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

I see wannabes said...

“no pre-ops in the wrong rest room

all sane people agree”

I’ve used women’s restrooms exclusively since 2003. For about 14 months of that time, I was pre-op. No one complained, or even batted an eyelash the wrong way at me. At times I’ve been in the restroom with other women and a mix of pre-op, non-op, and post-op trans women, here in MD, but also in PA, DE, DC, and northern VA. No one has ever indicated there was a problem with that. From your assertion that “all sane people agree,” I have to conclude that either I was only ever in the restroom with insane women, or not all of them agree. I’m pretty sure it’s the latter.

I don’t think women want pre-op transmen in the ladies room. I don’t imagine they’d relish the idea of having to explain to their daughters that the short bearded guy that just walked in and now has he feet pointed the “wrong” way is using a “stand to pee” device ( ) because he’s “not really a man” but a pre-op FTM transsexual.

Pre-op transmen and transwomen have been quietly using the least objectionable restrooms for decades with scarcely an incident of note. Transfolks early in transition or those having difficulty passing typically avoid public restrooms altogether or find out where all the single-stall rooms are for several surrounding counties.

“you'd like to be sane, wouldn't you, CZytnthia?”

Why Wannabe, if I didn’t know better, I’d think you were trying to impugn my sanity. That’s o.k., I’m used to it. It is a question that came up a lot during the 23-07 battle, so I offered to take any standard mental health exam and post the results here on the TTF blog, as long as Ruth Jacobs and Theresa Rickman did the same. I didn’t get any takers. The offer is open to you as well, and anyone else. Perhaps we can even make a show about it – we’ll have Jeff Foxworthy host “Are You More Sane than a Transsexual?” I’m afraid most people would be disappointed at the results. ( )

February 26, 2010 11:04 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

The very first day I went to Johns Hopkins they barraged me with a whole battery of psychological exams. Like everyone else they admit for treatment of Gender Incongruity, my exams came up “normal.” If you have a “mental illness” they simply will not treat you for GI, much less write the recommendations you need for surgery. They also assessed my capacity for decision making, my comprehension of outcomes, and the potential for “changing my mind.” As a psychiatrist at another facility said “you have to show you’re “more normal” than “normal” people in order to be approved for surgery.”

There were more tests and more doctors along my 6 year transition path. Any one of them had the opportunity to stop me in my tracks if they thought I wasn’t sane. None of them did. Nor was I ever prescribed one single pill of psychotropic medication. I know where my results come out on those psychological exams – quite well centered in the middle for the most part. My sanity has been tested and proven time and time again. We can’t say that about everyone who has posted here, just the post-op transsexuals.

Well I don’t have time to address all the comments, maybe I’ll get to them this weekend.

Have a nice day,


February 26, 2010 11:05 AM  
Anonymous cindy is a looney bird said...

you know what else is not happening, Cindia?

no one anywhere is having any trouble finding a place to go to the bathroom

the government has nothing to do with that

give bathrooms back to their owners

February 26, 2010 11:13 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

“give bathrooms back to their owners”

“The County Attorney’s Office concluded that Bill 23-07 as introduced would not require or prohibit restroom designation according to gender identity or biological gender (see memorandum on © 17). This means that an employer or other public facility provider could maintain and enforce current gender based restrictions on public facility use.”

So this means that employers and proprietors of facilities can designate restrooms based on gender however they see fit.

Have a nice day,


February 26, 2010 11:17 AM  
Anonymous splat back, loretta said...

"The very first day I went to Johns Hopkins"

interesting to note that, after Cindia, Johns Hopkins no longer performs this procedure

probably just a coincidence

February 26, 2010 11:17 AM  
Blogger David Weintraub said...

It must be frustrating as hell trying to match wits with Cynthia. I feel for ya, man.

Have a nice day, lol.

February 26, 2010 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you find hell frustrating, David?

February 26, 2010 2:37 PM  
Anonymous TTF? said...

"This is evil, people, this is hate in its purest form."

You sure?

Maybe hyperbolic language which twist the meaning of others' word in order to inflame is.

Just a thought.

February 26, 2010 5:15 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Loretta said:

“interesting to note that, after Cindia, Johns Hopkins no longer performs this procedure

probably just a coincidence”

I presume you are referring to GRS (Genital Reassignment Surgery). I went to JH in 1999. Johns Hopkins wasn’t performing “the” surgery then. As you may have read on a lot of “family” sites, GRS was shut down in 1979 by a Catholic guy by the name of Paul McHugh, who left in 2001. What gives?

McHugh only shut down the surgeries. The transition process is detailed in the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care: ( ).

If you read through them you’ll find that in order to be granted permission for surgery, one has to be evaluated by psychotherapists, transition to full time living in the appropriate gender, have a letter written by one therapist to approve you for hormone treatment, and after living in the appropriate gender for a minimum of 1 year, and assuming they determine you have been successful in this endeavor, letters from 2 doctors approving you for GRS. Despite the minimum requirement of only living “full time” for 1 year, transition is a process that often takes 5 years or more. GRS is only the last 4 to 5 hours of that multi-year process.

Despite right wing claims about McHugh “shutting down the gender identity clinic,” it simply isn’t true. Johns Hopkins continues to treat people for Gender Incongruence, and one of my friends is currently seeing a JH therapists. Although they don’t do GRS at JH, the therapists will give you all the letters you need to get the surgery elsewhere. Don’t believe me? Check out the conditions JH treats: (It’s the first item under “Gender Identity Concerns.”)

If that isn’t enough evidence, call them up for yourself, and find out the details.

Paul McHugh is famous for other activities as well.

From the Washington Times:

“If you found the clergy sex abuse scandal shocking, prepare for another jolt: the Catholic bishops are getting their "expert" advice on pedophilia from people who have covered up or even defended sex between men and children.”

“The bishops recently chose Dr. Paul McHugh, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at John Hopkins University School of Medicine, as chief behavioral scientist for their new clergy sex crimes review board. Yet Dr. McHugh once said Johns Hopkins' Sexual Disorders Clinic, which treats molesters, was justified in concealing multiple incidents of child rape and fondling to police, despite a state law requiring staffers to report them.”

"We did what we thought was appropriate," said Dr. McHugh, then director of Hopkins' Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, which oversaw the sex clinic. He agreed with his subordinate, clinic head Fred Berlin, who broke the then-new child sexual abuse law on the grounds that it might keep child molesters from seeking treatment.”

It is my understanding that this child molester abettor also penned the Catholic Church’s official stance on transsexuals, which, as you might imagine, is not very enlightened.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be too hard on the Catholic Church though. My GRS was performed at the Mt. San Rafael Hospital in Trinidad, Colorado. It was started by the Sisters of Charity in 1889: ( ) You won’t see any mention of the fact that Dr. Biber made this Catholic hospital (and the town) famous for being the “sex change capital of the world.”

Dr. Biber ( ) has since retired and unfortunately died. His practice was taken over by Dr. Marci Bowers, ( ) who is now the hospital’s gynecologist and sex-change surgeon. She is also a post-op transsexual herself.

Have a nice day,


February 27, 2010 11:52 PM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Sorry about the double post Jim -- I didn't think the first one got through. Feel free to delete a copy and this message as well.


February 27, 2010 11:58 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

OK, Cynthia, I deleted one of them, assuming they were identical.


February 28, 2010 12:22 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Thanks Jim! :D

Now I can go to sleep!

Take care,


February 28, 2010 12:36 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...

For the Record.

Testimony given this week in Maryland House of Delegates on HB 1022, as follows:

Statement on Workplace Discriminations, in favor of House Bill 1022
House Health & Govt. Operations Committee, Mar. 3rd, 2010

Maryanne A. Arnow
Germantown, MD

Most Honorable Chair, esteemed members, I am Maryanne Arnow, Classical Chef, native of Maryland and 40 year resident of Montgomery County.

I come before you again today to discuss the critical need for anti-discrimination protections for the transgender constituents of our State, as I have known years of discriminations, hateful ridicule, and fearful misperception beyond description.

You have heard before, and will again today, concerns of opposing viewpoints, including frightening and inaccurate characterizations. As one of the very women in question in such issues, I think such distortions must have more balanced perspectives.

You will hear we are “disordered”, and worse, intimated as unstable & confused. It is convenient for such arguments to never publicly state, that although listed as “disorder”, this language comes from an oversimplified read of a 20year old diagnostic manual.

It is also convenient that such arguments never mention current medical texts or experts that clearly acknowledge that “transition”, or change of gender, is now widely regarded as the most effective standard of clinical care.

You must know there are no social or economic incentives in this difficult & often impossibly costly process, and not undertaken lightly, or without considerable clarity of sane forethought of the consequences.

Such skewing of facts incites the worst fears, and intentionally reinforces the most negative stereotypes of transgender citizens.

Who could consciously face such damaging stereotypes and permanent life changes, just to “throw on a dress” and manufacture a “confused and sexually deviant” change of gender every day, as if on a mere whim?

I am neither a “drag queen” nor “gay man in a dress”, and legally married to my wife and best friend of 16 years.

To foster such untrue stereotype is unreasonable, dangerous to me personally, and disgustingly insulting in the most extreme ways imaginable.

Our esteemed opponents use the word “transgender” – still misunderstood by most, and THEN REPEATEDLY USE IT IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS “PEDOPHILE” OR “PREDATOR”.

This reckless conflation of transgender people with the most fearful criminal elements is an utter lack of human respect, which is then paid, BY ME, in the continued price of highly negative socioeconomic consequences.

Cont'd next post...

March 10, 2010 4:16 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...


Other distortions like, “naked men undressing in the stall next to our daughters and wives” are blatant fallacies that only promote fear, precluding acceptance, understanding, or any equal perception whatsoever.

All this, yet never stating in 100 US legislative districts with similar protections, that no such fearfully conjectured “incident” has ever occurred in context to transgender citizens.

No legitimately transitioning person willingly invites such exposure, lest lose everything we’ve literally risked our lives to accomplish. All others can be easily exposed, ejected, or arrested as appropriate under current laws, which are not affected by this bills’ implementation.

It is often called a morally abominable, scientifically impossible “lifestyle choice” that deprives others of rights to privacy and safety.

How is this possible, as I involuntarily recognized MY OWN gender as female from first conscious awareness at age four?
Such inherent self-knowledge occurred in me years before “sexuality”, or any so-called “lifestyle choice”, could possibly exist, by any social, theological, or cultural standard I know of.

I never realized that my struggle to survive, infringed upon rights that, as a woman in public society, I am also concerned with.

Please do what is right in this issue, and resolve our demand for equal fairness.

Most of us have never had the luxury of taking equal fairness for granted for no reason, other than simply being ourselves in ways that most assuredly could never be changed, or willingly “chosen”.

Most Sincerely and Respectfully,

I am,

Maryanne A. Arnow

March 10, 2010 4:17 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...

...And, just so you know the TRUTH of the lies and total misrepresentation of the laws' language once again used by CRG and others aligned with them,
in order to do nothing more than use all of you as tools, and simply by preying on the basest fears of sexuality in our culture.

Please READ the following, and i do mean READ IT CAREFULLY, so that you can be insulted, by being used as such tools of anger, bigotry, faleshood, and hateful discrimination & misrepresentation(any fans of CRG, or similar entities)

As follows:

Maryanne A. Arnow
Germantown, MD 20874

Responses to Draft Report 2008, Question “C”
Montgomery County Ballot Questions Advisory Committee of the Montgomery County Democratic Party

Most Esteemed Committee members,

I must thank and applaud you for the time spent last evening in reviewing this case with the diligence that was evidenced. A diligence which is now, more than ever, very much needed in such a difficult case as this has been, up until this point.

I must thank you for the opportunity to speak with, and meet you, in a respectfully appropriate forum, to have discussed this matter in the manner of objective and open dialogue.

I have received and reviewed the draft of your committee’s report, and would like very much to offer what responses I may, as may be helpful in resolving any additional questions posed as regards this legislation.

In addressing the Reasons to Oppose Bill 23-07):

Sec. N1 - Points of opposition -“Bill 23-07 “provides no exception for bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.”

My response:

This law in particular should not have to state this, based on any social or existing “necessary” legislative precedent.
Rather, the language itself being used in both the supporting; and more specifically, the opposing points themselves, clearly answers the questions.

Responses in support of 23-07:
From section Y2, under: Reasons to support 23-07:

“The bill does not alter present laws regarding bathroom, shower and locker room use in our county”.

And Section Y3, in support of 23-07:
“23-07 could not be used to shield an individual committing a crime in a public facility”.

“Any action that is a crime, such as harassment, would remain a crime, regardless of the perpetrator’s gender identity”.

If public safety is indeed an issue of concern as regards this legislation, yet baseline standards have already been set in social and legislative precedent, or both, then this language nullifies the objection itself, by addressing directly:

a.) The very fact that it clearly does NOT alter present laws, of which there are none, which regard, nor regulate, “specific terms of bathroom use” in our County.

b.) Should such an issue ever arise, this legislation does not provide any legislative or judiciary protections whatsoever to such a hypothetical individual or situation.

c.) That any such incident would have ever occurred to date,, regardless of the existence of this legislation, and that such a public safety issue would be treated the same before, as it is now that this legislation has been passed; and, by unanimous vote, of both male and female council members, many of whom have families of their own to consider protections for. (there is almost no record of any such an occurrence ever happening, in any one of the 100+ jurisdictions supporting similar legislations)

d.) The law does ostensibly provide very tangible “exceptions” as regards the language reference from County Code 27-10, which already clearly states “specifically excludes accommodations that are distinctly private or personal” and: “OWNERS CONTROL” the use of bathrooms”; and: ”WILL CONTINUE TO DESIGNATE” “who can use” “their distinctly private or personal facilities”.

End of Response

March 10, 2010 4:45 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...



Sec. N2- Opposing Point: (CRG) “In the absence of clear guidelines for the use of bathrooms, showers and locker rooms, and because the Non-Discrimination – Gender Identity bill (23-07) is “silent” on this aspect of the issue, owners of such facilities may be uncertain if they can refuse access to transgender customers based on their presentation or the objection of other customers and employees.

My Response:

The language presented in this objection is clearly flawed to a great extent. Again, using the very language within this law, and in existing stated precedent, the following would NOT be true based on this opposing concern:

A): “in the absence of clear guidelines”

The law is very clear on this point, as is referred to in code 27-10, which states: “Owners Control” (a clearly affirmative and very specific statement; and:

“will continue to designate” (another very clear and affirmative statement)

B): “and because bill (23-07) is “silent” on this aspect of the issue”. It is not silent, to the extent that this concern has already been clearly and definitively answered in the aforementioned paragraph, naming specific control of said facilities as unquestionably being established by and for “owners of facilities”, specifically in this regard.

C): “owners of such facilities May be uncertain if they can refuse access “

If, as stated in code 27-10 that: “Owners control the use of bathrooms and locker rooms and “will continue to designate”;
Then this is untrue, and in direct contradiction to the language already in use in the abovementioned answers.

If it is clearly outlined that “owners control” this aspect of concern, there is no ambiguity or uncertainty.

If as well, it is stated that: “and will continue to designate”,
this is further reinforcement of the existing language which is clear, specific, and entirely unambiguous as regards this concern, therefore the term “uncertain” cannot possibly be applicable in this opposition point’s instance.

D): Since the necessary “controls” specifically for “owners of facilities” have already been clearly outlined, and therefore giving no legal exceptions whatsoever to the hypothetical person(s) (transgender or otherwise) in question at this point, there is no additional “risk of liability being imposed” on said owners, as a result of the passage of this legislation, as some members of the opposition have stated is an issue.

End of Response


March 10, 2010 4:46 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...


Sec. N3 – Opposing point (CRG): “There is some disagreement about how the courts will rule on all facets of this law, but until they have ruled (and possibly even after), there is “extensive confusion” about what rights owners of private facilities for public access have to refuse service based on Gender Identity. If a man walks into a women’s shower room and claims he has a right to be there because he is transgender, under this law, an owner might hesitate to bar him for fear of being sued for discrimination”.

My Response:

Once again the very language itself is highly flawed, in this instance in some very significant ways:

A.) “there is extensive confusion about what rights owners of private facilities for public access have to refuse service based on Gender Identity. If a man walks into a women’s shower room and claims he has a right to be there because he is transgender, under this law, an owner might hesitate to bar him for fear of being sued for discrimination”.

Since Private control, without fear of civil or legislative reprisal, has been clearly outlined in 27-10, for these owners of said facilities, there should be no confusion on this point. Here are examples:

1. “If a man walks into a women’s shower room, and claims he has a right to be there because he is transgender.”

a). There have been no such instances ever documented amongst the legitimately identified transgender community members. The reasons for this: As was pointed out by Dr. Beyer, “gender transition usually occurs under a high degree of clinical supervision, and such an occurrence could not, or would not, ever happen based on the very nature of this level of clinical oversight to the person or persons in question”.

b). Plainly, no self-respecting individual in transition would ever engage in blatant or inexcusably high profile behaviors, lest risk losing ALL validity of their transitional progress made up until that point for the following reason(s).

c). All existing clinical standards of care for change of gender require, without exception, that a person undergoing such a change, must live “full-time” in their appropriate “target gender”, usually a minimum of 1 year before progressing further, and to do so in manner which presents no threat to themselves or others in any way whatsoever.

This would include any such overt, conspicuous, or possibly inappropriate behaviors, in what are certainly the most private and personal social settings, such as restroom facilities.

d). As I have stated myself, in articles and postings in various forums, “ I am there to do one thing and one thing only: Use the facilities in as quiet, unobtrusive, and inconspicuous manner as possible, as any other woman in the country does, and leave.”

e). The oppositions’ language is flawed, in immediately evident bias; i.e.: “If a man walks into a women’s shower room and claims he has a right to be there because he is transgender”

March 10, 2010 4:48 AM  
Anonymous MARYANNE ARNOW said...


This specifically creates a hypothetical and graphically disturbing situation as pertains to a single subset of the population.

That there is no mention ever made of a female to male transgender person, walking into a male bathroom, immediately highlights this very specific use of bias in the language. This points to one of the problems in these opposition questions more clearly.

This would invalidate both the ability, and the necessity of legitimately transitioning transgender people, to use the facilities as are clearly appropriate to the following:

a). their appropriate “target” gender, and;

b). all current clinical standards which require an unquestionable ability to positively function in mainstream public society, as any other member of that gender would do on a ”FULL TIME”, 24/7/365 “normal” daily living basis.

This would also include ay such person in transition of gender being able to produce a valid legal or clinical reason for being there in the first place.

If unable to do so, they would likely be ejected or arrested as appropriate, and well within the stated controls in the legislation, both past, (code 27-10) and present, (bill 23-07).

c.)“an owner might hesitate to bar him for fear of being sued for discrimination.” Since it is QUITE clear from existing language that there is no special exception which would give any protections whatsoever, whether civil or otherwise, to the hypothetical “transgender” individual in question, and that the “control” of those facilities, falls very clearly in the hands of any such owner, this is a FLAWED interpretation based on conjectured circumstances.(not to mention the OBVIOUS bias in using only the term “HIM” in this instance, as well, as the most fearfully graphic image of a potential and entirely conjectured “threat”….)

d). Furthermore, if there is in fact a public or private safety concern as stated, why would any facility owner, manager, or other principal that has the ability to enforce such controls without fear of reprisal, ever “hesitate” to do so, if the person cannot in fact show a valid legal or clinical reason to be there at that time.

The argument’s language defeats itself, and does so, very clearly in this instance.

End of Response

March 10, 2010 4:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home