Shower-Nuts Complain About Ethics Commission

We call them the "showernuts," because a few years ago they tried to convince Montgomery County, Maryland, residents that a bill preventing discrimination on the basis of gender identity would allow men to lurk in women's showers and restrooms, leering at the women and molesting and raping them. Oh, and killing them, one guy said there would be dead bodies of women and girls all over the county if the law went into effect. The law, which added the term "gender identity" to the already-existing law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, and so on, has been in effect since September 2008 and has not -- of course -- resulted in a single case of any man doing anything in any ladies room while claiming to be a woman, claiming to be transgender, or even claiming to know that the law exists.

After the law was passed, the showernuts tried to stage a referendum, but they failed to get enough signatures, even standing outside supermarkets saying, "Would you like to sign a petition to keep men out of women's bathrooms?" After that failure, the president of the anti-gay, anti-transgender Citizens for Responsible Government, Ruth Jacobs, filed an ethics complaint against transgender activist Dana Beyer, saying that Dana had harassed CRG members while they were trying to collect signatures. Dana was on the staff of a County Council member at the time, and the charge was that she had misused her official position to intimidate individuals who were gathering signatures for the referendum. All but one of the charges were thrown out after a year-long investigation that included a secret search of Beyer's office computer, and after a recent hearing the last charge was dropped.

This morning Ms. Jacobs sent out a CRG newsletter with the subject line: "Marylanders Punished For Using "Wrong" Pronouns."

Rockville, MD- April 7, 2011/The Montgomery County, Maryland Ethics Commission has rejected the testimony of two Marylanders for not addressing a transgender woman with feminine pronouns.

In dismissing a complaint brought by Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government (MCRG) against Dana Beyer, a former man known as Wayne Beyer, the Commission deemed the testimony of MCRG's witnesses to be biased and not credible because they did not use preferred pronouns as determined by the Commission.

"The Commission refused to consider our evidence," said Dr. Ruth Jacobs, President of MCRG. "Instead, they focused on our witnesses' use of pronouns."

The Montgomery County Ethics Commission listened to a parade of witnesses, including myself, who were present when some members of our group interacted with members of their group who were trying to get signatures. Everyone's behavior was legal, they had the right to try to get signatures "to keep men out of the ladies room" and we had the right to be there and tell potential signers what the law really said. Dana and I talked to the manager of the Giant where the CRG people were, and we talked to the people who were getting signatures. Dana never mentioned her official position, never intimidated anyone, and the Ethics Commission came to that correct conclusion after hearing everyone's reports.

The Commission was not convinced by the testimony of the CRG's witnesses. Partly this was because some of the witnesses were obviously prejudiced against transgender people. One of the CRG's witnesses, Steven Schall (who is not a Maryland resident), was quoted in the Ethics Commission's report:

“He gave me his name and told me that he was a woman and that he had a license that proved he was a woman.” Nonetheless, throughout his testimony Mr. Schall repeatedly referred to Dr. Beyer with the male pronouns “he” or “him.” He testified, “I have no idea what Dr. Beyer is.” But he denied holding any personal animus toward transgendered individuals.

Another witness, Giant manager Verlon Mason (who also resides outside the state), referred to Dana Beyer as "the shim," which is a derogatory term (and not a pronoun), in his taped testimony. So two of the CRG's witnesses used disparaging terms to describe Dana Beyers, and not necessarily pronouns.

In fact, let me say something here. Sometimes it is hard to use the right pronouns when you are referring to a person whose gender is ambiguous. When you're talking at full speed you don't keep track and sometimes you might say "him" instead of "her" or vice versa. It is easy enough to apologize quickly and keep on, it is surely a kind of faux pas that transgender people are familiar with. It may be awkward or embarrassing but it doesn't mean you hate anybody or that you are a bigot. Using the wrong pronoun intentionally and repeatedly is rude and does signal prejudice (e.g., see HERE).

Let me say something else. The county's gender identity nondiscrimination law doesn't care what you call anybody. It is not a language bill or a thought-crimes bill. Nobody gets "punished" for using offensive language. In a hearing such as this one, however, it is possible that the Commission will take into account the obvious fact that a witness is an unapologetic bigot when they try to determine the truth about what actually happened in the situation being investigated.

Ms. Jacobs' newsletter says,

"The free speech rights of Marylanders are being infringed," said Jacobs. "The County Council must rescind this controversial 'gender identity' law and prevent Montgomery County taxpayers from facing millions of dollars in lawsuits."

"We urge the Maryland Senate to vote against the statewide transgender bill now before it. As shown in Montgomery County, these dangerous gender identity bills harm Marylanders and infringe on our Constitutional rights as Americans."

MCRG has requested that the Ethics Commission reconsider its dismissal of their complaint.

The Ethics Commission may choose not to take the testimony of ignorant bigots seriously. To Ms. Jacobs this is a serious infringement of free speech rights.

Here's what the Ethics Commission said about their decision to clear Dana Beyers' name:

The ethics law is not an unbounded general code of civil conduct for county employees. Rather, the ethics law is concerned with the way employees conduct County business; the law addresses employees’ private conduct only where the conduct intersects with their public employment. Accordingly, inherent in § 19A-14(e)’s proscription against a public employee’s intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity is a nexus with County employment. In order for § 19A-14(e) to be violated, the employee’s conduct must be on the job, include self-identification as a public employee, or otherwise entail the prestige of office. Assuming that Dr. Beyer did confront MCRG volunteers, Giant Food managers, and patrons, there is no credible evidence that she invoked her County position while doing so. The Commission found Mr. Schall’s testimony, as well as Verlon Mason’s audiotape and affidavit, unpersuasive. Mr. Mason’s use of the derogatory term “shim” when referring to Dr. Beyer, evidences a bias against transgendered individuals. Similarly, Mr. Schall displayed a palpable and unapologetic disdain for transgendered individuals which, in the Commission’s judgment, makes his testimony not credible.

On the other hand, the disinterested witnesses do not support the charge. Montgomery County Police Sergeant Douglas Cobb did not testify to any confrontation, let alone conduct that might violate § 19A-14(e). And while Giant manager Aaron Williams testified that there was a “confrontation,” “shouting,” and “loud talking back and forth,” he would not identify what, if any, role Dr. Beyer played in this confrontation. It is apparent to the Commission that MCRG and Teach the Facts have very political agendas and this is reflected in their support or opposition to the Bill. There may, in fact, have been harsh words exchanged at the Arliss/Piney Branch on the day in question. But it was not proved that Dr.Beyer violated § 19A-14(e) by intimidating, threatening, coercing or discriminating against any person’s freedom to engage in political activity as a function of being on the job, self-identifying as a public employee, or entailing the prestige of office.

The Ethics Commission, in other words, found that Dana Beyer did not invoke her official status as a county staffer in interacting with the petition handlers. This was based on testimony by a number of credible witnesses, including a non-bigoted Giant manager and a cop who was on the scene, among others.

How can Ms. Jacobs say that "Marylanders were punished for using 'wrong' pronouns?" She can do it by lying, pure and simple. No one was punished. Neither of the people who used prejudiced terms to describe Dana Beyer were Marylanders, their prejudice extended beyond the misuse of pronouns, and no negative consequence of any kind of delivered to either of them. The Ethics Commission took their testimony, considered it, and decided correctly that they were bigots. The Commission did not rule in their favor, is that "punishment?"