Insane in Baltimore
Not surprisingly, as Baltimore County begins to debate a gender-identity nondiscrimination law, similar to the one passed in Montgomery County a few years ago, the Nutty Ones are coming out of the woodwork and saying the same things they said in our county, even though those things have been proven by experience to be flat-out false.
Ruth Jacobs, president of our county's Citizens for Responsible Government, testified at a hearing on the matter. Quoted at Think Progress:
This prompted a response from Keith Olbermann -- he has three "Worst Persons," Ms. Jacobs is second:
A Facebook event trying to get shower-nuts to attend the hearings in Baltimore had this to say (click "See more" on the top block of text):
The author of the statement is apparently a woman named Anita Schatz, who according to this Baltimore Sun article, testified at Baltimore's hearing on the bill. I do not find a direct quote, but I believe she also mentioned in her public comments that there have been four rapes by men dressing as women in the ladies room in Montgomery County since the law passed.
This prompted a response by someone who ought to know -- the Montgomery County Chief of Police. Here is his letter in its entirety:
Some people don't like it when I call these people "nuts," like I am being disrespectful or something. I try to stay cheerful about it, I call them nuts as if it were something colorful or charming, like a kid who wears socks that don't match, or a stoned hippie who forgets what he was saying. But really, let's be clear about this. Anybody who actually believes that prohibiting discrimination against transgender people is going to result in men in dresses lurking in ladies restrooms -- even when it has never happened in any jurisdiction where such a law exists -- is not just a nut, they are stark raving insane. These people go out, year after year, and give speeches to tell people that something is going to happen when in reality that thing never happens. And so they lie and say it did happen, and keep going.
Ruth Jacobs, president of our county's Citizens for Responsible Government, testified at a hearing on the matter. Quoted at Think Progress:
JACOBS: It opens up the bathrooms to men who may be just cross-dressers, who may be a pedophile who uses the law to nefarious advantage. It’s a very dangerous bill. In this law, you’re afraid to complain because [you think] Oh my goodness — maybe I’ll be considered a bigot. But, of course it could be somebody who’s trying to rape me.
This takes away from a woman being a woman. Somebody else is just like you. These people are confused about their gender.
The bill is a direct attack on women’s privacy. Maryland Anti-LGBT Groups Object To Transgender Protections As ‘Dangerous’
This prompted a response from Keith Olbermann -- he has three "Worst Persons," Ms. Jacobs is second:
A Facebook event trying to get shower-nuts to attend the hearings in Baltimore had this to say (click "See more" on the top block of text):
Would you like to walk into a bathroom and see a man in there with our Children? This is just not right. Please show your support by objecting In Towson or contacting them here..if no answer you can leave message Or send Email .. (Bill #3-12)
Since Montgomery County passed a similar bill, there have been 4 rapes by men, dressing as women lying in wait for their victims in ladies rooms.
There is no provision in this bill to protect women and girls, leaving it open to all kinds of abuses.
The author of the statement is apparently a woman named Anita Schatz, who according to this Baltimore Sun article, testified at Baltimore's hearing on the bill. I do not find a direct quote, but I believe she also mentioned in her public comments that there have been four rapes by men dressing as women in the ladies room in Montgomery County since the law passed.
This prompted a response by someone who ought to know -- the Montgomery County Chief of Police. Here is his letter in its entirety:
The Honorable Tom Quirk
Baltimore County Council
400 Washington Avenue
Towson, Maryland 21204
I am writing to clarify information that has been brought to my attention regarding alleged sexual assaults in Montgomery County. It was brought to my attention that there is an allegation stating that since the Transgender Law was passed in our county we have experienced four (4) rapes by men dressing as women and lying in wait for their victims in ladies restrooms.
The Transgender Bill was passed by the Montgomery County Countil on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, and it became law shortly thereafter. Since this law has been in effect, we have had no reported rapes committed in restrooms by men dressed in women's clothing.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
J. Thomas Manger
Chief of Police
Some people don't like it when I call these people "nuts," like I am being disrespectful or something. I try to stay cheerful about it, I call them nuts as if it were something colorful or charming, like a kid who wears socks that don't match, or a stoned hippie who forgets what he was saying. But really, let's be clear about this. Anybody who actually believes that prohibiting discrimination against transgender people is going to result in men in dresses lurking in ladies restrooms -- even when it has never happened in any jurisdiction where such a law exists -- is not just a nut, they are stark raving insane. These people go out, year after year, and give speeches to tell people that something is going to happen when in reality that thing never happens. And so they lie and say it did happen, and keep going.
posted by JimK at 7:14 AM
33 Comments:
To complete the record, the Baltimore Sun has Police Chief Manger's letter up on its website:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-transgender-discrimination-read-the-letter-to-quirk-from-montgomery-co-police-20120118,0,7137374.htmlstory
"I try to stay cheerful about it, I call them nuts as if it were something colorful or charming, like a stoned hippie who forgets what he was saying."
yeah, those guys really are charming, aren't they?
some of you TTFers should look at the mirror, mirror on the wall
It think you'll find it's alarming how charming you feel
the idea that is really nutty and kind of uncharming is that you are a girl if you feel and just know you are
instead of finding a cure for this mental illness, a fringe group pushes the idea an artificial solution: intervene in nature and make the delusion true by surgery and chemicals and counsleing
sounds nutty
"These people go out, year after year, and give speeches to tell people that something is going to happen when in reality that thing never happens. And so they lie and say it did happen, and keep going."
Insane? That's far too gracious. What they are is stark, raving amoral. Moral abominations. Sociopaths.
"make the delusion true by surgery and chemicals and counsleing"
Lets see...
(1) There is medical evidence which strongly supports - though has not yet conclusively proved - transsexualism's existence, far more evidence in fact than of any of the divine events alleged by the book of christian mythology to have taken place.
(2) In more general terms, if a delusion becomes "true" - by whatever means - how exactly is it still a delusion?
"Insane? That's far too gracious. What they are is stark, raving amoral. Moral abominations. Sociopaths."
not to mention, just plain ol' mean
how can they imply that somebody isn't who they think they are?
they do that with Obama too
Obama said during his campaign that he's "the one the world has been waiting for"
probably not true but isn't it kind of stark, raving amoral to say so
let's get surgery for Obama and turn him into a Lincoln look alike
that's how to deal with delusion
indulge it
in the words of Capt Jean Luc Picard, make it so
"There is medical evidence which strongly supports - though has not yet conclusively proved - transsexualism's existence,"
like what?
written records of how they say they feel?
"far more evidence in fact than of any of the divine events alleged by the book of christian mythology to have taken place"
more than the big bang and the obviously designed systems of nature?
wow!
let's hear it
"In more general terms, if a delusion becomes "true" - by whatever means - how exactly is it still a delusion?"
because it's artificial and cosmetic
get back to Mother Earth, man
Should you judge a book by its cover?
"Obama said during his campaign that he's "the one the world has been waiting for""
Show a source for your quote or admit you are lying again.
Here is the transcript of Obama's February 2008 Super Tuesday speech, in which he said "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for."
It's a favorite of the rightwingnuts, who keep misquoting it and trying to turn into something else with smoke and mirrors.
Get your facts rights or shut up.
when he says "we", he means he and everyone who worships him
here's more from how momentous he thought his nomination for the Presideny was:
"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"
you see, that's delusion
he actually think that he controls the elements and will deliver us if we lift him up
the only solution is to give him surgery to make him look like Lincoln
he'd be the first transpresidential President
Anony-whatevers: The moral abomination to which I refer is lying; deliberately making up a story of something that did not happen for the purpose of defaming a category of person.
Now, if the person(s) so testifying were not under oath then they have not committed a legal crime, but what we are talking about is the enormous moral crime in which they have been caught. Can you explain why you think it's defensible to bear false witness? Thanks.
Like Anita, anything our Anonymouse says is true- because he said so. He doesn't need facts or the truth.
Did Ruth cry at the hearing? I miss weepy Ruth!
David what-the-wein:
I haven't seen anyone ask CRG about the four rapes so I don't know if anyone's lying
if they are, it's quite bombastic to call it an abomination
people lie for political purposes all the time
defaming a category of person?
this is the same BS TTF regularly threw around during this debate
for one thing, deviancy is not the basis for categorizing people
for another, the person who said this is not saying trans attack women
they are saying someone could pretend to be one and, if this law were in effect, it would make it easy for them to attack women
this is obviously true
if you deny it, you're lying
I won't say you're abominable
and I don't think you're defaming pro-family advocates
I just think you're lying for political purposes
I thought Andreary had been locked away
must have escaped from St Elizabeth's
"they are saying someone could pretend to be one and, if this law were in effect, it would make it easy for them to attack women
There you go, lying again. They said no such thing.
Anita Schatz said:
"there have been four rapes by men dressing as women in the ladies room in Montgomery County since the law passed"
so you say that "men dressing as woman" are transexuals?
you usually say men that dress as women besause they think they are women are WOMEN
where you lying then?
or now?
actually, you're just flat out all-purpose lying
you know perfectly well that they are saying there is no way to distingish someone pretending to be a trans and and someone who actually suffers from this mental illness
WASHINGTON -- In a huge victory for Texas Republicans, the Supreme Court on Friday morning sent Texas' redistricting maps back to the drawing board.
The high court's unsigned, unanimous opinion in the linked cases of Perry v. Perez and Perry v. Davis threw out interim state and congressional district maps drawn up by a three-judge federal court in San Antonio, Texas. The lower court had drawn up the interim maps when civil rights groups challenged the original maps created by the Republican-controlled state legislature as unlawfully discriminating against minority voters.
Anon, it may be possible, in the sense that there is a nonzero probability, that a man would dress up as a woman and hang out in a women's restroom to rape someone. It could happen. Can you imagine a world where people thought of every improbable bad thing that could happen and made laws to prevent it?
The thing is, nutty people like Ruth Jacobs and Anita Schatz have beliefs about human behavior that lead them to conclude that someone really will do this, that men really will dress up as women in the ladies' showers and rape the women when they come in, or at least eyeball them in a lewd and creepy way, violating the angelic purity of our lovely wives and daughters, if only discrimination against transgender people were prohibited.
It is possible in the sense that a meteor crushing you is possible, but it is entirely inconsistent with everything that has ever been observed in human nature. Hundreds of places have gender-identity antidiscrimination laws, and never has a man in one of those areas dressed up like a woman and raped anyone. If it was going to happen, it would have by now, and it has not, and it is not a sign of good mental functioning to keep saying that it will happen. And it is an even worse sign to lie and say that it has happened, when it has not.
On the other hand, it is an absolute certainty that some jerk is going to discriminate against a transgender person. It happens every day, and our modern society does not believe it is fair to persecute someone for the way they are, when they have not done anything wrong. So this kind of law will right a wrong, and it will not in any nonhallucinatory way put anyone in harm's way. Ms. Jacobs' and Ms. Schatz' fantasies about men in the ladies room are nothing but malicious delusions, and it is absurd to defend them.
The basic argument of the anti-lgbt organizations is the transgender people are a threat to our women and children. The ghost of Emmet Till stands witness against such deep bigotry.
rrjr
words really aren't adequate, Robert, to express what a complete ass you are
The real problem is:
1. According to the American Psychological Association “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.”
2. How will the public know what these mentally ill persons are thinking when the American Psychological Association admits gender expression varys from person to person?
3. How can the public discern mentally ill transgender vs a schizophrenic individual?
How do we know the next person person we encounter in the public bathroom is not some some missionary man in robes who's going to try force us to convert to his religion of hatred for God's rarer creations?
Anon Asserted:
“The real problem is:
1. According to the American Psychological Association “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.”
2. How will the public know what these mentally ill persons are thinking when the American Psychological Association admits gender expression varys (sic) from person to person?”
At the risk of being stuck with the epithet “Captain Obvious,” do you really expect Dolly Parton and Arnold Schwarzenegger to have the same gender expression? Isn’t obvious to most people (not just the APA) that everyone’s gender expression varies from person to person, whether they are mentally ill or not? If Dolly and Arnold did have the same gender expression, can your mind possibly even imagine what that would look like? My brain shudders to think about that!
And do you really think this is “The real problem”???
“3. How can the public discern mentally ill transgender vs a schizophrenic individual?”
Wow, talk about a loaded question. It’s almost like you were out to offend transgender people with that one or something.
I suppose you could have offended more people by asking a question like “How can the public discern a Catholic pedophile from the Catholics that just hide the pedophiles?” But that wouldn’t have advanced your attempt to conflate law abiding trans folks with rapists and the mentally ill.
Why don’t you ask that question again when you can actually find documented evidence of a diagnosed mentally ill, known transgender person causing the public a problem? Usually when a transwoman makes the news, it’s because she’s been assaulted or murdered.
Keep in mind, that as a transwoman, I have had to prove to a series of doctors (including ones at Johns Hopkins) via a whole battery of tests, that I was NOT mentally ill before they would even consider me for consultation. Letters for hormones and surgery require even more proof of a person’s lucidity and ability to understand the consequences of their decisions before they are granted. You may cast aspersions on my sanity if you like, and many have. But unless you have documented proof, (such as that available from a certified psychiatrist) it’s just name calling.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
At the risk of being stuck with the epithet “Captain Obvious,” do you really expect Dolly Parton and Arnold Schwarzenegger to have the same gender expression? Isn’t obvious to most people (not just the APA) that everyone’s gender expression varies from person to person, whether they are mentally ill or not? If Dolly and Arnold did have the same gender expression, can your mind possibly even imagine what that would look like? My brain shudders to think about that!
You have just admitted that “my brain shudders to think about that” (Dolly and Arnold with the same gender expression). If you have a problem with these people trying to pretend they were the opposite sex, why wouldn’t you think other people, including children, would have the same problem with these people in the wrong public bathroom or school shower room?
And do you really think this is “The real problem”???
Real problem in public bathrooms and school shower rooms is the fact (from APA as stated in #1, “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.” “Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group.” We have separated biological men from women in public bathrooms and school shower rooms for a reason in our society. It is a safety and right to privacy issue.
“3. How can the public discern mentally ill transgender vs a schizophrenic individual?”
You didn’t answer the question. How can the public discern?
Wow, talk about a loaded question. It’s almost like you were out to offend transgender people with that one or something.
I suppose you could have offended more people by asking a question like “How can the public discern a Catholic pedophile from the Catholics that just hide the pedophiles?” But that wouldn’t have advanced your attempt to conflate law abiding trans folks with rapists and the mentally ill.
You don’t know if ALL trans folks are law abiding, do you?
Why don’t you ask that question again when you can actually find documented evidence of a diagnosed mentally ill, known transgender person causing the public a problem?
IF I did, would you believe it?
Usually when a transwoman makes the news, it’s because she’s been assaulted or murdered.
Not true. What about the transwomen who was elected to a public office? What about the transwomen that was appointed to a federal position? What about the transwomen who ran for a legislative seat in Md? How about the trans-man who got pregnant?
Keep in mind, that as a transwoman, I have had to prove to a series of doctors (including ones at Johns Hopkins) via a whole battery of tests, that I was NOT mentally ill before they would even consider me for consultation. Letters for hormones and surgery require even more proof of a person’s lucidity and ability to understand the consequences of their decisions before they are granted. You may cast aspersions on my sanity if you like, and many have. But unless you have documented proof, (such as that available from a certified psychiatrist) it’s just name calling.
Sounds as if you need a new doctor that can really help you.
"The American people feel that they have elites who have been trying for a half century to force us to quit being American. Let's rebuild the America we love."
Newt Gingrich, January 21, 2012
As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich surged to victory in Saturday's South Carolina primary, there was another clear winner in the Palmetto State: Sarah Palin.
During an appearance Tuesday on Fox News' "Hannity," the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate said that if she were a South Carolinian, she would "vote for Newt." It was an important stamp of approval in a state where 65 percent of primary voters support the Tea Party movement.
Sarah Palin’s husband is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president, Todd Palin told ABC News today.
Palin said he respects Gingrich for what he went through in the 1990s and compared that scrutiny in public life to what Sarah Palin went through during her run for the vice presidency.
Todd Palin said he believes that being in the political trenches and experiencing the highs and lows help prepare a candidate for the future and the job of president.
Palin pointed to last summer, when a large portion of Gingrich’s staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign.
Gingrich’s ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical “beltway types” and that his campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans.”
Anon stated:
“Real problem in public bathrooms and school shower rooms is the fact (from APA as stated in #1, “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.” “Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group.” We have separated biological men from women in public bathrooms and school shower rooms for a reason in our society. It is a safety and right to privacy issue.”
Now you’re changing your tune, and you’ve brought up “MWD.”
You previously wrote (and I quote):
“The real problem is:
1. According to the American Psychological Association “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.”
2. How will the public know what these mentally ill persons are thinking when the American Psychological Association admits gender expression varys from person to person?
3. How can the public discern mentally ill transgender vs a schizophrenic individual?”
First of all, you state “THE real problem IS:”
A little grammar check here first – the article “The”, the singular form of the noun “problem” and the verb “is” imply a singular “problem” item. You then go on to immediately list 3 different items by number. Already you have a problem here because your setup does not match the following text - are there really 3 problems or just one? Which one is the reader supposed to divine is the REAL problem of your list – besides of course, the poor writing skills?
Item number 1 is simply a statement of fact, it does not appear to be a problem, or maybe I’m missing something: “According to the American Psychological Association “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.” Why is this a problem? Do you have a problem with biological males being attracted to women?
Item number 3 is a poorly formed, derogatory rhetorical question that was designed to be inflammatory, not illicit a useful answer. It is an expression of an irrational fear, not a statement of a problem. I’ll address that later.
This leaves item 2 as the “problem.” “How will the public know what these mentally ill persons are thinking when the American Psychological Association admits gender expression varys (sic) from person to person?”
There are problems with this question as well. What mentally ill people are you referring to? The cross dressers of item #1? Where does the APA or the DSM say that cross dressers are mentally ill? If they are mentally ill, which psychotropic medications are they treated with? If they are mentally ill, why aren’t they kept in institutions away from the public, like other mentally ill folks? Surely there must be some kind of treatment regimen for cross dressing if it is a mental illness, right? If men who occasionally wear dresses are considered mentally ill, shouldn’t we do something about women who wear pants? Shouldn’t they be diagnosed as mentally ill too? Maybe considering “women in pants” mentally ill is stretching it – but if they wear a shirt too, instead of a blouse, surely that’s got to be a sign of mental illness, right? If not the cross dressers, which mentally ill folks are you referring to?
Or is the “problem” with “the American Psychological Association admits gender expression varys (sic) from person to person?”
There doesn’t seem to be a real problem with this either. After all, does one really expect Mr. T to have the same gender expression as Bill Nye the Science Guy? And I’m sure I’m not the only one that is EXTREMELY thankful that Rosanne Barr doesn’t have the same gender expression (particularly the wardrobe) of Cher (I warn you, don’t think about that one too long!). I used the example of Dolly and Arnold as the most extreme case, but my brain still can’t imagine Bill Nye pulling off a viable “Mr. T” version of gender expression. It would just be ridiculous.
Anon said:
“You have just admitted that “my brain shudders to think about that” (Dolly and Arnold with the same gender expression). If you have a problem with these people trying to pretend they were the opposite sex, why wouldn’t you think other people, including children, would have the same problem with these people in the wrong public bathroom or school shower room?”
You are conflating things again Anon. Having the “same gender expression” (the apparent problem of item 2 above) has nothing to do with “pretending they were the opposite sex”. If both Dolly and Arnold had the same gender expression it might include both frilly flower print dresses and M16s, or it could just be military boots, camouflage outfits, and oversized cigars – but it’s hard for me to imagine Dolly pulling that one off. Neither your APA statement nor I ever mentioned anything about their gender *identity* or sexual preferences, much less “pretending to be the opposite sex” – only their gender *expression*. It seems to me Arnold would still be pretty confident and comfortable with his masculine gender *identity* even if you did put him in a dress.
Everyone has a gender expression. Some are particularly masculine, some are particularly feminine, many are not, and some are particularly androgynous. (Arguably androgynous could be considered a lack of gender expression, but I don’t I want to go off on that tangent right now.) All of these people somehow figure out the right place to go to the bathroom. Somehow they manage to figure this out pretty much on their own, without help, policing, or bathroom laws from conservative Christian “family” groups. Seriously, when is the last time you heard of children being distressed by someone’s gender expression in the bathroom?
I’ve been in restrooms all over Montgomery County and no one has ever run out in fear or complained of my gender expression. I am not in gyms very often, but no one has complained there, either. And yes, sometimes (gasp!) there were even *children* in the restroom!! So far, the only people who have issues with my using restrooms in Montgomery County is a small group of “conservative, family values Christians” who are apparently obsessed with the fact that I used to have boy parts and I occasionally wear dresses. Somehow, (in a twisted bit of neurosis I can’t begin to understand) because of this, they have imagined that I go around trying to do nefarious things with women and children, rather than cope with the painful reality that I am a decently paid, hard working, and fairly highly regarded engineer with a number of useful analog and digital circuit design skills, an no criminal record (aside from a few speeding tickets before I transitioned.)
So back to your re-do of the “real problem.”:
“Real problem in public bathrooms and school shower rooms is the fact (from APA as stated in #1, “The great majority of cross-dressers are biological males, most of whom are sexually attracted to women.” “Cross-dressers or transvestites comprise the most numerous transgender group.” We have separated biological men from women in public bathrooms and school shower rooms for a reason in our society. It is a safety and right to privacy issue.”
In which you’ve finally identified your real fear: MWD in women’s bathrooms.
Yes folks, I said it, MWD. Men in Women’s Dresses. Sort of like WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), only much, much prettier. MWD and WMD were both designed by conservatives to strike fear in the hearts of God fearing, nation loving, patriotic Americans, and sway them to the “RIGHT” way of thinking.
Let’s address cross dressers first. It doesn’t take too long hunting around the web to find support groups for the wives and girlfriends of cross dressers. If you peruse some of these sites for a while, you’ll find the typical story reads something like “we were married for 10 years before he finally told me his secret.” Cross dressers are a particularly secretive bunch that doesn’t want people to know about their hobby and goes out of their way to hide it. Over time, some of them appear to get up the nerve to gather together in meetings for cross dressers and their significant others, and they may even do this at a local hotel, or go out for Halloween together. Most of them however don’t want to be seen in public for fear of humiliation and losing their job. So if you actually see one in public, it’s probably Halloween, or you’re at one of their meetings. I only know one person who identifies as a cross dresser personally. He has told me that if someone were to look over his fence during the summer time, they might catch him in his bikini. Not to give anyone any ideas, but if you see one in public, you could take his picture and probably extort some money out of him for it.
As a side note, since you brought up the APA, I don’t recall anywhere in their literature indicating that cross dressers have *any* propensities to go into ladies rooms and attack women, so I’m wondering where you came up with this idea?
Transvestites on the other hand, dress like a woman on many occasions and go out in public frequently. Despite all of the trans people I’ve met over the years, I’ve never met one personally. The first one I can think of is Eddie Izzard – he’s an extremely funny British comedian and you can see some of his work on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siBX0i1EIWk If you watch enough of his videos you find he seems to be quite comfortable with his masculine gender identity that happens to like to wear dresses and makeup. He has described himself as sort of the male version of a “tomboy.” My guess is he uses the men’s room, but that’s not something I’ve researched, because unlike a very small minority of people, I’m not obsessed with where he uses the bathroom. If it was a problem, I’m sure it would have made the news somewhere. He might have even ended up in jail. That *certainly* would have made the news given his celebrity status.
As a side note, since you brought up the APA, I don’t recall anywhere in their literature indicating that transvestites have *any* propensities to go into ladies rooms and attack women, so I’m wondering where you came up with this idea?
“We have separated biological men from women in public bathrooms and school shower rooms for a reason in our society. It is a safety and right to privacy issue.”
Indeed Anon, that’s why restrooms have stalls with doors. It’s also why transmen use the men’s room -so biological women don’t get frightened off by their beards, deep voices, and their tendency to prefer to stand when they pee. Trans folks have been using restrooms for years, and only occasionally does it end up being a problem – Chrissy Polis’ brutal attack by two young women for example. I have yet to hear or see of any real trans person violating someone’s privacy in a restroom. If it was out there, I’m sure the “family” groups would have it posted all over their literature. This doesn’t stop women from using the men’s room entirely though, many of them will tell you they’ve gone into men’s rooms when the line for the ladies room is too long. I haven’t heard any men tell me a similar story though when they had to wait too long.
Back to your defamatory question:
“3. How can the public discern mentally ill transgender vs a schizophrenic individual?”
You didn’t answer the question. How can the public discern?”
You didn’t indicate which mental illness this hypothetical transgender person was suffering from. Is it depression? Paranoia? Agoraphobia? Alzheimer's? Bibliomania? Echopraxia? Histrionic personality disorder? Trichotillomania? Should I assume you were still referring to a cross dresser as in item #1 of your list of “problems” when you mention “transgender”? How am I supposed to provide discerning information when you haven’t indicated which specific items you wish to discern?
There have been a few trans people I’ve known that have suffered from depression. This isn’t entirely unexpected as they struggled to cope with the loss of a job, company, or career, as well as family, friends and children through custody battles. Some of them have been prescribed medication for the condition. This is typically only temporary though as they work through all of those issues and move on to a new life with new friends or job (if they can get hired) as the case may be. Although most of the public does not have a medical degree, I think many of them will notice when someone is depressed, even if they don’t know if it’s bad enough to reach the clinical definition of “depression” which might need therapeutic or pharmacological intervention.
As a side note though, depressed people are mostly noted for lying around in bed much of the day and not doing much except complaining about how miserable their life is. I have found any indication in the APA that depressed people have *any* propensities to go into ladies rooms and attack women, so I’m wondering where you came up with this idea?
Anon asked:
“You don’t know if ALL trans folks are law abiding, do you?”
I don’t know that ALL trans people aren’t bank robbers, but that doesn’t stop me from going to the bank. I don’t know that ALL Chinese restaurants don’t put a little cat or dog in their moo shoo pork, but that doesn’t stop me from eating at Chinese restaurants. Although it does keep one of my friends from eating there.
I have reason to suspect the two of the trans people I know have committed crimes. One of them has mentioned that he likes to smoke some weed on occasion. The other is a socio-economically challenged transwoman of color that has had to leave a number of jobs after people found out about her medical history due to their harassment. I have reason to suspect (although legally it would be considered “hearsay”) that at times she has had to earn money in a way that is not legal in most states.
I asked:
“Why don’t you ask that question again when you can actually find documented evidence of a diagnosed mentally ill, known transgender person causing the public a problem?”
To which you responded:
“IF I did, would you believe it?”
Given the history of conservatives to cherry pick, take out of context, and make up news, I would certainly vet the information carefully. Whether I believed it or not would depend on what I learned during the vetting process.
I noted:
“Usually when a transwoman makes the news, it’s because she’s been assaulted or murdered.”
To which you answered:
“Not true. What about the transwomen who was elected to a public office? What about the transwomen that was appointed to a federal position? What about the transwomen who ran for a legislative seat in Md? How about the trans-man who got pregnant?”
I said *usually* Anon, not “always.” Also, the last example you gave was a transman, and my statement was clearly about transwomen, by virtue of the simple fact that I used the term transwoman.
Anon asserted:
“Sounds as if you need a new doctor that can really help you.”
You’ve made this assertion before, presumably under the presumption that I am “mentally ill.” Yet despite being tested in two different states by half a dozen different doctors, I have never been diagnosed with a mental illness, been kept in a mental health facility, or even been given 1 pill worth of medication to treat a mental illness. I have offered on several occasions to have my mental faculties evaluated by independent doctors and posted here on the TTF blog for everyone to see, as long as Ruth and Theresa would do the same (other CRG folks are welcome to join in the fun). So far, no one has shown any inkling of taking me up on this.
I have just received a phone call and learned that a friend of mine from church has died from cancer.
I am done typing for the night.
Peace,
Cynthia
five consecutives posts by Cinco, justifying the forceable destruction of the age-old tradition of segregating rest rooms by gender
why?
so trans can pretend they are something they're not
we should help the mentally ill gte help, not indulge their delusions
get help, cinco, get help
You know, it's funny - after all of this I still don't see any showerheads explaining how it is that (at least) one of them publicly stated that there have been "4 rapes by men dressed as women," causing the Chief of Police to have to issue a statement correcting that false statement. The takeaway is that the showerhead(s) lied.
Do you have a justification for that behavior? Let's hear it, please.
Post a Comment
<< Home