Cave-In Bill Would Have Opposite Effect
According to this Baltimore Sun article, four of the seven County Council members in Baltimore County are planning to vote for a version of a gender identity nondiscrimination bill that excludes bathrooms and locker rooms. They will make it illegal to discriminate against transgender people except when they need to use a bathroom.
You will remember that Chrissy Lee Polis was videotaped being beaten to the point of having a seizure when she used the ladies room in a Baltimore McDonald's last year. It is a dangerous situation where transgender people really do need the protection of the law.
In response to some false testimony in Baltimore County, Montgomery County's Chief of Police wrote a letter that said, "Since this law has been in effect, we have had no reported rapes committed in restrooms by men dressed in women's clothing." Still the shower-nuts keep talking about the danger of transgender people using public restrooms. This week Montgomery County's Chief Executive wrote a letter to Baltimore County Council saying, "Contrary to all the fear-mongering of the opposition, none of which is or has ever been based in fact, life in Montgomery County has improved for everyone since that time. As County Police Chief Manger pointed out in a letter to Councilmember Quirk last month, the allegations made against the County with respect to assaults perpetrated over the past four years by "cross-dressing men" in women's restrooms are completely without merit." Still the shower-nuts call politicians' offices and tell them that perverted men are going to lurk in ladies rooms if this bill is passed.
If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now, and it hasn't.
Imagine that a bill is passed, prohibiting discrimination against transgender people except when it comes to restrooms and showers. Now let's say a man in a restaurant goes to use the mens room, and the restaurant management won't let him, thinking he is transgender, but he is not. The manager tells him he has to use the ladies room.
Now you do have the case of a man using the ladies room. And can you imagine the lucrative lawsuit he will be able to file after suffering every kind of public humiliation and embarrassment? The women who were in the ladies room at the time will also file lawsuits of their own, since the restaurant has deliberately sent a man into the women's restroom. A restaurant owner does not want to make that mistake, believe me.
Now imagine a transgender man in a restaurant goes to use the mens room. To keep the story good we will say that he has had "bottom surgery," so his genitalia are completely male, but that is not necessary. Maybe he is short and a little curvy, whatever, the manager clocks him as transgender and sends him to the women's restroom. This might be legal under the Baltimore County legislation that is being considered. Now, again, you have a man using the ladies room. The Citizens for Responsible Whatever will claim victory, this is what they want.
Or let's say the transgender man fights back and says, "I am a man, I should use the mens room," and the manager doesn't believe him. Now they are in the bizarre position of having to prove it. How legal to you suppose it is to force your customer to expose their genitals to you in order to use the bathroom? The restaurant manager ends up being tagged as a sex offender, which will follow him through the rest of his life, as his whereabouts are tracked on Internet maps and government listings forever, his neighbors won't speak to him.
The best outcome, if the restaurant manager acts in accordance with this bizarre law and the customer is cooperative, is that a man will be forced to use the ladies room. Under any scenario, the restaurant owner has a legal problem on his hands.
You simply cannot enforce this kind of ordinance in the real world. It solves a problem that does not exist and causes innumerable new ones.
Dan Rodricks, writing in the Baltimore Sun, said:
The Citizens for Responsible Whatever should have no impact at all on any policy decision. The Baltimore County Council needs to think this through, the consequences of exempting bathrooms and locker-rooms from the nondiscrimination law would be absurd.
You will remember that Chrissy Lee Polis was videotaped being beaten to the point of having a seizure when she used the ladies room in a Baltimore McDonald's last year. It is a dangerous situation where transgender people really do need the protection of the law.
In response to some false testimony in Baltimore County, Montgomery County's Chief of Police wrote a letter that said, "Since this law has been in effect, we have had no reported rapes committed in restrooms by men dressed in women's clothing." Still the shower-nuts keep talking about the danger of transgender people using public restrooms. This week Montgomery County's Chief Executive wrote a letter to Baltimore County Council saying, "Contrary to all the fear-mongering of the opposition, none of which is or has ever been based in fact, life in Montgomery County has improved for everyone since that time. As County Police Chief Manger pointed out in a letter to Councilmember Quirk last month, the allegations made against the County with respect to assaults perpetrated over the past four years by "cross-dressing men" in women's restrooms are completely without merit." Still the shower-nuts call politicians' offices and tell them that perverted men are going to lurk in ladies rooms if this bill is passed.
If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now, and it hasn't.
Imagine that a bill is passed, prohibiting discrimination against transgender people except when it comes to restrooms and showers. Now let's say a man in a restaurant goes to use the mens room, and the restaurant management won't let him, thinking he is transgender, but he is not. The manager tells him he has to use the ladies room.
Now you do have the case of a man using the ladies room. And can you imagine the lucrative lawsuit he will be able to file after suffering every kind of public humiliation and embarrassment? The women who were in the ladies room at the time will also file lawsuits of their own, since the restaurant has deliberately sent a man into the women's restroom. A restaurant owner does not want to make that mistake, believe me.
Now imagine a transgender man in a restaurant goes to use the mens room. To keep the story good we will say that he has had "bottom surgery," so his genitalia are completely male, but that is not necessary. Maybe he is short and a little curvy, whatever, the manager clocks him as transgender and sends him to the women's restroom. This might be legal under the Baltimore County legislation that is being considered. Now, again, you have a man using the ladies room. The Citizens for Responsible Whatever will claim victory, this is what they want.
Or let's say the transgender man fights back and says, "I am a man, I should use the mens room," and the manager doesn't believe him. Now they are in the bizarre position of having to prove it. How legal to you suppose it is to force your customer to expose their genitals to you in order to use the bathroom? The restaurant manager ends up being tagged as a sex offender, which will follow him through the rest of his life, as his whereabouts are tracked on Internet maps and government listings forever, his neighbors won't speak to him.
The best outcome, if the restaurant manager acts in accordance with this bizarre law and the customer is cooperative, is that a man will be forced to use the ladies room. Under any scenario, the restaurant owner has a legal problem on his hands.
You simply cannot enforce this kind of ordinance in the real world. It solves a problem that does not exist and causes innumerable new ones.
Dan Rodricks, writing in the Baltimore Sun, said:
It sounds like Mr. Olszewski and the other three who support the exemption — Republicans Todd Huff of Lutherville and David Marks of Perry Hall, and Democrat Cathy Bevins ofMiddle River — have given too much weight to the paranoid arguments of the Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government. This is the group that refers to the anti-discrimination measure as a "dangerous Peeping Tom bill" that would open the doors of women's restrooms and locker rooms to cross-dressing perverts who would climb the walls of stalls to watch others do their business or carry out sexual attacks. County Council caving to paranoia
The Citizens for Responsible Whatever should have no impact at all on any policy decision. The Baltimore County Council needs to think this through, the consequences of exempting bathrooms and locker-rooms from the nondiscrimination law would be absurd.
posted by JimK at 8:51 AM
7 Comments:
Hi Jim,
There was an interesting article posted yesterday at Huffington Post ...
There Is a Man in the Women's Bathroom!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenni-chang-and-lisa-dazols/there-is-a-man-in-the-womens-bathroom_b_1275548.html
Stephanie
The American Psychological Association (APA) admits that gender-related appearance can vary from person to person. The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) states that gender identity or expression is different, at least part of the time and then list 17 different forms of non-conforming gender identity people from a recent survey.
Subjective “expression” about sex is too amorphous to be used as a basis to change the law.
Everyone will be questioned about his/her gender identity!
It is so sad that these Council Members are ready to vote on the basis of unsubstantiated fear-mongering rather than actual evidence. It seems odd that they would credit Ruth Jacobs over Chief of Police Manger and County Executive Leggett. Wish they had been in Montgomery County the last few years. Maybe they will come to their senses.
two points that Jim always confuses:
no one says that transgender are a threat when they use the wrong bathroom but that forcing business owners to allow anyone to use any gender bathroom is a problem
no one wants to forbid transgenders from using any bathroom but simply wants to allow business owners to make their own rules
it should also be noted that when this law passed in Motgmoery County, its proponents were claiming it wouldn't aplly to bathrooms
the gay agenda is methodical and insidious
btw, it appears that gay marriage won't be happening in Maryland
two points that Jim always confuses:
no one says that transgender are a threat when they use the wrong bathroom but that forcing business owners to allow anyone to use any gender bathroom is a problem
no one wants to forbid transgenders from using any bathroom but simply wants to allow business owners to make their own rules
it should also be noted that when this law passed in Motgmoery County, its proponents were claiming it wouldn't aplly to bathrooms
the gay agenda is methodical and insidious
btw, it appears that gay marriage won't be happening in Maryland
The bill would only mean that business owners could not force men to use the ladies room or vice versa. The right of business owners to tell their customers which bathroom to use does not seem like an important right to protect.
"btw, it appears that gay marriage won't be happening in Maryland"
It appears you were wrong again.
"A bill to legalize same-sex marriage won narrow approval Friday night in the Maryland House of Delegates, setting the stage for the state to join seven others and the District in allowing gay nuptials.
The 72 to 67 vote, which followed a day of emotional and contentious debate, capped a dramatic turnaround from a year ago and all but assures the measure will be sent to Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) for his promised signature.
The bill passed with one vote to spare and moves to the Senate, which approved similar legislation last year. But Maryland voters could get the final say: Opponents are widely expected to launch a petition drive that could put the issue on the November ballot.
“We should extend to families, same-sex loving couples, the right to marry in a civil ceremony,” Del. Maggie L. McIntosh (D-Baltimore), one of seven gay House members, told a hushed chamber Friday night after relaying her experience of coming out as a lesbian. “I’m going to ask you today, my colleagues, to make history.”
Maryland’s move toward same-sex marriage comes amid a fresh wave of momentum nationally for gay-rights activists.
Gay nuptials bills were signed by the governors of New York in June and Washington state this month, and a federal appeals court this month declared California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. And this week, the New Jersey legislature sent Gov. Chris Christie (R) a same-sex marriage bill. Christie, who has said the issue should be put before voters, vetoed the bill Friday.
In Annapolis, O’Malley and other supporters scrambled in recent days to nail down enough votes to avoid a repeat of last year, when the legislation died on the House floor. After this year’s vote, an impromptu victory celebration spilled into the hallway between the two legislative chambers in the State House.
O’Malley’s efforts were buoyed by the support of two Republican delegates who announced their backing of the legislation this week: Robert A. Costa of Anne Arundel County and A. Wade Kach of Baltimore County.
In Friday’s debate, supporters hailed the measure as a major step forward in equal rights, with some relaying deeply personal stories. Opponents decried the redefinition of “marriage” and said it was an affront to long-standing religious traditions.
Kach told the chamber that his views on the issue changed after a hearing last week, when he heard testimony from same-sex couples, including some with children. “My constituents did not send me here to judge people,” Kach said."
Post a Comment
<< Home