Engaging the Shower-Nuts

I received a most interesting report this morning, written by Maryanne Arnow, a transgender woman who went out into the freezing cold yesterday to encounter the groups who were set up, trying to get petition signatures at the polling places. Equality Maryland had made a "Decline to Sign" flyer to hand out, and several people went to the places where the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever were trying to get signatures to force a referendum to legalize discrimination against transgender people. They needed to have 12,501 valid signatures last week, and turned in fifteen-thousand something. If twenty percent are invalid, which is the usual rate, then they may have had just enough to meet their midpoint quota, and maybe not. If so, they have to get another 12,501 by next Tuesday, and they were counting on election day to get a bunch.

The shower-nuts are getting signatures by telling people that the new nondiscrimination law will result in perverted men going into women's restrooms and shower-rooms. Of course that won't happen, and the law does not make it any more or less legal for men to go into ladies' rooms -- they can do it now, if they want. Whatever, it's a scary image, and people will sign a petition against perverted men in the ladies' locker-rooms. They know that nobody would bother to sign a petition to support discrimination on the basis of gender identity, which is what the law is actually about, so they switch the topic.

Maryanne's narrative is kind of long, and so, though I hate to, I'm going to edit some of it out. She went around to a lot of polling places, and found no shower-nuts at most of them. Then she went to Northwest High School in Germantown.

Arrived on location, 2:30PM - Found one older woman. Early 60's. Grandmother. Name was Jean. Table and opposition materials and petitions present on site. I approached her table. She did not read me as Trans and began her pitch. Part of her pitch included the statement "I don't even think there were any public hearings about this." She had a great deal of concern and "fear" about "predators" taking advantage of such legislation, and her great level of concern as she is a grandparent and her daughter has children including granddaughter.

I listened to her pitch, took one of her flyers, and thanked her. Told her I would be back. Retrieved my briefcase and returned to her table. I asked that she must cease and desist this petitioning, because she is fostering lies and distortions, and to please stop what she was doing as it was literally injurious to my life and my survival because I am directly one of the "kinds of people in question".

She is very old-school generation and very devout in many of her Christian beliefs. I began to explain myself, my story, and why I believe she has been taken advantage of due to her age/demographic to promote this kind of opposition, based largely in fear, distortions, and various misrepresentations. She kept going back to what seemed rote explanations based on her fear of "predators", both for herself and for her children and their children. She also called into question theology and we talked about God and the devil, and how she feels that many people are poisoned by such things which oppose the true will of God. I told her that even those which disrespect and hate me have been welcomed in my own house with warmth and hospitality, and how would that figure in me being "godless" as well as the fact that I am Jewish. I never let up for a moment and politely interfered with every attempt she made to collect signatures.

I called her out on her one statement about "she did not think that there had even been public hearings on this matter". I immediately produced a copy of my testimony from that day and pounded on the point. Gave her one of my cards. Told her to please do more research on the issue. Told her and any potential signers that they were literally signing a document that is hurting my life and my social standing, and promoting further discriminatory beliefs. I asked her about how she had been promoted to do this task. She admitted she had only just recently met Theresa Rickman/Ruth Jacobs, and had actually never discussed the issue in it's entirety with them during apparent preparations for this effort.

It seems to me, this is exactly what needed to happen. Maryanne is a woman who used to be a man. This nice religious lady was gathering petition signatures to support discrimination against exactly a person like Maryanne, but she didn't really know anything about it. Engaging in a conversation with an actual transgender person had to be a good experience for her.

While Maryanne was there, a couple came up and considered signing the petitions. Maryanne tried to talk them out of it, but the wife still signed.

At first she was a little condescending towards me and I called her on it. She became much more open and pleasant towards me by the end of it, but still signed. It was like being stabbed in the guts watching her do that while I could only stand and watch.

The most interesting encounter happened at Stone Mill Elementary School in North Potomac, where Ruth Jacobs, President of the Citizens for a Responsible Government, was getting signatures.

This one takes some twists and turns, and it's kind of a long story, so I'm going to cut out a few sentences here and there (sorry, Maryanne!), but I think you will find this fascinating.

Arrived at approx. 6PM. Table and petitioners are present. Dark and raining, turning to ice. I quietly asked the lead person about her petition - a short frail looking woman with 1 assistant present. The Lead woman clocked me immediately, and addressed me as a male pronoun. I began to try and debate/discuss with her. She was cold and entirely dismissive. I told her I would begin to interfere with her efforts in obtaining signatures. She became very defensive and so did I. She asserted that she had every right to be there and that I needed to leave her alone or she would call the police. I told her to please go ahead and that I had every same right to be there that she did, and that I fully intended to interfere with her activities. I firmly asked her for her name.

Dr. Ruth Jacobs ...

I retrieved my briefcase with materials and went back to her table and I introduced myself, and again tried to engage her in debate. I am also now immediately asking people not to sign at the same time she and her assistant are attempting to engage them. She got a bit angry, and told me that I must leave and stop doing what I was doing, or that she would call the police. Took out her phone and began to make calls as if calling the police. I did not let up and became more aggressive in my attempts to discuss the issue with her. She continued to address me in the male pronouns, rather pointedly. I called her by name and demanded she engage me in straightforward and intelligent dialogue in this issue. I asked her why was she being so rude and if that was her typical M.O. in handling such situations. She refused, turned her back, and went inside the school. As she walked away from me I reminded her that she had been quite rude to me at the County Council hearings and if she intended to continue behaving in that manner. I knew she was going to get help in having me removed if possible.

She returned with another woman and a man. As they are hurriedly walking out of the school towards me now, they are loudly addressing me as "SIR!". "SIR!". I ignored them as if had not heard it at all. As they arrived at the table, telling me I must leave her alone and stop harassing her, I immediately produced legal identification and TOLD them to please observe the name and gender marker, and to not ever address me in the male gender again. I immediately asked the woman to identify herself. She gave her name and stated she was a "Chief Judge" for that/for the polling location(s).

I did not get her name. Well dressed, mid fifties, medium dark hair, well-spoken, and generally pleasant immediately upon being corrected. I told her I knew ell that I had every right to be there doing exactly what I was doing. I told her that I was continuously attempting to engage Dr. Jacobs in intelligent dialogue about the issue, and that should not be considered "harassment". She backed down her tone immediately and acknowledged my right to be there as well, and advised me that I must make more physical space between myself and Dr. Jacob's site. I complied. She left with her male counterpart, and I immediately moved to the nearest possible distance bordering on her area.

It would be interesting to know what the function of the "chief judge" is in a situation like this. I'm sure they can enforce laws related to campaigning within so-many feet of the election booths, but this was not a campaign issue or a political issue, and I doubt that the election judge is responsible for refereeing events that fall outside the legal perimeter of the election area.

Skipping a little ...

A man arrives and is acknowledged in a friendly manner by Dr. Jacobs. I heard her say "how glad she was that he was there". He walks right up to me, nearly toe to toe. Early 50's, balding, long coat, striking blue eyes, maybe 5'9. Addresses me in the male pronoun with a threatening glare, and tells me I must stop harassing Dr. Jacobs. I insist I am making every attempt to engage her in debate and dialogue on this issue and that she had been pointedly rude to me. He does not care and continues. I address him and ask him not to refer to me in the male pronoun and that I have every legal right to be there the same as her.

I then specifically told him "I would do whatever is necessary to interfere with her activities to prevent her from gaining additional signatures". He told me that is a direct threat and that he will now contact the police because I am threatening her. I attempt to discuss the issue with him. He will not back down and continues to accuse me of threatening ...

This second guy gets on the phone and appears to be calling the police. Maryanne makes a phone call, too. The media will be contacted.

I then attempt to continue discussing the issue with this man. He is calling the police now. I am asking him why he is going to consciously and purposely distort my meaning to make his point and smear me if possible. He insists I have made a threat. I tell him that was not my meaning and the last thing I would ever consider would be any form of physical conflict or violence. I am continuing to try to talk to him the entire time he is on the phone with police. I am also still trying to engage Dr. Jacobs in debate or acknowledgement. I ask him how can he consider himself a moral or ethical standard by distorting my meaning and trying to hurt me by doing so. I ask him if he was aware of the fact that she had been called out during County Council testimony and forced to acknowledge that she has no clinical expertise in matters of gender whatsoever.

He looked surprised for a moment as I inform him I was there beside her when that happened in front of a full council chamber, and that she had shown up that day in a lab coat and stethoscope in order to bolster the public impression of her validity on this issue which was a falsehood. I ask how he could support anyone that would resort to such tactics. He claims to be a friend of hers.

Here's an interesting tidbit. Last year, Ruth Jacobs referred to a transgender woman with a male pronoun during a meeting of the citizens advisory committee working on the new sex-ed curriculum. She received several emails, including one from me, pointing out the error and noting that the other members of the committee would not tolerate that sort of rudeness. In October, she referred to this incident in testimony to the Montgomery County Council, when she said, "As a member of the committee at the schools, I received threatening emails when I slipped and failed to use the proper pronoun." Further investigation by the citizens committee failed to support the allegation that there were any threatening emails, of course, but her statement does prove that, since she knows what the "proper pronoun" is, she also knows what the improper pronoun is. There are innocent mistakes, and there are bigoted insults.

Meanwhile, a reporter from The Gazette has called, and Maryanne has filled her in on what is going on. The man who has shown up says his name is "Dan Willard." Ruth Jacobs calls The Gazette, says she's being harassed, and The Gazette calls Maryanne back -- you can just see this, standing out in the freezing rain, can't you?

Maryanne continues:

I am upbeat and in good humor and tell her it's all good and that I am fine. Police arrive on site. I am attempting dialogue with a potential signer of their petitions. I finish my discussion, and Montgomery County police officers then politely ask me to step aside for a moment to speak with me. They simply tell me that they cannot stay here and babysit us, to play nice, give each other appropriate space and distance, and that they have far to many calls to deal with something like this. I was respectful and fully acknowledge their request and thank them. They leave immediately.

Can you imagine? I didn't see the count, but there were dozens if not hundreds of automobile accidents in the county, as the roads became covered with ice. Power was going out all over the county, stop lights were dead. And here the shower-nuts have to call the cops to make a transgender woman stop talking to them? I'm sure they were not amused. It sounds like they decided to try to work it out with the reasonable one.

I now begin to intercept potential signers before they get to them now, and hand out the "Decline to Sign" flyers. I turned once to Dr. Jacobs several feet away and tell her, "Dr Jacobs" - " I admire your Chutzpah"… A few minutes later she returns the compliment to me out of the blue. We all continue in our tasks now keeping respectful space and distance. She addresses me again a few minutes later, out of the blue, and tells me that she does not have an issue with me, per-se. She quotes my statement from the Gazette article published last year in which I said "this is a "slippery slope", and says to me that she supports the unisex bathroom idea. I respond in kind and tell her that I respect her professional standing and that other countries have successfully integrated these ideas.

She mentioned Boston's laws and how they were written to better reflect such concerns as she feels have not been properly addressed in this county's legislative issue on this matter. We now begin to talk in a very civil, almost social manner, and discuss the issue. She says she is not a bigot and does not feel that such characterizations of her are accurate at all and that she is not a mean or hateful person.

Her main concerns, as she states, are that she feels that any person with male genitalia does not belong in women's facilities at all. Period. She also feels that this measure was passed too quickly with too much ambiguity and too many issues left not fully addressed, thereby creating situations where such potentially inappropriate abuses by certain males may take place. I counter with her knowledge that when certain people may actually be transitioning, the RLE (real life experience) is a clinical requirement in most cases and that this is still the same exact SOC(standards of care) issue. I ask her how can anyone live the required RLE, without actually facing this issue.

Ah, this makes it tough, the shower-nut is confronted with somebody who knows what they're talking about. Their entire exercise is based on the unlikely hypothetical situation where a man goes into the ladies room for prurient reasons, and claims to be transgender. They get signatures by magnifying the possibility of this happening, by focusing on that rather than the actual law, which prevents discrimination. But the hypothetical falls apart in the presence of an actual transgender person, its stupidity rises to the surface.

I tell her that no self-respecting transgender(ed) person would EVER consider such inappropriate indecency or exposure as it would compromise and likely destroy a persons' chances for completion of a successful transition under almost any circumstance should it actually occur. I remind her that all facilities DO have closed stalls which also lock, as well as many having more private areas or curtains in some cases. She states that if a person has appropriate ID/Documentation to assert their identity in gender that this then is not the issue, and that she really does not have an issue with me personally, or persons "like me" that have, or are successfully transitioned to the target gender.

She does tell me that no one should try to "force" their self-perception of gender identity onto or into her reality just because it may be theirs. I tell her a little bit of my personal story of very early childhood self-perception, and how exactly, for me, that has in fact become the undeniable reality of my private and public existence. She states her perceptions, that although this may be mine and others reality of self-perception, but that she and others still do not share this perception in regards to actually being "female". She states not having the ability to menstruate, or bear children, and therefore not able to face the same rigors and experiences as biological females, and in those ways, therefore, not a necessarily valid reality of a person's gender from her viewpoint, either as a clinician or individual.

This then leads back to her point of other's trying to enforce their (legislative) reality of self-perception upon any other such as herself that does not necessarily or fully agree with that individual self-perception. She still states concerns that the legislation has been written in such a way as to leave the door open for abuse or inappropriate use, and that if nothing else, the law could be and should be written better. She feels it was passed too quickly and without enough consideration from the constituency at large and that it could have been done much better and taken more of these - hers and other's concerns into account.

I hear what she is saying and thank her as well for engaging me in this discussion now. I tell her then that we need to continue in intelligent dialogue to resolve these issues instead of allowing continued degeneration into the shitstorm that this has become.

I tell her I would like to have a part in that process and once again reiterate my desire in opening a forum of open and non-conflict based dialogue, including Ms. Rickman, to work towards resolving these issues if at all possible, and that I would welcome any moderation that she feels would be appropriate. Again I restate she is welcome in my home herself and that anything would be better than continued conflict and lack of mature discussion and intelligent dialogue.

That if it should come to referendum and require re-writing that we all should have a part in that process in a mature and intelligent manner. We actually seem to agree on certain points, and that for those that still are the most concerned, this is in fact a "slippery slope", where the perceptions of those most opposed or concerned are still not resolved in a suitable manner. Of course I have to say then, that there is simply no way to make "everyone" happy with issues such as these and there will always be dissention from one direction or another at the end of it.

I have heard stories of enemy soldiers entrenched near one another, who end up making friends. Occasionally they'll take a shot over the other's head, just to prove to their superiors that they're actually fighting. That's what this reminds me of. An ignorant person campaigning to allow discrimination against transgender people, and a transgender person standing right there, not going away, keeping the conversation going. And after awhile they start to see each other as people.

You'll love how this ends.

We continued civil, open, and peaceful discussion for a few minutes more. She is preparing to leave and so am I at this point. It is 7:45PM, and we are all walking ice blocks and exhausted. She allows me to offer her a handshake, and then shares a very real and very earnest hug. A hug. Imagine that. More thanks exchanged between us both. I tell her I respect her professional standing, thank her very much for opening that conversation with me, and hope to open more dialogue with her soon. She says must soon return to her work, hasn't done any of her billings for several months, and then after all of this, maybe such a dialogue can continue in the future. Credit given where honest credit is due. Good enough for me.

I thank Maryanne for going out there and warming hearts on the coldest day. This is exactly what has to happen. These people sit around together talking to each other about the deviants and the Sodomites, convincing themselves that people they don't understand are evil. But actually meeting one of these evil people pretty much undermines the whole concept.

I don't know Maryanne, I saw her testimony at the County Council meeting and have exchanged some email with her, but I don't think we've met. I'm sure she had things she'd rather do than spend eight hours outdoors in the wintry mix, talking to people who are committed to making her life harder.

Thanks to her and the others who went out to engage the bigots. It doesn't sound like they got very many signatures. They have until February 19th to get another 12,501 valid signatures, assuming the first batch had enough. Maybe they'll do it, but I have my doubts.

Though this is Maryanne Arnow's narrative, I know there were others out there in the cold doing the same thing. I believe Equality Maryland and Dr. Dana Beyer helped organize the effort, and they deserve our thanks. Our county is infected with a small group of ignorant people who are very persistent in spreading ugliness through our community. It is up to the rest of us to actively oppose them. If you do nothing, they'll get their way. So thank you to Equality Maryland, to Dana Beyer and others who went out there, and especially to Maryanne Arnow for going out and fighting the good fight.