Yay For The Press VII: NewsChannel 8
NewsChannel 8 has a little story about the shower-nuts turning in their petitions.
Yes, they are Opponents of a law that protects transgender people from discrimination. That is as straightforward as you can put it. And they "say they have enough" signatures. True, that.
This is not a big report, of course, just a few sentences, but again we are seeing the press handling this in a professional and objective manner. Yes, it's a news story, petitions with signatures were turned in, they may force a referendum, they may have enough of them. It deserves reporting.
I'll tell you, out of all this, the worst stomach turner was CNN back in November. See it HERE. At the bottom of the screen is a banner that says:
That is just how the shower-nuts want the media to present the story, this is their frame, absolute ridiculosity. Of course this law has nothing to do with which bathroom transgender people should use, but CNN didn't care, they just took the CRW's talking points and printed them. It's amateurish and embarrassing. The announcer (you can't call somebody like that a "reporter," can you?) is visibly annoyed with Duchy Trachtenberg, who refuses to answer the question, which bathroom should transgender people use? It isn't a question, she is right not to get sucked into that particular sewer. Transgender women use the ladies room, transgender men use the men's room. They do that now, and they'll do it when the new law goes into effect.
And I know there's no such word as "ridiculosity." But there should be.
Our local media have been wonderful with this. Some lean one way, some the other, that's cool, that's how the news works. Nobody -- well, almost nobody -- has pretended that this is about bathrooms.
Good going, NewsChannel 8. And I suppose we should thank CNN for demonstrating how badly this could be handled. And Channel 7.
Opponents of a law that protects transgender people from discrimination in Montgomery County say they have enough signatures for a referendum that seeks to overturn the measure.
Volunteers working with the organization Citizens for a Responsible Government say they turned in more than 31,000 signatures Tuesday to the county's Board of Elections office. The board will put the repeal of the measure to county voters on November's ballot if 25,000 of those signatures are legible, from registered voters and contain valid addresses and birthdates.
The group worries the law gives male cross-dressers access to women's restrooms and locker rooms. The county's anti-discrimination code, however, makes exceptions for areas considered "distinctly private or personal." Group Seeks to Overturn Transgender Law
Yes, they are Opponents of a law that protects transgender people from discrimination. That is as straightforward as you can put it. And they "say they have enough" signatures. True, that.
This is not a big report, of course, just a few sentences, but again we are seeing the press handling this in a professional and objective manner. Yes, it's a news story, petitions with signatures were turned in, they may force a referendum, they may have enough of them. It deserves reporting.
I'll tell you, out of all this, the worst stomach turner was CNN back in November. See it HERE. At the bottom of the screen is a banner that says:
BATHROOM BATTLE
WHERE SHOULD TRANSGENDERS GO?
That is just how the shower-nuts want the media to present the story, this is their frame, absolute ridiculosity. Of course this law has nothing to do with which bathroom transgender people should use, but CNN didn't care, they just took the CRW's talking points and printed them. It's amateurish and embarrassing. The announcer (you can't call somebody like that a "reporter," can you?) is visibly annoyed with Duchy Trachtenberg, who refuses to answer the question, which bathroom should transgender people use? It isn't a question, she is right not to get sucked into that particular sewer. Transgender women use the ladies room, transgender men use the men's room. They do that now, and they'll do it when the new law goes into effect.
And I know there's no such word as "ridiculosity." But there should be.
Our local media have been wonderful with this. Some lean one way, some the other, that's cool, that's how the news works. Nobody -- well, almost nobody -- has pretended that this is about bathrooms.
Good going, NewsChannel 8. And I suppose we should thank CNN for demonstrating how badly this could be handled. And Channel 7.
posted by JimK at 9:26 PM
48 Comments:
About the CNN piece of trash journalism:
Note the line at end from interviewer where they say it only takes one....(for access to facilities to be a problem)
Wonder if this gave Rio Theresa and company the idea to do the Rio dress up thing?
Jacobs says she has no objections to unisex bathrooms but weren't they (CRC at that time many names ago) holding up signs against that (no unisex bathrooms) in their sex ed protests and later ranting about the Portia vignette from curriculum?
Ted
"Your side will have to win in an open debate. You want to re-legalize discrimination? OK, call it that and make the argument for it. Nobody's going to buy the "perverted men in the ladies room" story."
Jim, Jim, Jim.
Discrimination is legal now. Always has been, always will be. Every human on the planet, including you, engages in it.
The question is: what, if any, basis for discrimination is so unfair that the law should intervene. Wanting to be a gender other than the one assigned to you by your biology doesn't rise to this level of unfairness. Most people believe that it is OK to discriminate against males by not letting them use a female bathroom. Similarly, if someone wants to engage in some type of oddball behavior, they take the chance that some people might not want to associate with them. On some level, it happens to all of us. There's nothing unfair about it. If you want to be universally accepted, conform. If you don't want to conform, be willing to accept that not everyone is going to be dazzled by you.
It's life. You don't deserve any special protection from society.
CRG makes a valid point about the bathrooms. Forcing owners to establish policies based on what someone pretends to be creates an opportunity for inappropriate and unsafe behavior. This will be discussed and the media will report on the discussion. They're professionals and always have been.
CRG lies about bathrooms. The county's anti-discrimination code makes exceptions for areas considered "distinctly private or personal."
Which means one's home not a public bathroom. That was the case before CRG demonstrated the public indignation's to this bill and it will be again after this is concluded. Don't be fooled by public officials trying to cover themselves.
OO, are you saying this law requires people to let transgender people into their homes to use the bathroom?
JimK
"An ..agent..of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation: …..make any distinction with respect to …gender identity in connection with… use of any facility .."
=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...
=> Facilities are bathrooms.
Private accomodations are one's house, a private club, etc.
"OO, are you saying this law requires people to let transgender people into their homes to use the bathroom?"
I, quite clearly, did not say that.
Then let's just say it was not clear what you thought you meant.
JimK
Anon said: "The county's anti-discrimination code makes exceptions for areas considered "distinctly private or personal.""
Objective Observer said:
"Which means one's home not a public bathroom."
Nothing was unclear about the exchange.
Dishonesty is not going to win any points for your cause.
are you saying the law doesn't cover bathrooms at public accomodations, Jim...
what exactly do you think a facility is if it is not a bathroom(and by they way, MD code says facility = bathroom).
Double OO says, "Forcing owners to establish policies based on what someone pretends to be creates an opportunity for inappropriate and unsafe behavior."
The "opportunity
for inappropriate and unsafe behavior" exists now and has always existed no matter what. The bill that is sending the
CRW(hatevers) into orbit is not going to cause some brand new behavior. Who says people pretend anyway?
Maybe you are implying transgender people are pretenders. Are you????
The CRW(hatevers) and you are apparently not happy unless you both are discriminating against someone.
Ted
"The "opportunity
for inappropriate and unsafe behavior" exists now and has always existed no matter what."
It doesn't now, Ted, because control over the bathrooms is decentralized and left to individual owners. Having the government usurp control over bathroom policies eliminates this.
"Maybe you are implying transgender people are pretenders."
Don't be dishonest, Ted. We're saying someone could pretend to be a transgender and no one would have any way to determine if they were telling the truth. Are you disputing that possibility?
Double 00 said, "Don't be dishonest, Ted. We're saying someone could pretend to be a transgender and no one would have any way to determine if they were telling the truth."
--
"We're" meaning you and the
CRW(hatevers)????
Just how would you determine anyone telling the truth then, now or in the future? Peeking over or under stalls?
Oh wait are you talking about Rio Theresa's friend? Transgender people do not have time for nonsense when they need a potty break.
Give me a break. Anyone could walk into any bathroom now and in future and be up to no good. But why assume it has anything to do with transgenders?
Ted
We're saying someone could pretend to be a transgender and no one would have any way to determine if they were telling the truth.
Then you're lying because any person going through transition will be under a doctor's care and will have documentation from that doctor proving they are telling the truth about being transgender.
OO, maybe you can just help me out here by telling me what the "sentence" (it lacks a verb) "Which means one's home not a public bathroom" means to you. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but I don't get it.
JimK
A couple of things, Whatt.
First, you said "distinctly personal and private" means "Which means one's home not a public bathroom." You said it. No one is making it up, and you're the one left looking foolish.
Your entire argument seems to come down to:
1) Yes, we know there are trans people now who use public bathrooms and there is no risk.
2) Once this law passes, and the pedophile community hears about it, they will take advantage of it.
3) Once they start doing that, our womenfolk are at risk.
So, how do you know what pedophiles think?
Why have you refused to listen that the laws about indecent exposure and voyeurism have not been changed, and this law does not allow trans women to be voyeurs?
Anyone now can make a stink about someone in a bathroom, and as I have pointed out, it usually happens to non-trans women. Under those circumstances, ID is generally requested, provided, and that's that. Trans women carry ID's like everyone else, and the only period of difficulty is early in transition when a medical certificate substitutes for a license.
That's the way it's been, and will continue to be.
You call the current situation "decentralized." That's simply a fancy way of saying there is no law now. And we've told you ad nauseum this law doesn't change that. If your lawyers can't see that, you should fire them and hire someone without a theocratic intent.
And, finally, please direct me to the citation in the County Code where "facilities = bathrooms."
Objective observer,
you are hemming and hawing on a huge scale. you really need to explain your comments that INFERRED that the law requires people to let transgender people into their homes to use the bathroom.
You claim that this is not what you meant. What exactly did you mean? Are you going to give a HUGE explanation telling us not to believe our eyes regarding your comments.
You see, that is how your side confused so many people - by making outrageous comments and hiding behind semantics rather than owning up to your lies. It will only get you so far.
(Page 1 of 8)
If you really believe that 9 elected government officials would SIMULTANEOUSLY commit political suicide by writing a law that would allow men to go running willy-nilly through the little girls’ room, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you in New York. I’m as skeptical as the next person about our politicians, and I could certainly see one of them doing this – after all, a conservative Republican delegate just resigned in Annapolis because he’s being investigated for child pornography. If one can be that stupid, certainly 2 can, maybe even 3. But NINE? All at the SAME TIME? The ENTIRE county council??
Let’s turn our brains on for a minute here folks and see what’s going on.
The bill covers discrimination in county codes involving Cable Communications (Chapter 8), Human Rights and Civil Liberties (Chapter 27), and Taxicabs and Limousines (Chapter 53).
You can check it out for yourself at (assuming this applet leaves in URLs) http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/bill/2007/23-07.pdf
You’ll need to pay close attention to the bottom of the first page – this apparently trips some people up. Look for the line that says:
[[Double boldface brackets]] Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
What this means is that if you see it inside [[Double Brackets]], it’s NOT in the law. Keep that in the back of your head for a minute.
If you start perusing Bill 23-07 you’ll find it’s full of the dry non-discrimination language you probably see in your workplace cafeteria, except they’ve added “gender identity” into the laundry list you can’t discriminate against people for. Here’s a section for you right out of the code:
(Section 27-16 Discriminatory practices in commercial real estate.)
(e) A person must not:
(1) induce or attempt to induce, by direct or indirect methods, any person to transfer commercial real estate by representations regarding the existing or potential proximity of real estate owned, used, or occupied by any person of any particular race, color, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, the presence of children, or family responsibilities;
This just means you can’t try and convince someone to sell their home by telling them things like “Some long-haired guys with earrings are moving in next door – you’d better sell now before the whole neighborhood goes to pot.”
Chapter 8 (Cable communications) has similar language for cable service. This means that if the cable guy comes to install the service, and the woman he meets at the door is
(Page 2 of 8)
wearing her work boots, coveralls, plaid shirt and gloves, he can’t decide to turn around and go back because he thinks she looks too much like a man.
Chapter 53 (Taxicabs and Limousines) includes an update for gender identity too. That means a driver can’t refuse service to a man because the way he flagged him down just looked WAY to effeminate.
Chapter 27 also updates the non-discrimination list for employers. This means you can’t fire a woman because she refuses to wear makeup and jewelry and keeps her hair so short that some folks sometimes mistake her for a man.
Now what about that pesky bathroom issue? Get ready, here it is, in full black and white:
[[(c) A person must not deny any person access to the equal use of any restroom, shower, dressing room, locker room, or similar facility associated with the gender identity that the person publicly or exclusively expresses or asserts.]]
There’s one VERY IMPORTANT thing to note – see those double brackets? (Remember those from before?) That means THIIS SECTION HAS BEEN DELETED!!!
In fact, if you can find Draft 05 of this bill on the web, you find that the infamous “shower” text wasn’t even in there! It was added in Draft 06 and immediately deleted in the same revision! (See, I told you all 9 of those folks couldn’t have wanted to commit suicide at the same time!)
So this whole big petition drive (and all the money the county has to spend verifying signatures and putting up a referendum for) is about a section of code that has ALREADY BEEN DELETED!
So what’s up here???
How can someone start a huge petition drive for a section of code that has already been deleted???
This is where it gets tricky folks; you’ll have to pay close attention here. Here’s another section of the code:
Sec. 27-10. Scope.
(a) This division applies to every public accommodation of any kind in the County whose facilities, accommodations, services, commodities, or use are offered
to or enjoyed by the general public either with or without charge, such as:
(1) restaurants, soda fountains, and other eating or drinking places, and all places where food is sold for consumption either on or off the premises;
(2) inns, hotels, and motels, whether serving temporary or permanent patrons;
(3) retail stores and service establishments;
(Page 3 of 8)
(4) hospitals and clinics;
(5) motion picture, stage, and other theaters and music, concert, or meeting halls;
(6) circuses, exhibitions, skating rinks, sports arenas and fields, amusement or recreation parks, picnic grounds, fairs, bowling alleys, golf courses, gymnasiums, shooting galleries, billiard and pool rooms, and swimming pools;
(7) public conveyances, such as automobiles, buses, taxicabs, trolleys, trains, limousines, boats, airplanes, and bicycles;
(8) utilities, such as water and sewer service, electricity, telephone, and cable television;
(9) streets, roads, sidewalks, other public rights-of-way, parking lots or garages, marinas, airports, and hangars; and
(10) places of public assembly and entertainment of every kind.
(b) In this Chapter, “public accommodation” includes any service, program, or activity offered to or used by the general public.
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.
From the CRG website: “Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...”
Ok, that’s true, so far so good. Note also that this big list of places also identifies (as per line (a)) “facilities, accommodations, services and commodities.” It is interesting to note that nowhere in this list does the term “restroom,” “shower,” or “bathroom” come up.
Line (c) is kind of interesting and you’ll want to remember that one for later – it’ll come up again. It states “This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal.” Hmmm. Does this mean it excludes restrooms and showers? After all how many people have their own “distinctly private or personal” “parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, etc.”? (O.K. put your hand down Donald Trump!) We’ll need to check this more carefully.
The other section of code you need to know about is:
Sec. 27-11 Discriminatory practices.
(a) An owner, lessee, operator, manager, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation:
(1) make any distinction with respect to any person based on race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with:
(A) admission;
(B) service or sales; or
(C) price, quality, or use of any facility or service;
Again, from the CRG website: “Facilities are bathrooms.”
(page 4 of 8)
Ahhh! So HERE is where it happens! So despite the fact that the explicit code allowing restroom use HAS BEEN DELETED, buried deep in the code is one little line that provides a loophole! But wait a minute…
Where did “Facilities are bathrooms” come from? .” Section 27-10 gave a whole list of “facilities, accommodations, services, (and) commodities,” but never included bathrooms. So what’s going on here? Let’s look back at bill 27-03… ah yes, in that section of code that was DELETED, restrooms are identified as “facilities.”
So, from a section of code that was DELETED, they used THAT definition of “facilities” to link it to the term “bathrooms,” then used that definition to effectively put the deleted code right back into the bill!
WOW – Amazing! These guys are good! They must have been writing speeches for Bill Clinton back in the Monica Lewinski days! Does anyone remember what the definition of “is” is?
So how is the term “facility” used in other portions of Maryland law – maybe those can provide and example -- some definition that doesn’t rely on a deleted section of code or a presumed definition based on someone’s bias?
From section 8A-3:
Cable system means a facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment that is designated to provide cable service which includes video programming and which is provided to multiple subscribers within the County. This term does not include:
(1) a facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one or more television broadcast stations;
(2) a facility that serves subscribers without using any public right-of-way;
(3) a facility of a common carrier that is subject, in whole or in part, to the provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, except that the facility will be considered a cable system to the extent that it is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers, unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on- demand services;
From Section 11B-29. Inspection and testing of supplies and services:
The County may inspect supplies and services at the contractor or subcontractor's facility and perform tests to determine whether they conform to solicitation requirements, or, after award, to contract requirements, and are therefore acceptable. The inspections and tests must be conducted under the terms of the solicitation and contract.
From Section Sec. 19A-14. Misuse of prestige of office; harassment; improper influence:
(Page 5 of 8)
(c) A public employee must not use any County agency facility, property, or work time for personal use or for the use of another person, unless the use is:
(1) generally available to the public; or
(2) authorized by a County law, regulation, or administrative procedure.
(d) (1) A public employee must not appoint, hire, or advocate the advancement of a relative to a position that is under the jurisdiction or control of the public employee.
From Section 11A-2:
(k) Rental facility. "Rental facility" means any structure, or combination of related structures and appurtenances, operated as a single entity, in which the operator provides for a consideration 2 or more dwelling units; rental facility does not mean any transient facility such as a boarding house, tourist home, inn, motel, hotel, school dormitory, hospital, medical facility, or any facility operated for religious or eleemosynary purposes.
(l) Tenant organization. "Tenant organization" means a bona fide association of resident tenants of a rental facility, certified by the Department as representing at least 30 percent, or 5 units, whichever is the greater number, of units occupied by tenants of the rental facility.
(m) Transfer; transfer of title. "Transfer" and "transfer of title" mean (1) the transfer of legal title to a rental facility, or (2) transfer of substantial ownership or beneficial interests, or both, in the general or limited partnerships, corporations, trusts or any combination thereof which hold the legal title to the rental facility. The transfer of substantial ownership or beneficial interests means the transfer within a one-year period of a total of 51 percent or more of the ownership of the partnerships, stock in the corporations, beneficial interests in the trust or any combination thereof.
From section 15-1:
(d) Eating and drinking establishment: Any food service facility.
From section 5-101:
Animal shelter: A facility owned or operated by, or under contract with, the County for the care, confinement, or detention of animals.
From section 14-3:
(g) Infrastructure Improvement means a school, police station, fire station, library, civic or government center, storm drainage system, sewer, water system, road, bridge, culvert, tunnel, street, transit facility or system, sidewalk, lighting, park, recreational facility, or any similar public facility, and the land where it is or will be located. Infrastructure Improvement does not include any improvement which:
(Page 6 of 8)
So lots of definitions of “facilities” that don’t mean restroom… oh wait a minute… here’s something – did I just find something to torpedo my own argument???
From Appendix D. Rules and Regulations of the Board of License Commissioners*.
*Editor's note—Appendix D was formerly entitled "Rules and Regulations Governing Alcoholic Beverages,"
From Section 5.4 Restroom Facilites:
Every holder of an "On-Sale" license shall provide on the licensed premises adequate and sanitary facilities for all patrons, and shall be in compliance with all applicable State, County, and local Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations. However, the requirement for providing such facilities on the licensed premises shall not apply to any such license in existence prior to September 19, 1989 which was in compliance with all applicable State, County, and local Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations. When any on-sale or on/off sale license is granted or transferred, the licensed premises shall have at least one urinal in the men's room in addition to complying with the applicable Department of Health Laws, Rules, and Regulations at that time.
Well, here it is folks, what the CRG has been warning us about all along – the way the law is written, if you look hard enough, and follow the trail, there is a loophole for the gender-identity non-discrimination act to force BARS to not discriminate based on gender identity.
“So, this guy walks into a bar in a dress…” there are a million punch lines to that one! Unless it’s a gay bar though, I doubt the guy will make it anywhere near the ladies room. Maybe he will… what a unique way to pick up girls in a bar!
OK, so it seems the law gets a little ambiguous here. So we need some clarification. Fortunately, the CRG points out from the Health and Human Services Committee memo
"if Bill 2307 were silent on the issue of public facilities they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person’s gender identity."
Well, this seems pretty damning. According to the CRG website, the “Bill 23-07 definition of gender identity is so broad, cross-dressers are included.” Ah, so here is where men can get into the ladies’ rooms. This memo from the HRC seems to be the culprit. Otherwise 27-03 wouldn’t allow it because it’s been deleted – unless it’s in a bar of course. If it wasn’t for the memo, we all might be safe from men in the ladies’ rooms.
Wait a minute here, just exactly what does that memo say? This is where some VERY important information selectively gets left out. Like the sentences just before the one quoted by CRG:
“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
(Page 7 of 8)
(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. This is a far cry from “No exemption for restrooms, showers, locker rooms. It puts the safety and privacy of these areas in public accommodations on the line, especially for women and girls.” Why didn’t the CRG mention the sentences BEFORE the one they quoted out of context?
Another item conveniently omitted by the CRG is this:
“Some individuals expressed concern that if Bill 23-07 lets a person use a facility appropriate for that person’s gender identity, then a non-transgender person may use that provision to excuse committing a crime.” Most of the next sentence (everything after the comma) is in bold: “If enacted, Bill 23-07 could not be used as a shield to protect a person who commits a crime in a public facility.” It then goes on to say “Any action that is a crime would remain a crime if the Council enacts Bill 23-07, regardless of the perpetrator’s identity.”
The next line is important to: “For example, Maryland law specifically prohibits a person from conducting visual surveillance of another individual, with our without prurient interest, in a private place without the consent of the individual (Maryland’s “peeping tom law). Nothing in Bill 23-07 would protect a person from prosecution if that person entered a public facility and violated this law.”
So could a “guy in a dress” just go in to the ladies room? Looks like he’d have to do a lot of explaining about why he would need to go in there and figure out how make it look like he wasn’t peeping.
Judge: “So Bob, what were you doing in the ladies’ room if you weren’t peeping?”
Bob: “Um… I needed to pee.”
Judge: “And you couldn’t use the mens’ room right next door?”
Bob: “It was full, and I couldn’t wait anymore.”
Judge: “Well you could have used the floor drain or even a sink. That still doesn’t tell me why you needed to be in the ladies room.”
Bob: “Um… I needed a sanitary napkin.”
Judge: (quizzical) “Oh, really? And why did you need a sanitary napkin Bob?”
Bob: “A guy shot me in the arm for wearing a dress and I needed to stop the bleeding.”
Judge: “Ouch! That sounds horrible! Do you have any medical records documenting the treatment of your gunshot wound?”
Bob: “Um… I did, but my dog ate them.”
Judge: “Oh, so can you show me the scar?”
Bob: “Um… no, the sanitary napkin worked REALLY well and it healed without a scar.”
(Page 8 of 8)
Judge: “Yeah, right. So Bob, why were you REALLY in the ladies room, and how is that not peeping?”
Another interesting item to note from the memo that was left out of the CRG website: “Council staff contacted several jurisdictions with gender-identity anti-discrimination statues. Staff from those jurisdictions did not report any case where an individual used gender identity protections to commit or justify crime in a public facility.”
The CRG also doesn’t mention that a number of alternatives to “remaining silent” were considered, such as:
“-- Not allowing individuals to use a sex-segregated facility consistent with that person’s self-selected gender identity, or
-- Requiring individuals to provide identification as a way to identify that persons’ gender before allowing the person to use a sex-segregated facility.”
There were FIVE other options considered in how to word the law – these folks just didn’t decide to allow “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” to go running through restrooms willy-nilly. You don’t have to believe me though – just go read the law and the memo for yourself.
After reading the law and memo you may come to one (or) several of the following conclusions:
1: The folks at CRG don’t now how to read a law, and put more weight into sections of the code that were deleted than the ones that were actually there.
2: The CRG has selectively cut and paste portions of the law and Human Services memo to make it appear as if “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” were now given carte blanche to victimize little girls in the restroom.
3: The CRG is a group of legal geniuses for finding the thread that allows “transvestites, cross dressers and transsexuals” in restrooms at bars.
4: The CRG is a group of people playing on peoples’ ignorance and fear of the subject of non-gender conformity to push through their own agenda regardless of the cost to an already much-maligned and persecuted minority.
5: All nine members of the county council unanimously voted to allow men into ladies rooms, simultaneously committing political suicide, and giving their opponents in the next election the tag-line of the century: (I’ve copyrighted this, so if you want to use it for your own campaign, you’ll have to pay me for it.): © “Vote for me, so it’s safe to pee!” ©
If you still believe it was number 5 above, get in touch with me… I’ll dig up the deed for that bridge.
Peace,
Cynthia
Maryland code defines what facilites are here :
http://mchr.state.md.us/newfaq.htm
PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS QUESTIONS
1. What is a place of public accommodation?
1. Facilities which are considered public accommodations include but are not limited to places offering entertainment, exhibitions, recreation, lodging, and food or drink for consumption on the premises. Retail establishments offering goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation are also considered public accommodations.
2. What practices are prohibited?
2. It is unlawful for an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation to deny a person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges because of his/her race, creed, sex, age, color, national origin, marital status, or physical or mental disability.
3. What are the responsibilities of owners and operators of places of public accommodation?
3. Owners and operators are required to take reasonable steps to assure that their facilities are accessible to persons with disabilities. Such facilities might include, but are not limited to ramps, elevators, restrooms, water fountains, and parking places.
If MC code doesn't define it, and Maryland code does.... I would assume you would go with the MD code definition.
It hasn't been debated before because it was assumed to cover restrooms ... otherwise bathrooms would not be racially desegregated, no would they ?
Are you saying that a facilities DON'T include restrooms ?
Cynthia.
Bill 23-07 amends the existing code. You can't really tell what the new law says unless you look at the new law in context (after Bill 23-07 amendments).
Looking at the Bill by itself is too confusing, you have to insert the new langauge into the code and look at the result.
Red Baron said "The question is: what, if any, basis for discrimination is so unfair that the law should intervene. Wanting to be a gender other than the one assigned to you by your biology doesn't rise to this level of unfairness.".
Transpeople are singled out by people like you to deny them jobs, housing and physical safety. This is grossly unfair and its appropriate for the law to step in and put an end to it. Its no different than when people put up "whites only" signs. Back then people like you were making the same arguments that there was nothing inappropriate about discrimination.
Red Baron said "Most people believe that it is OK to discriminate against males by not letting them use a female bathroom."
Transwomen and transmen use the bathrooms most appropriate to them. Discriminating against us on the basis of who we are most certainly is not okay.
Red Baron said "Similarly, if someone wants to engage in some type of oddball behavior, they take the chance that some people might not want to associate with them. On some level, it happens to all of us. There's nothing unfair about it.".
There's nothing oddball about behaving as the gender your brain is. Dressing as a woman when you're a woman is not oddball - you're incredibly twisted.
Red Baron said "If you want to be universally accepted, conform. If you don't want to conform, be willing to accept that not everyone is going to be dazzled by you.".
Its unreasonable to ask people to conform to something they are not especially when what they are doing harms no one. It is immoral to discriminate against people for characteristics that harm no one. We don't ask blacks to straighten their hair, bleach their hair and skin, get cosmetic surgery like Michael Jackson inorder to conform to what bigots like you wanted and its no different with transgenders. Its not for you to be dictating to others how to live, society owes them the right to live freely and openly and without discrimination as long as they are hurting no one.
Wyatt, it says in MD code "might." Do you know what that means? It might include them. It does not say "shall." The County bill has the specific exclusion for private.
The bottom line is that you don't care about this, because if you did you would have offered your amendment back when there was time to have amendments. As I've said, I believe it would have passed. Instead, you sent your president, Dr. Ruth Jacobs, to Rockville to insult the Council and call us mentally ill. Fine political work.
So now you've expended all this energy, engendered hatred for a marginalized minority, engendered hatred of you on the part of those who know your lies, just to try to get a vote on this.
You've done your job, now we're doing ours.
The county bill has an exemption for private accomodations.
Please justify Dana, how you can add "gender identity" to non discrimation code (which also lists race) on public accommodations and their facilities, and then claim that somehow the "private and personal" line applied to bathrooms for just the gender identity case...
If the county wants to state that for the specific case of the gender identity law, private and personal means bathrooms, than fine they shoudl amend the code. But right now, if you assume private and personal doesn't mean bathrooms, then I could put a "whites only" sign up on the bathroom at my restuarant be be immune from prosecution.
the fact that the media is falling for this ridiculous line from Knapp just shows how stupid the media is. saying that public accomodations does't include bathrooms is like telling every laywer in MC that the sun sets in the east instead of the west. Of course public accomodations includes bathrooms, otherwise we could still have racially segegrated ones...
Red Baron said " if you assume private and personal doesn't mean bathrooms, then I could put a "whites only" sign up on the bathroom at my restuarant be be immune from prosecution.".
You've been arguing all along that you should be able to do just that very thing. You've gone on and on about how people should be allowed to associate with whom they want, that discrimination is legal and so on. If that's what you want for gays and transgenders its just as apropriate for blacks and jews.
Anonymous, I am trying to figure out what you see wrong with a law that says that if a transgender person has to pee and you have a public restroom, you have to let them use it? Do you think it's better for them to go home to use the toilet?
Wyatt,
I will assume that your problem is not that trans persons use public bathrooms, but which public bathroom. This law does NOT speak to this, because that clause was deleted due to the commotion you made. There is no law, as I have stated repeatedly, that speaks to sex segregation in bathrooms, and this was true, to the best of my knowledge, even when black men and women were forced under Jim Crow to use the same public bathroom. (Makes me wonder, now that I think about it, as to why some older black folks can get so incensed about this issue given that they were subjected to such discrimination themselves in the past).
The law in the County bans discrimination against a host of categories, and it is reasonable to infer that those would include bathrooms. But only so far as that means bathrooms generically. It is silent on which bathroom.
Mike Knapp and the County attorneys are very clear and correct that 23-07 does not speak to sex segregation. A business owner cannot deprive a trans person the right to use the public accommodation, including a bathroom, because they are transgender. But s/he could determine which particular bathroom. That is the case now, and will be under 23-07 when it goes into law.
As has been said repeatedly here, that is rarely a problem for trans women, but more so for lesbians and straight women who look and dress in a very masculine manner. It's quite clear that while there are very few owners who would throw someone out of a particular bathroom upon observing a valid document, under the current law one could argue that it is possible, since no law speaks to that point. 23-07 would prohibit that specific type of discrimination -- if your ID says male, you are entitled to use the men's room; if it says female, the women's room.
But this still begs the question --if, as Ruth opines, there are only 30-40 of us in the County, then why are you afraid? If you claim we are not predators and pedophiles, like the Repiblican Delegate Robert McKee, why are you afraid?
You have never made the argument that other state and county laws against sexual harrassment, voyeurism, indecent exposure and the like, would be superseded by this law. So this law could not be used as a shield, and you know it.
Dana
The pro-CRG anon that has been posting today is not OO.
How would I know? I just assume everyone is Wyatt, since I have no way of distinguishing among you all.
One act of decency I will attribute to Theresa is that she signs her posts (or most of them, anyway).
One other thing -- state law preempts county law,federal law preempts state law, and constitutional law preempts federal law. Discrimination in public accommodations is a violation of federal law, and I would presume constitutional law as well, but I am not a lawyer.
For those of us who use Facebook.com, the CRG (nasty freaks) have made a page just for them.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8518782995&ref=share
I plan on making one to go against it...their group has 127 members (most of which OPPOSE THEIR ANTICS).
So really, since everyone knows that they lie-- they don't have a whole lot of support. TRUTH WINS!
Anonymous said: “Are you saying that a facilities DON'T include restrooms?”
No. If you look at page 6 of my diatribe, you’ll see where I managed to dig up the paragraph of Montgomery County code that refers to “restroom facilities” as they are specified in the law regarding establishments that have a liquor license. This definition was only found after several hours of searching the code for the “real” definition of “facility” was – I filled 8 pages worth of definitions that were NOT restroom related and was about to give up searching for more when I found the paragraph on bars.
Perhaps my original point got lost in my verbose treatise debunking the CRG semantic game, which in a nutshell is this: (From the CRG website):
“=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...
=> Facilities are bathrooms.”
They then point to these lines of code from Section 27-10:
“(b) In this Chapter, “public accommodation” includes any service, program, or activity offered to or used by the general public.
(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal”
And claim that since line (c) above refers to “accommodations” rather than “facilities,” no protection is offered to girls in the ladies’ room.
They then go on to point at section 27-11:
“(a) An owner, lessee, operator, manager, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the
accommodation:
(1) make any distinction with respect to any person based on race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability,
sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with:
(A) admission;
(B) service or sales; or
(C) price, quality, or use of any facility or service;”
They then highlight line (C) above to show that this is where due to the demarcation of “accommodations” vs. “facilities,” our children are now unsafe -- we can no longer keep cross-dressers, transvestites, and drag queens out of the ladies’ room.
I then went on to show that their definition of “facility” depended on a deleted line of code, and that most definitions of “facility” in the MoCo code actually referred to anything BUT a restroom. Thus, exposing their word game and undermining their argument.
However the link you provided does an even better job; down at the bottom of the page is this nice little line, which you quoted in your post:
“1. Facilities which are considered public accommodations include but are not limited to places offering entertainment, exhibitions, recreation, lodging, and food or drink for consumption on the premises. Retail establishments offering goods, services, entertainment, recreation or transportation are also considered public accommodations.”
This really undermines the supposed separation between “facility” and “accommodation” which the CRG argument critically depends upon. Without this distinction, CRG’s argument that “(c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal” doesn’t apply to “facilities” (i.e. restrooms) is no longer valid.
Thank you for helping me make my point.
The CRG argument depending on the difference between “accommodation” vs. “facility” uses the following quote to further their cause:
"if Bill 2307 were silent on the issue of public facilities they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person’s gender identity."
The conveniently manage to OMIT the following quote from the same memo:
“Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for ‘distinctly private or personal’ facilities.”
Again, the CRG argument is debunked. They will now have to think of a new line. It just goes to show what you can do when you cut and paste just the portions of items you want.
Peace,
Cynthia
You still have not justified how private and personal can mean restrooms for gender identity but not mean restrooms for race...
Thoughts, Cynthia ?
Why is Anon taking his daughters into bars?
I personally have not made any arguments about race vs. gender in personal or private facilities, so I wasn’t sure what you were talking about at first… I went back through the thread though and maybe this will answer your question.
From Section 2 (“How specific should the law be regarding public facilities?”) of the Health and Human Services Committee memo, option 2:
“Amend Bill 23-07 to reaffirm current law. Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for “distinctly private or personal” facilities. Bill 23-07 could be amended to more explicitly let each public facility provider determine what facility a transgender individual can use. This option would let an employer or other public facility provider decide whether to maintain restrictions based on gender identity or biological gender.”
As you may note from the paragraph above, the language only talks about clarifying restrictions based on “gender identity” or “biological gender.” It provides no loophole for discriminating based on race.
Peace,
Cynthia
Wyatt,
I responded to you about race, in two posts. Cynthia has not been involved in the discussion about race.
You never answered me.
Rio Theresa in the Washington Blade about signatures collected:
She said the organization misrepresented nothing when it collected signatures and welcomes an open discussion with county officials.
“Name the time and the place and we’ll be happy to debate the law,” Rickman said. “We are happy to meet them anywhere and discuss it.”
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=16763
_____________
Misrepresented nothing???????Rio Theresa you are a liar.
Ted
Now here goes Ambulance Chaser Johnny Garza and Rio Theresa:
Signature gathering wasn't easy. I spoke today with Theresa Rickman, a leader with Citizens for a Responsible Government. She says their volunteers were constantly harassed and intimidated at signature collection sites. At grocery stores, shopping centers, and malls, opponents of the initiative (including Dana Beyer, a "transgendered" policy adviser to Montgomery County Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg--in other words, a county employee) shouted at volunteers to "shut up" and disrupted the collection of signatures. They got volunteers thrown off mall property by complaining to mall managers.
Twice, police had to be summoned by store managers to stop transgendered gangs from harassing people attempting to sign the petitions.
Citizens for a Responsible Government released a press release today announcing they are considering filing a civil rights lawsuit because of the extent of the harassment. Such tactics "are commonly used by totalitarian governments. There is no place for this in Montgomery County," attorney John Garza said. "This undemocratic conduct is especially reprehensible when it is coming from a senior-level employee of the Council."
http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/
Here I thought Rio Theresa was going to try to avoid saying anything hurtful.
Ted
Andrea- not anon
Theresa and Johnny- the protectors of their lying thugs. I was yelled at by baseball cap guy standing over me and screaming at me to leave- after his lies about his MC permit and the police and Giant didn't work to get me to go. And once again- when the three Shower nut thugs were there and tried to get me to go- I was alone, straight and not transgender.
So when do I get ananswer about beng called a facist and told I should be aborted- Huh, Theresa??? For baseball cap guy telling his lies to get signatures and threatening me. Keep telling yout lies - If any of the Showernuts actually believe a lie is a sin- you'll be paying for it in the hereafter for all the ones you've told.
I had heretofore been reluctant to add fuel to the fire, but I must add to the list of being "verbally assualted and confronted" by one of CRG's petition pushers at my local Giant store in Germantown. When I expressed my distaste for the petition and stated that it is based on a lie, the response to me was: "I can't believe you would want to support perverts in Mongtomery County." When I related my experience to a friend of mine, he too told me about a similar experience he had at his grocery store (I think it was in Kentlands).
It seems to me that threatening law suits ("Citizens for a Responsible Government released a press release today announcing they are considering filing a civil rights lawsuit because of the extent of the harassment. Such tactics "are commonly used by totalitarian governments. There is no place for this in Montgomery County,") based on such spurious "harrassment" charges would give me and others who have been insulted and demeaned by the CRGers the grounds for a counter-suit. Better be careful of what you wish for, CRG, you might end up with more embarrassment than you can handle with the public and it would become very expensive for you (not that that is your issue; I am sure you are being more than adequately provided for by wacko right-wing organizations who have no interest in what the citizens of Montgomery County or Maryland want - especially when what they are paying for - hate and bigotry and fear - has national implications for them.)
I, myself, felt quite threatened when one of the men at the Lancaster Dutch Market put his hand on my shoulder when I interrupted him to correct one of his lies. I felt concerned for my safely as well as the other person with me. These people are based on the same junk as the Westboro Baptist Church and I am sure any just who sees that relation with automatically realize that the CRW(eirdos) are nothing more than hate mongers who don't really care about the citizens and children of Mo. Co. but rather only using Mo. Co. to launch their Hateful Right-Winged religious agenda. Mo.Co. will not be fooled by these bigots anymore.
I have gay, lesbian, bisexual as well as transgender students at my school in Mo.Co. and I have yet to let a week go by without one of them coming into my classroom to be comforted because some teenage bigot (just like Theresa RIckman, Rith Jacobs and Michelle Turner) either taunted then, physically or mentally harassed them, etc..
I don't hear of any "ex-gay (aka-STRAIGHT)" being being hurt on a weekly basis because of their sexual orientation.
Theresa Rickman, Ruth Jacobs and Michelle Turner are not making very good names for themselves anywhere (not in the public nor religious arenas). You people really don't care about children and we will make sure Mo.Co. knows the truth behind your red neck agenda.
SHAME ON YOU !!!!
Got facebook? Join our our PRO-EQUALITY group of Montgomery County (and the rest of the world).
Here's the link:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10344896961&ref=mf
Post a Comment
<< Home