What They Really Said
There were several news stories about the exchange out in Clarksburg the other night between the mother of a bullied child and County Council member George Leventhal. Mostly they have been summaries, Fox 5 slanted it outrageously, The Gazette gave us the news but boiled it down, The Sentinel had the story but none of it was clear.
With us being a blog and all, we're not trying to sell papers, we don't have to summarize what people meant when they said something, we can tell you what they said. Well, and I'm sure to mention what I think about it.
The story is this. At town hall meeting, a lady told the County Council that her daughter was being bullied in school because she was small. She also talked about the transgender bill. The Council members took turns responding. Leventhal talked about the fact that gay students are bullied a lot. Afterwards, people were "confused" and "outraged" by his comments. Most of us who weren't there were confused about what in the world had actually happened.
Through all of it, the question has been, what did the lady actually say, and what did Leventhal say? I got the video and transcribed the relevant parts. The lady, Valerie Ricardo, spoke, then a bunch of Council members whose words I did not transcribe, then Leventhal, then Ms. Ricardo again.
Here's her initial question:
I took out the uhs and go-backs, and this is pretty close to her words as she chose them. This being a blog and all, I will note that she does have at least three topics going on here -- her daughter's situation at school, something about the nondiscrimination bill and a guy being hassled collecting signatures, and then a scary thing with a person of questionable gender characteristics and obvious evil intent.
I will say that if Mister Robert Shaw is the guy we saw at Leisure World, he had a friendly conversation with three transgender people, and two of us executives from TTF World Headquarters were on the scene but are not transgender, and I didn't even talk to the guy, I was walking around taking pictures. He ended up giving a big hug to Maryanne and packing up his petition stuff so he could go home. That was at Leisure World Giant, but I thought that guy's name was Jeff. I'm pretty sure there were not five transgender people at Leisure World at any time.
Anyway, Valerie Ricardo gave what we call a "rambling monologue," and I wouldn't want to be the politician who tried to respond to her.
Other Council members addressed her, and last was George Leventhal. Here's what he said:
I think the key to understanding his brief speech is in his use of the phrase "our desire to avoid fear and prejudice and stereotyping which is what I'm hearing this woman express." I was hearing fear and prejudice and stereotyping in what she said, and I think that's what Leventhal was reacting to. She saying, my daughter is getting bullied and I'm afraid of these other people who threaten me because I don't know what they're going to do but they look weird and they're sure to do something horrible. So he was saying, maybe, your daughter's getting bullied but these people you're speaking badly about get bullied a whole lot, too, let's remember that that's happening while we're talking about your daughter.
In other words, lady, you have a problem, and you are a problem.
Maybe I'm reading that into what he said, but I like it.
Did you get the thing about the person with the exaggerated walk? She had a moment of fear, therefore "the risk is real." I hope I never get like that.
Ms. Ricardo still had the microphone in front of her, so she kept talking. Here's what else she said:
Okay, that's nothing, it's just there for completeness, so you know. This lady has the answers and hopes the County Council will invite her over to solve their problems for them. Good luck with all that.
The video is clear, this is well produced. You see everybody's faces clearly. This lady's daughter gets bullied in school, just like she did when she was a kid, and she wants the County Council to do something about it. That's a legitimate concern, the Council manages the school district, in some indirect way it's probably good for them to hear that there is a problem in the schools, at least you can't blame a mom for going to the top with her complaint. The other thing was the transgender bill. She mentions "the drive," meaning the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever's drive to get signatures for a referendum to overturn the nondiscrimination law, and a guy who was "harassed by five transgenders." Then she tells a weird story about some scary person with evil intent in their eye. It sounds like nothing actually happened, the person had "an exaggerated walk, a female walk." That's it. The risk is real.
She asked the Montgomery County Council to make the world less crazy. What will they do to make the world more secure, more stable? It's a fascinating problem, the instability of the world, the craziness of life, and the County Council may be in over their heads if they are asked to take care of that. There is a different problem, though, which is people who think the world would be less crazy and more secure if strange people would just act normal, and then go around trying to get that to happen.
Imagine somebody out there thinking that somebody else's walk is living proof that the risk is real, that somebody is so frightening just walking down the street that the authorities need to do something about them. Having watched this video several times, I do believe George Leventhal was telling this lady that there is a big problem out there, and that her stereotyping, her fear of somebody different, is the problem. Fox5 can turn it around, this mom is outraged because the politician switched the subject on her, but the fact is, she was expressing a point of view that needed to be called out, and Leventhal did that. He talked about the "fear and prejudice and stereotyping which is what I'm hearing this woman express." Maybe upcounty folks carrying signs calling for the re-legalization of discrimination don't want to hear that, maybe they thought this lady made some kind of sense, but I think he hit the nail on the head. Gay and transgender kids get bullied and hassled more than anybody, there's no question about that. It's a big problem, and this kindly-sounding lady is only making it worse.
With us being a blog and all, we're not trying to sell papers, we don't have to summarize what people meant when they said something, we can tell you what they said. Well, and I'm sure to mention what I think about it.
The story is this. At town hall meeting, a lady told the County Council that her daughter was being bullied in school because she was small. She also talked about the transgender bill. The Council members took turns responding. Leventhal talked about the fact that gay students are bullied a lot. Afterwards, people were "confused" and "outraged" by his comments. Most of us who weren't there were confused about what in the world had actually happened.
Through all of it, the question has been, what did the lady actually say, and what did Leventhal say? I got the video and transcribed the relevant parts. The lady, Valerie Ricardo, spoke, then a bunch of Council members whose words I did not transcribe, then Leventhal, then Ms. Ricardo again.
Here's her initial question:
Hi, I'm Valerie Ricardo, and we're a family of Mongtomery County. I have two daughters in the Montgomery County Public School system. My youngest daughter, who entered into sixth grade this year was harassed and bullied for the first four months, just because she was small. She had also incurred a head trauma and she was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder for fifteen months. She went into the school system feeling of course very vulnerable when she saw students knocking books and tripping other students in the hallway. There was a lot that was out of control. And last year the Gazette reported that nine thousand students were suspended, within the Montgomery County school system, that violence is on the rise, and that things are very much out of hand. I would venture to say that we are failing our children, we are failing the homosexuals, we are failing the transgenders, because we are failing our children. Our children need secure environments, they need stability, the family needs support, and I want to know what you are doing currently within the school system to provide the structure, the order, and the means necessary to provide security and stability to the families of Montgomery County.
I do need to say this, that I have a very good friend, Mister Robert Shaw, who was a part of the drive, the signature drive, he's a very lovely man, he's a teacher, thirty two years in Montgomery County school system, is passionate about his beliefs, was extremely upset that he did not see appropriate exemptions in the bill that are also actually also in other bills of this nature, and he personally wanted to do something about it so that there would be appropriate exclusions. He was alone one day in front of Leisure World Giant and he was harassed by five transgenders, one being I think the person that is in question. He is also doing a great community service in a homework club within a very diverse area for the last three years and he's just so wonderfully respected and honored by all men.
So, that being the case, I have one more comment. I had a conversation, excuse me I'm very dry, I had a conversation with a lovely transgender male in February, a real sweetheart, just a love, and we had a very wonderful dialog. But March fourth, sitting in front of this woman's house, speaking with my friend Delores, I was approached by a man with an exaggerated walk, a female walk, and there was an evil -- and I didn't know this person, there was evil intent in his eye. And he came at me in a very threatening way. If it hadn't have been for Delores I don't know what would have happened in that situation, and I went home feeling very afraid, almost like my daughter, feeling very vulnerable, feeling very afraid, wondering what would have happened if Delores wasn't there, or if I was a child. So I want to say that the risk is real, and I think that we need to take these situations of violence, and bullying, and crazy situations for what they are and begin to do something about it.
I took out the uhs and go-backs, and this is pretty close to her words as she chose them. This being a blog and all, I will note that she does have at least three topics going on here -- her daughter's situation at school, something about the nondiscrimination bill and a guy being hassled collecting signatures, and then a scary thing with a person of questionable gender characteristics and obvious evil intent.
I will say that if Mister Robert Shaw is the guy we saw at Leisure World, he had a friendly conversation with three transgender people, and two of us executives from TTF World Headquarters were on the scene but are not transgender, and I didn't even talk to the guy, I was walking around taking pictures. He ended up giving a big hug to Maryanne and packing up his petition stuff so he could go home. That was at Leisure World Giant, but I thought that guy's name was Jeff. I'm pretty sure there were not five transgender people at Leisure World at any time.
Anyway, Valerie Ricardo gave what we call a "rambling monologue," and I wouldn't want to be the politician who tried to respond to her.
Other Council members addressed her, and last was George Leventhal. Here's what he said:
The issue of bullying in school is a extremely serious but I would like to acknowledge one very important fact and that is is that the victims of bullying in so many cases are young people who over the course of their lives are gay. And when we're having this conversation about fear and not indulging in stereotypes and trying to come together as a community I just hope we can all have this conversation if we're going to have a referendum, in a way that expresses the love in our hearts and the desire to come together as a community and our desire to avoid fear and prejudice and stereotyping which is what I'm hearing this woman express. So let us acknowledge that in many, many, many cases it is the victims, it is gay people who are themselves the victims of violence and bullying and stereotyping and prejudice. Let's at least put that on the table and be honest about it.
I think the key to understanding his brief speech is in his use of the phrase "our desire to avoid fear and prejudice and stereotyping which is what I'm hearing this woman express." I was hearing fear and prejudice and stereotyping in what she said, and I think that's what Leventhal was reacting to. She saying, my daughter is getting bullied and I'm afraid of these other people who threaten me because I don't know what they're going to do but they look weird and they're sure to do something horrible. So he was saying, maybe, your daughter's getting bullied but these people you're speaking badly about get bullied a whole lot, too, let's remember that that's happening while we're talking about your daughter.
In other words, lady, you have a problem, and you are a problem.
Maybe I'm reading that into what he said, but I like it.
Did you get the thing about the person with the exaggerated walk? She had a moment of fear, therefore "the risk is real." I hope I never get like that.
Ms. Ricardo still had the microphone in front of her, so she kept talking. Here's what else she said:
Let me just say that I actually, when I was small and little, that I was also bullied and victimized, and I know that many people have been that I'm in a relationship with that are not gay, so I think that the means to provide answers and solution in this, we need to provide a solution for the whole, but Mr. Elrich I have been of course a childrens advocate for a very long time, and I've been thinking about these issues, and I believe that I have solutions and answers that can be implemented with your help, into the school system that should definitely be taken a serious look. And I would be very interested in meeting with you, and maybe Mike Knapp, in providing the ideas that I believe can be implemented to be effective, because that's what needs to happen, we need to be effective and we need to secure and stabilize the children within the school system and offer hope to the family.
Okay, that's nothing, it's just there for completeness, so you know. This lady has the answers and hopes the County Council will invite her over to solve their problems for them. Good luck with all that.
The video is clear, this is well produced. You see everybody's faces clearly. This lady's daughter gets bullied in school, just like she did when she was a kid, and she wants the County Council to do something about it. That's a legitimate concern, the Council manages the school district, in some indirect way it's probably good for them to hear that there is a problem in the schools, at least you can't blame a mom for going to the top with her complaint. The other thing was the transgender bill. She mentions "the drive," meaning the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever's drive to get signatures for a referendum to overturn the nondiscrimination law, and a guy who was "harassed by five transgenders." Then she tells a weird story about some scary person with evil intent in their eye. It sounds like nothing actually happened, the person had "an exaggerated walk, a female walk." That's it. The risk is real.
She asked the Montgomery County Council to make the world less crazy. What will they do to make the world more secure, more stable? It's a fascinating problem, the instability of the world, the craziness of life, and the County Council may be in over their heads if they are asked to take care of that. There is a different problem, though, which is people who think the world would be less crazy and more secure if strange people would just act normal, and then go around trying to get that to happen.
Imagine somebody out there thinking that somebody else's walk is living proof that the risk is real, that somebody is so frightening just walking down the street that the authorities need to do something about them. Having watched this video several times, I do believe George Leventhal was telling this lady that there is a big problem out there, and that her stereotyping, her fear of somebody different, is the problem. Fox5 can turn it around, this mom is outraged because the politician switched the subject on her, but the fact is, she was expressing a point of view that needed to be called out, and Leventhal did that. He talked about the "fear and prejudice and stereotyping which is what I'm hearing this woman express." Maybe upcounty folks carrying signs calling for the re-legalization of discrimination don't want to hear that, maybe they thought this lady made some kind of sense, but I think he hit the nail on the head. Gay and transgender kids get bullied and hassled more than anybody, there's no question about that. It's a big problem, and this kindly-sounding lady is only making it worse.
posted by JimK at 8:17 AM
53 Comments:
The description Ms. Ricardo gives of Mr. Robert Shaw sounds remarkably like the gentleman I met at the Leisure World Giant. I distinctly remember his name as being “Jeff” though. This discrepancy leaves open a couple of possibilities. Perhaps Ms. Ricardo was talking about another kindly old gentleman who happens to have a very similar background to Jeff, who was indeed harassed by 5 trangender folks.
For all we know, this “transgender gang” is out harassing innocents in Montgomery County right now… perhaps chasing people down, tying them up, and doing their nails. When will this craziness stop?
It could be that Mr. Shaw felt uncomfortable giving his real name out to such a SCARY group of people, or that he used his middle name or nickname instead. (If you can handle the shock, you can see a picture of me that’s a couple of years old at: http://profiles.yahoo.com/svelte_brunette . This particular photograph has made even more intimidating by some anomaly of the compression routine that Yahoo uses that gave me a forehead that makes me look like I’m ¼ Klingon. I’ve tried to update this picture several times now but, it keeps telling me the “Edit Picture feature is temporarily unavailable.”)
You forgot to mention Jim, that I gave this poor gentlemen (Jeff? Robert?) a big hug too. Do not underestimate the intimidation factor behind a hug from a nearly 6ft. tall, 134 lb., curly-haired formerly-transgendered woman. Perhaps I subconsciously sensed his identity confusion and couldn’t stop myself from trying to console him.
We had an interesting discussion where he related his own experience as a child. He had gone to visit relatives in the still-segregated south. He saw segregated restrooms and rode a segregated bus – noting how all the black folks walked with there eyes pointed down at all times. He knew what discrimination was, and how it could damage people. I shared some of my personal experiences with him, and explained how Bill 23-07’s provisions were actually supposed to protect people like me from discrimination in housing and jobs, despite all the hateful things some people say / believe / think about people with my kind of medical history. He seemed genuinely concerned about how I was doing and even asked if I currently had a job. I explained that I’m one of the lucky ones, and that I do. My bosses (whom I’ve known since moving to MD in 1989) realized early on my engineering skills did not depend on the clothes I wear or the status of my genitalia. Some of my friends however, are not nearly so lucky, and several have spent years trying to find another job after transitioning. I could see the wheels turning in his head and that he had a lot to think about. I figured he might have some questions about this, so I gave him my business card, telling him if he had questions to contact me. He said he needed to go home, have a long walk, and do some thinking and praying.
I’ll write more later.
Peace,
Cynthia
What are America's most sinful cities? How could we know? Well, give Forbes magazine credit for giving this ranking challenge a try. The magazine recently offered rankings on the traditional seven deadly sins -- and ranked America's "top ten" on each sin.
The folks at Forbes determined a way of tracking statistics on each of the sins. As the staff explained, "For each sin we stretched our imagination to find a workable proxy--murder rates for wrath, per capita billionaires for avarice--then culled the available data sources to rank the cities. Some of the results were surprising: Salt Lake City as America's Vainest City. Some were not: Detroit as America's Most Murderous."
Here are the sins and the top cities in each sinful category:
Most Lustful: Denver ranked first, joined by San Antonio, Portland, Seattle, Salt Lake City, Boise, Washington, DC, Cincinnati, Columbus, Baltimore and Buffalo/Rochester. The research firm of AC Nielson used sales figures for contraceptives and sex items in ranking the list.
Most Jealous: Memphis tops the list, followed by Charlotte, San Antonio, Seattle, Providence, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Columbus, Oklahoma City, Chicago. The rankings were linked to crime rates for personal property.
Most Obese [Gluttony]: Memphis, Birmingham, San Antonio, Riverside/San Bernardino, Detroit, Jacksonville, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, San Diego. Health statistics drove this listing.
Most Avaricious [Greed]: San Jose, San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Boston, New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Washington, Miami. The rankings on this sin were determined by looking at the concentration of great wealth.
Most Murderous [Wrath]: The crime statistics are clear -- the most murderous city is Detroit, followed by Baltimore, New Orleans, Newark, St. Louis, Oakland, Washington DC, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Buffalo.
Most Slothful [Sedentary]: Memphis tops this list as well, followed by New Orleans, Las Vegas, Detroit, Birmingham, Louisville, San Antonio, Jacksonville, Nashville, and Miami.
Most Vain [Pride]: "Pride is supposed to be a deadly sin. When it comes to their looks, however, fewer Americans are seeing it that way," say the reporters, who used plastic surgery as the marker for this sin. Perhaps surprisingly, Salt Lake City ranked first, followed by San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Miami, Louisville, Nashville, Virginia Beach, New York, and Los Angeles.
Interestingly, the Bible and the Christian tradition often associate sin with cities. The concentration of human beings in cities often fuels the business of sin and presents opportunities not available elsewhere. From the "cities of the plains" to Nineveh, Babylon, and Rome, cities often became symbols of human pride, lust, and egoistic sin.
Similarly, John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress -- perhaps the most influential book in English (other than the Bible) among Christians -- symbolized the sinfulness and allure of the city in its portrayal of Vanity Fair.
But what about the Forbes list? In the final analysis, it is probably not worth more than conversation points. Are the folks in Salt Lake City really more vain than those in Atlanta? Are citizens of Memphis really more jealous than those of Houston? Who can know? The statistics chosen for the report tell only part of the story.
Still, it is interesting to ponder the question of whether sins are particularly celebrated and concentrated in certain cities. It would be hard to ignore the self-advertisement of Las Vegas. Yet, it is not true that what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Sins spill over quite readily, and sin is a powerful contagion.
In reality, the whole world is a Genesis 3 world -- a fallen world inhabited by sinners. Sin is a universal problem and every single human being is a sinner. Put sinful humanity in close quarters, and sin inevitably multiplies.
If anything, the Forbes sin listings should remind Christians of the great challenge of evangelizing the cities -- a task that demonstrates Christian failure to date. In that sense the Forbes list is haunting, humbling, and heart-breaking. Yet, in another sense, it may also be motivating. We can hope.
Thank you very much for setting the record straight on the town hall meeting. It was quite an experience being slimed by Fox News. In talking to the reporter, it was clear to me that Fox 5 was going to do a bad hit on me no matter what I said or did. I am sure my remarks could have been more artful and articulate but really, when you are sitting up there and trying to respond to such strange expressions of fear and prejudice, I just tried to inject a note of tolerance. Thanks again for clarifying what happened- your blog post is very much on target.
Councilman,
Why don't you further unslime yourself and work to amend the transgender bill by putting in reasonable exemptions such as are common in other jurisdictions with this type of legislation?
The lack of reasonable exemptions is the reason why you're going to lose the referendum in November. Be a representative of your constituents rather than your fellow councilmen.
what exemptions are these, anonymous?
I thought the beef was the alleged danger that men would come into women's locker rooms and bathrooms (even dressed up like men) and declare that they feel like women. Can those who object to this bill make up their minds?
I think question given to the council was rambling (i have been in that situation myself). it wasn't a question, it was a statement throwing out a lot of unconnected irrelevant points.
Oh, AnonFreak (I also like AnonSlime because that also represents you quite well).
Once again, your copy-and-pasting of unrelated topics is not appreciated.
Yes, Fox is so very slanted... We can never expect them to actually tell the truth.
I love the fact that we are being called a "transgender gang". This is exactly what CRG and the Westboro Baptist Church are all about: making the oppressed "seem" like the oppressor. Thank goodness we have good-spirited and educated people here in Montgomery County who can see straight through these hate-mongering tactics.
Oh, do you think we could make t-shirts for this make-believe transgender gang that CRG has invented??
Point out, Anon, what those reasonable exceptions are for all of us. That religious institutions should be allowed to discriminate against trans persons but not against anyone else, for one. Second, that no homeowner who is renting out a bedroom would have to sleep in the same bed as a trans woman (that was courtesy of Susan Jamison, Esq.) and the bathrooms again, of course, even though there is no law right now and this bill is silent on the issue.
We're going to have a hard time losing the referendum in November, alas, because there isn't going to be one. I feel for you, Anon.
Religious institutions should be allowed to hire those who support their mission. If they feel that homosexuality is sinful, they shouldn't be obligated to hire practicing homosexuals. It's hard to see why homosexuals would want to work for such an institution except to ACT UP, anyway.
Young ladies looking for roommates to share a house shouldn't be forced to take on unladies.
Business owners who segregate facilities based on gender should be free to define gender as they wish.
I'm sure George is impressed, Dana, but if gay lunatic fringe groups do succeed in derailing the referendum, the County Council will pay a price at the voting booth. The great joke is that TTF has always acted as if using judicial maneuvers is such an outrageous move and here they are doing the same. TTF is full of hypocrites and liars.
Derrick asked:
“Oh, do you think we could make t-shirts for this make-believe transgender gang that CRG has invented??”
“Transexual Menace” T-shirts have been out for years, unfortunately my googling didn’t uncover a picture of one, just numerous text mentions, much less a place to buy one. I did manage to come across a “Transgender Menace” T-shirt though, along with a fascinating biography of the wearer: http://transgenderlegal.com/hpress1.htm
Enjoy!
Cynthia
Anonymous said:
“Young ladies looking for roommates to share a house shouldn't be forced to take on unladies.”
They aren’t. They are protected by section 27-14 of Montgomery County Code, part of which is shown here:
Subdivision A. Discrimination in Housing**
**Editor's note—Section 1 of 1988 L.M.C., ch. 4, designated §§ 27-12--27-15 as subdivision A.
Cross references—Coordination of fair housing activities by department of housing and community development, § 2-27B; interagency fair housing coordinating group, § 2-27C.
Sec. 27-14. Applicability of division.
(a) This division does not apply to:
(1) The rental or leasing of a part of a dwelling in which the owner is residing; provided, that the dwelling must continue to be used by the owner thereof as a bona fide residence for himself or herself and any member of his or her family; provided further, that the dwelling does not contain more than two (2) rental or leasing units.
(2) The rental or leasing of a dwelling by any religious corporation, association, or society to a person of a particular religion whose rental or leasing therein is connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its purely religious activities.
If someone has 3 or more rental units though, they will need to comply with the anti-discrimination law.
Anonymous also said:
“Business owners who segregate facilities based on gender should be free to define gender as they wish.”
The County Attorney’s office agrees with you. This is what it had to say about 23-07 (from the Health and Human Services Committee memo):
“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 (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.”
Also, in the very first paragraph of this memo, in the statement by the committee itself:
“Therefore, the Committee members now unanimously recommends that Bill 23-07 not amend the exception from the current public accommodations law for “distinctly private or personal” facilities. The result is that the operators of those types of facilities would continue to designate those who can use them.”
It seems as though a couple of the major concerns of the anti-23-07 crowd has already been addressed, if they would just take the time to read the laws and the DA / HHSC memo.
As for transgendered folk in churches, a number of my t-friends are quite religious; two of them even attended seminary school during their transition. One was denied the degree she had already earned when the school found out about her medical condition, and the other one left of her own accord (from a different school) after it became clear that the “tolerance” the school preached for lesbians and gays didn’t apply to someone her condition – which was actually intersexed. (Her parents didn’t admit to her that she was subjected to genital “correction” surgery at age 3, until she was about to go into have it re-corrected – she did have a clue though – the first surgery wasn’t exactly “undetectable,” and she referred to it as a “Frankenpenis.” At the second round of surgery, they found out she wasn’t born with a prostate.)
If churches want to get an exemption in place so they don’t have to hire a transgender person, I personally will not fight them, I have plenty to do in my life without worrying about that. I know some of my super-t-friends will though. If religious groups want to deny me a job or housing though, I will work to see my rights not infringed.
Peace,
Cynthia
Thank you, Cynthia. I was actually being facetious.
I personally don't care if a church, per se, discriminates, but I do care if religious institutions such as hospitals or hospices do, for instance. Most LGBT folks lobby their own churches and synagogues to move them along to acceptance. That some will always be rejecting doesn't bother me.
Susan Jamison has an obsession with this issue, which is why she has brought it up a number of times. As you point out, it doesn't apply to the instance which she fears. But it is interesting that she is not only concerned about renting to a trans woman, but actually sharing a bed with one.
The bathrooms we already know about.
As for the elections, Anon, I'm surprised that such a well-educated man doesn't realize that presenting oneself to the voters in Montgomery County as a lunatic will not win you an election. I would say that it might in Utah, but I'm not so sure about that either. The fact is that no one who has ever supported a similar law anywhere across this country has been defeated in a re-election campaign over this issue. It doesn't even come up, so I guess you will have the honor of being the first to support a Republican candidate running on a bathroom/shower platform. Maybe you personally will take up the standard and lead your party to victory.
Anon, as for this:
"The great joke is that TTF has always acted as if using judicial maneuvers is such an outrageous move and here they are doing the same. TTF is full of hypocrites and liars."
I never opposed the right of CRG to run a petition campaign, only that they do so without lying and misrepresentation. That is what the LAW says.
As for challenging a clearly inadequate group of signatures, that is also what the law provides. Theresa knew when she started that to overturn the legally proscribed democratic process she would have to collect 12,500/25,000 VALID signatures. She has not done that, and it is clear she realizes that now. She started the process, and now it's continuing. Had the Board of Elections done its proper job, they would have invalidated the signatures, but then you would have sued them. So this will play out.
I said at the beginning that getting a vote by petition is extremely difficult, for anyone, and deservedly so. It doesn't matter who's doing the collecting, or what the issue is that is being challenged. It's very hard, and you've failed, just like most others. That is nothing about which to be ashamed.
You should just be ashamed of your hatred and lies and misrepresentations.
Andrea- not anon
Cynthia, I wasn't at Leisure world but I know the Not nice CRG guy I encountered- not the same from the photos- wouldn't give his name. You could be right- the guy could be ashamed and now Ms Ricardo has outed him with his real name.
I am always surprised- why I don't know- when people who say they were harassed because of their race, creed, gender, national origin or their kids were harassed for whatever reason- then go blithely about being unpleasant about other groups. It is not uncommon-people don't seem to learn from their own difficulties.
BlackTsunami said...
“what exemptions are these, anonymous?”
I assume he means the “reasonable exemption” of the bill itself.
AnonFreak--
It must be exhausting losing your own game.
I find loving one another much more healthy than hating one another (and it takes a lot less energy and makes you feel like a better person inside).
The T-shirt"
T-R-A-N
Trasngenders (and allies)
Readily
Against
Nonsense
How about a “Super T Friends” T-shirt?
It would be blue, perhaps with Jim out front, hands on his hips, with a flowing red cape… of I course, I’d want to be Wonder Woman. ;)
I can just imagine the phone calls now… “Hello, police? Can you come out here right now? I’m being harassed by the Super T Friends!”
Peace,
Cynthia
I've never understood why some people feel that there religious beliefs should entitle them to discriminate.
Then there's the one about exemptions for schools and daycares, as though transgender people (and I assume other queer people) were a danger to children, or some kids are too young to know about people like us.
Phooie.
Robert,
I think there are a few reasons for the desire for an exemption relating to children.
One, because it gives them the emotional connect to scare people into supporting them out of ignorance. Mention "children" and parents will do anything. It also explains the shouting about pedophiles just lurking in the shadows and waiting for the bill to become law.
Second, because they are generally so insecure in their own sexuality that they imagine their children can somehow be "infected" by homosexuality or transsexualism. That is part of the dehumanization campaign.
Third, it derives from the false notion that somehow a child's gender identity or sexual orientation is subject to parental or other environmental influence. We now know that's not true, but the right-wing is still addicted to that Freudian ideology.
That makes sense to me Dana, as their reasons.
Is it true that we get a toaster oven for every one we recruit? Someone told me that.
"Third, it derives from the false notion that somehow a child's gender identity or sexual orientation is subject to parental or other environmental influence. We now know that's not true, but the right-wing is still addicted to that Freudian ideology."
This is a lie. Dana's pet theories are not scientific facts. Scientists disagree about what causes deviant sexual orientation but they do agree they don't know. Virtually all scientists say they suspect environmental factors probably play at least some role.
Let's teach some facts out there!
"I've never understood why some people feel that there religious beliefs should entitle them to discriminate."
It's because we have freedom of religion in this country, Robert. A religious institution should be able to hire those who support their mission, part of which may be supporting traditional morality. Even Dana and Cynthia above seem to agree with that. If the original bill had included the religious exemption, I wouldn't have signed the petition to reverse the bill. As it is, the bill probably won't survive a constitutional challenge but until someone takes the time to do that, constitutional freedom is infringed.
Dana does bring up religious hospitals. Hospitals already have an obligation to treat those with imminent life-threatening problems. I hope the Dr. doesn't mean we should require religious hospitals to perform cosmetic, fantasy-fulfillment surgery on guys who want to be girls.
TTF is being hypocritical supporting judicial action to stop the referendum after the ruckus they raised when CRC sued MCPS to protect the constitutional rights of students and won. Dana uses this as an excuse to launch into a long suppressed tirade justifying her actions against lawful petitioners but that was not the topic.
Hypocrisy of the TTF variety is typical among Democrats. Witness the presidential race. After whining loudly for years about how Al Gore is not president after winning the popular vote in 2000, the national Democratic party has now refused to let voters in two of the largest states in the country, Florida and Michigan, participate in the presidential nomination process. After touting their commitment to the popular vote for so long, they now, hypocritically, seem content to let their nomination be decided by big-wig super-delegates.
Funny how only a few weeks ago it seemed the Democrats were unstoppable. Now, it's hard to see how they can win. Between the comments of his wife and self-described "mentor", Americans will not be able to say without doubt that Obama can be trusted to be President of all the people. He can't win now.
If however the nomination is delivered to Clinton or, even, Gore because of this recognition, after Obama has won the primaries fair and square, black voters, the only solid Democratic bloc, will never forgive them. Especially if McCain picks Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice for VP.
Looks like Roberts and Alito will getting some like-minded colleagues.
America needs another party. We can't just have one choice every election.
Andrea- not anon
Huckabee for president man now says Obama can't win. Also that MC will turn against the Dems in the next election. Looking for you to go three for three, NM Anon.
Robert, I don't think the rules have relaxed. The Gay agenda catalog still says you have to recruit 4 for a toaster oven. Do you have a 2008 catalog?
Andrea
What I think is most interesting is that we seem to constantly be reminded that it is primarily homosexual students that are picked up, bullied and physically assaulted. Ok, so they are...how much? And how much relative to students from other categories?
I say all this as someone that was picked upon in elementary school...though I counted myself blessed then and now that at the end of the day I could leave school, and return home to a loving stay-at-home mom.
If Obama is the nominee, expect GOP campaign commercials that show the rantings of Wright, accompanied by a voice-over noting that Wright is Obama's longtime mentor, and followed by Obama saying he will not disavow Wright, topped off with pictures of the two men embracing.
The final shot will be Obama's wife saying she was never proud to be an American until Obama won a primary.
Alot of Republicans voted for Hillary in crossover states, thinking she'd be the easiest to beat in the general election. They must be kicking themselves now.
Of course, Andrea might be able to help if Obama would put her in charge of PR for the campaign. She could go stand in the rain at the Metro and tell McCain supporters to "stuff it".
Hurry out before it clears up!
I love how Wyatt changes the subject to some generic political one when he loses momentum.
I never said that the environment doesn't play a role -- it always does. Genes function in an environment that includes histones, all the replication factors, other nuclear proteins, then the cytoplasmic environment, then the cellular membrane . . . There is really no distinction between nature and nurture.
That's not what I said. First, this is not deviant sexual orientation except in your fundamentalist religious worldview. Second, there are a very small number of scientists left from the Freudian years who believe parenting or schooling has any impact on gender identity or sexual orientation. They had the field for fifty years and failed utterly. It's over.
As for religious hospitals, I wasn't discussing the provision of care; I was referring to a hospital's hiring and firing decisions. I do not believe they should be allowed to discriminate.
Once again, your view of gender identity is wrong and hateful.
As for your having signed the petition, well, it won't matter. But I recall you've said before that the only thing you really care about is the religious exemption, and I asked you if you oppose the anti-discirmination provisions that now protect race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. There is no religious exemption in this county, so why are you singling out trans persons?
As for the constitutionality, it has not been challenged here before, nor anywhere else in this country. Good luck.
And finally on the theological level, there is no basis for your hostility towards trans persons. You can cover youtrself with your scriptures, but you only show how little you know about your own tradition.
My new bumper sticker arrived in the mail today:
"THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH REPUBLICANS!"
Fabulicious, if I do say so myself.
Dana says now: "I never said that the environment doesn't play a role -- it always does."
Dana said yesterday: "the false notion that somehow a child's gender identity or sexual orientation is subject to parental or other environmental influence. We now know that's not true,"
"Genes function in an environment that includes histones, all the replication factors, other nuclear proteins, then the cytoplasmic environment, then the cellular membrane . . . There is really no distinction between nature and nurture."
Yada-yada-yada. What your saying here is philosophical not scientific. There is no proof that materialism explains everything. It's your personal belief.
Furthermore, the original discussion was whether deviant sexual desires can be partly explained by personal influences. There is no reason to think it might not be. Scientists have again and again said they don't know.
"this is not deviant sexual orientation except in your fundamentalist religious worldview."
Most societies, even those that are not fundamentalist, have considered non-heterosexual activity deviant.
"Second, there are a very small number of scientists left from the Freudian years who believe parenting or schooling has any impact on gender identity or sexual orientation. They had the field for fifty years and failed utterly. It's over."
People have been trying to establish a biological basis for homosexuality at least since the 1970s. They have failed utterly.
"As for religious hospitals, I wasn't discussing the provision of care; I was referring to a hospital's hiring and firing decisions. I do not believe they should be allowed to discriminate.
Once again, your view of gender identity is wrong and hateful."
How so?
"But I recall you've said before that the only thing you really care about is the religious exemption, and I asked you if you oppose the anti-discirmination provisions that now protect race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc. There is no religious exemption in this county, so why are you singling out trans persons?"
Signing a petition is singling out? I do think religious institutions should be free to decline to hire anyone who doesn't support their mission. Homosexuals or other religious groups might fall in this category for some religious groups so if you want to start a petition, I'll sign it.
"As for the constitutionality, it has not been challenged here before, nor anywhere else in this country."
That's because religious institutions were exempt elsewhere. They probably didn't have anti-religious fanatics infiltrating the local governing body and writing the bills.
"And finally on the theological level, there is no basis for your hostility towards trans persons."
I actually don't have any hostility. It's typical post-modernism to feel that anyone who disagrees with you is hostile. I'm only arguing that each person and group should decide what position they want to take for themselves without government decree.
"You can cover youtrself with your scriptures, but you only show how little you know about your own tradition."
I don't recall citing any scripture about transexuals. I certainly haven't "covered" myself with them.
Cut it out. You're covering your bigotry with religious extremism, You've been doing it since you joined this blog discussion.
You think you're being cute and scoring a victory when you quote my use of the word "environment " in one context that is vague and then when I explain it, you go "yada-yada-yada." You have the debate skills of a middle schooler.
You say you're not religious, but you're also not a materialist. I would hope then when you go to your physician you tell her you're not a materialist, and you will refuse all materialist therapy. If you don't, you're a hypocrite for choosing the science to fit your spiritualist world-view when it fits your prejudices.
As I've said repeatedly, I don't care what you believe and I will defend your right to believe anything. But I will fight your attempt to impose your beliefs on me.
What is this nonsensical statement: "Signing a petition is singling out?" In this case, of course it is. You said you signed because there is no religious exemption, and I pointed out that there has never been a religious exemption. So to be consistent you would have to move to have the entire code changed, or not oppose one more protected category because it doesn't have a religious exemption. And, as I said, I believe certain religious institutions should never have an exemption.
As for your theological beliefs, as far as I am aware "Anon" is a religious extremist, and an ignorant one at that. If that is not you, I take back my comments.
Anon said:
“I hope the Dr. doesn't mean we should require religious hospitals to perform cosmetic, fantasy-fulfillment surgery on guys who want to be girls.”
There is no way for me to know which Anon this particular line comes from. We hear similar stuff from so many of them, and none of them are brave enough to even put a fake name behind what they write so we can at least know which Anon we are addressing.
There is no way to know if this statement was born out of beliefs they were taught at Sunday school, a cheap shot intended to insult people like me and my dear friends, or a carefully considered evaluation based on observing numerous episodes of “Jerry Springer.” Of course, it could be just a 15 year old who gets his kicks out of doing things like going on Holocaust Survivor sites and posting things like “Hey guys, wouldn’t it be cool if concentration camps actually were REAL?!” and watching the sparks fly.
I personally like to think the best of people and will assume that this statement was actually born of simple ignorance, and use it as a teaching opportunity.
The following excerpt is from “The Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association's Standards Of Care For Gender Identity Disorders, Sixth Version.”
You can find it at: http://www.wpath.org/Documents2/socv6.pdf
“Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.
How to Deal with Ethical Questions Concerning Sex Reassignment Surgery. Many persons, including some medical professionals, object on ethical grounds to surgery for GID. In ordinary surgical practice, pathological tissues are removed in order to restore disturbed functions, or alterations are made to body features to improve the patient’s self image. Among those who object to sex reassignment surgery, these conditions are not thought to present when surgery is performed for persons with gender identity disorders. It is important that professionals dealing with patients with gender identity disorders feel comfortable about altering anatomically normal structures. In order to understand how surgery can alleviate the psychological discomfort of patients diagnosed with gender identity disorders, professionals need to listen to these patients discuss their life histories and dilemmas. The resistance against performing surgery on the ethical basis of "above all do no harm" should be respected, discussed, and met with the opportunity to learn from patients themselves about the psychological distress of having profound gender identity disorder.”
The psychological distress they refer to above frequently manifests itself as suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, or unfortunately, suicide “successes.” I first joined a support group for GID patients of my therapist in 2003, and continued to attend through 2005. I had previously gone to a therapist at Johns Hopkins in 1999, but found them to not be particularly helpful for people early in transition like myself, and they did not have a support group.
During my regular visits to the support group, one patient (who only participated in the on-line portion of the group) succeeded in finding the “other cure” for GID: it involved duct-taping a plastic garbage bag over her head followed by a pillow case. She no longer suffers from GID. Her roommates found her the next day.
Another gal woke up in a hospital psyche ward after being unconscious for several days. She doesn’t think it was an actual suicide attempt because they found her in her night gown – her previous suicide attempts were always in guy clothes – she didn’t want police or medical personnel to find her cross-dressed. She believes it was a simple mistake of not reading the whole description in the medical reference – it said the maximum safe dosage was 10mg. She had 0.5mg tablets of her anti-depressant, so she took 20 of them. It was only later she read further and found out that the 10mg maximum was for a WEEK.
Her next attempt though left no room for doubt. She over-dosed on anti-depressants again, but this time she had locked herself in her running Jeep with the garage door closed. Had her brother not been on her side of town that day and decided to see her, she would have managed to cure her GID the “other way” as well. She was quite disappointed to wake up several days later in the hospital again.
Most (but not all) of us have picked out a method and / or a date by which to use the more socially acceptable cure for GID (i.e. suicide). The Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, first published in 1979, and based on principles used at least since the 1950s, is the best treatment regimen medical science currently has to offer for those unfortunate enough to be afflicted by this condition.
My own first suicide attempt was at age 9. (How often does a 4th grader need to be beaten up by their classmates before they decide the best choice for them is to end their life?) I couldn’t bring myself to slit my wrists with my pocket knife though – I’m still squeamish around blood, needles, and knives. Since I couldn’t do it myself, I laid on my stomach and asked my brother to stab me in the back. He couldn’t do it either. Later, I would try and suffocate myself with my pillow at night. Somehow I could never keep the pillow over my face long enough.
GID, and the treatment for it, is not about fantasy fulfillment, it’s a nightmare. The Harry Benjamin Standards of Care offer a treatment that has proven itself effective in tens of thousands of patients around the world. It is often the last resort for those who typically first present to their therapist as a life-long suicidal cross-dresser. It is not an easy treatment, nor an obvious one. However it does work in many, many cases.
The treatment for cancer is also difficult, non-obvious, and on the surface dangerous. The toxic chemicals used for chemotherapy, or the radioactive pellets injected in some cases seem quite destructive and counter-intuitive, but it does work, and in many cases, it is the best treatment we have available.
I would not call the roughly one thousand hours of facial electrolysis “fantasy fulfillment.” Nor the roughly 100 hours of “downstairs electrolysis” and 4 laser sessions where you don’t even want to think about “fantasy fulfillment.” There was WAY too much pain for that. Nor can I claim that there was any kind of sexual fulfillment either. I did not have sex before transition, and I haven’t had sex since transitioning either. For those brave enough to read about the experiences of post-op transsexuals, you may find that many of the reports are filled with pain and lack of “fulfillment.” Although many surgeons like to boast about the success rates of their techniques, none of them can guarantee you will be able to achieve orgasm afterwards. For many patients, if they do manage to achieve that, it is only months or years after their surgery, and then, it is not nearly as satisfying as before.
If someone does seek treatment for GID and the therapist believes that there is an underlying desire for “fantasy fulfillment,” a lack of understanding about the risks involved, (including loss of sexual function, orgasmic ability, and even death), or a lack of improvement in their handling of life in general during the Real Life Experience, they will not be afforded the necessary documentation for surgery, and other courses of treatment will be explored.
One of course is still free to believe (based on religious conviction or whatever) that sex changes are some whacked out form of fantasy fulfillment. This is America; we are free to believe what we want. However, don’t be surprised if someone who has dealt with this issue personally takes offence at such blithe trivialization of a debilitating medical condition.
Peace,
Cynthia
"I actually don't have any hostility."
When you call homosexuality a "deviant sexual orientation," you belie the notion you don't have any hostility. You could have chosen to say "minority sexual orientation." which is just as true. Instead you chose a word with a negative connotation, demonstrating your hostile regard for LGBT people.
I'm only arguing that each person and group should decide what position they want to take for themselves without government decree.
You're arguing each person and group should take any position they want including discriminating against LGBT people. They are your brothers and sisters and you should be ashamed of yourself for singling them out for discrimination. Christians don't judge others. Remember, we're all sinners.
JN
Jim -
Does anyone know where the recording of the Clarksburg Townhall meeting is posted ? I was on a plane but would really like to watch it.
btw, Sharon Kass is not a member of CRG. And she has sent us nasty letters too.
theresa
Jim -
Does anyone know where the recording of the Clarksburg Townhall meeting is posted ? I was on a plane but would really like to watch it.
btw, Sharon Kass is not a member of CRG. And she has sent us nasty letters too.
theresa
Theresa, I don't know if it's posted anywhere on the Internet. You may be able to get a DVD from the County Council. If you can't find one that way, email me and we'll see if we can get something to you.
Jim
"Cut it out. You're covering your bigotry with religious extremism, You've been doing it since you joined this blog discussion."
I rarely mention scripture and usually do so when the topic is brought up by one of you. I hold to a perspicuous interpretation of scripture which is by no means "extreme". I do think homosexuality is condemned by scripture and don't know if trangender should be considered a subset of homosexuality or not. It seems that some transexuals are a victim of a biological anomaly and some are simply indulging a fantasy rebelling against social norms. This is just a personal observation, not tied to any scripture I can think of. I don't really feel any need to judge whether any individual fits into which category. I do feel that people should be free to associate with whom they want. Religious groups, in particular, should be free to included in their mebership and staff those who agree with their point of view. I think most people, even in Montgomery County, would agree with that. That is why most places with a transgender discrimination law have a religious exemption. We don't have one here because the bill was authored by an extremist, who you work for.
"You think you're being cute and scoring a victory when you quote my use of the word "environment " in one context that is vague and then when I explain it, you go "yada-yada-yada." You have the debate skills of a middle schooler."
You were the one playing with context, Dana. The original context is the discussion about whether placing homosexuals as authority figures over kids might influence their emotional development negatively. You said, as you do about virtually every personal opinion you have, that science has science has proved otherwise. I merely pointed, inconveniently enough for you, that, no, they haven't.
"You say you're not religious,"
When did I say that?
"but you're also not a materialist. I would hope then when you go to your physician you tell her you're not a materialist, and you will refuse all materialist therapy. If you don't, you're a hypocrite for choosing the science to fit your spiritualist world-view when it fits your prejudices."
Completely illogical, Dana. Materialists believe all things are determined by physical phenomena. You don't have to believe this to believe in the reality of the physical world.
"As I've said repeatedly, I don't care what you believe and I will defend your right to believe anything. But I will fight your attempt to impose your beliefs on me."
Again, you are the imposing party. You're the one creating a new law to impose on others.
"What is this nonsensical statement: "Signing a petition is singling out?" In this case, of course it is. You said you signed because there is no religious exemption, and I pointed out that there has never been a religious exemption. So to be consistent you would have to move to have the entire code changed, or not oppose one more protected category because it doesn't have a religious exemption."
No I don't. I didn't start this petition. I just signed it. I'm not into political activism.
"And, as I said, I believe certain religious institutions should never have an exemption."
You're wrong.
"As for your theological beliefs, as far as I am aware "Anon" is a religious extremist, and an ignorant one at that."
You said I was a well-educated man a few days ago. Now, I'm ignorant? I'll consider the consistency of the source.
Extremist? You apparently maintain your own dictionary. Could you define "extremist" for us?
No fair consulting Ambrose Bierce.
Stop attacking me when I clearly have no choice but to conflate all you Anons. By hiding in anonymity you lose all credibility when you claim I said something one day and something else another. At least call yourself Anon1 or Anon2 . . .
I don't know what bills to which you are referring that have religious exemptions. The Montgomery County Code has no religious exemption for any category, so stop blaming us for imposing something "without a religious exemption." The state has a religious exemption for those issues that are religious, i.e., Methodists don't have to hire Episcopalians. But both have to hire the African-American or gay person. It is only the federal bill that has an extensive religious exemption, but in MoCo we are not the federal government (for the most part).
I'm glad you admit that some of us, at least, have a medical condition. Fact is, all transsexual persons who transition have a medical condition. As Cynthia most recently pointed out, and as I have over the years, there are criteria for diagnosis and treatment that are accepted across the board by the OVERWHELMING consensus of medical practitioners. And this bill only applies to transsexual persons, because it is only for us that a legal name and sex change is necessary to conform to physical and social transition. Theresa has repeatedly lied about that, bringing in cross-dressers and what she categorized as "Tuesday transgenders" to confuse people and whip up hysteria.
You can be an intelligent man and a religious extremist.
The fact is that there is ZERO evidence that a child's gender identity can be impacted in any way by parental or school environment. Researchers have searched diligently through the decades to turn up some evidence that is the case, but they have failed miserably. That's why there are no longer any Freudians, which, combined with the advances in cognitive science, have shown gender identity to be innate. You can keep saying it's possible, but there is no evidence, so you are spreading lies.
Theresa--
Could you please tell us the difference between CRG/C and the Westboro Baptist Church? You both follow the same hate-based and theocratic agenda as well as use similar tactics: spreading lies, protesting FOR discrimination, etc.
Some clarity would be appreciated.
Derrick
Derrick.
I have been on vacation for two weeks and have a ton of email to sort through so I don't really have time to get into a long debate.
We clearly believe the bill should not have been passed without reasonable exemptions. Our position is very clearly spelled out on our website. If you would like to address those points one by one and indicate why you believe they are incorrect, have at it. I am not going to reiterate them. I also believe such a conversation on this blog would not be very fruitful. We will simply have to agree to disagree.
theresa
I see, Theresa. That is what I though: no differences exist between CRC/G and the Westboro Baptist Church.
Will you be protesting the Pope's visit with them as well?
Derrick
Derrick -
I don't specifically recall the Westboro Baptist church, and I am certainly not familar with their positions, so I can't comment. We have been very clear about our positions and we are not lying. again, these are very clearly stated on our website, www.notmyshower.net
sorry, I have to go back to catching up so I am not going to reply again.
theresa
The irony about all the whining about “religious exemptions” in the law is that if these folks had helped push through Federal Bill H.R. 2015 which included said exemptions at the federal level, a bill in Montgomery County wouldn’t have been needed. Maybe the next time the bill goes before Congress, I’ll have some unexpected allies on my side. (I won’t hold my breath though.)
Peace,
Cynthia
Theresa,
It sounds like your vacation did you good. You sound almost rational, repeating Duchy's statement that "we'll just have to agree to disagree."
I have recently been asked to speak at a church about the Civil Marriage Protection Act and the “battle over transgender protections in Montgomery County.” This is the first time I’ve been asked to speak in front of a church congregation, so I approach the task with a bit of trepidation. (I know some one is going to ask, so before I go any further, the answer is Unitarian Universalist.)
Of course one of the contentious issues here in Montgomery County is that of “religious exemptions.” And this is where I have a problem. In my own form of “twisted” logic, I’m having a hard time coming up with a viable theological argument for discrimination against trans folk. The closest I can come is that if there is a married couple in the congregation, and one of them transitions, but they stay married (I happen to know of two couples like this here in Maryland) then it appears the church is condoning gay marriage. However, this reasoning requires involving the church’s view on marriage and homosexuality, rather than a direct censure on transgenderism itself. This of course leaves open the question of whether or not it is acceptable for a post-op transsexual to develop a normal heterosexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex, or if THAT would be considered homosexual because the surgery was only “cosmetic.” If the sexual thing is too hard to figure out, what if the trans person is non sexual – would it be o.k. then? Would both persons in the married couple be asked to leave or only the trans person?
In my brother’s case (he belongs to the LDS church) there are very prescribed roles for men and women in the church before, during, an after life. Apparently, these roles are so well defined and dictated by God that in order for him to use my legal name and use feminine pronouns with me would require him to give up his religion, something he simply not going to do. So Christmas cards from his family come to me addressed only with my last name. As best I can tell from numerous phone calls with him (many of which involved a lot of crying on my part) there are numerous birth defects that a person can be born with… spina bifida, autism, extra or missing limbs, cleft pallet, conjoined with a twin, blindness, deafness, and even inter-sex conditions. But apparently, there is never any chance that God ever mixes up the genitalia and the brain, or even if He does, you are still required to perform the duties and fill the role prescribed by your genitalia. (He wouldn’t ever go into what intersex people are supposed to do – I asked numerous times, but he just kept saying “that’s not your condition.”)
Of course my own view is that certain lines from the Book of Mark actually condone the removal of body parts in order to get into heaven (Mark 9:43, 9:47) but others contend that I’m using those phrases “out of context.” (“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.”) Of course, I don’t recall a commandment that says “thou shalt not have genital reassignment surgery” either.
So I could use some help here... when the folks at the UU church ask me what is the theological basis for discriminating against transgender people, what should I tell them? Is my brother’s position the best description? I know a lot of folks that post here are Christian, and they don’t always agree with Mormon philosophy, so any input would be welcome. (Of course, many Mormons consider themselves Christian too, but not all Christians agree with that.)
Thanks for your help,
Cynthia
Cynthia,
The only mention of any persons in Hebrew or Christian religious texts relates to eunuchs, and from the context it appears some people were born eunuchs (genital intersex), some choose to become eunuchs (transsexual) and some were forced into it.
The Talmud discusses intersex as a matter of course, and the Greeks led the way in recognition of this condition. Given that 2.2% of all live births are intersex, with 1:1500 showing obvious genital variation, it would be hard for any human society to be oblivious.
But there is nothing clearly written about any who would be classed as transsexual today, so to twist around exceedingly vague prooftexts to make a point of exclusion is not reasoning from the text, but only in a post hoc fashion to justify prejudice.
I'm so sorry about your brother's intransigence and willful ignorance.
Thank you very much for the information and the emotional support. The issues with my brother go painfully deeper, but I won’t go into that right now.
Before much more gets posted though, I need to ask EVERYONE responding to my question for a theological basis to refrain from judgmental remarks, snide comments, rude names, questions of people’s integrity or intelligence, or other unkind behavior. I know this will be difficult for some as there is TREMENDOUS disagreement on this issue on many, many fronts.
However, I am asking people to expose and write about their religious beliefs here. I feel the best way to have this happen is if they feel safe in doing so, knowing that even though many people will disagree with them, they will not be humiliated or belittled for it. As for myself, I will try to confine my responses only to clarifying questions, asked in a manner that will hopefully be considered respectful.
I know this won’t be easy folks, but I did not intend to open up a flame fest. I believe we can all “agree to disagree” and behave like reasonable adults here. I look forward to an open, honest, and RESPECTFUL dialogue.
Thank you,
Cynthia
Cynthia,
I can help you with this. Please contact me by sending an email to Chris or Jim. They will forward it.
Tish
Red Baron said "Furthermore, the original discussion was whether deviant sexual desires can be partly explained by personal influences. There is no reason to think it might not be. Scientists have again and again said they don't know.".
Same sex desires are not deviant and there is every reason to think they can't be explained by personal influences. None of the attempts to turn up evidence supporting such a conclusion has succeeded. There is no correlation of gayness with the laughable theory of distant fathers dommineering mothers. If there was any truth to this there would be a higher incidence of gayness amongst blacks given the much higher incidence in those families of absent fathers. If there was any truth to the anti-gay's laughable theory as to personal influences causing gayness there would have been a boom in gay children after World War II when many fathers were absent. Despite the anti-gays desperate attempts there has never been demonstrated any correlation between gayness and an particular family dynamic, thus refuting the idea altogether.
Red Baron said " I do feel that people should be free to associate with whom they want. Religious groups, in particular, should be free to included in their mebership and staff those who agree with their point of view."
That idea has failed miserably in the past. The idea that people should be free to associate with whomever they want is what resulted in "whites only" businesses and "No Jews allowed" signs. Its no different with gays. People making their living off of the public goodwill are obligated to serve all of it, not just those they like. People are free to associate with whomever they want in their private lives but such freedom does not extend to the public sphere. Religious groups should follow the same laws everyone else has to. Religious groups should not get special rights.
"The idea that people should be free to associate with whomever they want is what resulted in "whites only" businesses and "No Jews allowed" signs."
"White" is not a religion and neither is "Jew" in this context. Nazis, including the gays that made such an indispensible contribution to the rise of Nazism, made no distinction about the religious beliefs of Jews. They persecuted Jews whether they believed in Christ or only Moses or Darwin like Hitler or Buddha, for that matter. Their motive was racism not religious commitment. As Hitler admitted in his book, Mein Kampf, he lied to manipulate people and would sometimes try to manipulate religious people but he never gave a Jew mercy, regardless of their religious beliefs.
There were no gays in the Nazi party. The nazi party called for the death of gays from day one. And that is irrelevant to the fact that your calling for people to be "free to associate with whomever they want" is what lead to "Whites Only" businesses, and "No Jews allowed signs". Its no more moral to refuse to serve gays than it is to refuse to serve blacks or jews, but that's the immorality you want institutionalized.
"There were no gays in the Nazi party."
There were indeed and they were key players. Hitler was probably one himself but that's speculation.
"Its no more moral to refuse to serve gays than it is to refuse to serve blacks or jews, but that's the immorality you want institutionalized."
No one has suggested "institutionalizing" discrimination against gays. Without discrimination laws, gays are doing fine. Rare is the business owner who isn't willing to make a buck off a gay patron. Trying to impose government intervention in interpersonal relationships will probably be a setback for gays, causing resentment among those who are imposed on by radicals like Duchy and Dana.
Red Baron said "There were indeed and they were key players. Hitler was probably one himself but that's speculation".
Lies spread by the Christian reconstructionists to try and raise support for the idea of executing gays. The Nazi party was lead by and consisted of heterosexual Christians.
Red Baron said "No one has suggested "institutionalizing" discrimination against gays. Without discrimination laws, gays are doing fine. Rare is the business owner who isn't willing to make a buck off a gay patron. Trying to impose government intervention in interpersonal relationships will probably be a setback for gays,".
You youself are trying to institutionalize discrimination against gays. If you truly believed no one was going to discriminate against gays you wouldn't be fighting the laws that prevent just that - you're a liar. No one is trying to impose governement intervention on interpersonal relationships, you're free to have whatever kind of personal relationships you want, anti-discrimination laws don't cover those. Now if you want to make a buck of the goodwill of public you're obligated to serve all of it - you can't have a "whites only" or "no gays allowed sign" in a just world.
"Lies spread by the Christian reconstructionists to try and raise support for the idea of executing gays."
No, esteemed and respected historians say this and none of them have suggested executing gays.
Plain and simple, Priya, you're a nut.
No reputable historian says that. Those that do are the anti-gay's version of holocaust deniers.
Sorry, Priya, look up Ernst Rohm and Edmund Heines in any history of the Third Reich. Both well-known gays. Ran the largest military wing of the Nazi Party. Violently supressed all peaceful and lawful opposition to the Nazi Party, allowing the Nazis to take over Germany.
Let's just cut this short. Priya will jump up and down yelling "liar" and "conspiracy". Everyone look it up for yourselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home