Misrepresentation and Misdirection in CRW Letter to the Gazette
The Citizens for a Responsible Whatever had a letter to the editor in The Gazette this morning:
This is a fascinating way to muddy the waters. Shall we look at it?
First of all, to get this out in the open, the person she quotes didn't say that. That quote comes from THIS Baltimore City Paper article, and these are just some words in the article, Deborah Rudacille did not say this. That's a pretty good article, by the way, about people in an ambiguous gender zone. It is unconscionable but typical for the President of the Citizens for Whatever to say she's quoting an expert when she's not.
It is true that the word "transgender" is not mentioned in the bill. There's a good reason for that. The law isn't just about transgender people.
I ride the Metro every morning and every evening, and I'll tell you, there are some people on the train nearly every day who ... I can't tell what they are. Sometimes it's the way they dress and sometimes you just have a square-jawed, muscular woman or a slight, smooth-faced man, whatever, you look at them and you realize you're not sure what kind of plumbing they've got. And it doesn't matter unless you're thinking of asking them on a date. You can bet good money that if that person goes to a restaurant they expect a meal, and it seems to me that they should have the right to be served, even if the waiter isn't sure what sex they are. If they go somewhere with public restrooms they ought to be allowed to pee like everybody else.
You don't need to have surgery and take hormones to benefit from this law. A guy hails a taxi, he carries a shoulder bag and has a high-pitched voice, sorry, he's standing there because he needs a ride somewhere. I don't think it's too much to say that the service provider should provide this guy the same service he provides the rest of us.
As for cross-dressers, again, so what?
They want you to think that women should be concerned about "their personal safety and ... [be] ... afraid to complain about a heterosexual male cross dresser in their locker room." Okay, let's say there was a heterosexual male cross-dresser in the ladies locker room. Tell me, what is the threat to personal safety there? This only works if we are supposed to assume that this guy is also a rapist or molester. But this imaginary person is just a guy who likes to dress in women's clothes, it has nothing to do with anybody's personal safety. And how often is this going to happen? When was the last time you were inconvenienced by cross-dressing heterosexual men in a ladies locker-room?
Come on, people, use your heads. You're going to re-legalize discrimination because of this?
This whole thing is based on the myth that all men are sexual predators at heart. Really, most of us guys have no desire to molest or rape women, even guys who wear dresses -- especially guys who wear dresses. And if a guy in a dress exposes his genitals in the ladies locker-room with women present, he can be charged with exhibitionism. If he stands around looking at the women, he can be charged with peeping. And anyway, guys in dresses only go into ladies locker-rooms when the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever send them there.
The whole idea that there is a grave danger to our society from cross-dressing heterosexual men in ladies locker-rooms is absurd.
As for employers having to hire "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators as employees," well, tell me, how often do you think that will happen? Let me put it this way. We live in a major world cosmopolitan center, the Washington DC area, we see everything here, people from every corner of the earth. Tell me, when was the last time you saw "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" filling out employment applications? Do you really think the CRW is going to all this trouble to fight a law that might let "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" have jobs? The point is meaningless -- our society doesn't have a problem with "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" applying for jobs. Maybe they can get you to imagine it, that doesn't mean it happens.
In general, human beings are divided into male and female. This is crucially important when it comes to reproduction, otherwise, it is useful but not crucial for maintaining certain kinds of social conventions. There are people who identify perfectly well with their sex, men who feel masculine and women who feel feminine, but even as I say that I see that those concepts are constantly undergoing revision. "Women who feel feminine?" So women who wear pants and make a lot of money are what? I'm not that old, but I can remember when it was controversial for women to wear pants and work a real job. Well, this law would say that you can't discriminate against a woman because she's wearing pants. And no, that is not a "transgender" law, it's a "gender identity" law.
The exact same people who oppose the nondiscrimination bill are the ones who a couple of years ago opposed the new sex-ed curriculum in the county's public schools. They aren't concerned about women's safety, they have one mission, and that is to make life harder for LGBT people. They made up reasons towhine complain about the school health classes, and now they're making up reasons to complain about the fact that the people of MoCo don't want to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. Don't let them run off with our sense of decency. Stand up to them.
The June 18 article, ''Opponents of the new transgender law win first round," which referred to the bill as ''the transgender law," is misleading as it obscures the fact that a cacophony of individuals can qualify for the new law simply on the basis of how they choose to dress that day. The word ''transgender" is not mentioned even once in Bill 23-07 ''Non-discrimination Gender Identity."
Bill 23-07 defines gender identity as an ''individual's actual or perceived gender, including a person's gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity or behavior." Deborah Rudacille, a former Johns Hopkins science writer, has explained that gender identity definitions are not a medical definitions and that they change ''from time to time, person to person." She states, ''That's a pretty big tent, and it enfolds female impersonators, cross-dressers, drag kings, androgynous individuals, queer youth, pre-op transsexuals, and those who have had sexual-reassignment surgery... often drag kings and queens are in it for the sheer entertainment value."
If the bill is consistently called ''the transgender law" by the media and others, then how will the average citizen know that the bill is based on a definition of ''gender identity" that can rapidly change ''from time to time" and ''from person to person." One cross-dresser has stated about the differences between transsexuals and cross-dressers is that transsexuals want to be women, cross-dressers want to wear the clothes.
Should women have to worry about their personal safety and be afraid to complain about a heterosexual male cross dresser in their locker room? Should any employer have to fulfill employment quotas to hire cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators as employees?
If we must give civil rights on the basis of dress, let's give them to those who are too poor to afford new clothes.
Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D., Rockville
The writer, an infectious disease physician, is president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government.
Open forum: Calling it 'transgender law' is misleading
This is a fascinating way to muddy the waters. Shall we look at it?
First of all, to get this out in the open, the person she quotes didn't say that. That quote comes from THIS Baltimore City Paper article, and these are just some words in the article, Deborah Rudacille did not say this. That's a pretty good article, by the way, about people in an ambiguous gender zone. It is unconscionable but typical for the President of the Citizens for Whatever to say she's quoting an expert when she's not.
It is true that the word "transgender" is not mentioned in the bill. There's a good reason for that. The law isn't just about transgender people.
I ride the Metro every morning and every evening, and I'll tell you, there are some people on the train nearly every day who ... I can't tell what they are. Sometimes it's the way they dress and sometimes you just have a square-jawed, muscular woman or a slight, smooth-faced man, whatever, you look at them and you realize you're not sure what kind of plumbing they've got. And it doesn't matter unless you're thinking of asking them on a date. You can bet good money that if that person goes to a restaurant they expect a meal, and it seems to me that they should have the right to be served, even if the waiter isn't sure what sex they are. If they go somewhere with public restrooms they ought to be allowed to pee like everybody else.
You don't need to have surgery and take hormones to benefit from this law. A guy hails a taxi, he carries a shoulder bag and has a high-pitched voice, sorry, he's standing there because he needs a ride somewhere. I don't think it's too much to say that the service provider should provide this guy the same service he provides the rest of us.
As for cross-dressers, again, so what?
They want you to think that women should be concerned about "their personal safety and ... [be] ... afraid to complain about a heterosexual male cross dresser in their locker room." Okay, let's say there was a heterosexual male cross-dresser in the ladies locker room. Tell me, what is the threat to personal safety there? This only works if we are supposed to assume that this guy is also a rapist or molester. But this imaginary person is just a guy who likes to dress in women's clothes, it has nothing to do with anybody's personal safety. And how often is this going to happen? When was the last time you were inconvenienced by cross-dressing heterosexual men in a ladies locker-room?
Come on, people, use your heads. You're going to re-legalize discrimination because of this?
This whole thing is based on the myth that all men are sexual predators at heart. Really, most of us guys have no desire to molest or rape women, even guys who wear dresses -- especially guys who wear dresses. And if a guy in a dress exposes his genitals in the ladies locker-room with women present, he can be charged with exhibitionism. If he stands around looking at the women, he can be charged with peeping. And anyway, guys in dresses only go into ladies locker-rooms when the Citizens for a Responsible Whatever send them there.
The whole idea that there is a grave danger to our society from cross-dressing heterosexual men in ladies locker-rooms is absurd.
As for employers having to hire "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators as employees," well, tell me, how often do you think that will happen? Let me put it this way. We live in a major world cosmopolitan center, the Washington DC area, we see everything here, people from every corner of the earth. Tell me, when was the last time you saw "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" filling out employment applications? Do you really think the CRW is going to all this trouble to fight a law that might let "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" have jobs? The point is meaningless -- our society doesn't have a problem with "cross-dressers, drag queens, and female impersonators" applying for jobs. Maybe they can get you to imagine it, that doesn't mean it happens.
In general, human beings are divided into male and female. This is crucially important when it comes to reproduction, otherwise, it is useful but not crucial for maintaining certain kinds of social conventions. There are people who identify perfectly well with their sex, men who feel masculine and women who feel feminine, but even as I say that I see that those concepts are constantly undergoing revision. "Women who feel feminine?" So women who wear pants and make a lot of money are what? I'm not that old, but I can remember when it was controversial for women to wear pants and work a real job. Well, this law would say that you can't discriminate against a woman because she's wearing pants. And no, that is not a "transgender" law, it's a "gender identity" law.
The exact same people who oppose the nondiscrimination bill are the ones who a couple of years ago opposed the new sex-ed curriculum in the county's public schools. They aren't concerned about women's safety, they have one mission, and that is to make life harder for LGBT people. They made up reasons to
posted by JimK at 10:03 AM
31 Comments:
"You're going to re-legalize discrimination because of this?"
Discrimination against guys who dress like girls is perfectly legal now and never has been illegal.
It won't be illegal unless the citzens of Montgomery County approve the enactment of 23-07 in November. They are unlikely to do so especially given the sloppy manner in which the bill was crafted.
All you hemmin' and hawin' by Jim above is worthless rationalization. The bill will go down because Dana and Duchy are not very sophisticated at this law-writing stuff. No one is going to believe that guys who want to dress like girls deserve any more protection than the average citizen.
If you want to act bizarrely, you take your own chances about the social consequences. It's not government's role to encourage and enable gender-bending adventures!
"If they go somewhere with public restrooms they ought to be allowed to pee like everybody else."
Note here that unlike "Aunt Bea", Jim agrees that "public accomodations" refers to public restrooms.
TTF has lied repeatedly about whether the proposed bill will appy to bathrooms.
Anon, I didn't say anything about public accommodations. A person needs to pee, whether you understand them or not.
JimK
Ruth M. Jacobs, M.D.
infectious disease physician
president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government.
you said that is a reason for the proposed bill
if not a public accomodation, then do you think a taxi is a restroom?
emproph
a slob
Here's another bad omen for a certain flip-flopping fellow of limited experience:
"WASHINGTON (July 2) - The public hasn't taken to Michelle Obama.
People are divided over whether they like the wife of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, with 30 percent seeing her favorably and 35 percent unfavorably, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released Wednesday."
Personally, I don't get it. I kind of like Michelle. Still:
That's the facts!
You know, I use to think Bush was stupid to name this old guy as VP and not have someone to extend his legacy.
Now, I see. The plan all along was for Obama to run for Bush's third term.
In the primaries, Obama said he would personally filibuster any bill that gave telecommunication companies retroactive immunity for assisting electronic eavesdropping.
Now, he favors the bill.
In the primaries, Obama told factory workers he would abolish NAFTA. When an advisor went to Canada and told them Obama was just saying that to get votes, the advisor was denounced by Obama.
Now, he favors free trade.
In the Senate, Obama voted against Roberts and Alito.
Now, he favors their ruling on the 2nd amendment and their dissent on abolishing the death penalty for child rape.
In the primaries, he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.
Now, he tells his supporters to stop criticizing General Petraeus.
In the past, Obama has repeatedly opposed the 1996 welfare reform.
Now, he's running ads declaring his support for it.
Heck, he even supports increased government support for faith-based charities.
This are good and bad aspects to all this.
Good: Obama may win so it's reassuring that he recognizes that despite the media myth of a liberal resurgence, Americans generally hold the same positions as George Bush.
Bad: Can anybody really trust Obama?
"emproph
a slob"
Exqueese me, I baking powder? You don’t like it when I refer to the president of Maryland Citizens for Responsible Government as the infectious disease specialist that she is?
It seems pretty clear to me, especially in light of the fact that it’s printed right there on the web page, so why would you suggest that repeating as such makes me a slob?
I thought we were some kind of playing an association game
McCain used to be a straight talking maverick. He was one of two Republican senators to vote against a $1.35 trillion tax cut that Bush proposed in 2001.
“There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]
“I am disappointed that the Senate Finance Committee preferred instead to cut the top tax rate of 39.6% to 36%, thereby granting generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers.” [McCain Senate floor statement, May 21, 2001]
“But when you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that–as the previous tax cuts–that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans.” [NBC’s “Today,” Jan. 7, 2003]
And in 2008, McCain now says:
MCCAIN: But more importantly, we’ll argue about whether we should increase your taxes or decrease them. Obviously, I’m for decreases in taxes. Maybe Americans want their taxes increased. We’ll argue about…
STEPHANOPOULOS: … for middle-income Americans, only raise them on the wealthy?
MCCAIN: Oh, yes, sure, the wealthy, the wealthy. Always be interested in when people talk about who the, quote, “wealthy” are in America. I find it interesting.
More McCain flip flops
That's the best you can do?
McCain was not in favor of the tax cuts but has seen the aftermath. Our economy wouldn't have survived some of the blows it has in the last few years without the prescient Bush tax program.
Worldwide, there has also been a reduction in tax rates as economists increasingly have come to agree since the beginning of the century that average incremental tax rates above 50% are economically self-defeating. The U.S. now lags only Japan among major industrial nations in its high incremental tax rate.
Obama, btw, has proposals that will raise the incremental tax rate above 60%. He'll probably change his mind though.
McCain may change his mind as he learns and observes.
No one actually believes Obama had a considered change of opinion. his NAFTA flip was pure calculated politics.
Even if he were sincere, the point is he is becoming more Bush-like every day.
He will lose.
We don't trust him.
No, it's not the best I can do. It's just one illustrative example of the 2 million hits for "McCain flip flops" my google search returned. I provided a link to the google list of all 2 million hits. Go knock yourself out reading them or bury your head in the sand again, whichever you prefer.
Well, it's a pretty lousy example and, if it wasn't your best one, why did you put it up?
Look who's asking! LMAO!
No one even brought up Obama's turnaround on campaign financing.
I guess he thinks he can get away with it because it's that flip-flop time of year.
You gotta hand it to him. Obama runs with a rough crowd:
"Wall Street Journal reporters Brody Mullins and Kris Maher reported in early May how Barack Obama won the Teamsters' endorsement for president. In a meeting earlier this year, he privately "told the union that he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption[.]" Obama holds himself out as a new kind of politician who refuses to play the old games. The story should have blown Obama's pretense up several times over, but it has generated next to no coverage.
The Teamsters union of course has had a long and storied relationship with the Mafia. To take just one vivid example, consider the case of Anthony Senter. Senter was the Mafia hit man who arranged a deal with a Teamsters local for a pension after he was convicted of being a member of a mob hit squad in New York City that committed 25 murders and dismembered most of the victims.
Senter's attempt to secure a pension from his friends at the Teamsters was disrupted in 1994 by the Independent Review Board. The IRB is the body created by a 1989 consent decree to monitor the Teamsters for corruption. Since 1999 the Teamsters has sought to have the consent decree dissolved. The Department of Justice has not thought that such a good idea. The Teamsters would like new leadership at the Department of Justice with a better attitude.
The Teamsters agreed to the decree with the government. The decree was entered into before, and signed by, Judge David Edelstein of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consent decree resolved the government's prosecution of the Teamsters for racketeering.
Certain provisions of the decree were enforced by a permanent injunction. The injunction ordered the Teamsters to refrain from racketeering activity (as defined under federal law) and from knowingly associating with the Mafia. The consent decree also provided for the creation of the three-member IRB in 1992. The jurisdiction of the IRB is limited to the prevention of corruption, including bribery, embezzlement, extortion, loan sharking, and other serious violations of federal law, or control and influence of the Teamsters by the Mafia.
The page-one Wall Street Journal story by Mullins and Maher turned a spotlight on the Teamsters' endorsement of Barack Obama. According to the Journal, Obama advised the Teamsters prior to its endorsement of him that he supported dissolving the permanent injunction to which the Teamsters agreed in 1989 and under which it has been operating ever since."
You want to talk about a turnaround on campaign financing? You got it.
McCain was asked by federal elections officials to show that he did not use the promise of public money to obtain a $4 million loan to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign. Doing so would be disingenuous from a candidate who is routinely described as a champion of campaign finance reform.
Read the letter yourself.
I'm going to have to tell you guys about the big October surprise coming up.
A couple of high-level Republicans are conducting a low-key investigation into the Obama campaign's conduct in their first big victory, the Iowa caucuses.
Iowa doesn't require proof of residency at the caucus meetings. Obama apparently bussed in a bunch of supporters from Illinois.
A voter fraud scandal. Saving it for October 15.
Nice cut and paste, Anon.
http://redstatemobile.com/node/185944
"McCain was asked by federal elections officials to show that he did not use the promise of public money to obtain a $4 million loan to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign."
Not on the same level but good try.
"Nice cut and paste, Anon."
Wow!
Obama supporters must be smart.
They can use search engines.
Ah yes, voter fraud prosecutions, the reason Bush and company politicized the DOJ, including locking up Governor Seligman. Keep up the good work Anon, Americans love being reminded of that!
Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have a closet full of (very nice) women's clothes? I think he deserved to order pizza, drive in taxi's and have a job.
I know Bill Clinton issued an executive order banning discrimination in federal government jobs based on sexual orientation (as did our Virginia governor). Does anyone know if it was trans-inclusive? What's the status of this exec order? Did bush abolish it? I just don't remember.
rrjr
Robert said: Didn't J. Edgar Hoover have a closet full of (very nice) women's clothes? I think he deserved to order pizza, drive in taxi's and have a job.
Assuming what you say about Hoover is true...are you telling us that Hoover somehow managed to hold down a job as Director of the FBI from 1924 until 1972 WITHOUT THE HELP OF GENDER IDENTITY LEGISLATION? If you read nothing but this blog, you'd think that wasn't possible. Wonder how in the world that man did manage to thrive without legislation to coddle him. Maybe it's not that hard after all.
Hoover had a file on all the sexual predilections, perversions and peccadillos of you and your friends, Anon, that's how.
"I know Bill Clinton issued an executive order banning discrimination in federal government jobs based on sexual orientation"
Robert has a point. Can't transgenders simply sue under laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation now?
No.
why?
Because, as I have stated time and time again, they are not the same thing. Sort of like "apple - orange." Both fruits, but different ones. Sexual orientation and gender identity are primary brain functions that appear rooted in the anterior hypothalamus, but they are different functions. One gives you the sense of who you are, the other the sense of whom you desire.
It's that simple, and no one disputes that anymore. No one. But you, apparently. And Dr. Ruth.
Courts have ruled that gender expression is not the same thing as sexual orientation. Thanks for pointing that out, Dana.
The reference I made was to an internal federal policy applying only to its own employees, not to a law prohibiting discrimination. There are no federal laws protecting any sexual minorities; in fact, there is a federal law mandating discrimination in the largest federal department.
rrjr
Post a Comment
<< Home