Meeting Sunday in Rockville
For some reason, a small group of nuts has decided to make Montgomery County, Maryland, their proving ground. First of all they embarrassed us nationally by opposing a public school sex-ed curriculum that was science-based and fair, then, failing at that, they have decided to embarrass us by opposing a law that says you can't discriminate on the basis of gender identity. I don't know what they see in it, this is one of the Bluest counties in the country, people here don't want to discriminate, we are not prejudiced against gay and transgender people. We're a live-and-let-live county, well-educated, prosperous, and diverse.
They have managed to get a referendum included into the November election to repeal the new nondiscrimination law. They got petition signatures by convincing people at grocery stores and other public places that the bill would allow predators and pedophiles to lurk in ladies locker-rooms. It is likely that they will play this same tune in the lead-up to the elections, and the truth is, nobody wants creepy sex-maniacs in the ladies room, they will vote to repeal this if they believe that's what it's about. So organized support for the bill will be necessary. Of course, the bill says nothing about showers and locker-rooms, it doesn't change the existing laws regarding who can go in what place.
The law is about discrimination.
Some groups are organizing to fight back. In particular, Basic Rights Montgomery has been formed to campaign to preserve the law that was passed unanimously by the County Council and signed by the County Executive. If you want to get involved, I suggest you contact them and volunteer some time.
There will be a meeting Sunday afternoon at four o'clock at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville, as grassroots supporters of the new law begin to organize.
This referendum really is an embarrassment to all of us. MoCo is the last place that wants to vote to legalize discrimination. Here's the UUCR announcement:
I expect other groups in our community will be coming together, too, to stand up for goodness. If you can make it to this meeting, I think it will be an important one. Someone from Basic Rights Montgomery can talk about their plans, everybody can get on the same page and work together. If all the various community groups stay in touch with one another and get the message out, if the citizens of the county can learn what this law really does and why these particular people are opposed to it, the nondiscrimination bill should pass into law. It will require a lot of education and a lot of organizing, and that is starting now, even as we speak.
This is your chance to get involved.
They have managed to get a referendum included into the November election to repeal the new nondiscrimination law. They got petition signatures by convincing people at grocery stores and other public places that the bill would allow predators and pedophiles to lurk in ladies locker-rooms. It is likely that they will play this same tune in the lead-up to the elections, and the truth is, nobody wants creepy sex-maniacs in the ladies room, they will vote to repeal this if they believe that's what it's about. So organized support for the bill will be necessary. Of course, the bill says nothing about showers and locker-rooms, it doesn't change the existing laws regarding who can go in what place.
The law is about discrimination.
Some groups are organizing to fight back. In particular, Basic Rights Montgomery has been formed to campaign to preserve the law that was passed unanimously by the County Council and signed by the County Executive. If you want to get involved, I suggest you contact them and volunteer some time.
There will be a meeting Sunday afternoon at four o'clock at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville, as grassroots supporters of the new law begin to organize.
This referendum really is an embarrassment to all of us. MoCo is the last place that wants to vote to legalize discrimination. Here's the UUCR announcement:
ANNOUNCEMENT
Defending Montgomery County's Trans-gender Anti-Discrimination Ordinance
Unitarian-Universalist Church of Rockville (http://uucr.org/) in Founder's Hall, Sunday,
August 24, 2008, 4 - 6 PM.
On August 24th, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville will host KT Thirion, a field organizer for Basic Rights Montgomery, who will discuss a strategy for defeating the Referendum to repeal Montgomery County's Anti-discrimination for Transgender Individuals law.
Basic R ights Montgomery is a broad-based coalition of community leaders and organizations formed in response to the efforts to repeal Montgomery County’s recently passed transgender anti-discrimination law. The law bans discrimination on the basis of gender identity in housing, employment, public accommodations, and taxi and cable service. The measure, passed unanimously by the Montgomery County Council late last year and signed into law by County Executive Isaiah Legget, was to have taken effect on February 21, 2008, but was put on hold when signature gatherers potentially reached the number needed to place a repeal on November’s ballot. For more information see: http://BasicRightsMontgomery.org
Unitarian Universalist Church of Rockville
4:00 - 6:00 PM
Sunday, 08/24/2008
http://uucr.org
I expect other groups in our community will be coming together, too, to stand up for goodness. If you can make it to this meeting, I think it will be an important one. Someone from Basic Rights Montgomery can talk about their plans, everybody can get on the same page and work together. If all the various community groups stay in touch with one another and get the message out, if the citizens of the county can learn what this law really does and why these particular people are opposed to it, the nondiscrimination bill should pass into law. It will require a lot of education and a lot of organizing, and that is starting now, even as we speak.
This is your chance to get involved.
posted by JimK at 7:35 AM
20 Comments:
Well, I think I know where some of our friendly neighborhood CRG folks will be this Sunday. I'll try and remember to bring my camera -- they just LOVE to have their pictures taken!
Peace,
Cynthia
Hmmm...Jim seems to throw around the term "nut" rather freely.
Let's remember those whom he is calling "nuts" want nothing more than to leave the law as it is.
Those whom Jim don't consider "nuts" want the government to tell people they have to hire sexual deviants.
Most people throughout history and, indeed, populating the world today are "nuts" by Jim's standards.
Jim's the reincarnation of county agent, Mr Kimball.
"The law is about discrimination."
This again is untrue. General discrimination would remain legal under the unlikely circumstance that the voters of Montgomery County approve this law.
23-08 provides special protection against social ostracism to deviants, to the detriment of other citizens.
Excuse me...but would you, "down south" ( :-) - the land of milk, honey, and discrimination) please be very explicit as to how giving protection to transgenders is detrimental to you and your life. I can only surmise that if rights are extended to transgenders you will lose your right to deny equal opportunities to a minority segment of our population. OMG - your world will surely unravel!
Diogenes
Down South complained:
“Those whom Jim don't consider "nuts" want the government to tell people they have to hire sexual deviants.”
Please point out in 23-07 where “sexual deviants” are protected. I reviewed my copy and it simply doesn’t seem to be in there.
For many (but not all) people like myself (those that have had or will have Genital Reassignment Surgery), sex is not something we engage in, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that many people are simply not interested in sexual relations with a transsexual. I was not sexually active before my transition, and I am not sexually active now, so at best, one might be able to call me a “non-sexual deviant” or an “asexual deviant.” I have this working theory that I am a straight, conservative, heterosexual kind of gal, but until I manage to develop a long term relationship with just the right guy (and it perhaps later develops into something more intimate), it’s just a theory. I don’t want to make any bold, unsubstantiated statements that will cause even more people to classify me as “delusional” or “confused.”
23-07 protects all citizens based on their gender identity, whether or not that identity matches their biological sex. This includes women who like to keep their hair short and refuse to wear make-up, which causes some people to complain (and even fire them) for “not being feminine enough.”
23-07 is not about protecting sexual deviants. But that certainly is a good sound byte for trying to revoke it.
Peace,
Cynthia
"23-07 is not about protecting sexual deviants. But that certainly is a good sound byte for trying to revoke it."
Thanks, Cynthia.
Actually, 23-07 is written so loosely that it does cover deviants because it defines gender as whatever one expresses. That would cover deviants who dress like a gender they aren't for any reason.
"please be very explicit as to how giving protection to transgenders is detrimental"
23-07 covers not just transexuals but anyone who, for any reason, expresses themselves as a gender they are not.
Consider two people coming in for the same job. One is clearly a guy wearing a cocktail dress. The other just a conventional person. The employer can hire the former without even thinking about it but to hire the latter will have to document carefully why he didn't hire the former and have to cover himself beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you can't see how this is of detriment to the latter individual, you aren't trying.
down south said...
"Actually, 23-07 is written so loosely that it does cover deviants because it defines gender as whatever one expresses. That would cover deviants who dress like a gender they aren't for any reason.”
Then at best you have described someone with a poor taste in clothes, or a “wardrobe deviant,” not a “sexual deviant.” Whether or not you believe 23-07 covers bathrooms, showers, locker rooms, or not there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 23-07 that protects one’s sexuality, deviant or otherwise. There are plenty of musicians that wear clothes of “gender bending” styles, (Boy George, Prince, David Bowie, to name a few) but that seems to be part of their character and perhaps even their appeal. I have seen no concerted efforts to deny them rights to jobs or houses.
If you are really concerned about “sexual deviants,” then you might want to focus on the existing Montgomery County codes that include “sexual orientation” in the non-discrimination categories. I don’t know how long “sexual orientation” has been in the codes, but repealing 23-07 only removes “gender identity” from the code, not “sexual orientation.” You are still stuck with people claiming rights to jobs and houses based on their “sexual orientation” no matter how “deviant” you may consider it to be.
Down south also said
“23-07 covers not just transexuals but anyone who, for any reason, expresses themselves as a gender they are not.
Consider two people coming in for the same job. One is clearly a guy wearing a cocktail dress. The other just a conventional person. The employer can hire the former without even thinking about it but to hire the latter will have to document carefully why he didn't hire the former and have to cover himself beyond a reasonable doubt.”
In most of the places I’ve worked, there was an interview sheet that interviewers filled out during or after interviewing a candidate. We were encouraged to fill in as much detail as possible on every candidate, including specifics about their knowledge of the field, how well they could communicate, applicability of past experience to the job applied for, and whether or not you thought they would work well with other people in the group. I’m sure that somewhere in the course of an interview, when comparing two otherwise equal candidates, the one “wearing a cocktail dress” will “somehow” receive lower marks in some categories. All the employer has to do is avoid obviously damning comments like “he never should have worn blue pumps with that white dress.”
No discrimination law has ever completely eliminated discrimination – it has merely forced people to be more subtle about it, and not write it down. In this regard, 23-07 is likely to be the same.
One of my professor friends (I think she has 5 degrees, the last time I checked) has interviewed in a number of localities, several of them with gender identity protections. Despite the fact that she invariably interviews very well for the position, and always receives positive feedback, and the feeling that a job offer is imminent, she hasn’t been hired for a professorship in several years. Just before leaving the interview she informs the lead person of her medical history – this seems to be better than them finding it themselves when they go to review her published literature (which they invariably will) and discover the names don’t match.
She has never seen or heard anything that will give her a case to press for discrimination, yet the posts she has applied for have often gone unfilled for years, despite the fact that she is one of very few people with all the qualifications to fill it.
I have plenty more to write, but as one of the lucky transsexuals WITH a job, I need to make sure I keep it…
Peace,
Cynthia
LGB people have protections against discrimination in many places, including Maryland (but not Virginia). It's time to extend that courtousy to the T in our community. If not now, when; if not us, who?
rrjr
I went to Karaoke last night (in a gay restaurant, of course) and ran into a guy who went to a PFOX meeting years ago, got involved, and is joining a Catholic monastery next week. He is opting for being gay but celibate.
I shared some of my thoughts, and the conversation veered to a heated direction a few times, but we always backed off when we found we'd reached points that were hurtful to the other guy. He lectured me a little, and I stressed that I felt that conservative interpretations of god (at least re:sexual orientation) were wrong in my opinion. He did start to question what my opinion was worth vs. the 2000 year history of the church, but we decided there was nothing to be gained by arguing on those lines.
We left it on a good note, both feeling were loved by god.
"ran into a guy who went to a PFOX meeting years ago, got involved, and is joining a Catholic monastery next week. He is opting for being gay but celibate"
Let's get this straight, Robert:
this guy, with these intentions, was hanging out at a gay bar, doing karoake?
Maybe you just dreamed this unlikely scene. Sometimes, the unstable can't distinguish reality from fantasy.
Oh brother! Is that how you get ready for church, Anon, posting yet a Sunday morning insult to Robert?
this guy, with these intentions, was hanging out at a gay bar, doing karoake?
Yes Anon, celebate gay priests (even celebate gay priests in training) exist and sometimes they hang out in gay bars.
I guess Anon never heard of 9/11 Victim #1, Father Mychal Judge of the FDNY, if he think there are no celebate gay priests who hang out in gay bars. Anon lives in a fantasy world where he believes everyone is as homophobic as he is.
Every American should know the story of this gay American Hero, Father Mychal Judge.
No Greater Love: Chaplain Mychal Judge, O.F.M.
Wikipedia on Father Mychal Judge
Tributes to Father Mychal Judge
"celebate gay priests (even celebate gay priests in training) exist and sometimes they hang out in gay bars"
Really?
Why do they do that?
"celebate gay priests (even celebate gay priests in training) exist and sometimes they hang out in gay bars"
Really?
Why do they do that?
Anonymous asked:
"celebate gay priests (even celebate gay priests in training) exist and sometimes they hang out in gay bars"
Really?
Why do they do that?”
I was going to go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps he felt safer going to a gay bar rather than a straight bar, knowing the propensity for homophobic heterosexuals to lure them out to a quiet place, kick their *** and leave them to die.
I went looking for the a link to that incident, but I came across even more links that show it’s not safe for a gay to be in a gay bar even… it’s not even safe for a heterosexual man to be in a gay bar, apparently, just being PERCEIVED as gay is enough to get the **** beat out of you, even if you walk out the aforementioned gay bar with your wife.
You have unwittingly touched on another reason the “gay agenda machine” is so pro gender identity. Very often when someone is attacked for being “gay” the person has no real information on that person’s sexual preference – they just ASSUME they’re gay based on their mannerisms, behavior or speech.
So much for being safer in a gay bar.
Peace,
Cynthia
Cynthia's right, it's more often the perception of sexual orientation or gender identity that leads to violence than anything else.
About the guy in the bar (he is joining a monastery, not becoming a priest, BTW). He was a nice guy. Some of what he said offended me, of course, and some of what I said I know he didn't like (he said so). He was not the least bit hostile or homophobic, however. A good guy spreading a message I don't want to buy. He apologized to me for anything Regina has said or done, though, and said his experience of PFOX was different than mine.
I still say:
gay bar
guy who says he has deviant feelings but is trying to remain celibate
the whole thing doesn't add up
if he were trying to avoid temptation, it seems the last place he'd want to be
was it really a gay bar, Robert?
I know, that would be like someone who, for example calls LGBT people 'deviants,' on a blog that supports inclusive curricula and nondiscrimination policies.
Imagine anyone doing that.
Actually, the comparison is unfair. The man I was referring to seemed like a nice guy, and went out of his way to make sure that I didn't feel insulted or demeaned. He seemed genuinely interested in a discussion (I was not particularly interested in such a discussion, BTW. I don't go out in my spare time to try to convince anyone of anything. I'm not a debating machine, just a guy trying to live my life).
OMG, I actually responded to you. Even the best of us can get sucked in by the quicksand.
unstable
and bald
and the slimebally
Post a Comment
<< Home