Sunday, March 18, 2012

Why the Balto Co Transgender Law is dangerous

Baltimore County Citizens and Maryland residents:
Your help is urgently needed to overturn by petition a dangerous law.  The petition will put the issue on the ballot in November, if successful.
On Tuesday, Feb. 21, the Baltimore County Council passed in a 5-2 party-line vote, a controversial bill which will expand rights for transgenders and crossdressers.  On the surface, it may sound benign to some.  But the unintended consequences and hidden agendas are what make this a dangerous law for women, children, businesses, churches, and our schools.  Don't judge this bill by the topic alone - it's simply a bad bill.
We asked our councilmen to side with common sense, and First Do No Harm.  But we were instead labeled and dismissed.
The undefined language in the law could open the door to abuse of the law by pedophiles and predators gaining lawful access to women's restrooms and locker rooms.  You don't have to dress like a woman to enter women's facilities under this new law.  Interestingly, the council has excluded itself from the Public Accommodations requirement.
We asked the council to protect our women and children with an amendment.  Instead, they chose one protected group (transgenders) over another (women and children).
It could require transgender issues being written into children's school curriculum and the mandatory hiring of transgender teachers, permitted to crossdress in the classroom.  See info on LGBT agenda here (it's an eye opener!).
We asked our councilmen to simply define and set parameters on the Education requirement.  They did not protect our children.
It could become an overwhelming financial burden for small businesses, already struggling in the current economy.  Again, the council excluded itself from the anti-discrimination hiring requirements of this law.
The Baltimore County Chamber of Commerce and local small business owners came out against the bill.  The concerns of our business community were largely ignored.
And it could force churches and religious institutions to accept a behavior which is not only listed as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, but in direct conflict with the teachings of their faith.  This would amount to a clear violation of our constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.
No protections for churches were added to the bill before passage.
All right here in Baltimore County, brought to us by five councilmen who voted for irresponsible legislation in order to appease a national, multi-million dollar LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans) lobby conglomerate.
More issues with the bill:
Gender Identity or Expression
The law codifies a disorder and its accompanying behavior, which attempts to normalize the disorder rather than assist those afflicted to seek the help they need.  Adding a behavior as a protected group from discrimination opens the door to any other behavior.  Previously, protected groups were hard demographics, such as race, creed, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, marital status, and physical or mental disability.
The areas of protection
No definition of the areas of protection are included in the law.  The areas of protection are simply listed as: Housing, Employment, Education, Public Accommodation, and Financing. Without definition and parameters, the law leaves us open to wide interpretations and abuse by lawsuit under the guise of discrimination.
Definition of Sexual Orientation
In the law, sexual orientation is defined as homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.  The councilmen were repeatedly asked by PFOX (Parents & Friends Of Ex-Gays) to include Former Homosexuals in the definition.  The council's refusal to do so is itself discriminatory.
Public Accommodations
- The language in the law, in an weak attempt to address the privacy and safety issues of gender-specific public accommodations, excludes "facilities that are distinctly private or personal".  Instead of settling the concerns, the council will leave it up to us to duke out what that language means.  Got a phone, got a lawyer.
- Interestingly, the council excludes itself from the public accommodation requirement, along with The County Government, the County Board of Education, and County Community Colleges.  Note that the County Board of Education is not the same as the school system or any particular school within.
- Transgenders were not previously discriminated against in the use of facilities, they have had access to the facility determined by their genitalia, like the rest of us.  They were simply uncomfortable with the facility to which they were assigned.  Now, with the new law, we can all be uncomfortable.
Religious Organizations
Churches, religious organizations, and fraternal organizations including the Boy Scouts are not protected from the Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity or Expression new verbiage, even though it is in direct conflict with the teachings of many religious faiths.  This is a clear violation of our constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.
Insight into LGBT agenda (it's an eye opener):


  1. Um... there seems to be a huge logical disconnect with the entire premise of your post. Let me put it to you this way:

    Provided a list of just 10 real-world examples where protections against discrimination based upon gender identity and expression allowed abusers to circumvent laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance.

    If you cannot do this, your fears are baseless and you're making a bigots argument.

    When blacks were allowed to use the same restroom as whites, helpful whites warned that VD would be spread and claimed that restroom segregation wasn't an issue of phobia, it was a rational issue of public health. The truth was that it was just fear-based conjecture and a rhetorical tool used by bigots.

    When the Equal Rights Amendment for women was passed by the congress and senate and had the support of Republican and Democratic Presidents, do you know what defeated it? The very restroom rape meme you're trying to use now.

    "If they can integrate restrooms on the basis of race, why not on the basis of sex?" - 3/25/1973, The Anniston Star: Men in the women's restrooms

    The tactics of bigots never seem to change. The memes just get applied to different oppressed groups. Apparently trans folk are the flavor of the month.

    I could easily point to the multitude of news articles wherein women are arrested for sexual acts, assault and robbery in the restroom. If the standard you wish to set to allow access to a women's restroom is the possibility that someone might behave badly, then you should immediately begin a campaign to stop women from using the women's restroom because it can be shown as an undeniable fact that women are a risk to women in the women's restroom.

    No? You're not going to do that, right? That would be absurd, right? Except using that same logical fallacy somehow becomes rational when the subject is trans woman, right? *facepalm*

    Your fears are baseless and this post is just a reinvention of a well-worn bigoted meme. My proof is that you won't be able to provide just 10 examples of how the proliferation of trans equality measures over the last 20 years have allowed abusers to circumvent laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance.

    If you don't want to be thought of as a bigot, then stop pushing the same decades-old rhetorical memes that bigots have always used stop equality measures.

  2. It is not Christ like to cause someone else harm. It is Christ like to love your neighbor and to care for those in need.

    When the church and Christians go out of their way to make life harder for someone else it is NOT love. It is not caring for the needy.

    I am a pre-op transitioning transsexual from Illinois. I am not a rapist. I am a parent of three wonderful children. I am a Christian.

    If I can't work, my kids will suffer because I will no longer be able to provide for them. I shouldn't be fired just because I have had the audacity to live honestly before God and the world. God loves me.

    Now it may seem like a small issue when it comes to the bathroom, I just need to use the facilities. I'm a law abiding citizen. I don't want to cause others harm but I do need to pee and as a trans-woman I am certainly not very safe in the mens room. Every year some of my trans-sisters are raped, murdered, or assaulted in mens rooms (and ladies rooms too). Because of this, I try to use single stall restrooms to simply be able to go in private. That's not always possible.

    At the end of the day, if a trans-person does something wrong, they will be prosecuted. A law like this doesn't help helps law abiding citizens, like me.

    In Illinois, I have these protections. My employer has explicit protections for gender identity. Some of my coworkers might think I am nuts but they appreciate that I am here to do my job and take care of the work that needs to be done. They interact with me just as they would with anyone else. Professionally.

    It took me 30 years past age 5, when I first knew something was wrong with my gender, before I could accept and give myself permission to voice this truth about myself. It didn't voice it easily. I remember praying and praying for God to fix me.

    I have made mistakes. Mistakes that cost me my marriage. We could say that it's because I am transsexual....but really it's because I spent so much time and effort hiding, covering, and lying to myself.

    I'm a better person for coming out than I would ever have been had I been able to continue to mask it or hide it. Which I couldn't.

    You talk about how the DSM lists GID as a disorder, what you ignore is that they are dropping that and calling it simply because it's being misused by people to hurt trans people. Transition is the recommended course of treatment for us.

    Autism is also called a disorder. Like GID it's something that has to be lived with. Dealt with. No sane and rational person would fault someone with autism for doing what they have to do to live or prevent them from getting the help they need.

    Nevertheless, I have to pay my own medical expenses all out of pocket because it's written into my insurance that they won't cover it. They won't even cover counseling for it. That's just not right.

    Cite that it's a disorder, ignore the treatment recommendations, make it really hard to get treated, insinuate or out right lie about us, attack our ability to work, etc. THAT'S PERSECUTION.

    It's also bigotry.

    Christians should be standing up for the marginalized people not trying to keep them down. You're better than this.

  3. "B-B-But think of the women and children?!" Trans people ARE women and children... and men. And doctors, lawyers, etc. Yet you are worried about their being teachers? Reality check: There are Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual teachers, too.

    Perhaps Blacks were not discriminated against? "They were simply uncomfortable with the [status] to which they were assigned."

    If you want to call gender identity, one's internal sense of self, a "behavior," then fine, BUT YOUR RELIGION IS A "behavior," TOO -- a malign, ugly "behavior" for which there is no medical or scientific justification.

  4. Christine, I applaud your bravery in dealing with your disorder. I think that you and others who attack the opposition to this law by calling us bigots in a prejudicial manner (meaning to prejudge us) do so because you misunderstand our concerns. No one is calling transgenders rapists.

    One of the fears, which is very real and valid, is that predators and pedophiles will abuse this law. the justification for this fear, beyond simple common sense, if more is required, is that bathrooms are among the top locations for assaults and rapes, as you site. Moreover, you are not being prevented from using the bathroom. You can use the bathroom assigned to those with your genitalia, like the rest of us. You are simply uncomfortable with that assignment. You seek safety at the expense of the safety of multitudes of women and children.

    the problem with this bill is not in its attempt to provide protections for people. It is in how it fails to protect people. The bill could have addressed the Education requirement by defining it simply as providing equal access to an education and placing parameters on allowing for curriculum changes to indoctrinate children in the classroom. But the councilmen cowered from doing so because they could not stand up to the LGBT lobby. the bill fails to address the many concerns expressed by the opposition. Why didn't they make an exclusion for religious institutions?

    It's simply a bad bill. To make the jump into labeling the opposition as bigots is bigoted itself.

    1. Ah, then prove us all wrong by citing just 10 real-world examples where protections against discrimination based upon gender identity and expression allowed abusers to circumvent laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance.

      If you can't do it, you're a bigot (or, at the very least, you're making a bigoted argument).

    2. Bear in mind that 40% of the US population lives in areas where similar laws have been enacted, in some cases the laws are decades old.

      It's not as if this is some novel experiment. We know what the results are. 10 examples? Try finding even *one*, where such a law was in force, and it allowed a miscreant to get away with it.

      I understand your fears. The evidence says they're groundless, that's not the way this or any similar law works. Just ask the various Attorneys-General.

      You've been conned by a very professional scare campaign, designed to mislead good people like yourself. Fortunately, all you have to do is look at the facts.

  5. Zoe, I haven't been conned by anyone since me and a handful of other grassroots citizens started this petition allowing the people to have a say on what legislation our representatives pass.

    I have seen many examples that others have researched. I'm a bit busy organizing a petition drive at the moment to be distracted by your requirements. You are focusing only on the bathroom issue, which is one of many issues with the bill. However, what I will say is that it is not merely a matter of proving someone dressed as a woman to gain entry into a womens facility, it is also a matter of how many times an assault has been prevented by a man being removed from a women's facility before he had a chance to assault. Of course, there's no statistics on that. This bill removes our ability to preempt an assault because we can no longer call security to have a man removed from womens facilities. You prove to me that that's never happened. If you can't, does that make you a lying special interest bigot who is pushing your radical agenda down the throats of the public?

    1. "I have seen many examples that others have researched."

      Really? Cite just 10. Not one proponent of these bathroom memes have ever been able to do so. Ever. You would literally be the first... ever.

      "This bill removes our ability to preempt an assault because we can no longer call security to have a man removed from womens facilities."

      What? Are you saying that this bill will allow women or trans women to circumvent laws prohibiting rape, assault, stalking and/or public indecency/disturbance?

      Explain to me how this works. Are you asserting that men who wear panties on their head will suddenly be able to waltz right into the restroom and not face arrest?

      Be specific, cite your sources and stop stepping the question.

      "You prove to me that that's never happened."

      Have you never heard of Russell's Teapot? Google it.

      If you're making the assertion of fact, in the adult world, you're responsible for providing evidence to support your assertion of fact.

    2. This whole discussion is ridiculous. We are all assigned our gender at birth and we don't have control over it. You are what you are. If you really think that you're something other than that, you don't need new laws. You need help or some kind of counseling to work through your issues. It's not that complicated. If you need to call me a bigot to dilute this, do what you need to.

  6. Seth, I'll only disagree with you on one point: we are assigned our gender at conception.