That's a thinly disguised, "Separate but equal" solution and does nothing to protect the rights of trans people.

Transgender people are people and deserve to be treated as such. While gender neutral and 'family' bathrooms are wonderful, when there are already two existing bathrooms marked M and F, everyone has been doing just fine for decades with trans people using the bathroom that matches their appearance and identity. It's extremely likely you've used the bathroom at the same time as them, didn't know and didn't care. There has *never* been a recorded rape or attack in a restroom where the non-trans person was the one being attacked. Never. It's a scare tactic conjured from nothing by people who were (incorrectly) taught that trans people are somehow morally wrong and should not be allowed to even exist.

Trans people just want to use the facilities and leave, just like everyone else.

Well put Sara, it is an attempt at solving a non-existent problem.

Bill, You state there are many cases of males dressed as females going into restrooms and the implication is that rape occurs. What is the source of your data? Give everyone the links please.

Bill, so now you're punishing transgender people because a poor women were raped by someone else entirely different?

As far as the other claim you make about guys taking phone cameras into bathrooms...I'll have to ask around with some of my female colleagues and ask them if they've ever been in a bathroom with a guy in this situation.
Additionally, nothing will stop any depraved individual from 'acting' like a transgender in either case and doing the same heinous activities - now will it?

Like Paul, I'd love to see the internet based references/statistics that I'm sure were presented at this hearing. I'm sure this wasn't another Salem witch hunt.

Bottom line is people have been using religion to hold other human beings - American citizens - in this country for centuries.

Related note: Prop 8 ruling as Unconstitutional was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeals today. It'll go to the Supreme Court - and they too will uphold the judgment as this is basic human rights continually being repressed.

Show me the evidence Bill

Thank you, Erika.

Actually, they are not. In fact it's not even close. Trans people, masculine-but-not-trans women and not-masculine-enough men can all legally be denied a job, a place to live, the use of public transit, the ability to buy and try on clothes...all because of someone else's choice to be uncomfortable with someone who doesn't fit their idea of "male" or "female", "man" or "woman".

Sara, I can be turned down for a job... in fact, I would say that most people have been turned down or excluded from a job....point?

The point being, Buck, is that you should be turned down for a job because you aren't the most qualified person. There are very few jobs where simply being transgender would disqualify someone, yet trans people suffer among the highest levels of discrimination based solely on people's ignorance and often, nothing more than a lack of familiarity. A bill like this actually covers anyone who is turned down because they don't meet some arbitrary standard of male or female. But it's not just being turned down for a job, it covers housing and public accommodations, too. When was the last time you were told you couldn't use the restroom, try on some clothes or ride the bus because you weren't "man enough"?

Mike,
Sex, Sex Identity, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sexuality are separate aspects of a person that in the majority of people correlate consistently enough that most people don't even realize they are separate. And none of the them are absolute in any given person. Each is its own spectrum and no one exists that is "100% man" or "100% woman" in every respect. Even 'sex' which is usually taken to mean biologically male or female is actually a pair of very closely overlapped bell curves (one is only somewhat offset from the other & the values that belong only to one & not the other are ...unusual, and extreme).

Bills like this exist because some small number of people simply assume based only on their own experience or based on certain flawed moral values that a large enough variation in any of these aspects from average must be an intentional, antisocial decision on the part of the person in question. In reality nothing could be farther from the truth. It's like saying someone with Cerebral Palsy chooses to walk differently from everyone else. But that small group of misinformed people will use that decision of morality to deny trans people a job, a home and even the use of public accommodations such as bathrooms and buses.

Sara,
I read your below explanation 5 times and I still really don't understand it. A lot of people in these postings have been trying to explain the various sexual terms and it always gets way too complicated, which reaffirms my comment that they should be left to the science books. I'm sure the Councilpersons are not even thinking on this issue in a deeply scientific way either (as they should not have to). It's great that there are people like you that are compassionate enough to better understand these folks and try to educate others in their behalf, but the Baltimore County Code is not the place to get the word out there. PFLAG should instead set up a campaign to bring awareness to their members, like other groups have, like breast cancer awareness. I, personally would not get involved with the campaign, but I'm sure some people would.

RARE really strapped on a set of coconuts. Good point RARE. It is often said that a businessman knows only one color...green. An inference to him being blind to the color of a productive employee's skin color. Will these sponsors be sexually blind to the point of hiring a receptionist in a skirt sporting a 5 o'clock shadow sprouting through her makeup in the late evening meetings with perspective clients? It's not my call. It will be theirs and theirs to face a lawsuit when challenged by an employee found to not be suitable for their business.
One thing that is overlooked by the proponents is the fact that transgendered people don't just magically overnight transform into the opposite sex. I'm sure that many go through very awkward transformations and often give the appearance of an anomaly that could be very hurtful to a business. Really who the hell in their right mind is going to drop their 2 year old off to a daycare center that has Chas Bono or Ms. Polis working there as a child development nurturer.

Thank you. It's obvious the LGBTs lobbied for this long before we tripped over it. Quirk called it a Human Relations Bill to cover up what it really is about.

Wow Mike... that child development nurturer thought ... set a shiver..

The problem with the 'receptionist' argument is that all businesses should then be free to not hire anyone unsexy-enough for any public facing position. Follow that slope and the business world would look like the inside of a Hooters restaurant.

Insofar as the child care issue goes, that's another fake scare tactic. There's a far higher correlation of devout Christian care providers harming, assaulting and molesting children than trans people (hint: I can find *zero* news stories of that every happening with a trans person in *any* position where they work with kids. And hundreds of stories about non-trans care providers doing such horrible, horrible things).

Buck, your comments are completely logical and give none of the proponents room for legitimate rebuttal. A lot of commenters find this bill so ridiculous that they can't help making an a outlandish (but well deserved) comment. I do find the outlandish ones funny though and having some merit when I think of how far this issue could go in the future.
If the child care nurturer thing gave you the creeps, here's what gives me more creeps... If I sent my 18 year old daughter to Towson State University and was paying the $9,000 dollar dormitory fee only have her share dorms bathroom with an "experimenting in transitioning male" who applied as a female. How is this going to be handled when the university takes a hands off approach because it's too sensitive.
OK sensitive folks, I know that this bill does address this and you consider it a separate issue, but it an issue that PFLAG will be sure to push next.
Hey! who let the worms out?

Sara,
Employers need to have some discretion as to who they want to hire. I would be turned down for a job at Hooters too, because I don't have double D's, but that's OK. I'm not complaining. I too, realize as much as the Hooters manager does, that I would probably not benefit her business. Boobs and butts are their business. Their food is sub-par and doesn't bring the customers in. I wouldn't get hired as a Chippendale either, because I look like the white version of JJ from Good Times. No complaints though, I understand that large red bow tie wouldn't be enough to disguise my bony ribs, and I'd have the night club emptied out before I could even get to the Speedos. I'll knock on Home Depot's door where they'd want me. All Hetero, Homo, Bi, Trans, once gay now back, whatever sexuals just have to deal with the "unfair" world in which we live. Life is just tough by nature.

You want to talk about why our society is where it is today? I could write thousands of words on why.

Reason 1 - the sad state of the nuclear family compared to when we all grew up.
It's more then having the "stay at home MOM" of yesteryear. Families take work from both mother and father, and on the whole Generation Y's parents have failed. Badly. It's produced young parents today who are at great risk of continuing the cycle. We are what we know, right? The cycle needs to be broken, somehow.

There's no better evidence of this then the rise of religion again in politics. You know, religion, that thing that's purely subjective and does nothing but repress others.

Reason #2: Our society has eroded because trickle-down economics and a corrupt tax system have destroyed the actual middle class in this nation. The 1% in this country make 40% of the wealth, and with our largely Republican run government the past 30 years, that spread has continually increased. Congress is bought and paid for, and when crazy tax benefits weren't enough for wealthy corporations, our Government decided it would be a great idea to allow them to ship all of those American jobs overseas!

(more)

Your attempt at hiding behind the fears of rape victims is either utterly sad, or grossly misguided (I can't decide which). An intellectually desperate measure because you know it's the only thing resembling an excuse to repress THOUSANDS of other innocent people who - through no fault of their own - lead sexually messed up lives. Do you actually think people "sign up" for this??

I fully respect the fears of rape victims. Unlike you, I'd do so by addressing the real issue - our liberal judicial system. Go after the rapists.

Oh no...that'd make too much sense, and wouldn't advance your group's goals, now would it?

No one in favor of passing this legislation has ever claimed this bill would have prevented the brutal beating in Rosedale. That was and remains the Patch reporter's spin on how this legislative effort started. This bill is about preventing discrimination, violence is a different issue.

You are correct. I too am sometimes surprised by the uninformed, and often discriminating, comments. However, comment/bulletin boards like this allow for people to voice their opinions as if no one is listening. A lot of times people comment on things that do not, and will never, affect them, I accept 'freedom of speech' but it sometimes borders on hate speech. Thanks for the link to the study, BTW.

Thanks for the link!

Wow. Please educate yourself before you say things. Transgender individuals are NOT playing dress-up. This comment is pure ignorance.

It's telling when someone can spell out one shape of genitals but not the other. And likely speaks to the heart of this campaign against the non-discrimination legislation...

These very difficult life conditions that you describe seem to need improved treatment indeed. You can not legislate improved treatment, it must be carefully developed. Perhaps this is where improved attention is needed. Bad laws only make things worse...every time...

Thank you, Kate. Well said.

Do all rare Maryland independents have this kind of time on their hands..?

i found the scenario worth reading.

I doubt that the Police are looking forward to dealing with this at all...

See, that's the difference right there. You wouldn't see a rapist going in. He would wait until no one is looking and then sneak in and hide until he could attack. The trans woman, regardless of how feminine you think she looks, just wants to walk in, do her business and leave again. Thank you, for pointing out that they are very, very different.

And let's say you call 911 simply because someone walks into a women's restroom that doesn't meet your qualifications for feminine beauty. Chances are incredibly high that you are wrong in doing so - as high as if you'd called for anyone else. You've just wasted taxpayer money, occupied the police's time possibly endangering someone else, and ruined someone's day. All because you don't like people who are different from you and would accuse the entire group of some horrendous crime (of which most of them are physically incapable) rather than show compassion or at least tolerance.

Thank you, CKnick.

CKnick, it's not about bathrooms alone. See my other posts.

No kidding. Look at all the other cities, counties and entire states that have enacted such non-discrimination laws...and not one has found that the scare stores presented here came to fruition. Not One.

AND - step up to the plate and hire these transgender folks in their privately owned companies. I am sure Mr. Quirk will be willing to put in writing that HE will do so, to be quickly followed by all members of the delegation who vote for this bill. Since most of our esteemed representatives are attorneys, a new school could be developed. I see THE TRANSGENDER PARALEGAL INSTITUTE coming soon.

Hello RMI, lovely to see you here. What an interesting idea. It would be wonderful if any transgender person qualified for a job could find employment without being discriminated against. Your idea about the school gave me a giggle. Thanks.

Thank you for sharing this information!

Again, those that have never had to question their orientation or gender identity will only see a man dressed as a woman. I would just assume this is a person that needs to go to the bathroom. There are other signals I would use in determining if someone was a "criminal" or a "rapist".

Yes. I would. Although (once again) in all honesty, I'd mention to her "If you at all feel uncomfortable, or if that person is looking at you funny, come out and let me know".
edit: it were my young daughter, I might even take her to a different bathroom, or wait until said person is done.
Thing is, that's my decision and 'on me' if that would be how I felt about it. It's not the fault of said transgender person.

No, I'd never go into the ladies room with anyone. Most of the (few) places I'd ever have my child use the restroom are places that have 'family' restroom options as well.

Really, I think this whole male/female bathroom scenario is a bit overblown. If someone is using other businesses restrooms with any kind of frequency - unless it's for diaper changing - then I'd suggest that person had a bigger issue.

Karen,

I don't think you are a bigot. I understand your concerns. I am only trying to think about the other side's perspective. Something that you take for granted everyday, like using a public restroom, can be a very challenging for a transgendered person. I do know a number of post operative transgendered individuals that are legally and physically a woman. While masculine traits may remain (size, facial bone structure, etc.) they have no other choice but to use a ladies room. The anxiety that they feel in these public situations is something that I don't think the average person fully understands.

Karen, see my other comments here....there are a few. I give all you need to know about this and to understand the seriousness of it. It's not bathrooms alone.

and
State of Maine,Northampton MA, Washington DC,
Albany NY, Austin TX, Beaverton OR,Bend OR,Burien WA,Oakland CA,Miami Beach FL,Tompkins County NY,State of California,State of New Mexico,Carbondale IL,Covington KY,El Paso TX, Ithaca NY,Key West FL,Lake Oswego OR, Monroe Co FL, Oakland CA,Peoria IL,San Diego CA,Scranton PA,Springfield IL,University City MO,Allentown PA,Baltimore MD,Boston MA,Buffalo NY,Chicago IL,Cook County IL,
Dallas TX,Decatur IL, East Lansing MI,Erie County PA,New Hope PA,New York City NY,Philadelphia PA,Salem OR,Tacoma WA,Denver CO,Huntington Woods MI,Multnomah Co OR,State of Rhode Island,Rochester NY,Suffolk County NY,Atlanta GA,Boulder CO,DeKalb IL,Madison WI,Portland OR,Ann Arbor MI,Jefferson County KY,Lexington-Fayette Co KY,Louisville KY,Tucson AZ,Benton County OR,Santa Cruz County CA,New Orleans LA,Toledo OH,West Hollywood CA,York PA,Cambridge MA,
Evanston IL,Olympia WA,Pittsburgh PA,Ypsilanti MI, Iowa City IA,Grand Rapids MI,
San Francisco CA,State of Minnesota,Santa Cruz CA,St Paul MN,Seattle WA, Harrisburg PA,Los Angeles CA,Urbana IL,Champaign IL,Minneapolis MN

I am with you! Because if any evidence existed that this did take place, MSNBC,CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC would be all over it! I mean, they are all over Obama and Holder - demanding answers with respect to the border patrol agent who was killed under the"Fast and the Furious." They have also worked dozens of stories about the loss of over 500 Million Dollars for Solyndra that any two year accounting student could determine was a loser.
Ooops, they have not run these stories. Sorry, but I am sure when they finish up reviewing Mitt Romney's tax return, they will get right on it!

and the population in maryland, as well as in baltimore county? anyone?

Al, there are only about 140 in Maryland and those have not necessarily had the surgery to change them completely. The correct term for them is Transexual...at least that's the closest we can come to it. All the other terms, transgender, gender identity, gender expression, etc. are not people who had the surgery. That term "Transexual" isn't eve in the bill. See my other posts with links to descriptions of those terms. You will see those terms are about the many sexual desires they have and not physical changes to their bodies. This is what the BCC wants to unleash on the public.

Transexuals could just have breast implants and they could still have their genitalia they were born with.

Johns Hopkins was one of the few hospitals that did the surgery until they discovered it was not working so they stopped it. The LGBTs will lead you to believe that Hopkins is going to start the surgeries again. I checked it out..they have no such plans.
http://www.narth.com/docs/johnhopkins.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/reassignment.html

Anita, John Hopkins shut down their gender clinic when Paul McHugh took over. His fairly extreme religious views and those of NARTH (an organization he has been a part of since its inception) blinded them to any compassion for trans people despite what the Bible says about them and despite how Jesus told people to treat each other. They also ignore almost 20 years of really good neurological findings that show that some brain areas develop male or female and in trans people those sites match their identity not the genitals they were born with. Sites such as your brain's map of the body, used for things like motion, and where your sense of Self resides.

You are citing people at the far extreme, the ones who would deny anyone who is not man enough nor woman enough any and all basic rights as humans. The ones who proclaim that trans people should be "removed from the human ecology".

Well said :-)

I've been trying to say that it's not those who have actually had the sex change surgery that are the problem. It's all the rest who are jumping on the bandwagon.

Read the LGBT Conference Agenda that they had as this bill was being introducted by the Council. It's very obvious that the LGBTs lobbied for this ambiguous bill to be introduced at that same time....and under a benign title as Human Relations bill 3-12. There is more info there to read.

http://firstdonoharm7.blogspot.com/?z

It's about so much more. The agenda shows the training going on in regards to:

Getting legislation passed in MD and where to go from there.

Getting into the school curriculum, elem, middl, hs, colleges.

Conditioning the faith based communities to go along with them.

Read the rest of it....16 pages of about 19 training sessions per page.

This is serious business for them and they are traveling around the US as I fight this bill, lobbying and having similar bills passed by the unsuspecting legislators and public, who feel it's only about equal rights.

CA is stuck with this now and parents have lost all rights to their children in schools.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/01/382689/

You need to call all the councilmembers, not just yours on this. Look for my post with their phone #s.

Anita, once adults are able to accept that they are trans, it takes time to undo a body and persona that have been forced on them by biology and society. There are Standards of Care that recommend trans people live in their identified sex and gender for a length of time before they are eligible for surgery. How do you expect them to perform their bodily functions for those years if they cannot live as themselves? Do you understand that a (trans) woman in the men's room is likely to be sexually assaulted and if the guy finds out she's trans, probably beat up or worse? Likewise, you'd probably freak out if a trans man who has been taking testosterone for a year or longer was in the women's room.

Insofar as an "agenda" that involves trans people getting into schools and the like:
There's almost two decades of really good neurological, endocrinological and developmental biology research that shows trans people's brains are as they claim. And plenty of stats gathered to show that trans kids face a good chance of getting thrown out on the street as teens and a even better chance (ie 40%) of ending their own lives before they are 30 if they are forced to live as the sex and gender assigned at birth. Counter that with them statistically simply growing up to be happy, healthy, loving and productive adults if they are accepted by their parents and family and congregation.

That's the pudding and the proof. Everything else is just scare tactics and learned biases.

It is just not so simple for some people, Al. Not everyone "fits" in his or her body. It may be hard to imagine, but some people with a penis do not consider themselves to be male, and some people with a vagina do not consider themselves to be female. Sometimes the parts do not match up with the way people feel inside. It may seem silly to you for someone to think that they are something else besides the way they were born, but it does happen, and it is NOT silly to those people.

agree. im a victim too. i feel like a nfl quarterback. i demand a contract like one of the manning brothers.

I doubt any transgender person expects to be treated like an NFL quarterback or an NBA star. They would just like to work a regular job like everyone else, live in an apartment without fear of being evicted, and GO TO THE BATHROOM when they have to go. It's not asking for anything special or more than anyone else. It's just asking to be treated THE SAME.

I seriously doubt any transgender person WANTS to feel this way.

Wow, Al and RMI. Do you mock people with MS, too? Kick the crutches out from under people with Cerebral Palsy for fun? Use mirrors to bounce sunlight at albino's to watch them flinch?

Your argument is false. There is no biological, neurological genetic and endocrinological basis for "feeling like a quarterback". But they do exist for being male or female. And it's been repeatedly shown and peer-reviewed and published that trans people have the brain sites (and often, endocrinology and some skeletal traits, etc) of the sex and gender with which they identify.

Just because you have not personally experienced something, just because you have no idea what living with a condition could possibly be like does not mean it doesn't exist.

True but discrimination based on that condition (which harms no one else, nor affects someone's ability to do their job, pay rent or a mortgage, or urinate) can be helped with laws. The medical treatments are well known and they work wonders, but it takes time for them to work and once they have someone's history should not preclude them from living a productive, happy life.

i agree with you Sara, and I must say that you have been on a roll here...
I believe that the very best treatment should be developed and made available.. if it's needed. Are all transgender human beings being discriminated against or just a small percentage of the small percentage of transgender population?
I have heard cases of fat people being discriminated against... the individual has to accept, or buy into the feeling of being discriminated against before it becomes real.
Therapy and support go a long way in building the confidence needed to not accept being discriminated against. Improvement along these lines would benefit transgender human beings much more than a quick Quirk bad law that will not be able to be effective over the long haul.. .. treatment will have a positive direction that will get better with time.

Oh, Laura. we are so on the same page! Nicely said.

Don't worry Buck - when the liberals have nothing else, they pull out the race or the bigot card. You are in good company. My hope is one day Kate, you come into private industry, and you are a business owner and responsible for generating revenue to pay your employees and other costs. And you are on the hook for loans that you took out to expand your business.
Your hired "Steve" to run the retail side of your business. Steve decides he no longer wants to be "Steve", but rather "Sheena." Watch as your customers don't return as Steve starts transforming into "Sheena." Oh, those customers, they were bigots anyway! Who needs em! Well, you do! Now you have have to cut some of your folks, but you can cut Sheena, because the lawsuit is coming if you do.
After all this, Sheena comes to you and says "Um, Mr. or Mrs. Boss, I need to take some time off to have some parts removed or inverted and have some parts bolted on to me."
Lord knows what this is going to do to your insurance rates.
Can't happen? Just wait and see. Again - let's demand that ALL members who vote FOR this sign an oath that the next person they hire will be a transgendered person.

Maryland is the land of the government paycheck, but even here - more folks work in the private sector and are faced with issues like this everday instead of living in the fantasy world of government employment.

Kate, The concerns that I have are regarding the making of new law...law in general. There are currently laws that would address transgender difficulties. If these laws are not being enforced effectively, perhaps that issue needs to be addressed. The addition of new law will potentially clog the courts with frivolous law suits that can never be proven either way. Basic human rights exist inside of everyone..fighting for them is far from basic. Just as transgender condition exists..so do natural basic human rights. I have made suggestions of better treatment rather than bad law.. I remain of that belief.
It's not about Transgender human beings, but about the creation of another bad law.

Oh, and I don't consider myself normal ...

Thank you for your reply, Buck. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify your statements. How else would you give a group of people recourse to law when their rights to equal treatment are being infringed? Was it Brown vs Board of Ed that made a significant difference for people of color in the south, that were not receiving equal treatment? It seems that sometimes we can't depend on people to do the right thing if left to themeselves.

No, they need a big push, unfortunately. Some curmudgeons on both sides still don't buy in - but progress is always slow. It's way easier (and more comfortable) for people to go socially backwards then forwards.

Daughter: For argument's sake - what kind of treatment do you suggest?

"Even blacks", what is that supposed to mean? We kept the blacks away from the whites but put them in separate male/female bathrooms? What was the corrective treatment for the "blacks"? Just askin'.

No kidding. The company I work for has hired three trans people in the time I've been here (there are some fields where this is more likely, like IT). All three were *incredibly* dedicated, hard working people. We lost them because we couldn't match the pay they got elsewhere. Oh, and our state has excellent laws protecting them from discrimination...

Ms. Schatz,

I hate to even go there, but I will. Are you for or against the the Civil Marriage Protection Act that is currently under way in Annapolis? The reason I bring this up is that you are now bringing the LGBT "lifestyle" into the argument.

Oh, one more thing, I hope one of your children is not "different" (i.e. LGBT) for their sake. I am not sure you would be very understanding and tolerant.

"It's a virtual mine field, just waiting for every kind of lawsuit"

No, it isn't. Just don't treat people as sub-human just because they are different and there will be no cause or justification for lawsuits.

"The bottom line, they can get jobs now as cross dressers"

Yes, just like those women who insist on wearing pants. The conjured specter of 'cross-dressers' is a strange one. It assumes a consistent presentation of men and women. Men shall only carry wallets and briefcases; no bags of any sort. Women, of course shall only carry purses. Men's hair must be no longer than say, an inch and women cannot have short hair lest they be mistaken for a man. Where do you draw the line?

By focusing only on the bathroom issue - which in reality *is* non existent - the discussion forgets that this bill also protects non-lesbian, non-trans women who wear dresses and have long hair but want to weld for a living as much as it does straight, non-trans men who cook or clean for a living and like to wear happy, colorful shirts who want to (or must) ride the bus to work.

And yes, it protects the few hundred people (according to the stats presented in these comments) so that they can also live happy, productive lives.

It prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations based on gender identity and expression.

I am a proud LGBT, as you would call me, but I am a compassionate human being first.

I also wanted to let you know that there is no indoctrination as you call it. You and your family are safe. We LGBTs are born this way. You obviously don't know the facts. Again, I hope your children are not an LGBT......

"If you'd had a teacher or other adult tell you as an impressionable child to "try out" being a lesbian, would you have gone to bed with a woman, given it a shot, and decided whether it was for you or not? Of course not."

This is an important point well made. Non-transgender &/or non-gay people need to ask themselves, at what point did they "choose" to be straight or non-trans. Walking through that exercise points out that it was not a choice at all but rather an intrinsic attribute of their Self not some learned behavior or choice. Although it's not always possible to walk a mile in someone else's shoes, this at least helps to put the landscape in perspective.

You know what? That will never be known, so here we are in disagreement on exposure of children being confusing for them. Documentation shows the psychiatric associations have said point blank, this is a mental disorder and should not be exposed to impressionable children. Johns Hopkins stopped the surgeries and opend thier Sexual Dysfunction Clinic for a reason.

Anita, stating "impressionable children" should not be "exposed" to trans people is ridiculous and dishonest. It's been found false by everyone except Paul McHugh.

You know, the guy that in his book said that before he first set foot in John Hopkins, he was determined on ideological grounds to shut the Gender Clinic program down, regardless of evidence. And, as you pointed out, he decided to focus 'research' at John Hopkins on sex disorders instead:

"McHugh…is the man whose report to the court in one case stated that a defendant’s harassing phone calls were not obscene - including the call that detailed a fantasy of a 4-year-old sex slave locked in a dog cage and fed human waste. At least eight men have been convicted of sexually abusing Maryland children while under treatment at the “sex disorders” clinic McHugh runs at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine - abuse the doctors did not report, citing client confidentiality. When Maryland law was changed to require that doctors report child molestation, the clinic fought it and advised patients on how to get around the law. The memo to patients suggested that molesters report their pedophilic activities to their lawyers, who could in turn tell staff; attorney-client privilege would then protect the molesters from being reported. This memo was fully approved by the boss - Dr. Paul McHugh…”

He went on in 2000 to advise the Vatican, right about the time the priest molestation scandals broke.

Thank you Kate......

If a newly proposed law has the potential to make things worse, should it be pushed forward or further examined?
I like the idea of a village of families..

Hi Al,
Figures are scarce because there's no money in studying the issue. But, best estimates based on data gleaned from sources such as England's socialized health care system put the incidence of people with a gender variance extreme enough to medically and socially transition at somewhere around 0.03 to 0.3 percent of the population. My guess would be to double that or so to cover people who suppress and repress due to strongly disapproving and sometimes violent environments or subcultures and because the stats don't include those who commit suicide rather than not be able to live quietly and peacefully as themselves.

Insofar as individual locals, the incidence of trans people is amazingly consistent across all demographics, across time and across genetics, backing up the designation of it being a basic variation of human biology. That is one of the reasons discrimination based on it is morally wrong.

I'm afraid you're not going to get a good answer. See what they say here. It all depends on what you mean by transgender.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_in_this_world_are_transgender

We've been presenting statistics and documentation to back up our concerns with this bill both at the hearings and to the individual council members.

Mike, if you're talking about the African American woman, she is an ex transgender and wants equal protection, too. It seems ex gays and ex transgenders are not looked kindly upon by the LGBT community.

To answer your question about people transforming between the sexual identites, yes and the term "Gender Identity OR Expression" is in the bill, along with Sexual Orientation. You really need to come to the work session on 2-14-12 to speak out and see what the concerns are about this. Be there by 1:30 to sign in.

We are being called bigots, liars, hate mongerers and worse to try to discredit us. We don't deny people rights, but not by taking rights from others in the process.

Right is right but this bill is so wrong.

In your case scenario, because it's a private homeowner, and not a business. Enforcement of any 'discrimination' would never take place.

If we're talking a business (say, an apartment complex) ? Then it's all women, both 'conventional' and transgendered (to women).

Pretty simple logic here, even for 1:30am in the morning.

this legislation will not change anything in relation to someone renting a room in his or her private residence.

Mark is giving misinformation to make this bill seem benign. There is nothing in the bill to protect the homowner.

Anita, there is nothing in this bill to protect the homeowner because the homeowner is already protected. Call your lawyer and ask her.

Great point Mark Patro,
The transgender population does not need additional protection by perceived law because the laws already exist.
The same for everyone.... only way of possible fair enforcement.

Tim, your logic sounds logical because it coincides with the common sense notion that this homeowner sould have the right to refuse her room to someone that she does not feel comfortable with in their home. But when businesses are "thought policed" to the point in which this bill is attempting, it gives good reason to think that the homeowner is next.
Where in this bill does it exempt the homeowner who has an apartment in the basement of their home? This Bill fails to cover all bases. Mark suggested we consult a lawyer for the answer. Consulting the County Code should suffice. The fact that a lawyer need be consulted for an answer simply enforces the complexity issues that this bill presents.

Mike: I hear your point, however let's not pretend this is the only bill - passed or proposed on any issue - that requires a lawyer to interpret the complexity of issues it covers. Heck, we could go back to removal of segregation for a recent example.

What I'm seeing is too many people here attempting to use legal crutches to hide their latent bigotry. Just like back then.

Tim,
You have just proven the point that this law is poorly developed and will never be effective... that's my take on your last comment.

Buck: Your opinion is your own, of course.
Fact, however, is that many laws on the books require lawyer interpretation. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many of them.

This attempt at throwing wording arguments at the bill, is just thinly veiled bigotry from individuals who are just intelligent bigots - versus stupid ones.

This of course, is just my opinion.

Here's another opinion: If humanity sucked just a little less, we wouldn't NEED legislation for this.

lots of old people have a tough time getting hired too..

Great questions Lorna, mild, meek and unanswered to date.
Reasons that I believe this type of legislation will NEVER be able to be fairly enforced in any direction.... curious to see any attempt at a solid answer here.