Perhaps Senator Plett Should Move To Florida

I have long thought that Canadians are more sensible people than we (well, some of us, anyway) are in the US.  They legalized same-sex marriage and got rid of slavery before we did.  And, while I'm sure there's bigotry north of our border, it didn't seem to taint social policy or civil discourse--not to mention politics--as often as it does in my home country.

But, it seems, they're not completely immune to our insanity.  

Yesterday, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-279, which adds gender identity to Canada's Human Rights Act.  Here in the US, there are still states in which someone can be fired from a job or evicted from housing simply for being  transgender (or, for that matter, lesbian or gay).  Ironically, in some of those states, same-sex marriage is legal--at least technically, for the moment, due to statutes against the practice being declared unconstitutional by Federal judges.  So, in such an environment, it's not much of a surprise that no one has even introduced a bill to protect the rights of trans people nationwide.

So, given what I've said, the fact that C-279 passed the Senate makes Canada look like a progressive country, doesn't it?  Well, there's a catch:  Just before the vote, Conservative Senator Donald Plett added an amendment mandating that people can use only those public facilities (like washrooms and crisis centers) designated for their "biological" gender.

He claims that his amendment is a "public safety issue".  He explains his rationale for his amendment thusly:  "The issue I have is that many elements of society are separated based on sex and not on gender — shelters, change rooms, bathrooms, even sports teams. They are not separated based on internal feelings but on sex, physiological and anatomical differences".  (Italics mine)

Hmm...You have to use facilities designated by your biological sex.  And which facilities you should use should be determined by anatomy.  Where have you heard that self-contradicting argument before?

Well, if you read the Huffington Post, you might have seen an article I wrote.  In it, I show how Frank Artiles, a Republican in the Florida House of Representatives, makes the same arguments, almost verbatim, to introduce a bill that would do, essentially, the same things as the amendment to C-279.  He, like Senator Plett, introduced legislation saying that people must use public facilities according to their birth (They both use the word "biological" instead, probably because it sounds more scientific or is simply longer.) sex.  Then they say that anatomy should determine where we pee.  And they claim that their legislation is intended for "public safety".

As best as I can tell, about the only difference between Plett and Artiles is that the latter claims that his actions are motivated by his Christian faith, while Plett doesn't mention his religious beliefs, whether or not he has any.

I know that lots of Canadians have moved to Florida.  Perhaps Plett should, too.  

Denying Access--To Whom? For What Purpose?

Let's see...The most common crimes in Florida are drug offenses, theft, assault, driving under the influence and aggravated assault.

And HB583 will address those crimes....how? 

Frank Artiles, a Republican (surprise, surprise) member of the Florida House of Representatives and self-described Christian (more suprise) has introduced the bill on Wednesday.  A committee assignment is pending.

If the bill becomes law, people would be required to use bathrooms and other public facilities designated according to the gender they were assigned at birth.  A person caught using the "wrong" facilities would face charges.

Artiles claims his bill is a "public safety measure".  He added--here's something Bartlett should include--"I truly believe your anatomy dictates where you should go to the bathroom".

Hmm...Now I'm confused. Perhaps you could clarify, Mr. Artiles.  The "M" box was checked on my birth certificate.  But now I have a vagina and clitoris.  And I've grown a pair, such as they are.  So, my anatomy says...

Oh, here's another complicating factor:  My birth certificate now says that I'm female.  It was changed, after my surgery, to reflect my gender and new name.  In what Godless liberal hellhole was that allowed to happen?  

Well, I'll give you a hint:  It's north of Florida.  No surprise there, right?  It is such a bastion of European-style libertinism and fiscal irresposibility that it named one of its major university cities Athens and another fairly large city is called Rome.  

It sounds like a terrible place, doesn't it, to an upright Christian man like you.  I'm sure you don't want to do business there or expose your family to its terrors.  I'm sure that a man with your virtue, erudition and wisdom can guess what that place is.

New York, where I live?  Nope.  Massachusetts?  Try again.  OK, I'll tell you:  the State of Georgia, where I was born.  Somehow the folks in the Peachtree State's Department of Vital Records had no problem realizing that I am, in fact, female.

So, Mr. Artiles, perhaps you could tell us how your proposed law will be enforced.  Will we have to present our birth certificates to enter public facilities?  Will there be security cameras that can see through clothing, like the ones airports have?  

Acrually, Mr. Legislator, I hope that you aren't thinking about those cameras.  After all, you aren't a good Christian man?  Then why would you want to see me in all of my nakedness?

Mr. Artiles, perhaps you should reconsider HR583.  Perhaps you can explain to us just how it will protect your wife, your mother, your daughters and all other female residents of the Sunshine State--including my mother--from attack by sexual predators?  And, when I go out to have lunch with Mom, do you think I'm going to the restaurant's facilities to peep under the dresses of retirees or molest their granddaughters?  Do you really believe I'm even capable of the latter?

Mr. Artiles, perhaps you can clarify.

Governor O"Malley Signs Legislation; Opponents Ready To Drag It Into The Bathroom

News flash:  Governor Martin O'Malley has just signed legislation that makes Maryland one of a handful of states to extend its anti-discrimination laws to protect transgender people.


As happy as I am to see this, I am also dismayed at a depressingly familiar spectacle that accompanies it:  Opponents are launching a petition to put the law up for a referendum in this November's election.  I'm not so upset that they're trying to repeal the law:  That, at least can be defeated relatively easily, especially in a state like Maryland, home to many LGBT lobbyists and others who work in the nation's capital.  What makes me say, "Oh, this shit again!" is that, once again, opponents are using the bathroom argument. 


I mean, really:  What man will dress up in women's clothes just so he can go into a women's restroom and bother the people using it.  If a man really wants to molest, harass or attack women, he will do so by other means and in other places.  And I have yet to hear of a male-to-female transgender who actually did something she shouldn't have been doing in women's facilities.


I haven't spent a lot of time in Maryland.  But from my brief stops and stays there, I get the impression that there are enough intelligent people in the Old Line State to shoot down such a ridiculous argument.  I take that back: It shouldn't even be dignified by calling it an argument.


Anyway, kudos to Governor O'Malley.  Too bad that this year marks the end of his second term.  Because of term limits, he can't run again in November. 

The Bathrooms, Again....

Another day and another...instance of hysterical reactionaries distorting reality, or simply lying, to keep a group of people from having the same rights everyone else enjoys.

This time it's happening in Maryland.  There's this funny little law that expresses the utterly radical notion that transgender people should not experience discrimination in housing, education, employment or the use of public facilites on account of their gender identity expressions.  It's, you know, one of those rights that cisgender heterosexual people (well, those of certain races and classes and, ahem, one gender, anyway) take for granted. It's been voted in; Governor Martin O'Malley has said he will sign this piece of legislation, which is scheduled to take effect on 1 October.

But a group of lawmakers who oppose the lawee that was signed into law last year are now looking to overturn that law.  They are seeking a referendum that would put the question of repealing it on the ballot this November.

And how are they scaring, I mean appealing to, voters whose signatures they need for the referendum to make it to the ballot?  You might have heard of this tactic before:  They're referring to the law as "the bathroom bill", just as they did when they tried to keep it from passing.

From hearing those legislators, you'd think the law was about nothing else--or, more precisely, the "right" of "men in dresses" to enter women's bathrooms so they can harass (or even sexually assault) the women and molest young girls.

Well, the right to use the bathroom appropriate to the gender by which you're identifying and living is just one part of the law.  But magnifying it wasn't enough for those elected officials:  They have pandered to the crudest stereotypes (trans person as predator) and the most exaggerated, baseless fears in order to convince some people that, essentially, bigotry is good social and legislative policy.

Never mind that cross-dressers and people who are transitioning from one gender to another--or simply presenting themselves as one they weren't assigned at birth--use bathrooms for the same reasons everyone else does.  And, to put it bluntly, we simply want to pee in peace, and let others do the same.