(Continued from previous page)
That’s why time after time after time, these people suggested building entire separate bathrooms at public locations for our trannie brothers and sisters.
Really. Made me think for a minute that maybe it wasn’t the Christian Family Coalition who paid for the busses, after all, but the LBA or the Munilla Construction brothers.
And time after time after time, the protestors said they had nothing against transgenders themselves. God tells them to love everybody. They are just afraid that some sexual predator pedophile will pretend to be a trannie to sneak into a bathroom after a prepubescent girl and molest her, that some pervert will put on a dress and a wig and some lipstick (they actually described that stereotype) and use this “loophole” (they actually used that word) to stalk victims.
Really? Really? Who on Earth would pretend to be a trannie in a public place? Transgendered people are the ones who are forced to pretend to be someone they are not. They do that for a reason. Because they do not feel welcome in the world. Ladra highly doubts that some evil-minded perve is going to dress up like a dame to maybe get some kicks and risk becoming a victim himself.
“This is not about bathrooms because the
transgender community, they already use the bathrooms,” said Commissioner Audrey Edmonson, who sponsored the amendment. “Unfortunately, this has been characterized as a public safety issue. It is an issue of fairness, of equality.”
While one transgender man did say that this measure was about the “dignity to pee in peace,” it’s really not about bathrooms, ladies and gentlemen — and anyone else tuned in. It’s about bias. It’s about bigotry. It’s about wanting to keep cross-dressing kids in their closets so the rest of us don’t have to see their transgender expression. It’s about closed-minded people not wanting to be made uncomfortable.
Really? Really? We are still talking about this like this in 2014?
The amendment passed 3-1 in committee. Only Commissioner Esteban Bovo voted against it. He echoed some protestors arguments about it being unnecessary because the transgender community is already protected under the current law. Our human rights ordinance prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, marital status, familial status or sexual orientation. Looks to m
e like there’s a little duplication — or clarification — already. What’s the harm of adding this?
Especially if it could do a lot of good.
Besides, Bovo voted no even after Erin New, the county’s legal liaison to the Office of Human Rights and Fair Employment — which takes the complaints of violations of the ordinance — told him that there were, indeed, between five and 10 complaints that they struggled with precisely because they could not be categorized in any of the other protections. Bovo said that he wanted to get more details on that before the measure is taken up as a whole, possibly Dec. 2.
Oh, and he also wants a cost analysis for the new, separate bathrooms. Ladra again thinks this is all a ruse to get a new capital improvement project on the procurement gift list.
Do I smell a future bond referendum in the making?
The measure will come to the full commission Dec. 2 and Ladra certainly expects the same crowd of haters to show up and make the meeting unnecessarily long. The votes are definitely there for it to pass, so they shouldn’t waste their time.
Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t the commission try to pair this with harsher charges and punishment for that far-fetched scenario of the gender-bending pretender? Let’s say anyone caught pretending to be a transgendered individual in order to commit some indecent criminal act will be charged with something stronger than lewd and lascivious behavior and get enhanced penalties that guarantee jail time even for first-time offenders.
But let’s leave the real transgenders, who only want to pee in peace, alone.
Pages: 1 2
Human rights transgender debate becomes bathroom joke added by Ladra on
View all posts by Ladra →
P.P.P.S.
I apologize to All Concerned that I have received input from wonderful women concerning the issue of transgender “she-males” using women’s public bathrooms.
One woman looked like she was going to cry at this prospect, a total violation of her being.
However, two women told me:
1. WOMEN’S BATHROOMS HAVE PRIVATE STALLS. THIS MEANS, UNLIKE MEN’S ROOMS WITH URINALS IN VIEW OF EACH OTHER, NO WOMAN SEES ANOTHER WOMAN RELIEVING HERSELF.
2. One of the two ‘pro-Ordinance’ women said she had experienced this issue first-hand, when a Camp Counselor transgender used the women’s room while she, my acquaintance, was in the bathroom, and although it was shocking, she supports such transgender right in 2014.
Men, certainly myself, can protect themselves, so it is women, I believe, who should determine the outcome on this issue.
2 out of 3 women I’ve talked to support the Ordinance as passed.
I will be looking to see what the majority of women in the public forum have to say.
Sincerely,
Jackson Rip Holmes
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET REAL ANSWERS?
Shouldn’t county ordinances be based on real problems and community needs, not on anecdotal stories, subjective allegations or personal fantasies? Shouldn’t county ordinances be based on clear, factual, objective legal concepts and scientific standards, not on sexual ideology, arbitrary claims, or capriciously alleged “sexual identities or expressions”? Moreover, should our County Code be misused as a political billboard to impose on everyone an extremist, hateful ideological agenda?
Doesn’t Miami-Dade County need more jobs, affordable housing, better health care and more transparent, efficient government? So why aren’t these real issues being addressed by Commissioners Edmonson, Barreiro and Heyman, instead of slamming residents with the polarization this unwarranted and unjust discriminatory and ideology-based ordinance promotes?
These are the REAL questions that remain unanswered by Patricia Mazzei’s piece. Why haven’t they been answered? Why?
The Herald’s coverage of this issue is extremely slanted and highly unprofessional. It gives Commissioners Edmonson, Barreiro and Heyman a pass for ignoring the massive problems Miami-Dade faces in order to waste our time on a literal ideology-based, not reality-based, non-issue.
But since they outlawed lynching for interracial dating in Dade it gives you self anointed bible thumping hypocrites something to turn out for.
Excellent comment.
Ladra you should be just as critical of those that wish to impose themselves on others. Both sides in this argument are guilty as sin.
Men’s bathrooms are for those who posess natural or surgically implanted male sexual organs. Women may enter only at their own risk.
Women’s bathrooms are for those with female sexual organs natural or surgically created (snip snip)
Yes there are people in states of transition but should all of us be burdened with extra cost for creating another bathroom . Enough! yes I might feel a bit uncomfortable seeing someone in a dress standing at a urinal but I will find comfort in the thought “better him than me.”
Has anyone noticed that regardless of sexual orientation or genitalia you are being screwed royally by mdx on the highways.
The them Christians to stay out of Midtown. Lots of progressive restaurants with unisex bathrroms.
A tranny using a wheelchair will need bathroom #4.
Wow!
If one ever needed proof it is good to be alive in 2014, this incredible scenario provides it.
I personally favor the Ordinance, but I definitely oppose giving transgender people the right to use a public bathroom for a sex different from their physical anatomy.
Sincerely,
J. Rip Holmes
They still have not addressed the fact that they lock the bathrooms at the Government Center Metrorail Station at 3pm daily so nobody gets a place to pee or poop, regardless of their orientation.
The homeless use the public library restrooms and are pretty good about keeping it clean, but they need a lot.more public restrooms downtown and someone needs to take up the cause. They are always complaining about people relieving themselves in public, yet refuse to provide facilities.
Best comment came from Elizabeth Schwartz when she said – and I paraphrase – that this ordinance is about protecting all people including the not very masculine man who opposes the ordinance. I wonder if she was referring to the guy from Christian Family Coalition with the lazy s?