Sometimes I have a hard time sifting through my email and determining what is real and what is not. I’ve received lots of rebates from the IRS, lots of offers to hold on to the fortunes of rich African widows I’ve never met, and lots of offers from lonely housewives. I just assume all of those are fraudulent. But, for some reason, I decided to investigate a strange claim made by a group of angry citizens from Montgomery County, Maryland.
The concerned citizens who contacted me made the odd claim that their county had introduced and passed a new “gender identity” bill. The bill had disturbed many women because it would allow “men” to have open access to women’s and girl’s public restrooms, locker rooms and showers by simply stating that they self-identify as (read: feel like) a woman.
The bill, proposed by the Montgomery County Council, alters the state’s existing non-discrimination laws by adding the phrase “gender identity” in order to protect transgendered “persons” and transvestites. One would expect such a proposal from a committee of professors in the so-called social sciences or humanities at a public university. But it is particularly shocking coming from a body of elected officials serving outside the state of Massachusetts.
Opponents of the bill rightly criticize it for this vague definition of gender identity: “An individual’s actual or perceived gender, including a person’s gender-related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender-related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
Other criticisms include the bill’s failure to exempt religious schools, parochial schools, public schools, and daycare centers in their employment practices. In other words, all of them actually lose their right to make judgments about the appropriateness of hiring transvestites and transsexuals as teachers and caregivers. Perhaps those who fancy themselves to be unicorns or Martians will receive protection from “discrimination” in the near future.
Now that the county council has passed this bill and a county executive has signed it into effect, opponents are seeking the signatures of over 25,000 registered voters – and they must be collected within 90 days of the bill’s signing. This means the group has until February 16 to submit the names to the Montgomery County, Maryland Board of Elections in order to bring this issue up for a vote.
I strongly encourage readers to go to www.notmyshower.net which has a downloadable petition and information on how you can support those who wish to overturn the “gender identity bill.” Before passing the gender identity bill, county officials were undeterred by the 8 to 1 ratio of those who opposed the bill versus those who supported it. Given the council’s willingness to go against the will of the people, www.notmyshower.net needs our generous support.
This incident reminds me of the time I was involved in an internet privacy case involving a private political email I sent from my workplace. My opponents made the argument that employees have no right to privacy in the workplace whatsoever. I countered by asking whether I had a right to follow an attractive lady into the ladies restroom located down the hall from my office. Furthermore, I asked whether I could peek over the bathroom stall and watch the attractive lady urinate.
For years, I’ve wondered why no self-described liberal has ever given me an answer to the bathroom privacy question. But, now, as “liberals” add transgendered bathrooms to their workplace diversity agenda I understand why they were reluctant to answer my question. They feared the implications of an honest answer.
Transgendered bathrooms will undoubtedly be supported by pedophiles and perverts everywhere. But, on this issue, feminists should break away from their traditional coalition with the gay rights movement. It is too easy for sexual predators to feign gender identity crisis. And too likely their victims will be real women.