For me, I think it's best to err on the side of caution and assume that bad people would take advantage of a law like this. Like everything else, a select few has ruined it for the masses. I don't like passing through metal detectors when I enter some buildings (I don't carry weapons), but I understand why I have to. I also feel insulted whenever I have do display a receipt upon exiting a store (I don't steal), but I do understand why "controls" like these are in place. People do carry weapons, people do steal, and some sick individuals do prey on women and young girls and this law might give them access to places that they wouldn't ordinarily have access to. To me, this isn't about god or hate. It's about safety.

I oppose this law because it is so open to abuse. How do we know if a man who is a pedophile or a rapist takes advantage of it to go to the ladies bathroom and do what he pleases? If the transgenders are conserned about not being able to use the bathroom they should try to push for laws that push public places to have a bathroom assigned to them.

CRG is raising the volume on its smear campaign. It claims Dana Beyer "harassed" its petition gatherers outside a Giant Food store. Really? Watch the video for yourself: Bottom line: IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

None of this is surprising. CNG's recall campaign is just lies and scare tactics. Their tactics come straight from Joseph Goebbels and Lee Atwater -- distort the truth, pump-up the volume and repeat the lie over and over again until you drown-out the opposition.

CNG and its supporters just don't want to look at transgender people. It's unpleasant for them. So they want transgender people to crawl back into their closets and stay there. Don't ask to be treated equally when you want to buy a house, rent an apartment, get or keep a job, or in this case, use a public facility. They say, "If you're so inconsiderate that you have to offend my sight by wearing women's clothing then when you have to urinate go the men's room where you will run a very strong risk of being beat-up by someone who hates you (whom we told it's ok to hate you.) If someone does beat you up then it will serve you right." These people won't even consider the growing and now overwhelming body of clinical evidence -- that some people, a small percentage -- say 1% of the population -- is simply born with a gender identity that doesn't match their genitalia.

Is this what we want to be as a society?

(cont.) CNG claims that transgendered people are demanding "special rights." Oh really? Scratch the CNG argument and eventually you get down to their real rationale -- religion. Their Bible tells them that gender variant people are an abomination to the sight of their god.

Well, it's not my god. In this country, their religion is just one voice in a chorus of religions, and the anti-Establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution holds that no religion gets to dictate government policy. They're free to practice their religion but they may not overstep the line into the realm of government policy for the population at-large.

But the CNG etc. folk don't believe in the US Constitution. They believe their view of what is right and moral and what is not should be the official government view. And they trumpet that view from the pulpits of their churches. It's a message of exclusion, a message of hate, and they get to trumpet that message more loudly because their contributions to their churches are not taxed. Your taxes and my taxes are higher as a result because someone has to pay for all those aircraft carriers.

So I ask -- who is getting "special rights?"

(continued from above) The CRG argument depending on the difference between ?accommodation? vs. ?facility? uses the following quote to further their cause: "if Bill 2307 were silent on the issue of public facilities they would interpret the bill as allowing a person to use facilities based on that person?s gender identity."

The conveniently manage to OMIT the following quote from the same Health and Human Services Committee memo:

?Current County law has an exemption from the public accommodations law for ?distinctly private or personal? facilities.?

As you can see, from the line above, ?facilities? and ?accommodations? are used interchangeably. There is no secret ?code? for restroom that allows a gaping loophole for men in dresses to use the ladies? room. The CRG argument is debunked. They will now have to think of a new line.

It just goes to show what you can do when you cut and paste just the portions of code you want on your website and flyers, and then go and scare the public to collect petitions based on ?Protect our Children!? and ?Keep our locker rooms safe!?

What I don't understand is how none of the crack investigative news teams in print, radio, or television have seem to caught on to CRG's semantic game and called them to task for predicating their entire petition campaign on a total falsehood, using an obvious scare tactic that would induce anyone to sign.

The fact of the matter is that the council did not change any existing laws on restroom use, and never intended to. Propietors are still able to designate restroom and shower use based on either biolgy or gender identity as they have before. Read the ENTIRE Health and Human Services Committee memo yourself.

Peace,

Cynthia

The CRG argument about how cross-dressing men are now suddenly allowed to enter the ladies? room goes like this: (From the CRG website):

?=> Accommodations are parks, pools, hospitals, restaurants, hotels, motels, bus...

=> Facilities are bathrooms.?

They then point to these lines of code from Section 27-10:

?(b) In this Chapter, ?public accommodation? includes any service, program, or activity offered to or used by the general public. (c) This division does not apply to accommodations that are distinctly private or personal?

And claim that since line (c) above refers to ?accommodations? rather than ?facilities,? no protection is offered to girls in the ladies? room.

They then go on to point at section 27-11:

?(a) An owner, lessee, operator, manager, agent, or employee of any place of public accommodation in the County must not, with respect to the accommodation: (1) make any distinction with respect to any person based on race, color, sex, marital status, religious creed, ancestry, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity in connection with: (A) admission; (B) service or sales; or (C) price, quality, or use of any facility or service;?

They then highlight line (C) above to show that this is where, due to the distinction between ?accommodations? vs. ?facilities,? our children are now unsafe -- we can no longer keep cross-dressers, transvestites, and drag queens out of the ladies? room. (continued below):

We had a "cross dresser" working in our agency many, many years ago and it was not funny to find him in the ladies room I can assure you. Thankfully he did not pass probation so it was a limited time that he was there. If you don't like your sex then change it (I bet God does not approve) but go to the right bathroom etc. You people do not deserve any special privileges and besides that you make me ill. If you ever get to heaven, which I doubt, wonder where God will place you. There are too many people/groups WE are being forced to make exceptions for like press 1 for English. Then you got a weirdo wanting to be president who wouldn't honor our flag - I feel so bad for my grandchildren. This country is going you know where and you know how.

I do not understand why men date men & women date womrn for anyway? Maybe they had problems so dating the same sex is the way for them to be safe. I do not get it, maybe it is to save money or something? I hear this allot but no one says why they date each other? As for ch7 news, they are doing the best they can with what they know & I think they do a great job. I been with them [watching] since thee 70's & think they do a good job. I love them all & pray for them to do the best they can & I will be happy to go on ch7 news to say this too :-)>! Bob7732

You all [everyone] have a blessed day & be safe!

This law allows a man who "perceives" himself to be a woman to go to the ladies room. I "perceive" myself to be a robot. Where shall I go? What if I perceive myself to be a different race, or perceive myself to be older or younger than I am? Can the perceived woman get a special minority status in government contracts? Where does this end? How can the ultra liberal Montgomery County Council and Ike Leggett go for this. The man who perceives himself to be something he is not is mentally ill and needs help, NOT collaboration and affirmance. If I am drunk but perceive myself to be sober, can the police arrest me for DWI? Don't fool with mother nature.

I would strongly reccomend that anyone reading this who has not formed, or has formed a negative oppion of this non-issue, on either misinformation, of just little or no information at all, explore the internet a bit. We have done nothing wrong, by wishing to live in our chosen gender. Most people cannot understand, as they are happy to live in the gender they were born into, which is perfectly fine, and normal, but that does not mean that we are wrong. If you are forced to wear a sweater you don't like, do you not shed that sweater at your first chance, and never wear it again? They same can be said of gender lables, but just imagine that sweater being attatched to your body for 10, 20, even 30 or more years, and you're terrified to take it off, because there are those who wear theirs happily, and despise anyone who doesn't like what they were given to begin with, simply because they do not understand, and they would deny us service, employment, everything from the right to restrooms, to the very right to life. Try that on for size sometime. When you understand, and still you disagree, please, protest to your hearts content, but please, understand the law you oppose, and how it has no effect on you before you fight it.

Thank you, Kristy.

This is a glaring example of how absurd the world can become if we continually kowtow to a vocal extremely small minotiry. The rights, comfort, and safety of more than 99% of our female citizens are trampled upon for a select few deviants. Oh, well, the thought police will get me and I will serve as an example of intolerance. I am not intolerant. If you want to wear the other gender's clothing, go ahead. We, as a society, just don't have to permit you to use the other gender's rest/locker rooms. This is not discrimination - it is common sense. A male is a male regardless of attire. And both males and females are afforded their own facilities. Get over it and move on!