Weekend Transgenders
-----Original Message-----
From: PFOX [mailto:pfox@pfox.org]Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 6:37 PM
To: Andrews' Office, Councilmember; Berliner's Office, Councilmember; Elrich's Office, Councilmember; Leventhal's Office, Councilmember; Floreen's Office, Councilmember; Knapp's Office, Councilmember; Praisner's Office, Councilmember; Trachtenberg's Office, Councilmember
Subject: Fw: Transgender protection
Importance: High
Dear Council Members,
I am forwarding the below email from one of your constituents. She is correct in her experience that many transgenders do not live as the opposite sex on a permanent basis. As an organization which raises funds for the reversal surgery of former transgenders and provides referrals to therapists specializing in gender identity disorders, PFOX can attest that many transgenders prefer to appear as the opposite sex on a part-time or temporary basis; that is, they prefer to dress as a woman or man one day and then their birth gender the next day or the next week. These are known as "weekend transgenders" or "Tuesday transgenders." Our question: Are weekend transgenders covered under the proposed gender identity non-discrimination bill 23-07?
Also, the proposed bill fails to include an exemption for schools, churches/synagogues/mosques, and religious organizations and individuals. Can you state for us whether these entities would be subject to the proposed law?
Many thanks for your response,
Regina Griggs
Executive Director
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays
PFOX
P O Box 510, Reedville VA 22539
804-453-4737
pfox@pfox.org
www.pfox.org
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
councilmember.ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 12:17 PM
Subject: Transgender protection
Dear Ms. Ervin,
As one of your constituents I am writing to caution you with respect to Bill 23-07, of which you are a co-sponsor. There are serious issues that this Bill raises with respect to the common good and with respect to the idea that 'transgenderism' is a normative social self-identity. Allow me to explain further, in the hope of bringing more information to bear on this very momentous possible change in the laws and life ot the County. Laws against discrimination should only cover that which is immutable and readily observable to the stranger to prevent discrimination by such characteristics as race and ethnic group, for example.
As well-intentioned as this law may be, it seems strange and wrong to me to legally protect the fact, in this case, that people who can't accept their own sex should have the legal right to demand that others accept them as the sex they are not, and can never truly be, because one's sex truly is inborn! If that is not an indication of a psychological problem, then I don't know what is!
To give an example, I had a personal experience that left me confused and intimidated during two encounters with a person who clearly was experiencing gender identity issues. I went (for the first time) into a small local shop to look around, and also asked some questions of a man working in the shop. After leaving the shop, I kept thinking about a certain item I'd seen there, and decided to go back the next day.
Imagine my surprise (and embarrassment as well) when I saw that the man I'd spoken with the day before was entirely dressed and made up like a woman. I have always taken people as they come, in all their variety, but this was more than I could handle. I was so taken aback and confounded by the transformation of this man into a 'woman' that I was unable to speak with, or even face him, at all and left the shop in a state of confusion, without following up on the item of interest to me. The situation was simply too provoking. I believe that many people would have been similarly intimidated as I was, and I don't think it makes sense to encourage more of this sort of provocative deception. He had to know that it would be a bizarre and offputting thing to do. If a person presents himself in a confusing, bizarre and/or off-putting manner, how does it make sense to require by law that all others must accomodate him/her? Such accommodation should be voluntary and based on ones experience of the particular person, which is likely to happen among his personal acquaintance anyway.
In addition to the above, I know of a young woman (age 22) who came home from college one day and, out of the blue, told her parents that they were now expected to regard her as a male. Right. Do you have kids? The parents were justifiably confounded and alarmed. Her mother told me recently that the daughter finally decided to undertake therapy because of this confusion within herself. That should be a clue in itself. Therapy is available! You can't undertake therapy for that which is immutable!
A person experiencing gender identity confusion cannot be fully trusted psychologically because he/she does not trust his/her own self, psychologically. In addition, Gender Identity Disorder is a bona fide psychiatric disorder. Having grown up with a sister who suffered from various degrees of mental illness, and who is now unable to care for herself, I am aware of the difficulties and petty tyrannies imposed by people with emotional/psychiatric problems, and I have extraordinary experience and reason to feel extremely concerned about the proposed legislation.
I submit, therefore, that it is not consistent with the protection of the common good to allow people with certain non-immutable peculiarties, however wonderful the person may be, to be protected legally more than others. While I'm sure this bill is well-meant, I believe it has unusually high potential to cause more problems than it solves.
Sincerely,
E.V.
____________________________
Dear Ms. Griggs:
Thank you for writing to me about my legislation to protect the rights of transgender residents of Montgomery County. I introduced the bill because transgender people face serious discrimination, not only in the workplace, but also in housing, business and banking transactions, and in public accommodations.
Everyone deserves to live and work with equality and dignity. No one should lose a job, or be denied a place to live, because of their gender identity or expression. It’s essential that counties like Montgomery County take action on the local level because, so far, most courts have not found that laws prohibiting sexual orientation or gender discrimination apply to transgender people.
This is not radical legislation. In fact, over 100 U.S. jurisdictions have already passed similar legislation, covering 37% of this country’s population. This includes 13 states plus the District of Columbia.
I’m glad you’re interested in this issue enough to add your voice to the debate, and I hope that you’ll write me again in the future if there are other issues that concern you. In the meantime, please continue to pay close attention to what my colleagues and I on the County Council are doing by visiting our website, www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ or watching Council news and meetings on Montgomery County Cable TV.
Thank you again for your interest and advocacy.
Cordially,
Duchy Trachtenberg