First Responder: Robert Krames
I want to thank Gainesville City Commission candidate Robert Krames for getting back to me first with answers to the questions I have sent to all the current candidates. I invite comments. Keep in mind that the first time you post a comment, it must be moderated. (This is to prevent us from being overrun by viagra spam.) After that, your comments will be automatically displayed when you post them.
Here are the questions and answers:
1. Where do you stand on the Transgender bathroom ordinance?
Robert Krames: I oppose this ordinance for the obvious safety concerns raised by our citizens. The ordinance also adds additional burdens to our already struggling local businesses.
2. Do you think a compromise could have been reached? If so, what would you offer?
Robert Krames: Yes I do. The current City Commission constantly reminds us that this ordinance is meant to protect individuals from being discriminated against when attempting to buy a house or get a job. If that really was all this ordinance did, I would not be against it.
Followup: When I say compromise, I mean, do you have any suggestions about how to protect the rights of transgendered persons who have doctors orders to start living as their new sex as part of the process of undergoing sex change? This question was raised by the Mayor on the night the measure was approved.
3. Do you think the city was right to reject the building of a new coal plant?
Robert Krames: Not necessarily. Under the current leadership, we have experienced near double digit rate increases for the last couple of years. This has put a huge burden on our community, especially the working class. With the correct environmental regulation, a clean burning coal power plant might have been a viable solution to create jobs and help bring down our rising energy costs.
4. How should the city deal with revenue shortfalls? More taxes and fees or fewer services?
Robert Krames: Definitely not with more taxes and fees. I think everyone can agree that our taxes and fees are high enough. Cutting back on services and looking for creative ways to cut spending while still keeping services is a short term solution to this problem. For a long term solution, I would like to see Gainesville adopt policies that encourage business and job growth.
Followup: What specific cuts on specific services do you suggest?
I do have some questions of my own regarding the “bathroom issue”. The ordinance adds “gender identity” to a list of characteristics regarding “public accommodations”, and one of the existing conditions is “sex”.
My first question is, if there really is a danger that Gainesville’s perverts will misuse the law, how come males have never asked for the right to use women’s toilets since discrimination based on sex is already forbidden? What is the additional danger here? It seems to me that if the new ordinance permits this danger, then the amended one will too.
My second question is what makes Gainesville so different from all the other jurisdictions where similar or identical legislation has been passed, with not a single instance of the law being raised as a defence against sexual predation? Here’s a partial list of these jurisdictions, up to 2007:
2007 State of Colorado
State of Iowa
Lake Worth, FL
Milwaukee, WI
Palm Beach County, FL
State of Oregon
Saugatuck, MI
State of Vermont
West Palm Beach, FL
2006 Bloomington, IN
Cincinnati, OH
Easton, PA
Ferndale, MI
Hillsboro, OR
Johnson County, IA
King County, WA
Lansdowne, PA
Lansing, MI
State of New Jersey
Swarthmore, PA
State of Washington
West Chester, PA
2005 Gulfport, FL
State of Illinois
Indianapolis, IN
Lincoln City, OR
State of Maine
Northampton, MA
Washington, DC
2004 Albany, NY
Austin, TX
Beaverton, OR
Bend, OR
Burien, WA
Oakland, CA
Miami Beach, FL
Tompkins County, NY
2003 State of California
State of New Mexico
Carbondale, IL
Covington, KY
El Paso, TX
Ithaca, NY
Key West, FL
Lake Oswego, OR
Monroe Co., FL
Oakland, CA
Peoria, IL
San Diego, CA
Scranton, PA
Springfield, IL
University City, MO
2002 Allentown, PA
Baltimore, MD
Boston, MA
Buffalo, NY
Chicago, IL
Cook County, IL
Dallas, TX
Decatur, IL
East Lansing, MI
Erie County, PA
New Hope, PA
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Salem, OR
Tacoma, WA
2001 Denver, CO
Huntington Woods, MI
Multnomah Co., OR
State of Rhode Island
Rochester, NY
Suffolk County, NY
2000 Atlanta, GA
Boulder, CO
DeKalb, IL
Madison, WI
Portland, OR
1999 Ann Arbor, MI
Jefferson County, KY
Lexington-Fayette Co., KY
Louisville, KY
Tucson, AZ
1998 Benton County, OR
Santa Cruz County, CA
New Orleans, LA
Toledo, OH
West Hollywood, CA
York, PA
1997 Cambridge, MA
Evanston, IL
Olympia, WA
Pittsburgh, PA
Ypsilanti, MI
1996 Iowa City, IA
1994 Grand Rapids, MI
San Francisco, CA
1993 State of Minnesota
1992 Santa Cruz, CA
1990 St. Paul, MN
1986 Seattle, WA
1983 Harrisburg, PA
1979 Los Angeles, CA.
Urbana, IL
1977 Champaign, IL
1975 Minneapolis, MN
What makes Gainesville so unique in having a “Bathroom Issue” with this legislation, when none of these other jurisdictions do? There was one case of a sexual predator in a women’s restoom in Portland, Oregon, but he was convicted despite a law similar to Gainesville’s. The only other offense on record was by a member of a “family focussed” group that dressed in drag in order to “frame” transsexuals, though when caught, they said it was just a “publicity stunt”.
1What is unique about Gainesville’s ordinance is that it allows anyone to self-identify as transgendered on-the-fly. All a predator has to do to gain instant protection, under this law, is tell the arresting officer that he has “an inner sense of being a woman” and he is automatically granted protection. It would be like letting a plumber perform surgery simply because he says he has an inner sense of being a doctor. There needs to be some kind of filter, but in our case, there is not.
2If a plumber went around saying he is a doctor, would he be posing a danger to anyone? A man can say they have am inner sense of being a woman. How does that make him a danger, even if he were standing in a public ladies room? My sense is that it’s behavior: the plumber actually providing medical treatments or the man actually molesting victims, that is dangerous.
As far as I can tell from reading the legislation, it says nothing about making molestation or any other crime a protected activity. It merely extends the protection that the law currently gives on the basis of many other criteria such as sex, national origin and religion. There is nothing in the law that allows anyone, male or female, to engage in illegal activity.
Just being a man doesn’t make them predators. Just being in a bathroom does not indicate evil intent. Trans women are not men and implying that they “really are” is hateful and dishonest.
Doesn’t the brouhaha about bathroom access merely cover up the actual intention of the law’s opponents to remove the ability of the city council to legislate in this important area of civil life? To dis-empower city government, and by extension the voters that elected them, because it doesn’t play along with their narrow minded prejudicial views?
3DISCLOSURE: I’m a male-to-female transsexual. I’ve completed transition including ‘the surgery’ and a court-ordered change-of-gender.
So, Don, you’re saying you’re afraid some guy with a beard and wearing a workshirt, pants and tenny-runners could get it into his head to go into the women’s restroom to attempt some form of sexual molestation, but as long as he didn’t actually DO anything, he could just squat there watching, saying ‘today, man, I feel like a woman’, and no one could do anything about it?
Or, he could go shave real close, put on a skirt/blouse/pumps/stockings and a wig, and go hang out, and no one could do anything unless he, like, actually did something other than just stand/sit there?
Most guys, including sexual predators, NATURALLY feel uncomfortable wearing women’s clothing. You might think it a pretty sneaky way to cop a look, but just try getting out of the house if you manage to get dressed en femme.
There are far more lesbians that have all-access and can make unwanted advances — where are the laws to identify them and deny them access to the ladies’ room? Or are lesbians not feared as much as the bogeyman pre-vert?
Guys who are bent on molesting won’t be stopped by laws. They can just pick the right time and the right place.
And they won’t ‘dress’ or say they feel they are a woman to do it.
4Really?
I’ve read through the legislation several times – could you please tell me where this section is?
Anyone can claim that they’re transgendered, just as they can claim that they’re police officers conducting surveillance, or the owners of the building they’ve just been caught breaking into. But an investigating officer shouldn’t just say “Oh, that’s OK then”, and they don’t. They ask for evidence. And if the suspect appears before the court, they ask for evidence too. Moreover, if a citizen sees a break-in, they are rather more likely to report it to the police than think “oh well, it might just be the owner doing something perfectly legal”.
Well, that’s what happens in the rest of the country.
To see what actual transsexual people look like, please see this flyer, where a similar issue was raised.
5As a follow-up, let’s assume that you’re correct in your interpretation.
The legislation, after amendment, would still prohibit discrimination in the provision of “public accommodations” on the basis of sex. So you could well write:
6In the city’s own words from their website:
The City Commission at its meeting on September 10, 2007, authorized the City Attorney to prepare and the Clerk of the Commission to advertise an ordinance adding gender identity to the list of protected classes against whom discrimination in employment, public accommodation, housing practices and credit opportunities is prohibited by Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances. Gender identity, as defined in the proposed ordinance, means “an inner sense of being a specific gender, or the expression of a gender identity by verbal statement, appearance, or mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”
I was at the meeting where this ordinance gained its final approval, and at that meeting the city’s own attorney admitted that a restaurant owner, if faced with a complaint from a woman that there was a man lurking in the ladies room, would probably need to get an attorney if he wanted to remove him.
I know that some people desperately want to frame this as transgendered persons being accused of stalking women, but no one has been saying this. The ordinance is badly written. It allows an actual predator to have a ready legal remedy to being confronted by law enforcement.
It is the city that has taken an extremist position by refusing to make any changes in the ordinance that would close that loophole. Instead, they have adopted an all-or-nothing argument and their surrogates have accused anyone who disagrees with them of being homophobes, bigots, and hatemongers. It’s intellectually dishonest, and anyone who has read the ordinance can figure that out.
7When looking up the ordinance, you cannot find the “inner sense” language with the ordinance. It is under a separate Definitions heading. Maybe that is why you cannot find it: http://library2.municode.com/default/DocView/10819/1/47/48#0-0-0-1181
8How is this different from the situation before the ordinance passed?
Why is “gender identity” causing a problem while “sex” doesn’t? Is the city’s own attorney competent in such matters? Had he thought this through?
Given the “collateral damage” is so huge in the proposed change by the petitioners, surely if they would have been bona fide they would have limited the change to the minimum required instead of removing long-standing existing rights to remedy a defect whose existence is dubious. Or at least, distinctly controversial, that I think we can agree on.
Your URL didn’t work for me, I’m afraid: but the definition is pretty much the same as many other jurisdictions where no problem has occurred. Others aren’t so specific, but I’m not sure whether that strengthens or weakens either side of the issue.
As regards homophobia and transphobia, certainly the Thomas Moore Law Centre qualifies – they usually oppose any rights whatsoever for gays and transexuals (as for example in Hamtramck recently) on religious grounds. They tailor their arguments to meet the situation.
From the sounds of it though, most of those opposing the legislation have genuine concerns, and are not acting out of bigotry. It’s because of that that I think it’s worth arguing with them, discussing things. But I digress.
9What a hot button issue this is. Will it detract from the core issues that these city comissioners should actually be running on? I’m not trying to play down the issue, but we will all get to vote on it right? (ok maybe not those of us that don’t live in the city) I’m concerned but other issues that our elected officials will be deciding in what may be the most challenging economic climate in my life as a Gainesville Native. So we deal with it right? I think there are are some pressing issues we face as a community moving forward.
10Aaron – I can tell you why this is a hot-button issue for me.
Technically speaking, I’m not transsexual, but I am Intersexed, and that’s close enough. I have a body neither 100% male nor 100% female. I’m not proud of that, but not ashamed either. It’s just one of those things that happen. My “gender identity” is female, strongly so, and my body now far more closely resembles a female norm than a male one. It would take a genetic test now to see that I’m not quite 100% female, and even then, it could depend where the tissue sample was taken.
However, I looked more male than female at birth, so my UK Birth Certificate says “boy” even though all my other documentation, UK passport, Australian passport, medical records etc say “female”.
Because of that, I genuinely risk arrest every time I travel to the USA, as my ID documentation is inconsistent. Arrest, and incarceration in a male immigration holding facility, no matter what my obstetrician might say about my gender. It’s happened, and the lucky ones get the opportunity to suicide.
I am not just at risk, but have actually experienced discrimination in the provision of government and medical services. I have to travel 200 miles for specialist endocrinal treatment because the local specialists have religious objections to treating “people like me”.
In theory, I risk arrest in all jurisdictions that don’t have laws on the books about “gender identity” every time I make use of any restroom. But in practice, I don’t, as I don’t stand out. It’s not an issue.
It’s unlikely I’ll ever travel to Gainesville, Florida. I do have some friends in the Cape Canaveral area (I work on space projects), and I’ve made rather more elsewhere in the state by some high-profile help I gave a few years ago after “Ivan the Terrible”, raising funds for relief efforts. But there are certain counties in the state where it would be very dangerous for me to enter – as dangerous as for a “Negro Academic” going to Georgia in 1920.
The Ironic thing is that I’m politically right of centre, about as far from a “Liberal Activist” as you can possibly imagine.
11Mayor Hanrahan and Commissioners Mastrodicasa, Lowe, and Donovan chose to create this firestorm by refusing to hear the concerns of the hundreds of citizens who showed up to protest the language of this law. They simply would not even address the major concern: the “inner sense” language that left the door open for legal abuse of this right. They kept trying to frame these concerns as unreasonable fears of transgendered persons molesting women. No one ever said this except the people who wanted to cloud the issue and attempt to shame the alarmed public.
But the fears of predators are just the biggest concern. The other one, which is already happening, is that women are expected to go to a public restroom and turn of their basic instinct for self-preservation and their own desire for privacy to accommodate any man that they find in the ladies room. “Buck up, sister! Where is your compassion?” How did we get to this place? How is it that so-called progressives are willing to put women in this position of having to decide to “hold it” until they get home for the sake of political correctness?
Yes, I am aware that both sides of this issue have people who will go to the polls for less than noble reasons. Some people DO hate the GLBT people, just as some of the GLBT activists want to stick a finger in the eye of the mainstream straight community. I just hope they are not surprised when they get it stuck right back.
Regarding Aaron Bosshardt’s comment, historically few care about the other pressing issues. We routinely get 9-12% voter turnouts for city elections. The average Gainesville voter is annoyed that he is expected to vote in the spring, and complains bitterly that these races are not settled in the fall every other November. It is lost on them that in order to change that, they would have to care enough to get involved.
12The other one, which is already happening, is that women are expected to go to a public restroom and turn of their basic instinct for self-preservation and their own desire for privacy to accommodate any man that they find in the ladies room.
Sorry to be repetitious, but exactly how does non-discrimination on “gender identity” lead to this danger, but non-discrimination on the basis of “sex” not lead to it?
I don’t believe the problem is real. But if it is real, it will remain real even after the changes requested by the petitioners are made. At least, that’s my take. Please show me where I’m wrong.
And if I’m not wrong, what could be the reason for the changes requested by the petitioner other than to discriminate against gays and the transgendered? That will be the only effect, even if the danger is real. A Pervert could still enter a female restroom, then claim a right to be there because to refuse him would be to blatantly discriminate in the provision of public accommodations on the basis of his sex. Once more, please show me where my logic is faulty on this one.
13A Pervert could still enter a female restroom, then claim a right to be there because to refuse him would be to blatantly discriminate in the provision of public accommodations on the basis of his sex. Once more, please show me where my logic is faulty on this one.
If you insist. I thought you must be jerking me around.
Logically speaking, if what you say is true, (that a pervert or sex offender could claim sex discrimination for not being allowed access to the ladies room), then there is no need for transgendered persons to have any more protection than what THAT law already gives them. I mean, that is your argument.
So, you are being repetitious, but you aren’t making any sense, unless you are trying to say that there should be only one bathroom for all people to use because any differentiation is discrimination to begin with.
I am used to getting this kind of run-around on this subject. Fortunately, this will be put to a vote on March 24.
14I really wasn’t jerking you around, I think that the city lawyer is way out of his depth.
Transgendered people do *not* need extra protection regarding restrooms. They *do* need extra protection regarding employment etc.
The “pervert danger” exists only as a legal theory, not in practice. The exact same danger, to the exact same degree, already exists and will exist afterwatrds, regardless of whether the law gets repealed or not.
The fact that there has never, in Gainesville or anywhere e;se, been a case of the “danger” being actualised, of perverts attempting to use laws like this as a defence, argues strongly that the danger is not real.
Please talk to the City’s lawyer about this, and for that matter, the Thomas Moore Law Centre. I’m serious I’m afraid, and this shows just how laughable much of the rest of the country sees the scare campaign as being.
15Don, in response to your question regarding whether or not the city commission was RIGHT to reject the coal plant project; I would have to say that IF the citycommission had not explored, researched and done a comparative analysis of other alternative energy sources such as wind turbine, biochemical and solar energy to get the biggest “bang for the buck” and come up with the most cost efficient alternative energy source, then the city commission did the right thing. However, it is obvious we need to seriously look at this issue and make an educated and informed decision to implement alternative energy source(s). – Marcia Wimberly Candidate for Gainesville City Commissioner District 1, Saturday January 24, 2009
16Zoe, the ordinance was poorly worded. It can put an undue burden on local businesses. Citizens have voiced their opinions en mass and were ignored with flippant commentary by commissioner Lowe and Mayor Hanrahan. This is not acceptable behavior by any government official. They are not supposed to put their personal opinion above the peoples’. Last I checked we lived in the United States of America and we elect representatives.
This is really not about hating transgendered individuals at all. The proponents of the ordinance have labeled us as hate mongers and bigots. I have personally been verbally assaulted while exercising my freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There are people who behave badly on both sides of the issue (there always are), it is not slanted to one side or the other.
The reason Gainesville has a problem with this as opposed to other counties or cities, is that we are standing up for what we feel is violating our rights as individuals. Other cities or counties may not care or choose not to practice their liberties. We do care here. It is our community. We have concerns and all we are asking is that it come to a vote.
Enough inhabitants of the city of Gainesville have put their opinion on paper in writing with a signature to get this ordinance to be voted upon.
The city of Gainesville is using OUR tax money to fight against us on this issue when the city should be a NEUTRAL party and let the people decide. Nice way to waste the revenue.
They have also gone so far as rewording the ballot language in favor of their agenda. This is government oppression of its people. I guess they learn well from the Federal example.
17Food for thought: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59733
18Yes, that as the incident I referred to in this statement:
The exact words were:
Source: Concerned Women for America podcast, available on their website. Theresa Rickman, and other members of the Citizens for a Responsible Government were “coincidentally” there at the time as witnesses.
19That incident happened before the legislation was even passed of course.
To gauge the mood of the time, Adol T. Owen-Williams II, a Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member, shouted “Heil Hitler!” immediately after the vote to allow Intersexed women and men to be allowed to drink from public drinking fountains. “Wait until little girls start showing up dead all over the county because of freaks of nature.”
The “Heil” bit was not an indication of Nazi sympathies, but a way of expressing his views that Government was “out of control” here.
In the year since then, just like every single other jurisdiction where such legislation about “public accommodations” such as drinking fountains has been passed, there has been not a single incident that caused such hysteria. Hysteria fanned and funded by the Thomas Moore Law Centre and those of like mind.
To summarise: if the legal theory that this law protects perverts is true, then so does the law after amendment, as it prohibits exactly the same discrimination, word-for-word, based on “sex”. The lawyers concerned will even admit it if asked directly.
This legal theory – whether based on “sex” or based on “gender identity” hasn’t got a single instance of caselaw to back it up in 33 years, and in jurisdictions covering 1/3 of the USA. There have been cases of perverts in womens restrooms where similar laws were in effect, and in not one of them was it used as a defence. Because it’s silly.
But that doesn’t matter, because the real issue has nothing to do with restrooms.
20So how did ZoeBrain, from Canberra Australia, get so interested in what goes on and who goes into which restrooms in Gainesville, Florida? Am I missing something? Is s(he) a regular visitor to Gainesville who has been chased out of the restrooms here? I think if (s)he explained the medical or psychological problem to whatever protective Mama or Grandma chased him/her out, they would have understood, and given him/her some privacy. This is a pretty tolerant, gracious community. We just don’t want to “open the door” to whoever/whatever will come in as our culture mores continue to spiral downward, especially when our children are involved.
21I can see where there is interest and concern about the out of town money, and influence about this issue. This is where WE (Gainesville residents) live. Why are these “rocket scientists” and others who don’t live, work and raise children here, and who must have way too much time on their hands, getting involved in our community issues anyway? I would never presume to get involved in what laws are made in Canberra, Australia. Am I the only Gainesville resident who has no clue what the people of Canberra will vote on in their next local election?
I just heard about this website, and wanted to see what was going on in my town, Gainesville, FL. It is scary that individuals/special interests from halfway around the world are trying to manipulate our local election.
Canberra has had similar legislation in force since 1993. 38% of the US population live in jurisdictions which have similar laws. Number of problems caused by those laws, some of which have been in force 33 years – zero. The incidence of perverts invading womens spaces is exactly the same whether similar legislation is in force or not.
Didn’t you know that with the amazing video that’s been produced, your little township is notorious? Many people just can’t believe how easy it has been for you to be manipulated by outside forces. Stampeded, even. You’re not alone though – they tried even harder in Montgomery County Maryland – and lost – but they won in Hamtramck, Michigan, with the help of the local Imams.
Try reading Rudyard Kipling’s story “The Village that voted the Earth was Flat” to see what I mean. You’re (in)famous now.
Oh and feel free to get involved in local elections here. We’ll take well-meant, rational commentary backed up with evidence in the spirit in which it’s given, even if it makes us feel uncomfortable. In fact, it’s the stuff that makes us feel uncomfortable that’s most valuable. Just leave the unevidenced opinion at home though, we might miss anything good you have to say. Australians have well-honed senses for BS, we get enough of that from the local pollies. Lots of practice, you might say, on both sides of politics.
22The reason they lost in Montgomery County, Maryland is that the government bureaucrats there pulled a bait and switch on the people who were trying to get their issue on the ballot. They were told they need a certain number of petitions, and after getting them, the number they needed was changed…AFTER THE DEADLINE. Nice.
23I despair in the hope I can do justice in words describing how grateful I am to the good citizens in Gainesville, Florida that voted down this horrible amendment despite the cynical attempts to instill fear and loathing based on lies that the right wingers there, along with their handlers (The Thomas More Legal Center) tried to foist upon them.
I am personally acquainted with some of the trans people in that area and I am very happy for them. I hope this victory for equal rights and protections under the law resonates outward to all the other places in our great country that are grappling with this issue and the lies that are being told about it.
Good for you, Gainesville! THANK YOU!
24