Should a Home Depot employee have checked this man for his transgender credentials?
The Gainesville Sun has released the picture taken by a security camera in the Home Depot on highway 441 inside the Gainesville City limits. This man is still at large. He is wanted for walking into a women’s restroom and attempting to take a woman’s picture with a cell phone camera that he held underneath the stall while she was in it.
It took about 3 weeks for this story to finally get out. This is the first time we have had a photo available. It was first published by the Gainesville Sun and was included in this story.
Is this related in any way to the Transgender bathroom ordinance? He will not be able to defend himself with the ordinance. But that has never been the concern of the ordinance opponents. The problem is that no one could legally STOP HIM from entering because we cannot judge his ‘inner sense” by looking at him. All we can tell, even from this grainy photo, is that he is a man.
Can someone please cite the State of Florida or local statute that makes it a crime for a male or female to enter the restroom opposite to their genetic gender.
1Implying that the pervert with a cellphone camera is transgendered is typical of the distortions and negative stereotypes that people use to marginalize the community and shows how desperate some apologists for unfair discrimination are getting when they realize that facts and reality do not support their position. It also shows how necessary a nondiscrimination law really is.
The existence or nonexistence of a nondiscrimination law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity/expression has absolutely nothing to do with this kind of crime. Conflating the two seems dishonest to me. The nondiscrimination law’s existence would not excuse this person, its nonexistence would not keep him from committing this crime either.
Even if this criminal pleaded to the court that he was being discriminated against because of his sex (which would still be covered under Florida state nondiscrimination law) he would fail because of his heinous behavior. The subject of trans people in this case’s discussion is so unrelated to the situation that it drives me to condemn this egregious propaganda.
2Let’s turn the question around. If he had walked into the woman’s bathroom, done his business, washed his hands, and left _without_ bothering anybody, would anybody have cared? Would anybody have even known?
One of the principals (IMHO) of a free society is that people are free to act up to the point where they actually commit a crime (or, for the sake of argument, let’s say up to the point where it’s obvious they’re going to commit a crime). He didn’t commit any crime until he stuck his cell phone under the door. Let’s bust him for that, and keep the transgender ordinance out of this, ok?
3Ed, do you think that this should be alright with most women? “Sure, come on in, as long as you don’t ogle me through the gap in the door!” I am amazed that ANY woman would think this should fly! Didn’t the women of Wellesly raise hell about the possibility of admitting men in the 90s? They felt so threatened by the male presence…but in Gainesville women are supposed to let men in their bathrooms.
Emelye, you are not worth engaging. You are just spouting the same lies over and over.
4Which lies would those be, Don?
The current law forbids discrimination based on sex, doesn’t it?
And as jerri said,
“Can someone please cite the State of Florida or local statute that makes it a crime for a male or female to enter the restroom opposite to their genetic gender.”
Please. I’m asking two questions here. Questions can’t be lies.
Once you’ve answered those, perhaps we can have a discussion.
5Don, call me crazy, but yes, I do. As long as there are individual, private stalls, what’s the harm? Nobody’s privacy is being violated, nobody is getting ogled, touched, attacked, robbed, or otherwise violated, so what’s the harm? Are women _really_ that paranoid about men hearing them pass gas? Because that’s the only excuse I can think of.
6PS. I’m also curious what, exactly, Emelye is lying about.
7The lie is:
“Implying that the pervert with a cellphone camera is transgendered is typical of the distortions and negative stereotypes…blah blah blah blah blah”
NO ONE IS IMPLYING THIS GUY IS TRANSGENDERED. This is typical disinformation being spread by those against the amendment. This guy has no credentials, he is just a pervert. Unfortunately, no one needs any credentials. All he needs is an “inner feeling”.
Some kind of credentials would have given the transgendered the protection they needed, and would give business owners the right to prevent guys like this from lurking in the bathrooms.
Ed,
Although I disagree with you, I want to thank you for being straightforward and honest in how you present your ideas. There is no subterfuge. I think most women would disagree with you, but at least we know where you stand.
8“Should a Home Depot employee have checked this man for his transgender credentials?”
“The lie is: . . . NO ONE IS IMPLYING THIS GUY IS TRANSGENDERED.”
Please explain the headline then? Didn’t you write it? Didn’t this whole article try to connect the crime with the nondiscrimination law?
I would think that most men would probably feel just as uncomfortable in a public ladies restroom as the ladies would feel about their presence. That’s the reason, as far as I can tell, it very rarely happens. Having a woman in a men’s room would make both sexes uncomfortable too. At least, in those instances where the woman is not assaulted (which is a lot more than uncomfortable). The reason women and men feel uncomfortable with the other sex in a public restroom is because it hardly ever happens. Think about that. It’s perfectly legal yet it still almost never happens. It happens so rarely that people are still taken aback if it does.
In many European countries it’s common to have unisex washing areas with stalls whose doors block all sight from the outside world yet I see no statistics of men attacking women coming out of those countries. I’m sure if there were, the Thomas Moore lawyers and the “Citizens” along with their “family” organization sponsors would have publicized them far and wide already, just like they do now with hate speech suppression in other countries.
The nondiscrimination law that is being voted on has nothing to do with bathroom safety or freedom of speech or any of the other red herring issues its opponents keep fishing out of their rhetorical sewer. The vote attempts to disempower the city government of Gainseville preventing them from passing any laws covering this important aspect of civil life. Do the citizens of Gainesville really want to take away local control and give it to the state? I think not.
9“Please explain the headline then? Didn’t you write it? Didn’t this whole article try to connect the crime with the nondiscrimination law?”
The headline is a sarcastic reference to the fact that he needs no credentials other than his “inner sense” of being female if he is confronted. And yes, I am connecting this story to the law, because womens bathrooms are, at this time, experiencing open season for voyeurs.
“In many European countries it’s common to have unisex washing areas with stalls whose doors block all sight from the outside world yet I see no statistics of men attacking women coming out of those countries.”
An absence of evidence is not evidence. We have no idea what has been the practice of sex criminals in Europe. Here, in Gainesville, most people don’t want a man to be able to hang out in the ladies room.
“The nondiscrimination law that is being voted on has nothing to do with bathroom safety or freedom of speech or any of the other red herring issues its opponents keep fishing out of their rhetorical sewer.”
Those things are legitimate concerns that are NOT coming out of a sewer…
“The vote attempts to disempower the city government of Gainseville preventing them from passing any laws covering this important aspect of civil life. Do the citizens of Gainesville really want to take away local control and give it to the state?”
Our loony city commission could use some disempowering. They are not listening to their constituents and they despise us for standing up to them. They say they are for home rule, and yet they flip off their homies. Well, Home Rule is about to kick in…
10“And yes, I am connecting this story to the law, because womens bathrooms are, at this time, experiencing open season for voyeurs.”
Please show us proof of this “open season” or own up to your own dishonesty. One incident does not make an “open season.” It’s obvious that you are the one not worth engaging. You refuse to acknowledge that “men hanging out in bathrooms” is legal now and will still be legal if this attempt to remove local power is successful. You refuse to include the fact that it doesn’t happen, even though it’s legal, into your opinion. You use implications based on false assumptions and when you’re called on it you call the person who does so a liar.
If you have a problem with the policies of those in power you can work to defeat their reelection. This vote is a cynical attempt to use unfounded fears based on mendacious assumptions to remove legal protections from the GLBT community as well as to prevent the duly elected city government from exercising the power it was given by the majority of city residents. Frankly, I find it deplorable that the opponents of legal equality and equal protection would stoop to such a low level to impose their beliefs on the citizens of Gainesville.
11“Please show us proof of this ‘open season’ or own up to your own dishonesty. One incident does not make an ‘open season.’”
The only proof we have is anecdotal since the law has made the police hesitant to act. The city’s own attorney (I have mentioned this before) said it could create legal complications for a business owner to call the police because a woman complained about a man in the ladies room.
“You refuse to acknowledge that ‘men hanging out in bathrooms’ is legal now and will still be legal if this attempt to remove local power is successful.”
Then why was this asinine city ordinance so important to pass?? If it makes no difference if you are a man or woman to be in the ladies room, why did they need to “protect” men who are preparing for sex change?
You are tiresome.
12“The only proof we have is anecdotal . . . ”
In other words you have no proof and your justification is asinine. That city attorney is wrong in thinking the nondiscrimination law will cause legal problems for business owners, as was pointed out so thoroughly by Ms. Brain in your other post about this issue.
“Then why was this asinine city ordinance so important to pass?? If it makes no difference if you are a man or woman to be in the ladies room, why did they need to “protect” men who are preparing for sex change?”
It’s important because the issue is NOT about bathrooms, it’s directly about nondiscrimination in jobs and housing and public accommodation fro the entire GLBT community. It has nothing to do with who gets into which bathroom. It’s indirectly about taking away the right of the city government to legislate for itself in an important part of civil life.
“You are tiresome.”
Thank you. I can only hope more apologists for unfair discrimination will find me so.
13“In other words you have no proof and your justification is asinine.”
I have just as much proof as you have that people are suffering discrimination in Gainesville for being transgendered. It’s all anecdotal if it exists at all.
“That city attorney is wrong in thinking the nondiscrimination law will cause legal problems for business owners, as was pointed out so thoroughly by Ms. Brain in your other post about this issue.”
Excuse me for taking the word of an official in this city instead of that of a pseudo-intellectual posting under an assumed name from Australia.
“It’s important because the issue is NOT about bathrooms, it’s directly about nondiscrimination in jobs and housing and public accommodation fro the entire GLBT community. It has nothing to do with who gets into which bathroom. It’s indirectly about taking away the right of the city government to legislate for itself in an important part of civil life.”
Did you take up your complaint with the city commission that insisted on making it about bathrooms? Do you even live in Gainesville? Our city government decided to ambush the rest of the community with this law instead of seeking to get people OTHER than GLBTs involved. The city decided that it was their way or the highway, and now they will suffer the loss of some of their overweening power.
I believe the citizens have gotten fed up with it. The radical, noisy few will just have to figure out how to get along with the rest of us instead of forcing their laws on us.
It’s almost too funny. I grew up hearing people like you yelling that “you can’t legislate morality!” And now you are trying to do exactly that. You are creating new commandments from whole cloth and demonizing us for not bowing down to YOUR idols. I guess that makes you some kind of Gender Identity Fundamentalist…
14Obviously you never took Ms Brain’s suggestion that you go back to the city attorney to ask about her point. Or did you and the answer was not to your liking?
If there is one case of a criminal going into a ladies bathroom with a cellphone camera and the city council hears testimony and receives personal communication from numerous trans people as well as from the organizations that represent them regarding numerous cases of discrimination, doesn’t it make sense to think that the discrimination claim is a lot more valid that your claim there is an “open season” on men in ladies bathrooms with just one example? Once again you are placing a kumquat next to a cucumber and telling us about how they are the same.
The law covers nondiscrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. The city commission did not make this about bathrooms, the defenders of discrimination did in order to promote irrational fear. The law was not passed by a “radical, noisy few,” it was passed by a duly elected body of representatives of the majority of Gainesville’s citizens. The upcoming vote is a referendum designed to remove these powers from the city commission and, by proxy, the majority voters in Gainesville. If anything it’s the radical, noisy few apologists for oppression that are trying to ram THEIR opinions down the throats of the majority in Gainesville.
No one is trying to legislate morality, just equal treatment. The law can protect people from the damaging effects of someone’s so called morality if it includes hateful discrimination against minorities. Unfortunately prejudice and discrimination will still exist after nondiscrimination law is passed, just ask the African-American community if discrimination is gone, but at least those who fall victim to unfair discrimination it will have recourse and possible remedy. This will hinder the behavior of hateful “moralities” that seek to exclude and oppress people on the basis of inherent characteristics. I fail to see how that is a bad thing, maybe you could explain why you think it is?
A “gender identity fundamentalist?” “Creating commandments?” That’s funny coming from someone who is practically tying himself in knots trying to protect the right to unfairly discriminate against people on the basis of their gender variance. You crack me up! Next you’ll tell me how oppressed white males are.
15If you aren’t a white male, then you would be oblivious of the fact that there are plenty of people who will hate you just for being a white male. When that happens to me, I just don’t deal with that person any more. I don’t demand justice, insist on my rights or go into an emotional tailspin. And I have encountered this phenomenon all my life. Yet, it is completely discounted as any kind of oppression, suppression, or violation.
Likewise, my politics have caused me problems in this bastion of diversity and tolerance. I have been berated for being a Republican, had jobs canceled because of something I wrote on my blog, Yes, I know that these things would not have been covered by any of the anti-discrimination laws, but should they be? I have suffered a financial and emotional impact from other people’s hatred of what I believe.
Of course not. I have no desire to live in this brave new world of victimhood, where everyone has legal recourse, and no one actually has to make an effort to get along. You just call an attorney, and force yourself on people or get punitive damages.
Charter one, now more than ever.
16You guys are all fags.
17John, I only approved your comment because I approve everyone’s first comment so they can continue to comment without my approval. But I think that name-calling is counter-productive for both sides. On top of that, it makes you look bad.
18Below are the state statutes concerning restrooms. In 2002 key west the passed similar ordinance to Gainesville but they excluded public restrooms.
Title XXIX
PUBLIC HEALTH
Chapter 381
PUBLIC HEALTH: GENERAL PROVISIONS
View Entire Chapter
381.0091 Separate restrooms and separate dressing rooms for males and females.–
(1) Any business may designate separate restrooms and separate dressing rooms for males and for females and may prohibit any female from using a restroom or dressing room designated for males and any male from using a restroom or dressing room designated for females.
(2) If more than one restroom is provided in any building or facility owned or operated by the state or any political subdivision of the state, the restrooms for males shall be separate from the restrooms for females and each restroom shall be designated by an appropriate sign as a restroom for use by males or for use by females, if said restroom has occupant capacity of more than one person.
History.–ss. 1, 2, ch. 77-242; s. 41, ch. 91-297.
Note.–Former s. 381.523.
19Wow. I guess a compromise was actually possible. Even Key West can figure it out. But not our current city commissioners…
20What strikes me here is how brilliantly shameless the writers of the Amendment are.
Heres their apparent train of thought-
Transgendered people in the bathroom- thats scary!
21I know, lets make a law preventing that!
But what about having to share an apartment complex or a restaurant?
Thats scary too!
Even working with transgendered people is scary!
Why don’t we remove all their housing, employment, and service protections as well?
Good idea! Now they can be routinely fired!
While we’re at it why don’t we do the same for gays?
Why gays?
Their scary too, and besides we never see discrimination based on sexual orientation anyway.
Your sooo right! Homophobia is a myth!
“Heres their apparent train of thought- ”
Has anyone ever told you how judgmental it is to presume to know what people think? Especially when they have been telling you over and over and you just don’t want to hear it?
“Transgendered people in the bathroom- thats scary!
I know, lets make a law preventing that!”
This is exhibit A. Our concern from day one, for which we are continually mischaracterized, is the NON-transgendered predators who can use the stupidly written ordinance as a shield for using the ladies room as a staging area for voyeurism or worse. This has been explained endlessly to you, but it seems safe to assume that you don’t care.
These rights that you are afraid of losing were “granted” in late January of 2008. So tell me what an anti-gay “scary” place this ultra liberal college town was before that. Which companies were discriminating against gays? Name them, please. The local civil rights law had also lowered the threshold for enforcement from companies with 15 employees to companies with 5 employees. Were there a slew of little 10-employee companies that were keeping their doors shut to gays?
Our concern, from the get-go, has been the defining of transgendered by “an inner sense” of being whatever gender you care to declare. We have said this over and over and over and over, and the city commissioners could have compromised on this at any time and shut down this amendment process. Instead, they have been deaf to their constituents and you, their surrogates, have slandered the entire community.
Yes on Charter One, for sure.
22And thats where your wrong. While Gainesville is new to protecting transgendered people since last year they have protected gays since 1998! If you want an example of job discrimination look to the US government which continus tofire (added by Mobile using Mippin)
23Yet, the new ordinance does not apply to any government buildings, including the city of Gainesville. Is the city government itself anti-transgender??
24In the last two years there have been no complaints of discrimination for transgendered persons in Gainesville, while there has been 73 complaints on race. Why did they spend all this time working on the ordinance when they could have been working on racial discrimination.
I feel that they only passed this ordinance to make it into the National spotlight.
Something else that has been said by opponents to the amendment is that businesses will suffer and large companies will not come to the Gainesville area if the amendment passes. I do not believe this at all. If the city was actually business friendly the companies will move here. the more regulation the more difficult it is to actually run a business.
25No, Don, I am not working with an assumed name. Nor have I ever been in a women’s toilet where such an incident as you reported above actually occurred.
Now in the men’s toilets I once went into there were heads stuffed under the stall walls and hands and feet and fingers on occasion, but complaints to the store management seemed to get a positive response to end such goings on.
In point of fact I have now read about three such incidences over the past year: one in Maryland that appeared to be a set-up job by people who supported your position in Montgomery County, one somewhere else in Florida about a bus-station (I believe it was) restroom in which someone did complain about a transsexual or transgender person using said toilet and then one Ms. Brain reported that happened some years ago in Portland, OR, (I believe) where it took the pattern of harassing someone who was transgender in some fashion or another.
So, three in the past year. Hmmmm. Does it ever dawn on people who make arguments such as you are making that you are currently giving the pedarasts and voyeurs ideas about doing such things with the thought that since you lot say they can they may not get jailed for actually taking such measures to scratch their itches?
I think you should consider that: that you are actually suggesting means and opportunities for perverts to do their nasty work. Please do us all a service and stop placing ideas for further law-breaking into the minds of a few of your readerships.
Argue facts, not suppositions and what-ifs. Perhaps the embarrassment you save will be your daughter’s or some other innocent woman’s who’s visually assaulted by a very sick individual who believes that he’ll be able to get off by claiming to be transgender.
Shame on you.
26Strike 2 Marsh! You should do better research. Th ordinance does not apply to STATE and FEDERAL government buildings. This is because the city cannot override state or federal law. The city government does follow anti-discrimination ordinances and in some cases has even stricter anti-discrimination rules. As to you Mr. Schlacta I notice you didn’t cite any statistics on anti-gay discrimination. Or the fact that in 2006 more hate crimes in Gainesville were based on sexual orientation than on either race or religion.
27The statement above regarding the photo shown–”All we can tell, even from this grainy photo, is that he is a man”–is actually innacurate. We could not determine if this individual is a man, even if the photo were crystal clear. The photo could be that of a woman who, for some observers and for whatever reason(s), looks like a man. The entire incident could have been “staged.” All we know at this point is that illegal photos were allegedly taken.
Some months ago as I was leaving the Millhopper Publix store, I was approached by someone whom I did not know who asked me to sign a petition to “keep perverts out of public restrooms.” I had no idea what this person was talking about. Having been a homeowner and resident in Gainesville for nearly ten years, I have never encountered anyone in any public facility whom I took to be a “pervert.” Indeed, this person made me very uncomfortable, pressing me to sign the petition. I only succeeded in terminating our conversation by telling this petition bearer that I had to inform myself better about the matter before placing my name on any such document.
It is now abundantly clear to me what that petition was actually intended to accomplish, and I am frankly appalled that the Charter Amendment 1, as insidiously discriminatory as it actually is, has advanced to this stage.
Gainesville should recognize gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens as individuals who are not adequately protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act (Fla. Stat. ss. 760.01-760.11 and 509.092), and the City’s leaders should demonstrate the wisdom, foresight, and will to preserve and extend legislation that ensures the rights of all citizens–even those belonging to so-called “unpopular” minorities.
If the ***omnipresent*** Christian God appeared as a human–Jesus Christ–in a public restroom, with his long hair, flowing robes, and gentle manner, I wonder how many supporters of Charter Amendment 1 would identify him as a “pervert” and have him arrested? The ‘traditional” artist’s conception of Jesus is often rather androgynous and thus sexually ambiguous. Charter Amendment 1 would banish such a Jesus from public restrooms, too. Indeed, the net outcome would be to banish from any public restroom anyone whose appearance did not conform to gender stereotypes.
So where would Jesus and fellow androgynes relieve themselves–or are they simply expected to burst at the seams outside public restrooms?
I urge the citizens of Gainesvlle to vote NO on Charter Amendment 1, one of the most absurd and socially irresponsible ballot items I have ever seen.
28Wow. Nice job of constructing a hypothetical situation in service to a political agenda. Based on your interpretation of artists’ interpretation of Jesus’ sexuality, he would not be able to use any public restroom. Yes. You are someone we can definitely reason with…
I have said this before and I will keep saying it: They city commission made this about bathrooms when they decided that anyone could self-identify on-the-fly as transgendered simply by claiming an “inner sense” of being whatever sex they need to be for that bathroom. This problem was explained again and again and again to the recalcitrant Mayor and the 3 other votes she needed, but they would make no adjustment or compromise.
Furthermore, at any point since then the Mayor and her coterie of activist commissioners could have made this amendment a dead issue by making some compromise in the ordinance. Instead, they have let the activists (people like you) disparage what is likely a majority of the citizens who thought the ordinance was irresponsible.
29The sexuality of Jesus isn’t in question. From a Christian perspective, he was/is a male. His androgynous appearance–as interpreted from a twenty-first-century perspective–is evident in many of the most widely known and loved masterpieces of Western art: long curling tresses; lengthy flowing robes; a gentle, compassionate demeanor; sensitive, expressive hands and arms. However, if a person looking like this showed up in a public restroom today, people would almost certainly wonder who and what that person was. Others would respond with fear or anger.
The omnipresence of God is established Christian doctrine. “He” is already everywhere, including public restrooms for women. And if “He” wanted to, “He” could take on the fleshly form of Jesus that people are most likely to identify with–namely, the Jesus represented in traditional works of art as described above. Of course, “He” might very well. as a consequence of personal dress and manner, be taken for a “pervert” by those who define the appearance of men and women by rigidly conventional gender stereotypes.
Those promoting Charter Amendment 1 have stated that they want to keep men out of women’s restrooms. Evidently, they didn’t think far enough ahead to realize that, if strictly enforced, that exclusion would necessarily apply to the Jesus “divinely inspired” artists have depicted for centuries. So if “He” decided to remain omnipresent and stay in women’s restrooms, and if he retained his traditional manner of dress, “He” could very well end up getting arrested in Gainesville if Charter Amendment 1 should pass.
Of course, this is an absurd scenario, since Jesus is unlikely to make an appearance here any time too soon. But it is no more absurd than Charter Amendment 1 itself.
Supporters of Charter Amendment 1 would do well, however, to educate themselves to the fact that not every human being can be neatly assigned to a specific gender–even on a purely biological basis. A small number of individuals are neither genetically male nor female because they were simply born that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
They may feel compelled to assume the conventional appearance and behavior of a male or female, or they may undergo surgery at a very early age to “normalize” their appearance to some extent–a decision made by physicians and/or parents which can have devastating consequences. However, it is clear to any fair-minded person that forcing anyone to seem to be what s/he is not is both inhumane and ethically indefensible. Hypocrisy is hardly a virtue–Christian or otherwise–that we should want to encourage.
The similarly inane “marriage protection” legislation that has already been passed in many states, allowing only “one man” and “one woman” to marry, is a de facto violation of the human rights of these rare intersex individuals. As soon as attempts are made to legally define “male” and “female,” the inconvenient facts of human biology will necessarily come to light, and all such discriminatory legislation will, if justice prevails, have to be revoked.
There is nothing “hypothetical” about the intersex condition and its logical legal implications. There is nothing “hypothetical” about the fact that sometimes one’s psychosexual orientation, for reasons quite beyond one’s control, differs from what is generally considered the norm for a particular body type. In a free, enlightened society, it is morally repugnant for any group of citizens to force those who are choicelessly different from the majority into rigid conformity with sexual stereotypes. Whatever one thinks of the mayor and commissioners, that is reason enough to vote NO on Charter Amendment 1.
30Another take on the same issue follows.
If you’re a guy going out to vote in Gainesville today, you can probably relate to the following scenario.
You’re in a restaurant with no other businesses around and have eaten half of your order when suddenly nature calls. You rush to the men’s room, only to find that it’s out of service, even though there’s no sign telling you so. You really need to relieve yourself and fast–but where to go?
It’s an emergency, so you politely knock on the door of the nearby women’s restroom. No answer. You wait five minutes more, and since nobody has meanwhile come out, you discreetly knock again. Still no answer, and nature can wait no more. You enter the women’s restroom, see that it’s empty, perform the necessary bodily functions, then leave expeditiously.
No harm done, right? Things like this happen every day in real life.
But wait! Those who support Charter Amendment 1 want to criminalize what you’ve just done. Their web site says, “Keep men out of women’s restrooms!” If they saw you do what was just described, they’d be inclined to suspect you’re a pervert. From what they suggest, you’d think there are perverts by the thousands hanging around public restrooms across the country just waiting for the opportunity to take dirty pictures of you under bathroom stall partitions. The next thing you know, they’ll want a Constitutional Amendment requiring gender identification cards to make sure you eliminate only where, when, and in the manner they prescribe.
Of course, their real agenda is only thinly disguised behind that disingenuous fear-mongering slogan–”Keep men out of women’s restrooms,” and they full well know it. They want to strip away the protections Gainesville has given certain “unpopular” minorities like gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and transgendered persons, whose behavior they consider “unnatural.”
What’s really “unnatural,” however, is to have to hold it in when you’re about to burst because of some absurdly regressive law. Let’s make Gainesville a socially progressive city–not some medieval fortress. Let’s keep our bladders healthy and happy. Vote NO on Charter Amendment 1.
Since Mastrodicasa is the only candidate who does not support Charter Amendment 1, that’s reason enough to vote for her. Everyone’s bladders will be grateful.
I’m happy to support a “Yes” vote on Charter Amendment 2.
31Nice try, but you are totally incorrect.
Charter One makes NOTHING illegal, except the bonehead city commissioners from making new civil rights categories with crazy caveats. And their dumb ordinance kept a business owner from using his judgment when a woman complains that some man is holed up in the ladies room. He could be sued for violating his rights if he “feels like a woman”.
Under Charter One, if someone cannot get into the mens room, the clerk at the store can tell you to use the ladies since it’s empty. I have been given that green light myself not long ago. It’s sensible, and it will continue to be the way we are nice to each other.
32It sounds to me like your beef is with the city commissioners. I see no reason, however, why they shouldn’t strive to recognize new protected classes that are not yet shielded by Florida law. Nor should they have to wait until a plague of discriminatory incidents and hate crimes is visited upon us. Such incidents and crimes have occurred in other Florida towns and cities, and it’s wise to anticipate and, if possible, minimize the consequences by taking appropriate preemptive legislative action.
Besides, the commissioners won’t be in office forever, so why vote for a charter amendment that can only hurt “unpopular” minorities in our community for some time to come? Just because some people don’t like the commissioners’ legal prose and activist style, they take it upon themselves to punish innocents by stripping away their rights? There’s not one scintilla of logic or justice in such a maneuver, so we have to look deeper for their actual motives.
To begin, I reiterate: we can tell nothing from the photo above except that it shows a person–not necessarily even a man. The details of this unresolved case remain sketchy, and if what you say above is true, the individual in question remains “at large.” Do you have more details than you state above? Whatever allegations have been made remain just that–allegations, and absent an arrest and conviction, it’s irresponsible to vote on the basis of propaganda disseminated by a shadowy group of conservative political activists.
It takes little effort to realize that the thrust of Charter Amendment 1 is to disfranchise people who don’t conform neatly to traditional gender stereotypes. If it were passed, those who pushed for it’s adoption would not stop with public restrooms but would, in my judgment, advance their agenda so that it began to undermine everything that’s socially and culturally progressive about Gainesville. I want to live in a city that’s welcoming and inclusive, one that will attract–not repel–interesting new, open-minded people; families; and businesses. I’m not willing to court discrimination and the international disgrace that would surely follow by depriving certain vulnerable groups of the best hard-won legal armor they now possess.
This is a reasonable projection of the outcome, and I’m surely as entitled to make such predictions as you are to opine that “Under Charter One, if someone cannot get into the mens room, the clerk at the store can tell you to use the ladies since it’s empty.” That promise is nowhere in Charter Amendment 1.
From the look of things, a majority of our fellow citizens have decided Charter Amendment 1 is pretty much how I called it.
http://elections.alachua.fl.us/elections_and_records/March_24_Gainesville/r.aspx
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue in a virtual public forum.
33