Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Lawrence City Commission approves gender identity ordinance

September 28, 2011, 12:58 a.m. Updated September 28, 2011, 11:26 a.m.

Advertisement

It took more than a two-hour discussion that ranged from restrooms to rights to religion, but Lawrence city commissioners late Tuesday approved a controversial provision providing new legal protections to people who are transgender.

On a 4-1 vote, commissioners agreed to add gender identity to the list of protected classes in the city’s anti-discrimination code. The new language will make it illegal for employers, landlords and most businesses to discriminate against people who are transgender or don’t identify with the gender of their birth.

Commissioners approved the ordinance in front of a deeply divided crowd of more than 70 people who filled the City Commission chambers and much of the lobby. Commissioners heard from multiple Lawrence residents who said that the new ordinance would wrongly condone a “lifestyle choice” that some individuals make to be transgender and that it violated Biblical teachings.

A majority of commissioners, though, were unswayed.

“Looking at this, a lot of these arguments just fall flat,” said Mayor Aron Cromwell. “This is not about morality. It is about discrimination.”

City Commissioner Mike Amyx voted against the ordinance. He said he was not comfortable overruling two previous votes by the city’s Human Relations Commission that recommended the ordinance not be adopted.

Supporters of the ordinance told commissioners that when a man or a woman transitions to the opposite gender, it often is not a lifestyle choice but rather was a matter of biological disposition that they have no control over. Supporters did not have statistics on how often transgender people are discriminated against in Lawrence, but they said they were sure that it was an issue.

“This ordinance can send a message of acceptance and say that Lawrence is a place where everyone can be themselves,” said Scott Criqui, a Lawrence resident who has led an effort to get the law passed.

A good part of the evening at City Hall was spent on bathroom talk. Commissioners heard from several speakers who said they were concerned that the new law would allow for biological males who now identify as females to legally enter a female bathroom or locker room. Toni Wheeler, director of the city’s legal department, said that generally an employer or business owner no longer would be allowed to dictate that only biological females, for example, could enter the female restroom. Wheeler said that the new law would provide protections to people who “persistently” identify with a gender different from their gender at birth.

Many in the crowd did not like the sound of that.

“If this passes,” Lawrence resident Greg Cromer said to the five male city commissioners, “any one of you can go to the natatorium and change in the women’s locker room in front of my wife and daughter, and there is nothing I can do about it. In fact, if I try to do something about it, I’d be guilty of discrimination.”

Commissioners, though, said they didn’t see any evidence of where such behavior was a problem in the more than 40 other jurisdictions that have such laws across the country. They also rejected the argument that the new law would make it easier for people to commit lewd acts in restrooms.

“Predatory people aren’t waiting on this to become law,” City Commissioner Hugh Carter said. “They’re pretty sneaky as it is, and we have laws to deal with them.”

Commissioners also rejected concerns that business owners would be severely restricted in who they could hire or fire as a result of this law, noting that in Kansas an employee can be fired for any legitimate business purpose.

“I think this is very workable from a business standpoint,” said City Commissioner Bob Schumm, who is a restaurant owner. “What it comes down to is I simply can not tolerate discrimination.”

Comments

think489 2 years, 4 months ago

I am a Lawrence student who has gone away for college. I heard about this law when I came home from break....I wish I had heard sooner. I would have come home to voice my opinion as well.

It sounds like arguments against the law weren't put together well...or at least, the paper won't let us know there weren't any non religious arguments out there, which hey, makes the rest of us believe that besides the "religious cooks" no one has a problem with it, and there aren't any other problems out side of morals.

However, as a former free state student, I appreciated the fact that I didn't have to worry about a male being in the locker room.
I think it is interesting that this law passed without sustainable evidence that this is even a problem in Lawrence. I also think its interesting, that they passed it after only 2 hours of discussion. Personally, something as controversial as this should have taken weeks if not months to pass. There should have been multiple discussions, there should have been survey's taken to see if this is something the majority of Lawrence was ok with.... If this is true, then I stand corrected, and think of me as an ignorant students who knows nothing because of my move.

My main concern is for students. Were they really placed in the the mind of the commissioners who voted this in? I suspect they don't have daughters. Any dad out there should be upset by this law. This is placing daughters and wives at risk.

The commissioners stated that there are laws that protect the public from predators. I would also argue that there are laws and court cases to protect those from discrimination. We don't need to legislate this. Let the courts deal with it. That is what they are here for. If it really is a problem in lawrence (which is hard for me to believe) Then we need to see the evidence of that before enacting a law that could potentially be a window for sick men to watch young girls undress in a locker room.

0

LeBo 2 years, 6 months ago

Legal documents don't protect rights. No money, no rights, a basic American ethos!

0

ivalueamerica 2 years, 6 months ago

I support the end of special rights of bigots to be allowed to treat others and less than equal Americans.

0

rockchalk1977 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Scott_12 2 years, 6 months ago

FACT: The LHRC voted 6-3 against this amendment in 2009 FACT: in 2009, a city poll showed 64% of indivudals polled did NOT support the amendment. FACT: The LHRC voted 4-3 against this amendment in 2010. The LHRC lost two members and those two members previously voted against the amendment. FACT: Not one complaint was ever filed with the LHRC. Scott Criqui is the President of the LHRC and the pointman for the LGBT group, and no one felt comfortable filing a complaint even under that circumstance??? FACT: Not one complaint has ever been recieved by any law enforcement agency that
anyone is aware of. Even if there isn't a cime involved why not report even perceived discrimination to at least one agency to show how many people are affected? Not even a signed petition was filed. FACT: The City Commissioners overruled the LHRC, an organization specifically put in place to handle and investigate such complaints, and placed the item on the agenda at their discretion. Why is the LHRC in place using City tax dollars to fund the support staff, investigate complaints, and provide training and education if they have no authority or can be overrulled at will? FACT: Manhattan, KS recently repealed their gender identity amendment. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/may...

LHRC = Lawrence Human Relations Commission

This forum talks about rights and due process but forgets to mention that the supporters of this amendment completely circumvented the individuals and agencies in place to handle such complaints. Instead they targeted the highest body in authority they could that could win their case and put the pressure on. Did that work? Absolutely. So what did we learn? Well, we learned ithat if you want change it's OK to bypass everything and go straight to the top. Due process is for the other guy. Let him stand in line because my issue is more important.

0

mcvey 2 years, 6 months ago

The sheer volume of negative comments on this issue is a perfect example of why this addition was necessary. It saddens me to think that so many small minded people live here. I choose to live in Lawrence because of the liberal attitude. If you don't like it, I think you should move somewhere else. There is a whole state surrounding this town that is full of like-minded bigots who know nothing about what it's like to function in a diverse society. Grow up or get out.

0

Richard Heckler 2 years, 6 months ago

If absolutely Democracy existed there would not be a need for this debate.

If discrimination and racism did not exist this ordinance would be matter of discussion.

Since when does the Bible support racism and discrimination? Talk about a stretch or two. No such interpretation exists except in the minds of the narrow.

0

mr_right_wing 2 years, 6 months ago

Guess what Lawrence liberals? You are still merely a second-rate San Francisco wanna-be, and you'll never do any better than that.

Why not just move out to the west coast and join the real thing? Take all those city commissioners that weren't brave enough to vote 'nay' with you.

To the Christian bashers who are tempted to reply, "love the sinner, hate the sin" still applies; I hate no 'transgender' being, just what they do/are doing. I can't point a finger at the person themselves (they are a sinner just as I) I can only point out what they are doing is Biblically wrong (which someone could easily point out in my life as well.) I guess the difference is that I'm not so flamboyant, so public and proud of it.

0

blue73harley 2 years, 6 months ago

I've already heard that Kobach is looking into issuing gender identity cards that need to be displayed before you are allowed entry into a public restroom.

0

foundation 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't think this will have any affect on our lives or our children's lives. I'm too young to know what it was like for blacks to be given rights, but i assume it is the same argument. Naturally we are a little standoff-ish towards that which we don't understand, but it's only an issue if you assume the worst in people. In general people are kind, empathetic, and well-intended. Don't let the "bad apples" from tv and news determine what you actually perceive with your own eyes!

What's to stop anyone from raping anyone else? at any time? anywhere?... Morals! Don't forget them! The only issue here is equality.

0

Souki 2 years, 6 months ago

Bathrooms? Really? No wonder Europeans think of us as children.

0

ksrush 2 years, 6 months ago

Quantril, a man of vision ?

0

50YearResident 2 years, 6 months ago

I am reading this story and trying to figure out which one of the commissioners is gender identy challenged. Anyone know? One of them must be or this issue wouldn't hace come up.

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow, 299 comments and presumably counting. This issue about folks confused about what is in their jean (genes??) has far surpassed the Obama haters, Gov Brownbackwards or Governer Hair (of Texas, you know, the dude that saved Austin and Housten and such with his incredible job creation machine). Who would have thunk it!!!

0

demonfury 2 years, 6 months ago

What if tonight, some guy decided to go to as many restaurants as possible and blatantly use the woman's restroom in every one of them until he got a formal complaint or arrested? Then he can sue the crap out of the city for discrimination, because deep down inside, he really does think he's a woman today. Absolutely no one can prove him wrong, and this new ordinance gives him carte-blanch to do as he feels. It's now his right to use which ever restroom he wants because he claims to have a gender identity challenge, and he's not sure if he's really a man or a woman. Imagine if someone decided it's time to test this ordinance out and see what this commission is really made of !!!!!!

0

Barry Watts 2 years, 6 months ago

Set aside emotion and such. I have not seen the specific wording, but I have a specific question: Can a high school teenage boy now enter the girl's locker room by simply stating he is transgender, identifying himself as a female? The ordinance is passed so there is no need with continued arguing, so I am now trying to get clarification on the result of the decision. Please give any further information you can in an intelligible, non-combative way. Thank you.

0

begin60 2 years, 6 months ago

It's impossible to be oneself when other people won't give you space to do so. Tolerance means means letting people alone so they can live their lives. Most people don't need that much help, and if they did need anything they wouldn't want it from any incompetent with nothing going upstairs.

Get rid of all the insufferable busybodies who have been trained by their hick parents to think every passing stranger should be grateful for the assistance of any incompetent and terrifying ignorant a$$hat who decides to get up in their faces. Not only are Larryville people intolerant in this way, but they go so far as to use dishonest southern- justice framing tactics on anyone who has the gumption to verbally defend themselves against these obnoxious street harassers. Hey, if you think I'm a bigot, well, sorry but I'm the dirtball KU HR Director and I can lie on you that you shouted racist remarks at your attackers and make it stick.What a dirty, hateful, backwoods place!

0

geekin_topekan 2 years, 6 months ago

WHat's to stop us all from getting nekky and going to Jack in the Box?

WE DONT HAVE ONE!!

0

Ceallach 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow. Feels like I'm reading the transcript for a Charlie Brown special with only the adults talking . . . wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah!

Cite some sources for all the "facts" that are being presented!!

0

jhawkinsf 2 years, 6 months ago

I for one am shocked by the volume of comments made on this subject.

0

Scott_12 2 years, 6 months ago

(From Facebook) Aron Cromwell You were great to work with Scott S. Criqui, thanks for your leadership

Now it all makes sense.

0

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

When the Equal Rights Amendment, to guarantee women equal rights with men, was under discussion in the 1970s, the same bathroom argument was made: if women were guaranteed equal rights by law, then women and men would have to use the same public restrooms, because American law prohibits "separate but equal" facilities. It was a completely tendentious argument, but it riled up a critical mass of people against the amendment. Subsequently, although the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution never passed, in actuality the Federal government and most state governments have adopted its principles. And guess what: separate men's and women's restrooms are still legal and still what we have everywhere in the country.
The "bathroom" issue is a red herring here, too: intended to rile people up. In actuality, the ordinance will not make the slightest difference in what happens in public restrooms.

0

sickofgoodoldboysthatrunlaw 2 years, 6 months ago

This will be on the books untill one of the CITY COMMISSIONERS family people is tied up in a mess because of this.

Really COMMISSIONERS don't you think that there is more inportant stuff to work on ?

0

BeeBee3 2 years, 6 months ago

Well if this is the thinking.. I sure hope parents will stop sending their children to confession at church. That seems to be a breeding ground for "predators" and "sickos" more than any bathroom ever was or will be...

0

Wifeto1Momto4 2 years, 6 months ago

Thank you Mike Aymx for voting against this! I am discussed by this and hope that there will be a petition to overturn this very soon. Hugh Carter, you are right Predatory people are not waiting for this to become law - BUT it does make it easier for them to harm our children, and it makes it hard on our law enforcement and judicial system to punish these SICKOS.

This is one mom who will violate the law to protect her children from sickos coming into the bathroom.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

Child molesters are going to love this new law almost as much as teenage boys.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

Child molesters are going to love this new law almost as much as teenage boys.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

So which restroom will Pinckney be closing to save money? The boys room or the girls restroom. Seems like we don't need to waste money no two restrooms anymore... The boys will love this at the Jr. High schools now they can shower in the girls locker room, aint equality great!! Imangine no need for playboy under the bed anymore..

0

sickofgoodoldboysthatrunlaw 2 years, 6 months ago

This sound like bull only the city of lawrence can do so well. Lawrence blows all this smoke up to cover their GOOD OLD BOY WAYS that they treat people that works for this city. They have the most closed minded men running department in this city and the women that work here back them because they don't lose the job. Really THE CITY OF LAWRENCE needs to really look at it self. They will not enforce any kind of speical law they put on their law books, it is all for SHOW !!!
Even this comment place is control by the city, we don't want lawrence to really see the truth of what the people really think of them!

0

Richard Payton 2 years, 6 months ago

Hey buddy lets get some BBQ and after eating lets cruise the ladies room. Schumm has no problems with this and it's legal!

0

Bushloather1 2 years, 6 months ago

After many years, Amyx just lost my vote.

0

Morganna 2 years, 6 months ago

OK - if I am reading this right males dressed or professed to be transgenders can go to the women's restroom or vise virsa. What am I suppose to tell my female employees who object to going to the restroom with a man. Transgender or not - men in the women's restroom cause issues ------- Way to go City Commissioners - you just made my job a lot harder

0

13Nate13 2 years, 6 months ago

Another question. Lets say I'm a devote Christian business owner and I find out one of my employees is divorced. Is their any current law that states I'm not allowed to fire said person for being divorced on the basis of morally objecting to that and the outward image it will have on my business? Assuming there are laws that would protect said person why wouldn't said laws protect from firing someone who is transgendered solely on the basis of morally objecting to what they do? It seems to me the only way I could fire someone who is transgendered is if it was ok to fire someone based on a moral objection to something they did. As far as I know this is not allowed under law, thus why do we need this ordinance? I would also add that companies are allowed to not hire people because of excessive piercings or tattoos and I'm curious as to the pretense under which these restrictions are allowed.

0

Scott_12 2 years, 6 months ago

Not learning from our neighbor's implementation of adding gender Identify, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/may..., (Manhattan City Commission repeals ordinance adding sexual orientation, gender identity to anti-discrimination policy, 05/04/11), with not ONE police or other report to ANY local or state agency reporting a person was the victim of a crime or injustice EVER, completing circumventing the Human Relations Commission which already reviewed the matter twice, and ignoring a city wide polls that showed most of Lawrence citizens objected to the proposal, our City Council took it amongst themselves to ignore more pressing issues and accomodate a group of individuals who bullied their agenda into law. Congratulations everyone!

0

13Nate13 2 years, 6 months ago

I have a situation for everyone to think about. Suppose you have a high school guy who determines that he is transgendered. This guy is enrolled in gym class and wishes to use the women's locker room instead of the men's as this ordinance allows. Are all the supporters of this ordinance willingly to accept the idea that a male might be showering next to their daughter in high school if he so chose? Let's assume that this guy really is transgendered as well, are you all still comfortable with that thought? I'm sure some of the so called "free thinkers" on here are fine with that, but under what pretense do you assume to force all of us to be?

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 6 months ago

Bee Bee 3 "To everybody saying "It was never a problem before".. that is a crappy argument. This is a preventative ordinance. It is better to stop the problem before it starts."

An excellant idea!!! Lets make some more. Let's have an ordnance to prevent idiots who cannot prove their sanity from running from city commission. Let's have an ordnance that idiots who cannot prove their competance from running for Secretary of State in Kansas. The present occupant of this office is rife with solutions for problems that do not exist and making political hay from it.

Let's have an ordnance that will prevent the sale of chewing gum so we will not step in it inadvertantly and get our shoes all messy.

Let's have an ordnance that no new roundabouts should be built because they are a stupid and ignorant solution to a non- problem.

I like your proposal, let's get moving on more non-issue regulations!!!!!!!!!!

0

Christine Anderson 2 years, 6 months ago

I am against discrimination. I can't help but see a bit of humor here. Esp. from Vocal, who spoke of women using men's rooms and said "Let's give it a try, shall we?" Here's how I see it. Every stinkin' time a woman needs to use a restroom, there is a waiting line. Not so at the men's room. This summer, a friend and I were coming back from our sons' baseball game. Stopped at QT. Now we both really, really had to go. My friend made it to the women's room first. I was not gonna wait. So, I rushed in the men's room, yelling "Woman on the floor!" Hey-you gotta do what you gotta do.

0

optimist 2 years, 6 months ago

We discussed a few weeks back about verifying ones eligibility to vote. Many said that it was a lot about nothing because there was no evidence that it is a problem. While I'm convinced there is no way of knowing without enforcement measures many still said that it was a law to solve a non-existent problem.

Now we have this new ordinance. An ordinance in search of a problem. The supporters lacked any evidence that transgender or transvestite people have a medical or other condition rather than simply being a lifestyle choice. They further lacked any evidence that any such "discrimination" exists. However now we've placed a burden on businesses and undermined the religious beliefs of many Lawrenciens, for what? In order to make a small group of people with a proclivity to behave a certain way in public feel better about themselves and provide status to their issue. This isn't San Francisco we should stop behaving like it before someone proposes that we give the cows special rights. If that happens I'll have to leave town for a steak. Then I’ll be forced to demand special protections as a carnivorous American from the Lawrence City Commission.

0

Richard Payton 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

As a matter of fact, when someone starts belly aching about someone who didn't lift the lid, is when I will protest and quit lifting the lid and pee all over the place.

On another note there is still a gym in this weak town who caters only to women. Time to strart fighting back men.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

What law will follow this? Will the city commission create a law that when men use the restroom, the kind of men who stand up to pee, will be fined if they don't lift the lid? I can see an officer probably a woman or man or what ever writing a ticket to some guy who peed in the toilet without lifting the lid.

0

Tristan Moody 2 years, 6 months ago

There is a godawful amount of obsession with bathrooms here. That's really a side point. The point of the ordinance is thus:

At present, until the ordinance officially takes effect, the following are 100% legal:

1) Local employers may fire someone for being transgendered.
2) Local employers may elect not to hire someone, solely for being transgendered. 3) Local establishments (restaurants, bars, retail stores) may deny service to someone, solely for being transgendered.
4) Local landlords may refuse to rent to someone for being transgendered. 5) Local realtors or homeowners may refuse to sell houses to people for being transgendered. 6) Local banks may refuse to lend to someone for being transgendered.

The bathroom issue is honestly a silly distraction from the true meat of the ordinance. Chances are, you've probably already shared a public restroom with a trans-man or trans-woman without ever knowing. They don't want to get into your business in a bathroom any more than you want to get into anybody else's.

The predator argument is equally specious. It is, right now, perfectly legal for a man to enter a public women's restroom. That has nothing to do with the ordinance. There are laws in place to cover predatory sexual behavior. This law is not about that. It's about making sure that transgendered people won't be denied housing, employment, or service on the basis of being transgendered.

0

BeeBee3 2 years, 6 months ago

To everybody saying "It was never a problem before".. that is a crappy argument. This is a preventative ordinance. It is better to stop the problem before it starts. Also.. how many times do you think people have been discriminated against and didn't report it because they knew they had no case? NOW they will have a case, thankfully. Also.. in reading this board and the amount of ignorance spewing from it... I would say it is best to have such an ordinance when obviously discrimination is alive and well.

0

birdsandflowers 2 years, 6 months ago

I am all about equal opp for all. I could care less about how another chooses to live their lives UNTIL their rights interfere with mine! Why do bathrooms and locker rooms have to be part of this ordinance? I have no problem with a male or female that has physically switched genders using the facilities of their "now" gender -- who would know any different, right? But, I definitely have a problem with a male who feels female using the same restroom/locker room as I do. I resent being labeled as "closed minded" because I have an issue with this.

0

classclown 2 years, 6 months ago

Remember that guy they busted for peeping on women in the shower a couple months back? Now all he has to do is bring a towel with him and claim he's there to take a shower.

0

CWGOKU 2 years, 6 months ago

Why doesn't everyone just wear Depends? Problem solved.

0

Liberal 2 years, 6 months ago

I am not sure what rape statistics are in Europe but it seems to me that they have co-ed bathrooms over there. Men and women standing in the same line to get into the stalls, washing their hands in the sink next to each other. Do not ever recall hearing it is a problem.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

So? Can I use the women's restroom now? If I am feeling particularly sensitive?

0

cheeseburger 2 years, 6 months ago

I presume this means urinals will now be installed in women's restrooms, because, after all, we wouldn't want to discriminate against someone who had a penis and felt like a woman on a particular day!

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

In all my years in Lawrence, 40 something, I have never seen any intolerance for people who like to cross dress. Or what ever it is. I think this is just setting the stage for special treatment.

0

rockchalk1977 2 years, 6 months ago

A solution looking for a problem. This should mute any outrage over the new Kansas voter id law. Thank you Commissioner Amyx for not overruling two previous votes by the city’s Human Relations Commission.

0

BeeBee3 2 years, 6 months ago

Way to go, commission! Comments in articles like this always brings the ignorance out of the woodwork. It gives me a good laugh because it is all fear-based BS. Lawrence is a sign of HOPE for the state of Kansas. Maybe other communities will follow suit (may take a few years and a few elections). I am proud to be a Lawrencian today.

0

consumer1 2 years, 6 months ago

So? will it be a hate crime now for a man to dress like a woman at a holloween party? or visa versa?

0

deec 2 years, 6 months ago

"Predatory people aren’t waiting on this to become law,” City Commissioner Hugh Carter said. “They’re pretty sneaky as it is, and we have laws to deal with them.” I'm sure all those religious dudes abusing little boys for decades used the same toilet facilities as their victims.

0

hujiko 2 years, 6 months ago

Why the fixation on bathrooms? You really think this is about someone trying to steal glances of your junk?

Bunch of whiny fear-mongers.

0

BlackVelvet 2 years, 6 months ago

With all the alleged "intelligence" in this University town, why can't someone come up with an ordinance that makes it unlawful to DISCRIMINATE against ANYONE without good cause? That way we don't have to have ordinances for specific groups. Making specific groups protected simply leaves the door open for the person who likes his alone time with little furry woodland creatures, or anything else that is not "the norm." Make all discrimination illegal-no special protected groups.

0

BlackVelvet 2 years, 6 months ago

With all the alleged "intelligence" in this University town, why can't someone come up with an ordinance that makes it unlawful to DISCRIMINATE against ANYONE without good cause? That way we don't have to have ordinances for specific groups. Making specific groups protected simply leaves the door open for the person who likes his alone time with little furry woodland creatures, or anything else that is not "the norm." Make all discrimination illegal-no special protected groups.

0

sherbert 2 years, 6 months ago

Is there some point in their transformation where a person is considered a transgender and can use the restroom or locker room of their new sex, or is it a 'state of mind'? Not to sound discriminatory, just wondering at what point can/are they considered the opposite sex. Can anyone just say they are a transgender and go into designated private areas? Does this ordinance clarify these questions?

0

joe_cool 2 years, 6 months ago

I guess I am a bit confused on the real issue here.

I believe we already have laws protecting male/female gender from discrimination. Transgendered people are still legally classified as either a male or female, so unless the government is creating a whole new sexual classification with all ther varying degrees of transformation, I do not see the need for any new laws.

0

demonfury 2 years, 6 months ago

It's a good thing the City is going to try and steal, I mean transfer, utility rate payer dollars into the general fund. They will need it to compensate for the horrific loss in sales tax revenue when a very large number of people stop dining out and using public places that will allow this infringement on their personal privacy. Another well thought out ordinance in Larryville !!!

0

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 6 months ago

Just when I thought that our pinheaded "commissioners" could not find any other ways to waste time and public salery in their meetings, this incredibly stupid and insignificant issue surfaces. Who elected these idiots? Mostly people who vote in city elections, and as you know in Lawrence, most people have given up on city elections, the choices are so unqualified.

As for the issue itself, well, sorry I do not see it. This is just another swing from the "non-traditional" crowd at the majority of civilisation who just cannot stand being ignored for their behaviors. I do not have any problems with homosexuality, I know folks who are. Religion is mostly fantasy and myth, that is no issue with me. But this "gender confusion" issue is a red herring, you are male or female, and you are born that way. If you want to make yourself a target by flaunting that your male gender does not match your lipstick or your female gender does not match your aftershave, what problem is that of government? But the real culprit is this aggregation of alleged commissioners that cannot sort the wheat from the chaf in city "business" and avoid these stupid and self-serving people who just want to flaunt their "difference" to the general public and generally raise hell about most any issue they can concoct.

0

cheeseburger 2 years, 6 months ago

'Toni Wheeler, director of the city’s legal department, said that generally an employer or business owner no longer would be allowed to dictate that only biological females, for example, could enter the female restroom'

So now, in an attempt to make a very few feel comfortable, we have approved an ordinance that makes a larger number of those who desire not to pee, poop, undress, or shower in mixed company, uh - uncomfortable.

Makes perfect sense - in Lawrence.

0

dogsandcats 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm just trying to understand. I found the following information on wiktionary. If you can't call someone who does not make any physical attempts to change their biological gender but merely wears the clothes of the opposite gender, a transvestite, then what do you call them?

"transvestite (plural transvestites): A person who sometimes wears clothes traditionally worn by and associated with the opposite sex; typically a male who cross-dresses occasionally by habit or compulsion.

[edit] Usage notes

Transvestite should not be confused with transgender or transsexual (“someone who lives as the sex opposite that of his or her birth”). Transvestites generally have lesser or no desire to permanently change their sex, but simply enjoy being able to cross-dress from time to time."

Also, if someone only wears the clothes of the opposite gender from time to time, are they still covered by this ordinance?

0

demonfury 2 years, 6 months ago

Once again the Lawrence City Commission hammers another nail into the coffin of the city. Good thing I'm outta here next summer, this place is starting to rot with it's funk of liberalism. I've instructed my kids to avoid all public places in Lawrence where they might have to use a restroom. I've canceled our family gym membership this morning, and I will never take my kids out to eat in this city ever again. What this city has done with this ordinance is allow deviant behavior without much recourse. Call it what you will, but it's the truth. All any man has to do now is confess that he believes himself to be a woman on the inside and he is protected. This is allowing an invasion of my privacy, even in public places. Lawrence will never attract legitimate business here with ordinances like this. The overall decline that is already well in motion here, will accelerate now..Lawrence will end up being just another Topeka or Kansas City, a nasty toilet in the corner of Kansas. Good riddance Larryville, you make me sick.

0

Bob Reinsch 2 years, 6 months ago

Before one comments on an issue such as gender identity, it might be in one's best interests to study and make an effort to understand the issues, less one appear to be ignorant, prejudiced and cruel. Apparently, relying on a narrow view hasn't served some posters here very well.

0

rachelgn 2 years, 6 months ago

A note to the LJ World:

You've been covering this story for years now, so I'm really baffled by your use of the word "transvestite". This is an outdated word and has been for some time. Transgender is an all encompassing term to describe anyone who does not identify with their assigned gender at birth. Perhaps you were thinking of the word "transsexual"? This describes transgender people who are taking medical steps to change their gender. Not all transgender people have surgery or take hormones so there is a difference and it's an important one. "Transvestite" is not an appropriate term in a professional newspaper like the LJ World. There are plenty of local and online resources that can help you with terminology. All it takes is a simple Google search!

0

Randall Uhrich 2 years, 6 months ago

It'd be nice if the GD Journal World would allow the caption for the main article picture would stay on more than three seconds when you hold the cursor over it. What gives? I never could read the whole caption. Why is the picture and caption not presented with the article? Why is the caption not presented with the picture on the main mage? Again, what gives?????

0

ksrush 2 years, 6 months ago

Congtrats Granolaville on passing another useless ordinance ! Can we say official laughingstock of KS ?

0

Kim Murphree 2 years, 6 months ago

Speaking as a woman...please don't worry about us so much. We can handle it, and those who can't can learn to speak up for themselves. Just so you know, there are STALLS with WALLS in most women's restrooms. Does it say something about our sexism that there is no concern with transgender women using male restrooms? Or is that just considered a bonus??? Let's all just give it a try shall we? I think we will find that this ordinance won't affect the bathroom at all, so let's leave that discussion where it belongs...in the toilet. Most transgender people I know, are compassionate, generous, sensitive, and sometimes even shy people---they are struggling to find their way like the rest of us, and if we all interact with kindness, respect, and understanding, then this ordinance--or statement of human rights will empower us all. I am a Christian, and I say God loves all His children and asks nothing more, or less of us, than to do the same. Way to go, Lawrence!

0

cabella 2 years, 6 months ago

Nice picture to go along with the headline.

0

irvan moore 2 years, 6 months ago

is there a reason people are thinking males when they think transgendered?

0

Steven Gaudreau 2 years, 6 months ago

I'm confused. Transgender is a general term encompassing a large group of individuals. Transvestites are considered transgender. Transvestites can be homo or hetrosexual. So this law allows adult, hetrosexual males go into bathrooms and locker rooms with women and girls??? I am not o.k. with this. If we are talking about a person who has under gone surgery to change their sexual organs, that's a complete different story. “Predatory people aren’t waiting on this to become law,” City Commissioner Hugh Carter said. “They’re pretty sneaky as it is, and we have laws to deal with them.” Yes we do Hugh, after the crime has been committed.
People, get real. Have you not seen the deviants who hide camera's in bathrooms, inside toilets even!!! Anyone who thinks this law is o.k. does not have a daughter and if you do have a daughter and you are not afraid for her safety that some man in a dress is in a bathroom with her, you are an unfit parent. ** I am not stating that all transvestites are molestors, I'm stating the human race is full of molestors.

0

Irenaku 2 years, 6 months ago

Wonderful, Wonderful news. The responses I am hearing from those opposed are very fear based, in that they fear that somehow this ordinance will allows a group of pervs with a perv agenda to prey upon their spouses and children. sigh Anyhow, thank you LCC for using common sense.

0

AOD506 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

rtwngr 2 years, 6 months ago

The crux of the argument is a new protected class has been created for no good reason. Proponents of the ordinance could not provide any statistics on the issue of discrimination. As far as "queer" hatred, Chrisiana, I don't hate anybody. I merely believe that most of the transgender crowd and the gay/lesbian crowd are dealing with a psychological disorder that manifests itself in deviant sexual behavior. I don't hate them at all. I merely don't accept their lifestyle.

0

Adrienne Sanders 2 years, 6 months ago

Good for the city commission for ignoring the ignorant jerks who think this is going to be a problem. OMG there's a biological male in this restroom! Only I don't even know it b/c for all appearances, it's a woman who just came in here and is using the stall to pee just like any other woman, not perving on you or your kids. Get a grip.

0

Christiana 2 years, 6 months ago

I feel bad for people with a lifestyle of hating queers. Sad day for the bigots. That picture of Obama with make up drawn on with marker was a double whammy. Really good job on bringing the mean, too bad justice prevailed.

0

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

Very good. There is still work to do, though. Anything consenting people want to do with their own bodies should be made legal and that right should be protected as well.

0

KS 2 years, 6 months ago

Even the folks in the headline picture appear to see this as pretty funny or is that another screw up by LJW?

0

lunacydetector 2 years, 6 months ago

did any of the commissioners come out of the closet as well? would've been a great opportunity.

0

KS 2 years, 6 months ago

Well, Lawrence is now the laughing stock of Kansas. I can just see employers stumbling all over themselves trying to locate their business in Lawrence. Way to go! I see enrollment increasing at K-State. What a dumb idea. I agree with the comments of Lawrence resident, "Greg Cromer". I think Kansas City, Mo has this ordinance and companies are relocating to Kansas. They also want to avoid the E-Tax.

0

grammaddy 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't get why people have a problem with this.Or why people think that anyone who is non-.hetero has to be perverted. Get your closed minds out of the gutter. Equal Rights for all!!

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 6 months ago

Singling classes of people out for special treatment is the American way.

0

DRsmith 2 years, 6 months ago

Yep, sounds like Lawrence. The San Francisco of the central plains.

0

cheeseburger 2 years, 6 months ago

'City Commissioner Mike Amyx voted against the ordinance. He said he was not comfortable overruling two previous votes by the city’s Human Relations Commission that recommended the ordinance not be adopted.'

Thank you Commissioner Amyx for standing your ground on this issue. While I am not a fan of discrimination, I am even less of a fan of laws that create more problems than they solve.

0

awelles 2 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Jason Bowers-Chaika 2 years, 6 months ago

This is just super! But who were the movers and shakers that helped to make this happen? Hmmm? That's okay silly you silly goose, I'll tell you who. www.KansasEqualityCoalition.org made this happen!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.