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
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
gayokay (anonymous) says…
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!
oletimer (anonymous) replies…
Now the only folks that are not protected are what we old folks call "normal" All this other stuff just isn't right. No I am not "politically correct". Never have, never will. I call it the way I see it. If you don't like it, tough.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
lawrenceboy3 (anonymous) replies…
I feel that your thoughts on this matter are severely misguided. "All the other stuff just isn't right"? Come now, that may be your opinion, but it only serves to exacerbate the discrimination that this group already endures. But that is just my opinion. I'm just calling it the way I see it.
As a person that identifies as what you call "normal", I don't see how I am not protected. I was lucky enough to identify with the gender I was born. I'm pretty sure that my "normalcy" has provided me with the benefit of not being discriminated against.
All this ordinance does is provide transgendered or "not normal people" with the same basic human rights that I have been afforded.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
cheeseburger (anonymous) says…
'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.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Is Mike Amyx still cutting hair at his barber shop? I used to get my hair cuts from him. I don't think I will now.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
That is you prerogative.
It used to be my prerogative to pee and poop in public restrooms with like-gendered individuals, but you took that away from me.
deec (anonymous) replies…
So you share a stall with another person of your sex when you poo in public? Interesting.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
A stall? No. The same room? Apparently so, now! Thanks for nothing
defenestrator (anonymous) replies…
Maybe if you ate foods other than cheeseburgers, you would be able to hold your bowel movements until you made it home.
Just an observation. Thanks.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
20,000 comedians out of a job, and you're trying to be funny. Actually, your comment is stupid and inane. And your comment is discriminatory toward those whose bowel habits don't suit you - maybe they need a new ordinance!
fu7il3 (anonymous) replies…
Maybe you aren't aware that men's bathrooms are generally pretty wide open, with the exception of one or two toilet stalls. If you go to an athletic event, you might actually be standing next to each other at a gigantic trough.
Gedanken (anonymous) replies…
If you were one of his active customers then you wouldn't need to ask if he is still cutting hair or not. Your frivolous point was made and now has been called out.
oletimer (anonymous) replies…
like he would care. He probably won't want you in there anyway, crybaby. That is why this world is going to heck in a handbasket. You "different" people won, and yet are still crying. You would not be happy if you were hung with a new rope. Glad my days are about over. I could not stand much more of this crap.
mommatocharlie (anonymous) replies…
AMEN Cheeseburger!
lawrenceboy3 (anonymous) replies…
How does not discriminating against certain people create more problems than they would solve?
In my opinion the problem in this debate is discrimination....this seems to solve that problem.
Please enlighten us with what problems this now causes, oh Grand Poobah of tolerance.
DRsmith (anonymous) says…
Yep, sounds like Lawrence. The San Francisco of the central plains.
ksfbcoach (anonymous) replies…
+1
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@DRsmith: The ordinance passed last night is statewide law in 15 states, including neighbors Iowa and Colorado. It may be unusual for Kansas, but not for the rest of the country.
some_random_person (anonymous) replies…
15 < 50. Hardly "usual" in America. Colorado is no surprise, however Iowa is. Let me take a guess at the other 13: California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New York, New Hampshire, Mass., RI, Florida, Maryland, Delaware, Jersey, and Connecticut. Without any research on the law I bet I'm not too far off, it would be interesting how many of these I guessed right.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@some_random_person: Over 40% of Americans now live in jurisdictions that ban GI discrimination. Locally, Lawrence public schools, KU, Kansas gov't executive branch, KCMO, Jackson Co., Mo., Topeka public schools, and Topeka city gov't banned GI discrimination before Lawrence.
You may fail to see liberal coastal states in your mental map of 'Merica, but it is factually inaccurate to say GI nondiscrim laws are unusual.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) says…
Singling classes of people out for special treatment is the American way.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Equal treatment under the law is the American Way. The only special treatment was the impunity that those who chose to discriminate enjoyed prior to this legislation. Now the transgender persons will have the same treatment that everyone else gets.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
if they would take off their bedroom slippers like Obama told blacks to do maybe they would get the same equal treatment.
grammaddy (anonymous) says…
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!!
bradh (anonymous) replies…
You don't understand why someone may have a problem with guys in the ladies room? Really?
Sure makes it easy for a serial rapist to set up shop in the ladies room and wait until a lady comes in by herself. Anyone complains and its, "I'm transgendered, the law allows me to use this bathroom." I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, I hope they sue the 4 who voted for this measure as accomplices, non-discriminatory accomplices of course.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Minneapolis MN has had a similar law on the books since 1975. It isn't a problem.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
It's certainly a potential problem.
What stops it from happening in Minneapolis?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@bradh: Sexual predators weren't waiting on the city commission to pass this ordinance to act. They're on a different track.
And predators have always existed, so we already have laws to deal with them, both peeping and assault. This ordinance doesn't undo that.
Gays and lesbians have used bathrooms and showers for fifteen years since Lawrence banned sexual orientation discrimination. They don't assault co-occupants and then hide behind the nondiscrimination laws.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's not the concern.
What prevents a plain old vanilla male from claiming to be tg in order to use the women's restroom?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs:
Pre-ordinance: A non-trans male could crossdress now and enter a woman's bathroom. There is no law requiring a person to use the bathroom of the sex assigned to them at birth. Yet it is virtually unheard of. If said crossdressing non-trans man went to a stall, used the toilet, and then left, no harm has occurred. If he peeped or assaulted a woman, Kansas's peeping and assault criminal laws apply.
Post-ordinance: A non-trans male could crossdress and enter a woman's bathroom. There is still no law requiring a person to use the bathroom of the sex assigned to them at birth. If said crossdressing non-trans man went to a stall, used the toilet, and then left, no harm has occurred. If he peeped or assaulted a woman, Kansas's peeping and assault criminal laws still apply.
Nothing has changed.
You seem to assume that passage of the ordinance will cause more non-trans men to crossdress and enter women's bathrooms. I think that's a logic leap, but let's look at it.
If I were a non-trans man who had not previously crossdressed and entered a restroom for sexual gratification, would this ordinance alone be enough to cause me to do so?
The only plausible reason this predator would do so is if he believed the law would shield him. As written, it does not. Criminal peeping and assault laws still apply. And the ordinance does not apply because he does not meet the persistent gender identity language in it.
Anyone compelled by sexual urges so strong that they would ignore that logic would already have enough motivation to act pre-ordinance, so there's no reason to believe passage of the ordinance will affect them.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
No cross dressing required, as I understand it.
Simply claiming to identify as a woman.
How would one go about verifying "persistent" self-identification?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
That burden of proof would lie on the one crying "discrimination," just as it does for everything else. How does one go about verifying sexual orientation?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs: The ordinance lists several factors: identity, appearance, behavior and other characteristics.
As the city attorney presented last night:
Appearance = clothing, hair style, makeup, jewelry, etc.
Behavior = speech, mannerisms
Other characteristics = name, pronouns
A non-trans man whose gender identity is non-trans, who does not crossdress, who behaves like a male, and who uses a male name and pronouns would not meet the requirement of the ordinance. A business owner could prevent such a person from using the opposite sex restroom without violating the ordinance.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Well, that clears that up - thanks!
That information should be made easily available to all, and would quiet some concerns, I would think.
meggers (anonymous) replies…
The new law does not allow people to sexually assault other people. For that matter, sexual assault can be committed by members of the same sex, so the scenario you propose could happen regardless.
It's silly to discriminate against people based on some fabricated 'threat'. Seems to me that some people are only trying to rationalize their intolerance.
bradh (anonymous) replies…
No, the law does not allow people to sexually assault people, it just makes it much easier to do so.
Based on your logic, it's silly to have bathrooms based on some fabricated sex.
ebyrdstarr (anonymous) replies…
Repeating this silly claim won't make it true. This ordinance does no such thing as to make sexual assault "much easier" to do.
If you're going to continue making this claim, even after people have pointed out the lack of logic, you really do bear the burden of providing evidence.
weegee (anonymous) replies…
That could actually be one of the single most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard! You must walk through every moment of your life feeling absolutely terrified of everyone you see.
mytwocents (anonymous) replies…
OK Bradh, tell us, where would YOU like transgender people to use the bathroom. Would you like my bearded ex-boyfriend who packs a pussy and not a penis to use your restroom or to use your girlfriend's? Would it make you more comfortable for a transwoman in dress, make-up, and heels to use the men's room? Do you think she would be safe? What makes YOU comfortable you big, bad MAN, you. All the world should cater to you, right?
Do you think serial rapists are not going to be charged with rape because of this new ordinance? Rape is a crime. This ordinance changes none of that. Serial rapists are not sitting in bathrooms pretending to be transwomen. Meanwhile, until today transmen and transwomen in Lawrence have been forced to just deal with it when they get fired after coming out as trans on the job. I've seen it happen. So, hmmm... should the public so with Bradh's insane and perverted assumptions based on no real world evidence or go with reality.... get your mind out of the gutter, Bradh, how on earth did you come up with this weird idea of serial rapists hiding in women's bathrooms posed as transwomen?
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
Your sick and sad bathroom fantasy says more about you then any transgendered person. It's called projection. It tells us what YOU would like to do given the opportunity to be alone in the women's bathroom, and that is: rape women. Check your head and get some help.
KS (anonymous) says…
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.
flclhack (Maxwell Butterfield) replies…
What a stupid, stupid comment.
consumer1 (anonymous) replies…
flcljack, Don't beat yourself up like that, maybe you can think of something clever to say later.
flclhack (Maxwell Butterfield) replies…
What a stupid, stupid comment.
Hwy50 (anonymous) replies…
Yes, the opinions of those in the rest of the state really matter to me. If only we could be more like the rest of Kansas.
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
Kansas is the laughing stock of the nation.
lunacydetector (anonymous) says…
did any of the commissioners come out of the closet as well? would've been a great opportunity.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
Homosexuality =/= Transgenderism
Careful now, your bigotry is showing.
mytwocents (anonymous) replies…
bigot detector
KS (anonymous) says…
Even the folks in the headline picture appear to see this as pretty funny or is that another screw up by LJW?
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
The people in the picture are a Transgender person and their partner if I am correct. Now pick out which one is which.
Liberty275 (anonymous) says…
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.
Christiana (anonymous) says…
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.
mommatocharlie (anonymous) replies…
We don't hate "queers" We don't like their behaviors
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@mommatocharlie: For LGBT people, the conduct creates the status. Sleeping with people of the same sex and living as the opposite sex make you queer. If you hate the behavior, it's the same as hating the status.
dulcinea47 (anonymous) says…
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.
optimist (anonymous) replies…
If this is no big deal then why do we have segregated bathrooms in the first place? While I for one am not concerned about my bathroom experience getting weird I would absolutely have a problem with it if it happens to one of my children. I can't imagine any parent being okay with a guy dressed as a woman walking into a restaurant bathroom where their 12 or 13 year old daughter is. I should just assume that he is of no threat to my child. Yeah, that's logical. I wonder how many of you in favor of the ordinance would truly be okay with that.
meggers (anonymous) replies…
You probably wouldn't even know the woman was born a male. In fact, I'd venture to guess that you've probably encountered some transgendered people in your life and were none the wiser.
The part the person was born with isn't relevant here.
rtwngr (anonymous) says…
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.
Christiana (anonymous) replies…
I certainly don't have a disorder. Excluding the constant pain and alienation received by unacceptable views by people like yourself. That can be rather detrimental.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
You are free to believe whatever you like about those groups of people.
The question is whether employers, landlords, etc. should be free to deny them housing, employment, etc.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
jafs - "The question is whether employers, landlords, etc. should be free to deny them housing, employment, etc."
I have never heard of this before, ever. How about some documentation on this issue. Who has been discriminated against? Where? When? I think this issue is just another atempt by childern who did not get to go to Disneyland to raise their presence to those of us "normal" people who simply do not know or care about this stupid issue.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If you don't know about it, then you should educate yourself on the topic before forming your opinion, don't you think?
That's not my responsibility.
Look online - google and other online search engines are pretty good places to start.
I predict you will find that tg folks are often denied employment, housing, etc. in areas that don't prohibit that.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Nobody says you have to accept their lifestyle. Just as we don't have to accept your lifestyle. However, every psychological, medical, and social worker organization find nothing ill about same sex attraction/orientation nor transgender people. Your opinion is based in ignorance and is not supported by the professional community.
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
"I don't hate them at all. I merely don't accept their lifestyle."
This looks like the same exact thing to me. Call it what you want, but it's still hate and bigotry.
Cant_have_it_both_ways (anonymous) replies…
I get it now. I use my hard earned cash to invest in a rental home. The government then tells me who or what I can rent it to. Sounds good to me.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Yes, that's right.
You don't have the freedom to deny housing based on race, gender, etc.
If you don't like that enough, you could not be a landlord I guess.
It's a limiting of your absolute freedom in order to achieve justice for potential tenants.
Just as we limit the exercise of freedom of speech with defamation laws.
Or the freedom to swing your arms around with battery laws.
Etc.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Cant_have_it_both_ways says "I use my hard earned cash..."
Trans people deserve the same opportunity to earn a living through labor. To do that, the minimum they need is a job, home, food and clothing. That's what the ordinance protects. You don't have to be friends with them. You don't have to admit them to your church. You don't have to admit them to your social club. You can use your free speech rights to call them nasty things. All nondiscrimination ordinances do is guarantee the minimum societal participation to historically excluded minorities.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
That has been the case for a long time. This is nothing new in that regard.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
> "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."
Gender identity isn't about sexual behavior. That's sexual orientation, which was settled 15 years ago in Lawrence.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
They are dealing with the same psychological disorder that makes you act like whatever gender your brain tells you to be and seek companionship from whichever gender you prefer. They are you. You might not like their "psychological disorder", but I imagine you find your own perfectly acceptable. I like mine.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) replies…
Umm, unlimited resources secured via genocide and human trafficking in the name of Christ-- Where does R,W and B come into this?
Get over your the myths about American (pron:Ah-mer-kin) history and realize that the entitlement complex goes way back, way before the welfare age.
I have no numbers as to how many of the Chinese, which made up 90% of the railroad labor force, were in fact gender identified. Do you?
mom_of_three (anonymous) replies…
You dont think there were homosexuals in the 1700 or 1800's when the country was founded? You probably dont believe the talk about j. edgar hoover either. He was tough on crime, sneaky about the info he knew and used against people, and may have done some things people dont talk about in the day time. wink wink
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
During the Revolutionary War, George Washington hired a flaming gay, gay, gay man to be the general of the First Continental Army. We would still be Red and White and not Red White and Blue if it wasn't for THE GAY.
http://www.dailypaul.com/133603/major...
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
You can't really say that. I won't dispute his importance in planting the seeds of the training our soldiers benefited from immensely. However you can't say for certain a man as capable as the Prussian could not emerge from America or some other european state. I believe it was The French and their navy that dealt the decisive circumstance that knocked over the first domino of our victory over Great Britain in the revolutionary war. I'd also note the French provided generals from their ranks and troops to fight beside ours.
The gay Prussian helped, but heterosexually was probably more beneficial when Ben Franklin employed it in gaining popularity among those influential on King Louis, who later allowed his military and especially his navy to fight England on our behalf. OTOH, Franklin might have been gay. I've heard rumors he delighted in forbidden sexual encounters.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@AOD506 calls trans people "freaks" and wants to "send them back to California."
@Cant_have_it_both_ways says "GAY = Got AIDS Yet?"
Proof of the bias LGBT people face in this community. This is why the ordinance was needed.
vuduchyld (anonymous) says…
Thank you, Commissioners.
Irenaku (anonymous) says…
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.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The concern is that non tg men will pretend to be tg in order to use women's bathrooms, and possibly be perverted in that use, and/or attack or rape women if they get the chance.
What will prevent that from happening?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs: What prevents it from happening now? We have peeping and assault laws that will still apply post ordinance. Gays and lesbians protected in this community for 15 years don't hide behind sexual orientation protections. And trans protections now exist in jurisdictions covering over 40% of the U.S. population, yet no one has cited a case. If this is workable in rural Iowa and Colorado, there's no reason to think Lawrence is special.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
If a woman sees a man in a restroom now, she can report it to somebody at the business, and they will take appropriate action. Post ordinance, they have no recourse other than to not use the restroom.
The gay and lesbian issue is a little different, in my view - I'm not saying that tg folks are the ones to be concerned about here.
Guys who are perverts look for any opportunity to exercise their compulsions - it seems quite reasonable that they'd use this sort of ordinance to do so.
Are you really sure that hasn't happened in the areas in which these have been passed? I suppose women could also be using public restrooms far less than they used to as well.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs says "I suppose women could also be using public restrooms far less than they used to as well."
That's absurd. The 1/3 of American women in jurisdictions that ban GI discrimination aren't holding it in until they get home because of such protections.
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the non-tg predator issue.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok.
Any sources for your claim that this isn't happening at all?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
It's not possible to prove a negative. You, however, could offer up an example where it has happened, since it would be public record.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs:
First, why is the burden of proof on me? You're the one claiming jurisdictions with GI nondiscrim. ordinances will see an increase in non-trans men--crossdressing or not--entering women's bathrooms.
Second, as should be clear from my comments, I try to follow LGBT issues carefully. I have *never* heard of what you claim.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I am concerned about the possibility.
But, your above clarifications of the ordinance address those concerns quite well.
They could make this whole conversation easier if you (or somebody else) would post them for all to see.
LarryNative (anonymous) says…
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.
beatnik (anonymous) says…
is there a reason people are thinking males when they think transgendered?
cabella (anonymous) says…
Nice picture to go along with the headline.
vocal (anonymous) says…
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!
chucklehead (anonymous) replies…
Well said! A voice of reason... few and far between.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Well, my wife would prefer not to have this part of the ordinance in place.
A reason that men aren't concerned about biological women using men's restrooms is that women don't generally attack/rape men.
The concern isn't about tg folks, it's about non tg men using the ordinance in order to gain access to women's restrooms.
What prevents that from happening?
deec (anonymous) replies…
The same thing that prevents it now, laws against peeping/rape/stalking. Rapists et. al. don't care that it is illegal for them to enter a women's bathroom. If your wife is so worried, she can opt not to use public bathrooms. Problem solved.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Right.
Those laws are so effective that hardly anybody ever gets raped, etc.
This ordinance gives perverted men a new opportunity to get close to women and possibly harm them - that doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
If a woman spots a man in a women's restroom now, she can complain to the store/business/police and get them removed.
ThatGirl2 (anonymous) replies…
Um, if someone goes into a women's bathroom with the intention to rape someone, I seriously doubt that the intended victim will have time to calmly walk out and report to "management" that there is a man in the bathroom. Transgendered or not. Rape is a crime of predatation--an attack, therefore a simple "no boys allowed" isn't going to keep a rapist out of a bathroom. Period. Your argument isn't holding water.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok - I give up.
I was just listening to my wife's concerns and not dismissing them.
Strange that that is now the thing men get criticized for doing.
funkdog1 (anonymous) replies…
Actual transgender men identify as women. Therefore, they have no interest in attacking women. What you're talking about are rapists. They don't bother to dress up as women. They attack women in elevators, parking garages, parks, etc., sometimes with a ski mask over their faces.
Understand the difference?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's what I said.
The concern is with plain old vanilla men pretending to be tg.
glasshaus (anonymous) replies…
What we do not have, and I hope we never have, is a law that says you have to be "pretty enough" to use the restroom. If someone is sick enough to rape or molest someone in the restroom, he is probably already masquerading around in women's clothing and doing it. He has never had to be pretty to get into the restroom, and this law is quite unlikely to change his behavior. Predators don't care what the law is. They're already in violation. GLBT people are not allowed to rape people, and a predator would not get off the hook by claiming to be transgendered.
mytwocents (anonymous) replies…
will you let your wife out of the chains to speak for herself?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
So silly.
I am always amazed at the projection/transference and plain getting things wrong that occurs on these stories.
My wife and I have a very equal relationship - she speaks for herself all of the time.
Is it now forbidden for me to pass her comments to me on to you?
rduhrich (anonymous) says…
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?????
rachelgn (anonymous) says…
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!
chucklehead (anonymous) replies…
Thank you. I was beginning to wonder why this wording was used and if I had somehow missed a return to archaic language.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
you can't change your gender anymore than you can change your Volkswagon into a Corvette. You can change the nomenclature, but it's still a Volkswagon. You can put this here and that there but it will probably be called a dune buggy.
Fixing a dog does not make it a bitch.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@FalseHopeNoChange: If what you say is true, then the American Psychiatric Association and its members are wrong. You should purchase a train ticket post haste. They will be most interested in your fresh, expert thinking.
FalseHopeNoChange (anonymous) replies…
Head doctors are doing what they are paid to do. They make you think you are feeling better.
ThatGirl2 (anonymous) replies…
No, but posting a comment like that makes you one.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
'in a professional newspaper like the LJ World'
That's the best joke I've heard in a long while - I can hardly stop laughing!
Meanwhile, this crazy town has moved one step closer to uni-sex/gender/feeling of the day restrooms.
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
Could NOT have voiced these sentiments better.
Ever. "Feeling of the day" Restroom!. ---lol, even if it's serious, it's so self-absorbed and perfect for those who are so completely at the center of their own existence.
Thanks CB, U made it a GREAT day!! : )
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@rachelgn: Spot on. I was really surprised Chad wrote that too. Besides being bad terminology, I think it is factually wrong. I don't think the ordinance would cover a transvestite because they would not have the persistent gender identity the ordinance requires.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
One problem is that the language is too vague and subject to the person's claims.
Anybody can say they identify as a member of the opposite gender, regardless of how they dress, etc.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs: I don't buy these two critiques: (1) that GI is vague, and (2) that it's subject to change and thus different from other protected classes.
Re: vague, religion is a vague concept. What counts as one? Courts have successfully dealt with this, so there's no reason to think they couldn't handle GI.
Re: changeability, religion is changeable. Some argue that sexual orientation is too. Yet we protect both without problems. And that's because courts as fact finders can spot legitimate discrimination cases. If someone is Wiccan for a day, or a fraternity pretends to be a church for tax exemption, or someone fakes being gay, that will come out during litigation.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
How exactly would one verify "persistent self-identification" without any sort of objective evidence, like cross-dressing, etc.?
I suppose that in a court case, one could do so, but in a more casual setting, it isn't very likely.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
A self-identifying male that just has a kink for wearing women's clothes would still be a transvestite, I believe. Outside of wearing women's clothes, they are heterosexual and male.
As for dressing up like a woman to rape someone in the restroom, I've been in lots of unisex restrooms and never saw any rapes. I did see a girl do cocaine off a sink once. She was wearing a short skirt and no undergarments. Those were the days. Sigh....
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
Nope, the correct term is crossdresser. Transvestite is considered quite outdated, and offensive, especially when used as an all-encompassing term for transgender people. I know there are people out there who still use that term to describe themselves, but generally, crossdesser is the preferred word.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
I can live with that. If I accidentally call someone a transvestite instead of a crossdresser I apologize in advance.
Hold on just a sec though, I need to reword one of my favorite tunes. If you have any positive ideas, I'll be happy to consider them. OK, the most pertinent part of the song will hereby be reworded to:
"I'm just a Sweet Croseedresser from Transexual, Transylvania."
Parents, protect your children from the following link. Also, our Christian friends should note that the baby Jesus cries every time this link gets clicked:
http://video.giovani.it/just-sweet-tr...
BrainCase (anonymous) says…
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.
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
Honestly, I think their ignorance helps our cause a great deal. By spouting off hatred supposedly in the name of god, they make our side seem more and more reasonable. Keep up the good work, folks! The queer community thanks you for your alienating and polarizing words!
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
Here's a narrow view that is perfect
1: Gender = sexual identity
2: Sexual Preference = gender(s) of partner(s)
3: It's nobody's business how people's genders are defined and the government should be required to protect their privacy as well as that of consenting people in private, under the 5th amendment.
Pretty simple, really.
dogsandcats (anonymous) says…
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?
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
The most respectful word to use would be crossdresser. Transvestite is an old-fashioned term that now gets thrown around to incorrectly identify trans people. Many crossdressers are heterosexual men, and it's simply just a part of their gender identity. Remember, everyone has a gender identity, not just trans folks! Crossdressers are included in the trans community, but not all crossdressers identify themselves as part of the trans community. In fact, some do not share this with the rest of the world, they even keep it to themselves or share it with other crossdressers. Of course, this is a generalization of the community, but this tends to be the way many people who identify as crossdressers present/identify themselves.
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
Oh, and another point of clarification. Transsexual is the word to describe people who have taken steps to change their gender. Transgender is the umbrella term for a variety of gender identities and not all transgender people are transsexual.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
Transvestite males may like wearing panties and it might really turn on their wives or husbands (coming soon to a state near you!). It isn't hard to understand. Transvestites like to wear clothes that we have decided don't match the genitals they were born with, but they choose who they want to get naked with just like everyone else.
Transsexual means the person is modifying their body to the form of the opposite gender, but they choose who they want to get naked with just like everyone else.
Transgenders made god mad so he put the girls in boys' bodies and vice versa, but they choose who they want to get naked with just like everyone else.
Sorry crossdresssers, if a word is allowed by this award-winning web site's TOS, I'll use it as I deem appropriate. Political correctness just makes me grumpy because I don't like being told what I can and can't say.
cheeseburger (anonymous) says…
'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.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
+1000000!!
MarcoPogo (anonymous) replies…
Ever had to take a dump down at Harbour Lights? Talk about feeling uncomfortable.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@cheeseburger: Lawrence added sexual orientation to its protected classes 15 years ago. Openly gay and lesbian people have been using bathrooms and showers in Lawrence since then. I don't know any straight people holding it in until they get home for fear of being next to them. The same will happen for trans people. It will be a non-event.
More generally, you imply that straight folk have some sort of right to keep LGBT people out of public facilities. Our society has settled this issue with sexual orientation and gender identity protections: straight people don't get first dibs or a veto over LGBT people when it comes to facility access. Everyone deserves equal access.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
You're missing an important distinction between gay/lesbian folks and this ordinance, I think.
And, that the real concern isn't with tg folks, it's with people (men) pretending to be tg.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
joe - you couldn't have missed the point any worse than you did. A gay man or lesbian woman is presumably equipped with similar plumbing as their straight counterparts, and thus sharing a washroom with them is not objectionable. When an obviously male individual decides on any given day that he feels like a woman and decides to utilize the women's room, that is objectionable to some.
Quit waving your red herring around in an attempt to hijack the tread or make me out to be prejudiced.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
Gender Identity doesn't work like that. You are forgetting the term "persistent."
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
I'm not forgetting the term - it's just nearly impossible to quantify or determine. Is the identity-confused individual supposed to wear some type of 'scoreboard' so everyone else can determine persistence? That has been - and remains - my point: when a guy in standing in the women's room with his penis hanging out, how does anyone know whether he is gender confused or a wacko?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
How many guys stand in the men's room with their penises hanging out? Aside from, you know, actually using it to pee, and doing so in a discreet manner, I think that would qualify as "wacko," regardless of the location.
FWIW, trans people are not gender confused. They are firm in their identity as male or female, regardless of anatomy. This law exists to protect people from being denied accommodation, employment, or housing on the basis of their identity not matching their equipment.
To answer your questions, see this post: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/sep...
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
The topic of urinal troughs has already been mentioned. Not every restroom or showerhouse is replete with individual stalls. And, as long as we are on the topic of ordinances to avoid infringing upon or otherwise limiting or inconveniencing anyone, who's to say what someone can and can't do while in there?
For the umpteenth time, I don't object to the housing or employment issues. That is far different than mandating unigender restrooms and showers.
The ordinance, while likely well-meaning, is too far-reaching.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
People peeing in urinal troughs still pee in as discreet a manner as possible, and it has absolutely no bearing on your claim that it will make it ok for some random guy to "hang out with his wang out" in a women's restroom.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@cheeseburger says "when a guy in standing in the women's room with his penis hanging out, how does anyone know whether he is gender confused or a wacko?"
If he's doing it for sexual gratification, it violates existing law against lewd and lascivious behavior. K.S.A. 21-3508.
If he's not, then this ordinance changes nothing. Kansas has no law requiring a person to use the bathroom of their sex at birth.
More realistically, when would your scenario ever happen? A true male-to-female transgender person would not stand there with their penis hanging out. A fake male-to-female transgender person would only be there if a sexual predator or mentally ill, both of which existing laws deal with.
I just want to say for the umpteenth time, 40%+ of the U.S. population lives in jurisdictions that ban GI discrimination. Where's the evidence of these scare cases happening?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@cheeseburger: The gay/lesbian discussion is no red herring. I'm drawing an analogy to banning sexual orientation discrimination. The argument then was that straight people would be uncomfortable with gay people in the same facility. With the benefit of hindsight, we see that to be a non-issue.
Now, the issue has switched from sexual attraction to anatomy. But the general objection is the same: discomfort by the majority of having the minority in the room. I'm saying that as a society we don't give the majority veto power over that minority's equal access just because of discomfort.
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
Stupid is as stupid does. I sure hope you're not checking out my plumbing when I'm in the bathroom - that's rude.
glasshaus (anonymous) replies…
Do you propose an ordinance denying gays and lesbians public restroom access?
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Red herring.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
But what if I don't want a gay fellow looking at my equipment while I take care of my business? Worse yet, what if a gay man enters a restroom where a 10 year old boy is using the facilities?
crazyks (anonymous) replies…
I hoped you weren't implying what I thought you were, but...sigh...you are...
Gay people are not any more inclined to be sexual predators than heterosexual people are...maybe even less so...
But rest assured...gay men have been entering the restroom with you and your sons or your grandsons or your cousin Bob or whoever for decades anyway...you just didn't know it...hey, gay men are probably sharing the public restroom with you right now! but you'll never know it...
Unless, of course, you want to dscriminate enough to try and force them to wear a scarlet "G" or something...
What letter would you have to wear? We all have something about us that other people think is wrong...
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
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.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
With the exception of the comment about religion, i concur with your post wholeheartedly!
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
Thanks Cheese. But my take on religion has been accumulated in my 67 years of observation. All religion is the fabrication of men who decided to write down their take on the Divine Power. And I do believe that there is a power of Divinity in the Universe. Trouble is, everyone has their notions of just what that Power is and is willing to take extreme measures to assure that every person alive is required to believe his take on the Power. This is called theocracy and is very popular with some political candidates. The most used version of the Holy Bible was concocted by King James of England who asslgned a committee to assemble a version of scriptures that were acceptable to himself in 1611 (Hence the "King James Version - neat huh?). Many, many other "scriptures" were omitted by all the King's men to preserve their necks.You provided the King with his request at the peril of having your head chopped off if you did not comply and put the King's take on religion in text.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
King James was gay, gay, gay as a goose silly willy.
greenlid79 (anonymous) replies…
"stupid and self-serving"???
Sounds like comment born out of ignorance. I'm not saying don't have an opinion, I'm just saying you don't sound like you've ever had any personal experience with anyone identifying themselves as transgendered. You're expressing a very judgmental view on an issue you don't seem to have a firm grasp on. A little information (on any particular subject) can be very illuminating and provide some insight. informed opinions I can take seriously.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) replies…
Green, you are exactly right. I am just an ignorant, old white man who has spent a lot of years watching elected idiots make fools of themselves glorifying non-issues with unneeded obfuscatated legislation and useless waste of public time.
joe_cool (anonymous) says…
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.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
A man who feels themselves to be a woman is protected from discrimination as a male, meaning they can use the men's restroom.
This ordinance protects their right to use the women's restroom.
I'm not saying I agree with it.
joe_cool (anonymous) replies…
I didn't think this was all about bathroom rights to begin with. I thought it was more about securing housing and a job. An FYI I'm ok with transgendered people using different a different bathroom than their original gender as long as they go through whatever legal process to change their gender.
Hmmm, I now wonder if its possible for a transgendered person to legally file for scholoraships and grants that are specific to a certain gender.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
My understanding is that this ordinance doesn't require any sort of process of gender reassignment or anything else.
It simply requires that one "self-identify" as a member of the opposite gender.
I agree about the housing, etc.
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
Seriously Cheeseburger - how much time do you spend in public restrooms? That is all you talk about.
Christiana (anonymous) replies…
This isn't about restrooms, it's about fairness in the workplace, the ability to rent a home and the ability to lodge complaints when these aren't met. It's about discrimination and nothing else. If you were in the minority, you would want these protections, unless you are and you have them already.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I agree with those issues - I think tg folks shouldn't be discriminated against in the workplace, housing, etc.
If those are the real issues, then why include the restroom issue, which seems to be the one people are bothered by?
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
I don't endorse discrimination, but this ordinance is too far-reaching when it involves public restrooms and shower facilities.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@joe_cool: The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't expressly cover gender identity. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit--which covers Kansas--has interpreted the term "sex" in the act to not include it. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, 502 F.3d 1215 (2007).
The Kansas Acts Against Discrimination also do not include gender identity. I'm not aware of litigation on whether the term sex in the act includes GI.
joe_cool (anonymous) replies…
Actually the Kansas Act does inherently include transgendered persons, because it covers all people "regardless of sex" http://www.khrc.net/pdf/kaadtext.pdf
So it doesn't matter if you are male, female, both, ???
Every person still has those same right no matter their sex, transgenderd or not. So I still see no need to create yet another law when its already covered.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@joe_cool: Ideally, the term "sex" in nondiscrimination laws would cover gender identity. But it is usually not interpreted that way. In the city attorney's presentation on the issue last night, she specifically said KAAD does not cover gender identity. We may wish the law to be a certain way, but it is what it is.
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
Actually, I looked into it, and you can go back and change your birth certificate to whatever you perceive yourself as being, even without surgery (in Kansas). Is that "educated and informed" enough for you Mensa candidates out there?
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
Actually, I looked into it, and you can go back and change your birth certificate to whatever you perceive yourself as being, even without surgery (in Kansas). Is that "educated and informed" enough for you Mensa candidates out there?
glasshaus (anonymous) replies…
I'm sorry. I have looked into it much further, and you cannot. I was able to change my birth certificate only because I was born in Iowa. If a person is born in Kansas, they cannot change their birth certificate without full genital reconstruction. I am legally male now, but was not 2 years ago, and had I been born here (as opposed to simply having taken up residency) I would not be legally male today.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@JovianaRex: Changing your legal sex does not make you eligible for the sex discrimination protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Kansas. See Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority, 502 F.3d 1215 (2007). And I'm aware of no case that extends it for the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination. The city attorney said as much last night in her presentation to the commission. Not a Mensa candidate, but FWIW I am an attorney licensed in Missouri and being licensed in Kansas. We may wish the law to be a certain way, but it is what it is.
sherbert (anonymous) says…
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?
rachelgn (anonymous) replies…
Someone's status as a transgender person is completely their own choice. Some seek medical assistance and there are standards of care and procedures involved through their doctors, legal documents, etc. The ordinance clarifies this by saying that there has to be some consistency in someone's gender identity, so that someone cannot just claim that they are transgender without actually identifying that way.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
How can that possibly be determined?
Will a business owner go and ask somebody's friends?
BlackVelvet (anonymous) says…
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.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's actually a good idea.
But we don't seem able to do that, at the federal level, or local ones - it seems we need to specify.
I guess part of the problem would be "good cause" - what constitutes that?
BlackVelvet (anonymous) says…
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.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Glad you prefaced the word 'intelligence' with 'alleged'!
You're exactly right - all these special ordinances just make things worse.
hujiko (anonymous) says…
Why the fixation on bathrooms? You really think this is about someone trying to steal glances of your junk?
Bunch of whiny fear-mongers.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
The concern is mainly from women, who are legitimately concerned about men pretending to be tg in order to gain access to women's restrooms.
Given the horrendous statistics on rape/sexual assault/physical assault of women by men, it's not a concern I am so quick to dismiss. Women who have any of those experiences in their past are perhaps even more likely to fear the possibility.
As a man, I have no concerns about biological women using men's restrooms - but that's probably because I'm not afraid they'll rape/attack me.
pocket_of_sunshine (anonymous) replies…
@jafs - - Just want to point out that approximately 85-90% of rape victims know their attacker. Can you please find another invalid argument and stop spouting the one about strangers waiting to rape someone in the bathroom? Also, please tell me when the last reported violent rape in Lawrence was? Was it in a bathroom? Where do you get this fear from? My chances of getting raped by a co-worker/friend/boyfriend are far higher than the chances I have when I go into a public restroom to pee. If you are trying to stand up for potential rape victims, why not start with creating a self-defense class? Or support education of the facts, not some ridiculous notion that a man is going to now throw on a dress just to rape random women in public restrooms.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
I'll accept your statistics as accurate without even checking them.
That leaves 10-15% stranger rape.
You can dismiss the concern if you like, but I choose not to do that.
And, I think you're missing the point there - this ordinance wouldn't require dressing as a woman or anything else other than "self-identification" as a member of the opposite gender.
That's an extraordinarily difficult thing to determine, as it is simply a subjective statement.
As I said, I'm not afraid of anything personally - my wife, however, is concerned, and I'm sure she's not alone in her concern.
Ceallach (anonymous) replies…
It would be helpful if you cited the source of the information you are presenting as fact, 85-90%, etc.
mcmandy (anonymous) replies…
http://www.rainn.org/statistics
This actually states 2/3 of rapes that are reported (note that they estimate 60% not to be reported) are committed by someone known to the victim. Sunshine's stats were greatly inflated based on facts, though could very well be more accurate depending on the 60% that don't report. I would hypothesize that women are less likely to report a rape when it is committed by someone they know.
gatekeeper (anonymous) replies…
Let's do a poll. I'm not afraid of a trans-gender male coming into a women's bathroom. Who cares? Really, afraid of some guy trying to dress up to rape us in the bathroom?
You are a bigot. That's all. Quit acting like you are looking out for the safety of women. How about us women take care of ourselves.
I've known a few trans-gender males. You wouldn't have known they were male and you probably would have hit on them. The last thing on their minds was doing anything to women, except maybe their nails or hair or sharing clothes. :-)
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Ok - I give up.
It's funny to be accused of wrongdoing for listening to my wife and not dismissing her concerns.
I have no problem with tg folks, and I've said numerous times that it's the non tg folks pretending who are likely to be the problem.
It's interesting that people can't read what I write - "men pretending to be tg"
There seems to be a lot of jumping to conclusions on your part here.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
'Why the fixation on bathrooms? You really think this is about someone trying to steal glances of your junk'?
Sadly, for some sickos, this ordinance has created the perfect opportunity for them. You have enabled them to perfect their craft without resorting to hidden video equipment and the like.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
Unfortunately for your argument, this ordinance isn't about bathrooms. It's about housing, loans, jobs, etc. If someone went into a bathroom with the intention of peeping on/molesting/raping others, they would be breaking the law -regardless of their gender or gender identity. You're trying to say that this opens doors for perverts, but in reality the doors have always been open for that behavior.
This baseless fear mongering is a product of intolerance. Get over it, the ordinance is passed.
Also, I didn't enable this. I support it, but the Commission is the one you should be upset at.
deec (anonymous) says…
"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.
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
Given that may be the case, is it any reason to give a possible predator protected access? See, I wonder if you really crunched the numbers, if you might find that more men are involved in this discussion (overall and on both sides) Testosterone gives a "special" type of edge to the sexual act. It's supposed too, and this (overall) ensures the propogation of the species. However it can also present as a deviant urge in an individual. People are probably more often (by a huge percent, i would imagine) violated in a sexual manner (for reasons of anger, power or whatever) by MEN. So why let them into a new arena with guaranteed absence of generally more vulnerable groups??? See, women don't have the "edge" either with hormones (that really can get them furious enough to invent hand-to-hand combat---and spare me your Greek Amazon examples) or with physical endowment. I don't like this, and I have to use public restrooms a LOT, because of surgery, etc...So I will just suck it up, but I don't like it.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
There's no argument here. Predators will prey regardless of their gender or gender identity. This doesn't give them protection or access, they're still breaking the law by peeping, molesting, or raping another.
Seriously, come up with an actual argument not based in fear and meant to distract from the actual issue at hand. Classic red herring at play today, it's really unfortunate that anybody has fallen for this cooked up nonsense.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
So? will it be a hate crime now for a man to dress like a woman at a holloween party? or visa versa?
glasshaus (anonymous) replies…
No. It would be a hate crime to refuse to rent to them because they are transgendered, or to refuse to hire them because they are transgendered, or to spraypaint "deviant" on their car or something.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@glasshaus: Nondiscrimination laws and hate crimes are two different things. It would not be a hate crime to refuse to rent, hire, etc. A hate crime is committing some crime, e.g., murder, because of an animus against a protected minority class.
BeeBee3 (anonymous) says…
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.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) says…
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.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
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.
pocket_of_sunshine (anonymous) replies…
How is allowing everyone, no matter the lifestyle, the same rights as you and I considered special treatment? Please explain, as I always find this argument very dumbfounding.
Gedanken (anonymous) replies…
I could see your point here. I also think Lawrence is pretty tolerant of people's lifestyle wishes. There is a good reason why gender is not a protected class under the Federal laws. Some jobs require certain genders. When was the last time you saw a Victoria's Secret model with back hair?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@consumer1: I don't doubt your experience. But others have not had your luck. I'm gay and have seen sexual orientation discrimination in my life. I know several trans people and have seen gender identity discrimination in their lives. It may not be on every street corner, but it does exist.
Christiana (anonymous) replies…
The special treatment argument is misinformed and specious at best. Get more talking points and we'll listen. No one will be negatively effected by the outcome.
Phone_Man (anonymous) replies…
I would agree with you Consumer. I have a few gay friends they live their lives and don't go out of their way to advertise or throw it in anyones face. Let me say they don't live this way in fear its going to cost them a job or because they feel they will be discriminated against. The reason they don't publicize the fact is because they don't think of themselves as any different than you and I. As far as I'm concerned they are not any different than myself except they sleep with men. They are human and put their pants on the same way the rest of us do. In fact I have discussed issues like this and their feeling is the "over the top" we have to have equal rights gay pride people are the ones who give gay and lesbians a bad name. People wouldn't have ill feelings or look at them differently if they didn't have huge rallies and preach equal rights. In most cases many people wouldn't even know they were gay.
Oh and I would like to say they are not hiding the fact they are gay friends, family, and jobs all know they are gay.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Phone_Man says "I have discussed issues like this and their feeling is the 'over the top' we have to have equal rights gay pride people are the ones who give gay and lesbians a bad name. People wouldn't have ill feelings or look at them differently if they didn't have huge rallies and preach equal rights."
You've essentially labeled gay people who stand up for their civil rights "uppity."
My partner and I deserve the same opportunity to have our relationship recognized by government. It's still a crime to have gay sex in Kansas. Unlike your lucky gay friends, some of us have not escaped discrimination. And until this month, gays were excluded from the military.
Can you imagine how different this country's history might read if people hadn't fought against various forms of discrimination?
Phone_Man (anonymous) replies…
Joe: Uppity is your word. I never said you don't deserve the same opportunities; in fact I agree you should. I just don't understand why the fact a person is gay has to be in my face all of the time. If you want equal rights so be it lobby for it knock yourself out but I don't need to hear about it. If my neighbor wants to bang chickens in his garage I'm fine with it but I don't want to hear about it. I don't think I'm doing a good job at what I'm trying to convey; all I know is most gay people seem to have a chip and if they get their feather ruffled then everyone in a 100 mile radius has to hear about it. I'm not against you I think you should have equal rights. Just take it down a couple of notches.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Do you require the same thing of straight people, or is it ok for them to be loudly heterosexual and "in your face" about it?
Phone_Man (anonymous) replies…
Jafs: I don't care for loud heterosexuals either. No one needs to be loud and obnoxious to get their point heard. My opinion is the louder and more obnoxious on is; the less people listen to them; Gay or Straight.
cheeseburger (anonymous) says…
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!
BeeBee3 (anonymous) replies…
Your comment is completely ignorant and sad. Educate yourself on the matter before you are so careless. Being transgendered is not something someone 'feels' on a particular day. It is lifelong.. and heartbreaking. So think twice before your insensitive comments. You are the reason this ordinance is needed.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
What is the litmus test for finding man in the women's restroom? That is my objection to this whole charade - some guy can say 'I identify with women' and his presence in the women's room is validated and excused. What a farce!
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
The farce is only in your bizarre construction of the way gender identity works.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Do tell, Tristan. I am not in conflict with my gender, so please explain how you intend to keep sickos and predators masquerading as TG from invading public showerhouses and restrooms. How does the person in the washroom identify 'persistent'?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
The ordinance does not come into play in the washroom. The ordinance comes into play when someone claims they were discriminated against. At that point, it is up to them to prove that they persistently identify with a particular gender. That would be a matter for the courts if it was up for dispute. This ordinance does not make it any easier for "sickos and predators" to do what you would have them do. One does not masquerade as transgendered any more than one would masquerade as being straight or gay. It's not a "feeling of the day." It is a fundamental conflict between personal identity and biology that is so pervasive that one would be willing to live their entire life contrary to the way they are equipped. You can't masquerade that. Besides, there's nothing in this law that makes it any easier for "sickos and predators" to invade public showerhouses and restrooms. At present, there's no law requiring people to use one restroom or the other.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
I disagree - the ordinance very much does come into play in the bathrooms and showerhouses.
I'm not suggesting that TG's masquerade - I'm suggesting that people who aren't would use this excuse to access restroom and showerhouses of the opposite gender for ill-conceived purposes, and have full protection of the law to do so, because those already there wouldn't know if they were there legitmately or not, and thus might not choose to make a formal complaint. I agree that things might eventually be worked out in courts of law after the fact, but that is of little comfort and consolation to someone who has been traumatized in a restroom or shower.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
They would not have full protection of the law. They have to *actually* identify as that gender to enjoy protection. This "masquerading" would be a prima facie exclusion from the protections offered by this ordinance.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
I'm talking about the immediate, Tristan, not the eventual. You are not grasping that.
A woman goes into the women's locker room at the indoor aquatic center and sees a man in the showers. Is this guy legit? Is he a poser? What does she do? To whom does she complain? Who investigates? Why is this woman allowed to be inconvenienced? If modesty isn't an issue, why have we had separate facilities thus far?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
I would ask -- to what extent does this law even apply to the situation you pose? If a man is in the shower, she can complain to anyone that she feels can rectify the situation for her. How does this ordinance change anything regarding that?
If you are concerned about the immediate, then this ordinance is not what you are discussing. There are other laws and procedures in place already.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Is the situation rectifiable? Who really knows?
You're a smart guy, Tristan, but I cannot figure out why you would say this ordinance doesn't affect the immediate.
Can't wait till I witness a parent having to have the "B&B" talk with their three-year-old after seeing a differently-plumbed individual in their bathroom.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Adults bring their young children into the opposite sex restroom, showers all the time. So what's the dealio? There is no law against a person using the opposite sex restroom. It is only tradition and up tight prudish Victorian false modesty.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
So? Can I use the women's restroom now? If I am feeling particularly sensitive?
Christiana (anonymous) replies…
Yes you may, there is currently no law prohibiting it. Otherwise fathers couldn't take their daughters into men's restrooms and vice versa. Assault someone and you will be arrested. That's it. Deal with it.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
If you were watching the meeting, you would know that, yes, there is no local or state statute specifically prohibiting you from doing so. That it doesn't happen arises out of social norms, not out of laws. At best, you'd face a disorderly conduct charge.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
I had to go really bad at the mass st dillons and some guy was taking too long in the men's room. I didn't hesitate to use the ladies room.
Liberal (anonymous) says…
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.
Tex (anonymous) replies…
1. You could probably find some sort of statistics by using Google, etc.
2. We are not in Europe.
3. I do not ever recall hearing that transgender discrimination was a problem in Lawrence, and I've lived here for more than twenty years (and worked downtown for most of those years, and frequented a variety of downtown nightspots and restaurants).
Christiana (anonymous) replies…
It's a problem. Now you've heard.
Tex (anonymous) replies…
Everybody has problems; not every problem requires a city ordinance in response.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
+1
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Tex says "Everybody has problems; not every problem requires a city ordinance in response."
That's why the city's human rights code is limited to certain minority classes and certain activities. As a society, we've drawn the line for when we pass laws to minorities that are so excluded that they cannot participate in society in the most fundamental ways, e.g., employment, housing, buying necessities. This is not lawmaking run amok; there's some logic to it.
Tex (anonymous) replies…
I think "some" is the operative word. The very word "tolerance" has been thrown around so often and stretched so far that it retains little if any meaning. Everyone is intolerant of something; otherwise, we would have no laws at all.
I could compile "anecdotal evidence" that any "group" of people experiences discrimination; overweight people, redheaded people, people who wear full bicycle-riding regalia. Where does the definition of "special classes" end?
CWGOKU (anonymous) says…
Why doesn't everyone just wear Depends? Problem solved.
classclown (Class Clown) says…
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.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@classclown: He wouldn't meet the ordinance's requirement of persistent gender identity, appearance, etc. He would trigger existing peeping laws.
birdsandflowers (anonymous) says…
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.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
Are you more afraid of self-identified men being in a women's locker room or just penises? Trans-women are no more likely to be out to get you than any other women. Yes, a trans-woman may happen to have a penis, but if they do not identify with it and honestly do not believe it is right for them to have one in the first place, what makes you think they would want to use it as a self-identified man would? Do you have a problem with the person or with the equipment?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@birdsandflowers says "I could care less about how another chooses to live their lives UNTIL their rights interfere with mine!"
How does a transgender person using the bathroom of their gender identity interfere with your rights to use the bathroom of yours?
Do you believe gays/lesbians who use the bathroom violate your rights?
birdsandflowers (anonymous) replies…
I flat out do not want to share a bathroom with men, and until now, that has been my right! I also do not want to be subject to explaining an adult subject matter to my granddaughter when she asks why is that man using the girls bathroom. Enough said!
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Honey, you've already been using the bathroom with men--Transgender persons. You're uptight Azz just didn't know it. Give you're granddaughter some credit. All you have to say is that he has to tinkle and don't stare it is impolite. Public restrooms are "public accommodations" as such nobody should be exiled from their use. Geebus, I'm going to need half a blue Valium.
glasshaus (anonymous) replies…
Regarding locker rooms, it's very unlikely that a transwoman isn't going to find a stall to change in or something if she actually still has a penis. Most of us are modest enough that we don't want to get stared at while we change any more than someone else does. We don't want to be seen as awkward. What would look wrong is if someone who has feminine characteristics (even if she's not 'pretty') walked into the men's locker room. Men would scramble to cover up- or to tell her that she's in the men's room, and ask her to leave if she didn't. If this law causes any change in locker room behavior at all, it will likely be that gym memberships increase with some people that use the stalls to change.
BeeBee3 (anonymous) says…
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.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
I noticed someone giving a comment that they had never encountered complaints regarding the issue. It seems a specious argument to say such. Nobody will complain about discrimination to an authority that does not recognize discrimination as such.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) says…
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.
greenlid79 (anonymous) replies…
The meat of it.
Well-put, thank you.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Why don't the same laws that prevent a person from being fired or denied service because they are divorced apply here? Are there not laws in place that already prevent such things from occurring based solely on the fact that a person morally objects to the actions of another person?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
There are no such blanket laws, and it is doubtful they would ever be passed. Not every jurisdiction includes marital status as a protected class. To my knowledge, you are fully free in the state of Kansas to fire someone or refuse them service for being divorced.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
I think your right. If that is the case then this ordinance does prevent us from conscientiously objecting to the acts that such a person might commit that we find immoral. You say that we would be discriminating against the person, while I would say I'm discriminating against the actions of the person not the person. As you said the right to deny service or fire someone because of their actions is permitted. This ordinance basically closes itself off to the debate and assumes the fact that we now have three different types of people: male, female, and transgendered. I do not believe this which is why I am not in favor of this ordinance.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
Conscientiously objecting is very broad and vague. Discrimination, as it applies to this statute, is very narrowly defined, as it should be.
Conscientiously object all you want. I would only say you are discriminating if you were doing so as it is defined in the statute. Don't make this out to be broader than it actually is. Nobody is denying you your right to your beliefs. You are just not free to deny accommodation, employment, or housing to someone based on exhibition of particular, identified traits.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Yes but this ordinance doesn't only endorse the person but the actions as well. There is no action involved in an African American person having black skin or a woman being a woman. A person who believes they are the opposite sex of which they have been given the equipment of engaging in what equates to same-sex acts takes forethought and is something that they have control over. If said actions are disruptive to a business or establishment I own I should have the right to fire them for said actions. Denying them service just because they identify themselves as the opposite sex would be wrong. Its when they take actions because of that belief that are disruptive customers or other people who have to live in same building that it becomes a problem.
gayokay (anonymous) replies…
Your objections are legal but your proposed discriminatory "behavior" is not. Religious excuses for bad behavior just don't cut it when it comes to discrimination. Back in the bad ol' days black persons faced discrimination that some justified with their religion too. Nope try again.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
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.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
See my above post. This discussion is just getting ludicrous. Look at the reasons for the law, and then ask yourself if who pees where is *really* the important part.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
This law denies the idea of conscientiously objecting to transgendered behavior.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
It does no such thing. You may object to their behavior all you want, but if you run a restaurant, bar, or hotel, or if you own rental property, or if you have hiring/firing authority for a business, or if you lend money, you may not deny someone service on the basis of being transgendered.
What we're talking about is preventing discrimination similar to the "Irish Need Not Apply" signs of the 19th century. It's no more a violation of your religion than it would be for you to be forced to provide service to someone of a different (or no) religion. Religion, with very narrow, well-defined exceptions, cannot be used as a wall to hide behind to deny service to a class of people.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
yes but at what point do you stop? This seems as if we are getting eerily close to saying speaking out against homosexual acts is hate speech whether or not it is coming from a religious forum or not. A lot of people have compared the gay rights movement to the civil rights movement for African Americans. If a pastor got up today and started spewing stuff about African American's being less of a person than white people that would be considered hate speech, and rightly so. The problem is we aren't all in agreement that transgendered people are a different class of people. It would seem to me that the discriminating action is when you make them a third class of people outside of male and female.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
This ordinance has nothing to do with hate speech. It is very clearly defined as saying that for the purposes of public accommodation, housing, and employment, it is not permissible to exclude people based on certain identified traits. That is all.
If a pastor got up today and started spewing stuff about anything.... it's immaterial to this ordinance. All this ordinance does is say you cannot deny someone food, employment, or shelter because they are transgendered. That is all.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13 says "This law denies the idea of conscientiously objecting to transgendered behavior."
Not true. You don't have to be friends with trans people. You don't have to admit them to your church. You don't have to admit them to your social club. You can use your free speech rights to call them nasty things. You can campaign against them.
All the nondiscrimination ordinance does is guarantee the minimum societal participation to historically excluded minorities: a job, home, and buying necessities.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
This ordinance establishes transgendered as a different class of people outside of male and female. I do have a problem with the people but rather their actions just as I don't hate a person that kills but rather the action that person committed. This ordinance basically says a transgendered person has no more ability to control their actions than an African American person does the color of his/her skin. I don't agree with that comparison.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
And thousands of clinical psychologists would disagree with you. I would encourage you to actually talk with transgendered folk about being transgendered. If gender identity is a decision, then when did you decide to be what you were?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: That argument is love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin warmed over.
Some minority communities' statuses are defined by their conduct. For example, religion, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Trying to separate the status and behavior doesn't make sense. Jews wear yarmulkes and eat kosher. Gays have sex with people of the same sex. Trans people dress and act as the opposite sex.
Laws about these communities express no opinion on whether those behaviors are the product of free will. Rather we look at how integral and difficult to change those behaviors are to people. A person's religious faith, sexual orientation, and gender identity are so fundamental a part of their identity that we treat those traits as akin to unchangeable elements like race.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
That is one aspect that might be looked at and I hope you don't consider it to be the most important. If so than all the people who believe they have genetic reasons for being attracted to children are in the free and clear. Just because someone is made genetically to be so inclined to one action or another does not mean we have to tolerate and promote said action.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: The analogy between gays and trans people versus pedophiles doesn't work. Consensual same-sex sex and living as the opposite sex do no harm to others. Pedophiles do harm to others. Our society has drawn a line at injuring others.
consumer1 (anonymous) replies…
You must be a woman, I don't want to pee in a women's restroom, nor do I want the men's room turned into a unisex restroom with doilies and pretty furniture. A men's room is functional, It aint broke so quit trying to fix it.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/d/...
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
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.
MarcoPogo (anonymous) replies…
There's also one that caters to Christians. Fights could break out all around.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
optimist (anonymous) says…
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.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
Is it really such a burden to a business that they are required to provide the same level of service and opportunity to transgendered people that they do to everyone else? Is it such a burden that you can't fire someone for being trans? Does it undermine your religious beliefs that you can't refuse to rent a house to someone because he or she is trans?
How bad do you want to discriminate that you think this law hurts you?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@optimist says "This isn't San Francisco we should stop behaving like it before someone proposes that we give the cows special rights."
You just equated a minority community with animals.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
You do as well when you equate the sexual impulses of a person that is transgendered to an animal and the free will that is associated with acting on those impulses.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: You conflate choosing sexual orientation/gender identity with choosing to be honest about one's SO/GI. Saying the former is unchangeable in most people is not saying people are animals. It is acknowledging reality. Calling the latter a choice is weak--do we really expect people to lie about a fundamental part of who they are?
misplacedcheesehead (anonymous) says…
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.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
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!!!!!!!!!!
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
What does that have to do with ensuring nobody will be denied employment, food, or shelter based on immutable traits?
BeeBee3 (anonymous) replies…
Those are ridiculous comparisons, Frwent. Stepping in chewing gum and the issue of gender identity discrimination. Yep, those deserve to be in the same category.
"The present occupant of this office is rife with solutions for problems that do not exist and making political hay from it." You do not know what issues do and do not exist.
13Nate13 (anonymous) says…
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?
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
I hear a BIG silence after that comment....c'mon, where's the quick retort?
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Give it time. One of those "free thinkers" will chime in.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) replies…
Hmm or vice versa. What if your daughter decided she was a guy in woman's body? Would she then have the right to shower with the boys?
I for one think that it would be dealt with the same way it is dealt with in the years prior to this vote. I have heard nothing from the school district concerning a problem with transgendered students infiltrating each others locker rooms. or have I just not been reading the papers enough. Show me an instance where this has become a problem.
This is not about showers (for rational Americans at least), it is about human rights and protection where there has been violations in the past.
BTW, you can tell marion the flu thing is over and he can come out now. Its been a couple of years, I hope he's OK.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
I'm sure they would have made arrangements so they could shower at different times. But I'm curious as it would seem this would make even doing that be discrimination. And if not and they are just going to shower at different times, why does it have to be in the women's room and not the men's room?
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@JovianaRex: I can't type faster than the sum of ignorance.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
1) Argumentum ad hominem does nothing to further the debate.
2) I honestly don't know how this would get resolved. My guess is that this actually would not come up all that much. Self-identification as being transgendered, specifically being "out" as such, doesn't seem to me to be fully nailed down for most until well after high school. Either way, it is a sticky issue that I would imagine would have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Regardless, a trans person would likely be in an uncomfortable position regardless of which locker room they were able to use, especially in high school, when emotional vulnerability is already high.
3) FWIW, I really don't recall anybody in my gym classes showering after gym. There just wasn't enough time given. One would have to choose between being sweaty or being late to the next class.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
haha I was waiting for the dodge in number 3 to come up. Also, how long has it been since you were in high school? This is not as uncommon as you would think. I'd also add that part of the whole argument for transgenderism is that it is the way they have been since birth, which would imply that they should have a pretty good idea by high school especially after puberty has kicked in. A law should take into account all possibilities.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
Number 3 wasn't a dodge, just a humorous (if slightly icky) observation. I graduated from high school a decade ago, and I've spent six of the last ten years teaching in a high school environment in some capacity. From a time constraint standpoint, nothing has changed.
Back to the point, if it were possible for law to take into account all possibilities, there would be no need for judicial review.
Keep in mind that someone who is transgendered was raised as their birth gender for at least the first, say, ten years of their life. Coming to the realization that they are trans is neither fast nor easy. They may have an idea by high school, but then, they are still figuring themselves out at that point too (not just trans... everybody is, really).
Again, I think cases will be isolated enough that it won't be practical to have an institutional practice. Things will have to be case-by-case. Exceptions are made for students in many environments for many reasons. Why should we expect this to be any different?
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
@SWGlassPit
In truth I agree that I doubt we will really notice any change because of this ordinance. If someone does attempt to take advantage of it they will close up the loophole. Why we have to wait for someone to try before we close it up is beyond my grasp however. I do think that the main point of this law though is an ideological victory. Even though I believe transgendered actions are morally wrong I would never deny service to someone just because they were so inclined. I would however wish to be able to deny them service if there behavior became disruptive just as I would if a heterosexual couple was disruptive. As I stated before the real problem I have with this law is the fact that it establishes transgendered people as a separate class of people outside of male and female.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
@13Nate13: "I would however wish to be able to deny them service if there behavior became disruptive just as I would if a heterosexual couple was disruptive."
You would absolutely be within your rights to do so, as you would be denying them service based on disruptive actions. I have no problem with that.
JovianaRex (anonymous) replies…
I don't know about that, I work in people's houses and get to see a lot of TV, I saw a cable show about problem children today... There is an all-female couple in California raising an adopted child who is 4. They got "him" 2 yrs ago, and his name was Tommy. Now he is apparently calling himself "Tammy" and has decided he is a girl.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: I just don't think this scenario is realistic. I am not trans, but based on the people I know, it seems to me they would:
If pre hormone/surgery: either find a way to avoid showering at school, do so separately, or as a last resort shower with sex assigned at birth.
If post hormone/surgery: either find a way to avoid showering at school, do so separately, or as a last resort shower with post-surgery sex.
The trans people I know aren't out to flaunt anatomical differences. They usually want to "pass," i.e., live a normal life as the opposite gender. Maybe a trans person can weigh in.
My old neighbor was male-to-female trans and recently graduated from LHS. I'll see if I can find out how LHS handles trans showering.
Scott_12 (anonymous) says…
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!
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12: The campaign to add sexual orientation and gender identity to Manhattan's human rights code was sparked by a gay man who was denied housing based on his sexual orientation.
The Kansas Human Rights Commission, which enforces the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination, refuses to even document discrimination complaints for which it lacks authority to act.
And why would people file a complaint for which no legal cause of action exists? In Kansas City, Mo., which added GI to its human rights code in 2008, they now receive complaints of trans discrimination.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
"who was denied housing based on his sexual orientation"
You attempt to tie a person's actions to who they are. Is some who gets a divorce to be identified by their divorced status? Some people even have personalities that would make them more inclined to end up getting a divorce. If someone who did not like the image that gave to his housing complex would it be discrimination if he denied that person because of the actions they had committed? Could such a person sue based on the fact that their personality made them more inclined to divorce?
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
When did you choose to be straight?
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
If I choose to have sex with someone I am making a free choice to have sex with that person whether they are male or female. We are not animals that act on instinct. We have inhibitions but we have been given free will to choose whether or not we wish to act on them. Do you protect the pickpocket who is inclined to steal because of his genetic make-up? We wouldn't deny a person service or a job just because of his tendency inspired by his genetic make-up but if he acted on it I would want the right to be able to deny him service if necessary. I feel like your arguments are stepping into some very hairy ground of moral relativity where no action can ever be wrong or right if you can point to some part of that person's personality or genetic make-up that makes them more inclined to commit such an action.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Our actions are a combination of instinct and choice.
You didn't choose your sexual orientation, I'd bet. But you can choose whom to have sex with (to some degree - they're also making a choice).
The real question is whether the characteristic in question has any concrete reasonable connection to the job, housing, etc. If it does, it seems reasonable to use it as a criteria. On the other hand, if not, then it doesn't.
So, things like references, credit history, etc. are reasonable things to consider when renting to a tenant - their sexual orientation and activity are not.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
"Do you protect the pickpocket who is inclined to steal because of his genetic make-up?"
Is this an act between two consenting adults? Nope.....
Scott_12 (anonymous) replies…
And it was repealed again for what reason?
The KHRC refuses to document discrimination? Interesting, considering that's it's sole purpose. And, isn't Scott Criqui the President of that Commission? I.e., the person who lead the LGBT compaign?
Filing a complaint with organizations gets it on record. It shows numbers and volume and a legitimate way to show there is a problem. Directly targeting the City Commission directly despite every other avenue available, especially when the majority of individuals are against the proposal, is simple bullying and political, not professional, but hey, terrorism is direct and that works.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12:
Manhattan's religious community organized a slate of city commission candidates who opposed their sexual orientation and gender identity nondiscrimination law. They were elected and repealed the protections.
As I understand it, KHRC does not document discrimination that is not covered by the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination. For example, if someone refuses to hire you because you're African American, if you complain they will take your complaint and act upon it. If someone refuses to hire you because you're gay, if you complain they are not authorized to act upon it AND do not even document the complaint.
The KHRC is different from the Lawrence Human Relations Commission, which is an advisory panel to the City Commission. Scott Criqui is the chair of the Lawrence commission, not the state KHRC organization.
If you want to call lobbying elected officials for a policy and then those elected officials having a public hearing after notice, a public vote, and an explanation of their vote bullying and terrorism, go for it. It reveals a complete misunderstanding of what both democracy and terrorism are.
13Nate13 (anonymous) says…
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.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: Lawrence's human relations code doesn't evaluate what motivates the discrimination, e.g., moral v. secular reason. Rather it prohibits all discrimination against protected classes in certain activities (employment, housing, public accommodation). One of the protected classes is "familial status," i.e., divorced, therefore a Christian business owner opposed to divorce could not fire an employee for getting one because the divorced employee falls within the protected class and activity. Gender identity is not a protected class, so it is currently legal to fire a trans employee for any reason, whether that reason be moral or secular.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
I asked about tattoos because I was wondering whether it was under the pretense of excessively damaging ones appearance. Some people find excessive tattoos or excessive piercings to be unappealing. A man who goes through surgery to make himself look like a woman might be seen in same unappealing fashion. This is something they had complete control over whether or not their personality made them more inclined to want the operations. If they are protected why could a person with excessive piercings not also argue that his/her personality is to blame for making them more susceptible for wanting piercings and thus by telling them they can't have a job because of their piercings or tattoos you are discriminating against them.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@13Nate13: Because as a society, we see a difference between historically excluded minority groups like African Americans, Jews, LGBT people, etc. versus people who get tattoos and body piercings. A common theme to the communities we protect is that their defining traits are either unchangeable or close to it. Religion, sexual orientation and gender identity arguably fall in the "close to it" category. For gay and trans people, we treat coming out and transitioning as only barely choices of free will, in contrast to a decision like getting a tattoo or piercing.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Yes but I believe that involves a lot of assumptions about how the human mind works which we really don't understand. Could I not argue that you are discriminating against people who get tattoo's? Why do you expect them to be able to control themselves and not get tattoos, but not people who are apparently attracted to the opposite gender? Are you not making assumptions about the person who is getting tattoo's, when there might possibly be something mentally that would make them more inclined to get tattoo's? I'm sorry but having sex with someone of the same gender is a complete act of free will. Saying it is not an act of free will is basically saying such people are animals.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Doesn't this mean we have to pass more and more specific laws prohibiting discrimination for one thing or another?
Why couldn't we just write a law prohibiting discrimination of any sort unrelated to the concrete situation - eg. a tenant's credit rating, references, etc.?
Or with employment, a person's resume, work history, and references.
Do you think it's ok to deny people housing or employment because of tattoos?
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
haha idk I haven't though about that issue enough. I used it because I know in Lawrence a business can refuse to employ someone because of excessive tattoos or piercings.
Also denying someone based on credit rating is discrimination too right? After all they can't control the personality and genetic makeup they have been given which may have made them more inclined to be bad with money.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
It's not about whether they're born with something or whether it's a choice, in my view.
The relevant question is whether or not the reason for denying employment, housing, etc. has anything to do with concrete rational concerns or not.
Credit ratings obviously do have that connection.
But, my comment and question were really more for joe, especially since he's a lawyer :-)
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
I agree with you on this. I think we disagree as to whether the actions a transgender person has committed or does commit could have an effect on the whether a person is employed or allowed to live somewhere. Many people find excessive tattoo's or piercings disturbing and many people might find a man who has gone through surgeries to look like a woman to be disturbing. Your basically associating that condition to be equal to the control an African American person has over having black skin. I don't agree or believe it to be a healthy change and I don't believe there is any kind of consensus on this issue in the medical field.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Again I don't care whether the attribute is within somebody's control or not.
Many people might find it disturbing to rent to a black man - that's not a good enough reason to deny them housing, is it?
The question is whether it's something that matters in the context of the situation - a landlord has a reasonable concern about their tenant's ability to pay rent on time, be a quiet/good neighbor, not break the law, etc.
They don't have a reasonable concern about their tenant's sex life, which is personal, or whether their tenant is Christian or not, etc.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@jafs: I think it's an interesting point you make. To me, it boils down to what you mentioned earlier as "good cause." When society prohibits discrimination against a minority class, I see that as a legislative determination that discrimination against that group in those activities is not good cause. The downside to this approach is what you identify, having to evaluate each minority community through the intensive legislative process.
The alternative would be to generically prohibit discrimination in those activities for not good cause. I think that hands the difficult decision of what is good cause from the legislative bodies to judicial bodies. I can see pros and cons to that. On the one hand, its more flexible--a judge could address things on a case-by-case basis. On the other, it creates a lot of uncertainty. You don't know who is protected until the judge rules.
To me, America's tradition of individual freedoms seems in tension with banning private discrimination. If we're going to force people to do business with those they dislike in this limited set of activities that the minority needs to meaningfully exist, that determination seems like it should be legislative in nature. Ironically, these legislative bodies are usually majority controlled. Getting minority protections usually means the minority group must suffer some very strong discrimination to earn the sympathy of the majority. In that sense, the process seems inherently conservative to adding new classes.
You seem to favor a generic/more general prohibition on discrimination. How would you structure it?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Thanks.
You're right, about the switch from legislative to judicial, and pros/cons of either approach, and the tension between individual freedom and anti-discrimination laws.
I don't know the answer to your question - but it seems to me that anything not directly and reasonably related to the concrete situation/relationship should be off-bounds.
Sometimes this seems easy to determine - credit ratings, landlord references, etc. are obviously reasonable concerns of landlords.
But, other times it's harder to decide, I think - what characteristics matter in the workplace?
The basic idea is that only what actually matters should count - I wonder if there would be widespread agreement or not on this one.
SWGlassPit (Tristan Moody) replies…
People with tattoos are not a protected class in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
Your argument about credit rating vs genetic makeup is just grasping at straws now. It just makes your viewpoint look weak. If you want to argue the merits of this particular ordinance, that's fine, but don't cloud it with ill-conceived comparisons and tangents. It makes you look silly.
Scott_12 (anonymous) replies…
"Gender identity is not a protected class, so it is currently legal to fire a trans employee for any reason, whether that reason be moral or secular."
>> What you forgot to mention is that that also applies to other individuals such as white males, the only remaining non-protected class because that would racist. But now, even if that persons performance is borderline criminal, taking punitive action against them will most likely get them a six month inquiry by the EEOC for "gender discrimination". The bathroom discussions aside the bottom line is we are in a recession. Employers want a good, well-trained worker, to keep their business going. No one cares if it's a male, female, or penquin; I don't. If however I now have to CMOA from bad press, a complaint, and maybe even a lawsuit, I'll think twice before I hire.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That's simply not true - race and gender are protected class characteristics, and apply to white men as well as black women.
This often gets lost in these discussions, but is true.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Exactly so transgendered people are already protected in the essence of who they are. You can't not hire someone just because they are male or female. Thus this would protect transgendered people as well. It would not protect them if they engaged in sexual acts that became public knowledge or were seen publicly and that were disruptive to the other tenants or customers.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
Last time I checked a person is not considered male because they are sexually attracted to females and female because they are sexually attracted to males. They are male or female because of the body parts they have been made with. Transgendered people would fit right into this.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Joe has pointed out numerous times that this is not the case - since he's a lawyer who's obviously well versed in the subject, I tend to believe him.
Morganna (anonymous) says…
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
Bushloather1 (anonymous) says…
After many years, Amyx just lost my vote.
13Nate13 (anonymous) replies…
The other four lost my vote ;)
consumer1 (anonymous) replies…
The other four just lost mine too!
Wifeto1Momto4 (anonymous) replies…
Amyx has my vote! As for the others they lost my vote and hopefully many more!
rtpayton (anonymous) says…
Hey buddy lets get some BBQ and after eating lets cruise the ladies room. Schumm has no problems with this and it's legal!
sickofgoodoldboysthatrunlaw (anonymous) says…
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!
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
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..
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
Source? Oh that's right, you're just making stuff up.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Child molesters are going to love this new law almost as much as teenage boys.
consumer1 (anonymous) says…
Child molesters are going to love this new law almost as much as teenage boys.
Wifeto1Momto4 (anonymous) says…
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.
mcmandy (anonymous) replies…
Hate to break it to you, but sickos already use the same bathrooms as you and your kids. The same sidewalks and streets and stores and doctor's offices as you too.
Fretster (anonymous) replies…
"I am discussed by this..."
No one is discussing you.
"This is one mom who will violate the law to protect her children from sickos coming into the bathroom. "
Enjoy your felony assault charge, jail time, criminal record, possible loss of custody...
BeeBee3 (anonymous) says…
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...
sickofgoodoldboysthatrunlaw (anonymous) says…
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 ?
voevoda (anonymous) says…
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.
verity (anonymous) replies…
Definition of tendentious: marked by a tendency in favor of a particular point of view : biased
— ten·den·tious·ly adverb
— ten·den·tious·ness noun
Had to look it up---so I learned something today. Thank you.
Oh, and I'm still mad about the Equal Rights Amendment.
verity (anonymous) replies…
I mean that it wasn't passed.
Scott_12 (anonymous) says…
(From Facebook) Aron Cromwell You were great to work with Scott S. Criqui, thanks for your leadership
Now it all makes sense.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12: Scott Criqui is the chair of Lawrence's human relations commission. Why wouldn't he work with the mayor, who leads their supervising body?
Scott_12 (anonymous) replies…
He has to work with someone considering you think his own Commission doesn't do anything.
Souki (anonymous) replies…
Joe:
Thanks for trying so hard here on this issue. It's enormously helpful to have an informed and persistent voice of reason in the comments. I know it must be discouraging occasionally to have to repeatedly address other commenters' stupid and petty remarks. I'm glad you don't give in to the discouragement.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Souki: Thanks. Much appreciated.
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Yeah, I thought I smelled something!
I am so disappointed in Cramwell, but apparently he could care less, as he obviously has his own personal agenda.
jhawkinsf (anonymous) says…
I for one am shocked by the volume of comments made on this subject.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
I'm not, the fear mongers need to continue the baseless red herring bathroom argument.
BeeBee3 (anonymous) replies…
@ hujiko. Exactly. This ordinance of accepting people is really going to start a new trend of bathroom assaults. Hide your kids, hide your wives!
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
red herring? answer the 3:45 p.m. comment if you will.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
I would if I knew which comment you are referring to.
MarcoPogo (anonymous) replies…
You ain't from around these parts, are ya, boy? (I'm surprised that the "They come from Topeka" rhetoric hasn't oozed in yet.)
Ceallach (anonymous) says…
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!!
Scott_12 (anonymous) replies…
For which side?
Ceallach (anonymous) replies…
either or
consumer1 (anonymous) replies…
YOu start...
Ceallach (anonymous) replies…
knock knock
cheeseburger (anonymous) replies…
Wow - you have an opportunity to state your point and lend credence to your argument, and that's the best you can come up with? Pathetic!
Ceallach (anonymous) replies…
I have no argument, no side, and have said nothing argumentative. Just trying to figure out whether or not those arguing actually have facts or are just saying whatever they think will help "their" respective sides.
Liberty275 (anonymous) replies…
Enjoy the show.
geekin_topekan (anonymous) says…
WHat's to stop us all from getting nekky and going to Jack in the Box?
we dont have one!!
begin60 (anonymous) says…
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!
bgwmail (anonymous) says…
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.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
According to what Joe posted above, the answer to your question is no.
He would have to dress and appear like a woman, use a woman's name, and have done so for some time "persistently".
This gives some protection against what you're suggesting.
bgwmail (anonymous) replies…
That makes me feel much better, if that is the case. That sounds reasonable and good, but is that in the wording? Would that be applicable to businesses as well that they must dress and appear like a woman, use a woman's name, and done so from some time "persistently"? And, how and who defines it? (I am not trying to be sarcastic or combative, just trying to figure out what this means.)
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Again, look at Joe's post in the above thread for details - he specifies the wording.
I'm not as familiar with it.
But, yes, it would obviously apply to housing, employment, etc. if it's the legal definition of transgender used in the ordinance.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@bgwmail: The definition of GI in the ordinance is the persistent gender-related identity (what the person believes/has said over time), appearance (clothing, hair, makeup, jewelry), behavior (speech, mannerism) and other characteristics (name, pronouns). Parentheticals are my additions based on city attorney explanations last night. I look at them as factors, not elements, i.e., you don't need all but you'd need most.
So if a non-trans man walks into the women's bathroom, I don't see how a restaurant owner would violate the ordinance if they asked the man to use the men's room. The man doesn't have any of the factors: belief he is a woman, wearing women's clothes, acting like a woman, a woman's first name, etc.
If a restaurant owner asked a genuinely trans woman to use the men's room, that would violate the ordinance, which makes sense as that's the intent of the ordinance.
@jafs: Thank you for combating ignorance. The world needs more reasonable people.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Sure.
These kinds of facts may help calm down the discussion for those with legitimate concerns.
The other folks probably won't be swayed, but that's ok.
Yeoman2 (anonymous) says…
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!!!
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
People are really into the genitals of others.
50YearResident (anonymous) says…
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.
mytwocents (anonymous) replies…
omg. wtf. Clearly this is true.
Souki (anonymous) says…
Bathrooms? Really? No wonder Europeans think of us as children.
Tex (anonymous) replies…
Europeans have to think of someone as children since they're not having too many of their own:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/mag...
foundation (anonymous) says…
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.
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
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.
mcvey (anonymous) replies…
Ha Ha! Now that was funny!
mr_right_wing (anonymous) says…
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.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
Guess what mr_right_wing? We aren't attempting to be San Francisco, we're just moving along with the idea that everyone is equal and that no one deserves to be discriminated against because of some distinguishing characteristic.
I like living in Kansas even though I may disagree with a lot of folks here. I could turn it around and ask you why you stay in Lawrence if it isn't a place you like, but I think I'll pass.
Unfortunately in your case our Government isn't based on any religious beliefs although it is a constant push and pull still today. You're welcome to your own opinions and religious beliefs, but when those beliefs are the basis of a law that allows for disenfranchisement - that's wholly unconstitutional. I don't want it to seem as though I'm bashing your beliefs, but honestly if you're not transgendered then I don't see how this really applies to you, and lastly if you weren't so public and proud of your beliefs why go through the trouble of posting here at all?
You've got the right to say it, but at least don't contradict yourself.
merrill (anonymous) says…
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.
mcvey (anonymous) says…
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.
Tex (anonymous) replies…
There is no shortage of knee-jerk reactions to this measure, from both pro and con sides. First of all, it sort of closes the debate when you label anyone who disagrees with you as a "bigot;" explain to me how that is not being close-minded.
Second of all, there is a tendency in, to use a blanket term, the "liberal" community (and I know because I've been there, oh, I've been there) to jump to the defense of virtually any group that claims it is being oppressed. In this case, the supporters of the measure have been surprisingly up front about the lack of substantive, objective proof that any one who falls under the umbrella of this ordinance has actually experienced verifiable discrimination.
The passage of laws based on whims and anecdotal evidence cheapens all laws, especially civil rights legislation that has been enacted to fight against actual discrimination.
Scott_12 (anonymous) says…
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.
jafs (anonymous) replies…
That seem off to me.
If something isn't illegal discrimination, why would somebody complain to the commission that looks into such things?
Once the law is in place, then would be the time to do that - we'll see what happens next.
You seem to be confusing legislation and enforcement.
Scott_12 (anonymous) replies…
Not at all, and I'm not even discussing enforcement". That's a whole other avenue. The LHRC or EEOC would be the first place to start your complaint. Even if it's not a crime it shows numbers, and enough numbers shows there might be a problem, one that needs to be investigated. Both groups specfically deal with such issues and have the resources to both investigate and report to higher authority their findings. Circumventing this avenue much like any complaint only uncessarily escalates it without due process. It's not wether the amendment is right or wrong it's wether due process was followed. Do you start a court case in the Supreme Court? No, local court. How do businesses get numbers of faulty products? That's not upfront a crime. How? They receive complaints from customers. If enough customers complain they know there is a problem and start getting others involved. They don't immediately refer them to the Better Business Bureau and say "not our problem." It's unnecessary escalation. Why is this any different?
jafs (anonymous) replies…
Again, if discriminating against somebody because of race (let's just use that as an example) isn't illegal, why would anybody complain to any agency designed to look into illegal discrimination?
There wouldn't be any point to it - the agency would simply say that no laws are being broken, and that they have no authority to investigate in such a situation.
As far as I know, there's no requirement that any particular process needs to be followed before suggesting and implementing legislation.
Your various analogies are unclear and odd.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12: I've tried to group what appear to be the same points worded different ways. This is split into multiple posts b/c of LJW character limits.
> "The LHRC voted 6-3 against this amendment in 2009 ... [and] 4-3 against this amendment in 2010. ... 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? … 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.”
I think you misunderstand the commission's and LHRC's authority and powers and due process. LHRC was created by and is subordinate to the city commission. Its members are appointed. It is not a co-equal city agency. LHRC has several powers. One is to serve in an advisory capacity to the commission by recommending/evaluating legislation. Another power is quasi-judicial: to receive individual complaints of discrimination and adjudicate them.
In 2009, Kansas Equality Coalition asked the city commission to add GI to Lawrence's human relations code. The city commission referred the issue to LHRC for study. LHRC recommended against it twice, as you said. The commission received those recommendations, considered them, and decided to add GI anyways. There is nothing wrong with that. The decision was always the city commission's to make. It started with the city commission and ended there. Much like the workplace, most times a superior will follow the advice of a subordinate, but sometimes that does not happen.
You talk about due process and circumventing procedures. That's just false. There was public notice. Meetings were open and the public testified. Officials held recorded votes, and most explained their votes. Due process does not mean, as you seem to think, that the elected city commission must be bound by its appointed subordinate advisors.
You seem to think that because the city commission did not follow LHRC's recommendation on this one policy, the LHRC is now useless. Not true. LHRC still exists as a quasi-judicial body to receive discrimination complaints and adjudicate them. And it will continue to advise the commission on other human relations issues.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12: Continued from previous post...
> "No complaints..."
Why file a complaint when there is no legal recourse? Scott Criqui had trans people tell him about discrimination. He cited one case in the paper the other day re. medical care being denied.
Numerous studies find trans discrimination. Here's a recent national one: http://thetaskforce.org/reports_and_r...
I have personally seen discrimination in the trans community. I know about a dozen trans people, of whom five have lived or worked in Lawrence.
Two are closeted by day, i.e., dress and act against their gender identity/with their sex. They do so because both believe they would lose their jobs if they told their employer. If they did tell their employer and the employer fired them, they both know that there is no legal recourse. Being rational people, they will not tell their employer. A discrimination complaint will never occur in these scenarios because they feel compelled to be closeted. Another trans person I know moved from rural Kansas to Lawrence in part because Lawrence was more accepting. Who would they complain to about their experiences in rural Kansas? LHRC has nothing to do with that.
Since Kansas City, Mo., added gender identity to their code in 2008, they have seen a small number of complaints, suggesting discrimination that was going unreported or ignored is now being addressed. I was at a meeting with a Kansas City social worker on Monday night. She told me of two complaints she is helping transgender women file under their law. In one, a battered trans woman sought Section 8 housing so she could move out. She went with a different social worker to the Section 8 office, where the clerk refused service because she is trans, even with the social worker present. In the other, an employee who had been closeted explained that she was trans and would start coming to work as a woman. Prior to then, coworkers had assumed she was just a very effeminate gay man (which they were ok with). The first time the employee reported to work as a woman, the employer had security remove her. The employer then tried to get the employee to sign a pledge to only return dressed and acting as a man.
I've seen discrimination based on sexual orientation that has gone unreported. In 2002, I applied for a job in JoCo while in the closet and received it. I soon learned from coworkers I was the second choice candidate. The first was openly gay, but the employer would only hire him if he were closeted on the job. He refused. In Johnson Co., it's legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. As far as I know, the man didn't file a complaint. It's legal in JoCo + no HRC equivalent.
Local governments that don't have human relations commissions leave that task to the KHRC at the state level. As I understand KHRC's current practices, they refuse to even document complaints for which they lack legal authority to act, e.g., sexual orientation, gender identity.
joejarvis (Joseph Jarvis) replies…
@Scott_12: Continued from previous post...
> "in 2009, a city poll showed 64% of indivudals polled did NOT support the amendment"
Popular opinion on minority civil rights issues just isn't very relevant. There were times in this country when the majority of people opposed nondiscrimination laws for African Americans, women, and gays/lesbians. Are you suggesting that we should not have passed those laws then?
> "Manhattan, KS recently repealed their gender identity amendment."
Manhattan's ordinance, which added both sexual orientation and gender identity, was sparked by a landlord who refused to rent to a gay man. It was passed right before their city commission elections. The religious right organized a slate of candidates to repeal the law, they were elected, and they repealed the law. The repeal doesn't say anything on the workability of such laws, only something about Manhattan's local politics and attitudes toward LGBT people.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
Further proof of the discrimination directed towards the LGBT members of our community, and why this legislation is necessary to ensure protection from it.
Shame on you LJWorld if the above comment is left up.
rockchalk1977 (anonymous) replies…
And removal would be further proof liberals have no sense of humor.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
Your comment is further proof that everything is partisan to you. Look beyond the binaries.
bethann (anonymous) replies…
I flagged the comment asking that it be removed. It was not humerous at all.
ivalueamerica (anonymous) says…
I support the end of special rights of bigots to be allowed to treat others and less than equal Americans.
LeBo (anonymous) says…
Legal documents don't protect rights. No money, no rights, a basic American ethos!
think489 (anonymous) says…
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.
hujiko (anonymous) replies…
"could potentially be a window for sick men to watch young girls undress in a locker room."
Still fixated on the redherring bathroom argument. I'll put it succinctly:
Regardless of someone's gender or gender identity, peeping, molesting, assaulting, raping, etc are still crimes. The law does not offer immunity for someone that identifies as another gender to attack another.
"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."
How many transgendered people did you know in high school? If you knew any, were they the type of people you worried would try to attack or peep in on you?
"This is placing daughters and wives at risk."
What about sons and fathers? Are women the only people at risk in you scenario?
"It sounds like arguments against the law weren't put together well"
I agree, none of the arguments so far have any valid reasons why fair and equal protection for every citizen is inherently a bad thing. There's no preferential treatment being made here, so don't try to argue it gives those with varying gender identity an upperhand.
I see this issue like any other of the hotly contested issues of the past, women's sufferage, civil rights, abortion, interracial marriage, etc. No matter how much the opposition tries to uphold disenfranchisement, history has shown it's only a matter of time.