First, Chrissy Polis was born a man, not a woman. If you have a penis you're a man. If you're a man dressing in drag, you're a transvestite man. The moral decay that allows this behavior as something that is normal is the first problem I have with this proposed law. It is not normal, according to the majority standard of behavior, to dress up and/or act like a woman if one is born a male. Should we discriminate if one decides to do so? No, so long as this person does not infringe on the rights of others. I argue that in a business setting however, where there is a work dress code or policy that requires a certain standard of dress and behavior, the business should have the right to reprimand and eventually terminate the individual's employment if those written standards are not met. This goes for transgenders or whom ever. Having government either local or federal regulate how a business should handle cross-dressers is beyond the scope and role of what good government should do. We need less regulation and more education. Once again it appears the progressives want to impose their "we know better than the rest of you" policies and mandate we all follow their philosophies. Yes, all men and women are equal under the law, but that does not give a man the right to use the ladies room or scare customers away with fake breast implants and makeup; as these things infringe on the rights of the business owner. I am no bigot, "homophobe", or whatever. Just a constituent with morals

Yeah, this is a tough issue for me to really comprehend.

Believing that "job performance" should be the only parameter in getting or keeping a job is pure naivety. Co-worker relationships are a very real and important parameter in continued employment, as well as hiring. Many people are turned down for a job due to a perception that one person might fit in with the existing team better then another. This is a subjective judgmen.

With gays, it's simply a matter of sexual preference. Something that's kept largely private, as it's no one business.
Sexual identity/crossdressing takes it to a way more obvious level, and tough to get around.

I'm not entirely sure where I stand on this bill personally, other then to say that dictating who businesses must hire is governmental overreach. You also end up with the risk of reverse discrimination down the line.

I believe that the vast majority of people that say things like "It isn't normal" the concept of "Normal" changes through time, Fifty years ago was interracial relationships "Normal" ? No, but now it is widely accepted. I think that people forget that Gays, Lesbians, and Transgenders are actually people much like you and I. Being different is not a reason for them to not be protected by state and federal laws. Also, as far as the dress code debate goes, many companies that I personally have seen that have Transgenders on staff have men and women wearing the same outfit. More and more Transgenders are becoming open about themselves and they should be able to find work that accepts them for who they are, and be protected fr4om people who wish to do them harm.

Being transgender is a medical condition. This has been well established by years of research and accepted by the AMA, the APA, the NASW and many other healthcare professionals. It is not a "moral decay" as Rob Kennedy has stated. But in doing so, Rob Kennedy has reinforced some of the reasons why this bill is necessary: bigotry is harming a whole class of people and as a civilized society we must never allow that to happen to anyone.

Councilman Tom Quirk need only look at Vicki Thoms to find an example of how people should act. Ms. Thoms is the hairdresser who stepped in to assist the gal being beaten, while the Rosedale McDonald's employees stood by. Doing the right thing was important to Ms. Thoms and she should be considered a hometown hero.

Physical assaults aren't the only problem. An assault to human dignity is an afront to all of society when it happens due to the ignorance and bias of a small number of people. Everyone should have the right to employment, housing, credit, and public accomodations (to be able to go to a store and shop, or get services offered to anyone other member of the general public). It shouldn't matter what religion you are, what country your ancestors, or you came from, what color your skin is, what your medical condition is, what your age is, or any other way people want to pick to discriminate against a class of people.

Is being born with any other brain problem, or major organ problem considered "immoral"? Then why should we judge someone who feels terribly mismatched with their own body? Do we think they want to go throught this pain? That is it just another choice they make in life? Certainly not. And we all must respect transgendered people for themselves.

I could care less about the moral aspects of these conditions...to each his own... each should deal with it in their own way as well...
More regulation will only add insult to injury with regard to living freely in America.
The bathroom issue alone could cause non transgenders damage.
If the basis of proposed regulation stems from this one incident than I would say that it could discriminate against those who are not transgender.
How did the laws regarding assault that currently exist deal with the situation..?

A Quirky proposal at best...

As the parent of a transgender child, I applaud the addition of this most vulnerable population to the protections already accorded other vulnerable populations. The legislation does not mandate who you have to hire. It mandates that you treat my child with the same respect you treat others.

This legislation is long overdue. Transgender people deserve the same respect you and I deserve. They should be expected to contribute to society just like you and I are. How is this possible if they have no opportunity to work or maintain a household of their own? Thanks Tom for introducing this bill.

Iv'e attempted to look up this bill on Baltimore County's website, but to no avail. Can anyone direct me to the bill as it is written in its entirety?

Education trumps legislation with matters of this importance.... legislate better education , don't create more laws that can't change something that only time can...

Thanks for responding Bryan, Though the name of the bill alone probably sums up in a nutshell what the bill contains, I was hoping to see the language.

Ahhh yes, transgender. Sorry gang, I just can't seem to wrap my tiny little brain around 'RESTROOM'......strange thoughts enter my head about pedophiles, et al. taking cover as 'transgender" folks laying wait in restrooms across the county just waiting for some unescorted little girl....oh, how silly of me....there are probably no folks who would take advantage of that situation. Or, or, or some darling man who just adores observing females using restrooms....I don't know gang, common sense says uh,uh red flag!!! Total agree with Mike - a definite can of worms...can't we just say that no human being deserves to be attacked at work, play, etc. no matter what your "orientation?" That has been the old fashion way and if we stick to it, that should work...it is a law, isn't it? Just the perception of a retired workerbee!!

Oh for goodness sake Brandon ....."this simply doesn't happen" makes no real sense to me. This doesn't happen vs WON'T HAPPEN....NOW THAT IS THE BIG QUESTION ON MY MIND. My concern is not a "tactic" if you will ....simply good old common sense from my perspective. Your assurance that certain types of folks will not take advantage of the "restroom" opportunity is ludicrous from my perspective. Or, perhaps you have done research on the matter and have good stats to back up your statement. Either way, never say never...."simply doesn't happen" doesn't cut it honey child!

You are predicting doom based on fear which is not grounded in fact. The burden of proof is on you. we do not legislate "might happen." Show me where there has been even ONE instance of this happening.

There is nothing stopping men from dressing as women to infiltrate bathrooms NOW - yet you never hear about it happening. Someone who is socially and morally challenged enough to assault people in a restroom certainly isn't going to care about any law that might make it easier. That's like assuming that if we outlaw firearms we can effectively end all gun-related crime. Or illicit drugs. Take your pick. The logic is flawed.

Criminals operate outside of the law....that's why we call them criminals. Let's stop treating trans-identified people with the same level of regard we reserve for criminals.

With all the economic problems, crime and issues affecting the people of the 1st that could be focused on, this is what you lay at night worrying about and drafting bills for ? Transgender rights ? C.mon man ...

Good grief Brandon - I just adore the manner in which you manipulate the issue. Now it is privileged vs non-privileged folks. Interesting "spin" honey child! Do you or do you know feel that the female "restroom" issue opens doors for the criminal element?

I'll add here that the bathroom issue for transgenders can be an issue in schools, as well. I remember seeing a fourth grader, standing in the "boys' line" to go to the washroom. (And, indeed, I thought this child was male.) The teacher asked the child to move into the "girls' line." The teacher said to me, "She has gender identity issues." It was a heart-wrenching situation.

By the way, the child seemed quite accepted by peers, I'm glad to say.

My reference of concern does not focus on right to work laws, but right to utilize female restrooms prior to the actual sexual change to female. Dressing up as a female may be part of the individual's concern, but restrooms indicating "female" means just that. I don't need an M.D. degree to figure that out and no amount of spins changes it. The reference to the transgender person attacked in McDonalds some time ago begs further attention....attacks on any person is against the law as it well should be,..period. The right to work is a given, at least it should be, period. Now, of course, we are breaking it down to specifics....never ending!!! Working and using gender specific bathrooms is quite a separate ball of wax.

Rob, having a penis makes you a male - fighting discrimination makes you a man.

Brandon, lets just stick to my concern regarding restrooms.....please educate me in this regard...at what point in medical treatment does a transgender person actually become a woman (female)?..... As for talking down to you by calling you honey child- folks down home rarely see it that way. Sorry!

Oh Bart, one should never underestimate the criminal element!

What does "folks down home" mean?

Hey Lorna ;-) First - we're due for lunch! (I have...news. May just have to call you ;-)

Quick question: First, I hear what you're saying about the criminal element. But, tell me, are you OK with transgendered individuals (say they've gone through surgery, the whole 9 yards) using the washroom that matches their gender identity?

(Lunch sounds good honey child!!)

Susan, I guess my only problem is with what exactly is a "transgender" person? A person who has gender issues? I am certainly not one to question those issues. I am definitely not anti-human beings period. Can't we just stick to the simple men's room vs ladies room? You know I was born 100 years ago and it is so very, very mind boggling to me that we should question a simple truth.....men use the men's room and women use the women's room. Men (boys) have one genitalia and women (girls) have totally different. Now we are into want to be, might be, could be and accept as....sorry, might work at the work place desk, machinery, construction, church, all kinds of human endeavors, et.al. it is the RESTROOM that presents the problema for me!!! Putting an anti-spin on it doesn't deter my line of thinking one little ole bit. Beyond that I think the issues becomes apples and oranges, period!

Thanks for the explanations, Lorna. We all now know exactly what you are and represent. Have a nice day.

Hmmm, well, I've known three transgendered individuals in my lifetime (all male-to-female), and I've got to say - imagining them using the men's room is actually - a bit bizarre. Honestly Lorna, they seem more female, more "feminine" than you or me! ;-p

All have now had surgery. Heck, they'd have to use the men's urinal, which could get...interesting. (Imagine you or me on a urinal - got the picture? ;-p) If you met these people, I know you'd say, "Of course - the ladies' room."

I think the question you're asking is - at what point does one *physically* become transgendered. The identification is so strong emotionally, "spiritually"--to use one of my friend's expressions--that on the inside, they ARE that gender, regardless of physical appearance. And, as Brandon pointed out, this identification starts VERY early on in life. You'll hear F-to-M people saying, for example, "I always felt male. I cannot EVER remember feeling female." Hard to imagine, isn't it? - what that must be like? (continued)

Not sure if you know this, so I’ll post here: Physical changes are frequently phased in with hormone treatment and eventual (and very expensive) surgery. (Many people can't afford surgery, and they desperately try to save $$ for their surgery one day.) I also hear that therapy before, during, and after the transition period is frequently mandatory.

The transition phase has GOT to be very difficult. I've heard repeatedly that transgendered individuals want to "pass," i.e., be identified by others as male/female.

Perhaps one of your concerns is that a male (looking entirely male) would walk into the ladies' room and say, "Hey, I have a legal right to be here. I'm transgender"? And there’s nothing to be done about that if this bill is passed?

I think this bill will be great. :)

Sorry you feel that way Bart. Certainly was not meant to be so. I like "honey child" have said it all my life and am probably too old to stop now. Got it from my grandmother on the farm in Virginia - always made me feel warm and fuzzy. Never thought of it in a negative way. Negative is not my style Bart!

Well Bart - apparently based on previous postings from you regarding other venues- there has been little change in your attitude. Sorry.

Laws that would allow men dressed like women to use the women's restroom will invite the bad guys to take advantage... If a guy decides today that he has felt like a female for a long time, that's it... he can put on a skirt and visit the ladies rooms at will... strange thought process.
This law will have many flaws that could cater to the criminal mind.
Best thing that might come of this is that Quirk may get the transgender vote.
Time and better education will provide solutions sought.... not more pointless bad law.

Bart, Transgender women and cisgender men are two different genders, just like men and women are two different genders. "Cisgender" are people who fit into the binary description of male & female and live as their gender was defined at birth. The matter here is the difference between understanding or refusing to understand that transgender and cisgender are different identities.

this is the current Baltimore County Code: Article 3, Title 3, Subtitle 11 of the Baltimore County Code, 2003 establishes and mandates the Baltimore County Human Relations Commission to investigate complaints of discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, education, public accommodations, and finance on the bases of race, color, creed, age, religion, sex (including sexual harassment and pregnancy), physical and mental disability, national origin, and marital status. The definitions and procedures for executing the public policy to eliminate discriminatory practices within the County are contained in Article 29 of the Code.

Transgender people are not protected in the areas of: employment, housing, education, financing or public accommodations. This means transgender people can and may be denied access in any of these areas. Seems unfair to me.

Buck - We may have to look at "the definitions and procedures for executing the public policy to eliminate discriminatory practices within the County...contained in Article 29 of the Code." It may be the case that "sex" is defined narrowly.

The liberal machine will never ever stop.....these people are complete idiots!

First I think that people should be aware of the 14 Amendment of the Constitution, Section 1. The protections are there for all people.

Drugs, gambling, DUI, and prostitution are just a few areas of humane conditions that still exist despite societies best efforts to legislate them away.

What is to stop someone from dressing or declaring themselves as a transgender only to participate in lewd conduct.

What about pedophiles who could use the same ruse to enter a ladies room to view young females?

The potential list of problems is as long as one's imagination.

There are laws on the books to protect us all, they just need to be enforced.

Speaking of enforcement this statement is ludicrous, "The language in the bill will allow employers the flexibility to set their own rules on the use of restrooms, Quirk said.".

I not quite sure I get that. Why have a law that is not actually a law but rather left up to the employees to enforce and interpret. You think that might be a gray area?

The law did it's job in the McDonald's crime and I seriously doubt Mr. Quirks's bill would have stopped that.

If it was that simple, homicides along with a host of other crimes would be a thing of the past.

The Constitution guarantee's equal protection under the law.

Ladies, beware!

http://coolest-homemade-costumes.shippony.com/images/stereotypes/cross-dressing/funny-halloween-costumes-02.jpg

Sorry, the devil made me do it ;-p

Lorna,
I'll jump into the ring on your side of this issue and be pleased to be your Honey Child.
Gender expression,gender issues, gender identity, binary gender assignment, transgender, cisgender. Where the hell did all these terms come from? Councilman Quirk has just stepped into a big pile of doggie doo doo that he won't be able to scrape off his shoe. He thought transgender was the only language needed to add to his bill. Wait til Brandon calls his office the Monday after session and tells him he forgot to include the 30 other genders and the 10 that he's about to invent. Can off worms my ass. It's starting to look like a can of venomous rattle snakes is about to be opened. Have fun Tom. We're anxious to see the bill Tom.

A read an article in the newspaper not to long ago where fishermen reported to catching fish that had the genitalia of both male and female. Hell, I love to fish, but had never really thought about their genitalia or even how to identify it. But anyway, environmentalists are very concerned about this discovery, because they view it as an extreme abnormality compared to what nature has been producing for ions, and they fear that this condition is caused by the ill effects of man's abuse of the earth through pollutants. It seems we may have a bigger problem than bi-genderd fish. UH OH ! I just invented a new term that I better call Councilman Quirk with so as to have it included in the bill's lanquage.

I saw the evening news today and it appalled me to witness transgender folks being blasted with fire hoses simply for protesting. Did you know that in the south they have separate water fountains for heterosexuals and transgenders?. They even have to sit on the back of the bus, and even have to go to segregated schools. They are even allowed to posts signs on their front door stating "heterosexuals only". You know, we really need to get some laws enacted to stop this discrimination.

I thought I might post this link regarding the video I posted in shedding light on the various and ugly forms of discrimination.

I think we are only fooling ourselves to think we can pass another law to solve these complex issues that have and will plague humanity for our entire existence on this planet.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/legislat.shtml

http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/gender_identity
simply put as a canadian that lives in Ontario.

Susan, the link was used to illustrate the multifaceted issues that apply to this topic.

Think for a moment? A law for short people, tall people, bald people, nudist's, space cadets? Where do you draw the line when that line is already written?

Discrimination in and by-itself is against the law. There is not enough time in the our lives to complete the task of writing laws to cover the various forms of discrimination.

As they say, it's already on the books. The current system worked, Crime committed, persons arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced.

Laws do not stop people from breaking them. That comes from another human condition, the conscience, genetics, environment, religion - either good or bad - and the science of that whole issue.

Surely it's relevant that the people at Hopkins, who pioneered sex-change surgery a few decades back, stopped offering that surgery not so long ago. As far as I understand it, a comprehensive study found that, long-term, the surgery helps few people who have it, and hurts many. I believe the study suggested that, since sex is rooted permanently in every individual's genetic identity as either male (XY) or female (XX), and cannot be changed by psychotherapy, hormone therapy, drug therapy, surgery, or any other means, society should focus more on helping those who suffer from gender confusion to grapple with their own sexual identity and less on encouragung them to redefine, rediscover, reimagine, or re-engineer their own gender. (If I'm misunderstanding or inadvertently misrepresenting Hopkins' decision, I'm more than willing to be better educated on the issue.) This seems pertinent to the present discussion about a legislator's desire to ask our entire state to re-imagine gender in our very law code. I feel a deep compassion for those who have physically- or psychologically-based gender confusion, and I strongly agree that nobody should ever be assaulted for any reason. But is there really any reason for changing the law?

Mark, I agree with you. Each of us have our own opinions on issues from A to Z and the right to express those. There is a line that cannot be crossed as those two defendant's found out in the Polis case.

I simply tried to bring forth a perspective based on the law. I did not and have never stated any opinion on ones sexual orientation. That is a personal issue.

Opinions are well and good, criminal activity based on those beliefs is not.

I think there may have been a misconception between my attempt to affirm the role of protection under the law and the right to one's opinion.

The rule of society is based on law and not one's opinion.

My thoughts on organized religion have changed over the years, but I believe that Christian beliefs are one of the cornerstones of this nations history and should be respected and defended. Just because I have doubts based on my opinions about religion should not negate its role in forming the culture of this nation.

Susan, just to make clear my comments here is your question: "Are you saying that named groups/criteria that currently exist in the County Code (e.g., race, color, creed, marital status, sex, etc.) are unnecessary?"

In addition to that is the following quote from your comment: "They're (BCHR) evidently the agency that investigates complaints of discrimination, so I'm sure they have lots of first-hand experience in this area."

Here is the language of the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I think your question deals with the various categories of discrimination.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

A current investigation of the EEOC and its report of the county's repeated violations of the ADA act is and does indicate that the county is not up to the task of these issues based on the current political leadership. Read the decision on Blake vs. BC and the $225,00 judgement against the county.

http://www.ada.gov/

There are many more cases pending against the county.

I've read the 14th Amendment, though it never hurts to reread ;-)

Buzz - My question is (reworded): Do you see any FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE in naming particular groups in local codes? (I'm sure Baltimore County isn't alone in this.)

Just what we need. More "nitwittery" at a time when our economy is bad and job creation needed. When all else fails go right for the social engineering to divert. Divide the people and conquer. Put everyone in a niche group or protected class for the votes. Existing laws suffice if our politicians, police, prosecutors and courts would all use a little common senses. I see very little.

In closing the individual was born a male. He needs to continue using the mens room and that should be the law, Don't throw it off on individual employers. Often these employees use the same restrooms as customers. I won't patronize any business which allows trans-gendered individuals to use the same restroom I use or a female family member uses. Despite any gender reassignment surgery the individual will still be male. Such a bill is completely absurd. Really!

Susan, you might have as point. Speaking of codes, the government has just added thousands of codes pertaining to medical issues on insurance forms. It has become almost incomprehensible.

In the filing of any discriminatory case the details would be in the wording. Now whether or not such a filing would hinge on a proper code is beyond my knowledge. That question could best be answered by an attorney who specializes in those types of cases.

Maybe we are all missing something here.... is it possible that Tom Quirk is transgender, or a friend or family member is? There must be a sound reason for this effort.

I think we went to the same school Mike... thanks for your insight...

Buck, I think Tom did what many politicians do. He reacted to a serious public concern with what he thought might be the answer, not to mention a possible political uptick.

The mistakes politicians often make is in the foresight in the overall impact and perception of their acts. A prime example of that is the pension issues in the county.

A serous public concern and a lack of foresight in thinking these issues would not be scrutinized by an informed electorate.

When I'm asked to fill out a government form, such as the U.S. census several years, I simply check off all boxes when asked what my racial origin is. When these forms get so silly that they start asking my sexual preference, I'll simply check off all the boxes that they can put on it. Gauging by all the sex terms introduced to me in this dialogue, I'm guessing there will be about 100 and one named OTHER just in case they forgot one . Hell, I don't know my racial origin, because I have not had my DNA mapped. Heck, I may even change my sexual orientation, assignment and identity, ect. just for the fun of it. I don't want to feel left out. Once labelled a certain type of sexuality, does one have to stay with it or can they change their mind? You know, like religion. I'm so confused now.

Knee jerk legislation.

The fact that some folks here are considering this transgender and other sexual preferences and identities such an abnormality that it causes some to go into an elective surgical procedure at much cost to their own wallet, is the next step to have their feeling and physical condition categorized as a "necessary" surgery, and therefore paid for by insurance and Medicaid? County Council, put the lid on the jar before the worms get out .

Oh well, I am still putting the red flag up for the "bad" guys that are always looking for ways to "skirt" the system ... things the average folks might never even consider as a possibility when it comes to bathroom accommodations for females. That was my first concern and nothing that has been addressed heretofore changes it. Guess I will just put it on back burner and more on.....

You are right...I never have been one to put things on back burner very well. And, as for Council person ---brings back memories at UMAB many moons ago. When it became the new norm to call chair(man,men, woman,women) chairpersons. It seemed so very strange at the time....but political correctness took hold little by little, bit by bit until it has almost suffocated us...for sure. Seems like the new word of the day is..... when all else fails - throw it in the political correctness file.

Reds, if there is Gu`ment money to be had then I'm challenged in any respect that Steven L. Miles is willing to label me.

Yes - I do miss Sean. I understand he is more involved with Patch in the city...but his last responses in the Arbutus Patch were pretty much moving away from controversy and toward music, another great interest.

For Rob Kennedy and the rest of you so called "moral" people, you can't judge without walking in someone's shoes, I have met the most honorable and respectable transgender people, drag queens, lesbians and gay people in the last 5 years since I became involved in Pflag. Your definition of moral is very misguided and I wish and pray that you will become more human and develop some empathy for people and situations you don't understand. I am a straight ally and will defend the rights of the Lgbt people.

Reds, many of the comments on this issue are based on emotion and little else.

Question for Mr. Quirk, how many transgendered assaults are recorded in Baltimore County?

What ethnic group are victims of the most assaults in Baltimore County?

Will you introduce additional legislation to cover all various ethnic, sexual, religious, fringe and any other group I failed to mention?

Will people defined as "tree people," get special legislation to protect them? How is your legislation going to address hate crimes in dealing with the multifaceted numbers of potential groups it could impact? If these groups are not mentioned in your bill are they denied protection?

What is extremely troubling is that during the presidential debates, liberal moderators failed to ask questions on such issues as the budget deficit, the national debt, unemployment, national security and the housing crisis.

Why is Mr. Quirk not concerned about the plight of the county's economic status which will cause more harm to more people than this law will protect, or will not protect?

As a liberal Mr. Quirk should know, based on his full time job as a finical planner statistical analysis is important before contemplating such a move.

If you attempt to do that - with the facts - then be prepared to address all of those groups who are not mentioned in you new bill.

Read the bill for yourself and you will see that this bill does not refer to assault. Find the bill language here --> http://resources.baltimorecountymd.gov/Documents/CountyCouncil/bills/bills%202012/b00312.pdf

Buzz, I know you mean well. But most of the comments made here by other people have little or no connection to what this bill will actually address. It’s appears to be an orchestrated attempt to divide people so that some will work against the passage of this bill.

All the other questions you ask about hate crimes, the inclusion of other groups and the economy may be valid questions, but you know as well as anyone who writes here that bills are limited to cover one issue at a time so work can get done and we can move on.

If other groups want protections they can step up and ask for protections. The validity will be assessed and legislation will happen or not, on that basis. This is how our system has always worked. You and two other very specific lawyers in the audience know that.

Mark, what was the impetus of this bill? The Polis case. What did that case involve? It involved an assault based on hate, or discrimination or a variety of other factors.

I strongly disagree with the assessment as to the interpenetration of bills limited to one issue.

Two examples, armed robbery is not limited to banks, gas stations, people, Seven Elevens. It covers all of them. Thus my point.

Introducing as bill that is already covered by other legislation becomes redundant. Go to a law library and tell me we need another chapter in the vast volumes of existing laws that already cover all humane functions.

Quirk's law addresses only one group which is why it is unnecessary. There are existing laws that provide this protection for the transgendered.

Can you imagine if you wrote a separate law for each category and how long that would take and what happens if you leave anyone out? Think about it.

Paul, I am not a lawyer, I was as cop for 39 years.

This bill includes two different groups. You did not go read the bill.

Yes and it is redundant. It prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation but does not exclude sexual deviants. Remember Quirk wants to leave the rest room decisions left up to the judgements of the employees.

You think that might be a problem?

Can't we just add a third bathroom to be used by either sexxxxxxxx? It seems to be coming into vogue. Sounds like an answer to me. If there is a question, never fear....there is a third bathroom here! Would solve my concern regarding the bad guys. Oh, wait a minute, we all know the bad guys will find a way if they really intend to, but lets not make it easy for them honey child.

I just read the existing law with the bill's proposed changes. The existing law addresses "public accommodations" (restroom facilities I'm presuming) in the fact that no one can be disallowed to use the facility or be forced to use separate facilities based on race age color, sex,etc., but where in the bill's language does it really address the restroom dilemma. Councilman Quirk says in this Patch article that the bill addresses bathrooms. The bill changes nothing in the bathroom language.

Written into the existing law is each of the conditions/attributes for which a citizen cannot be discriminated are ones that are often asked on applications and medical forms ( race, creed, religion, color,sex, age,national origin, marital status). Proponents of this bill- are you, do you propose that applications and forms start including a box for each of the new conditions/attributes? Yes or no.

Most of the attributes listed in the existing law are ones that someone inherits and is non-elective (race,color,sex,age,national origin, marital status). Marriage is elective, but the applications/forms have MARRIED or SINGLE, so the applicant is forced to check off one box or the other.
Proponents of this bill- when your next request is to have boxes for the new categories of sexual preferences, orientations, etc., will the applicant be required to check only one box? Will they be able to change their sexual status later in life or are they stuck to their original status? This is the can of worms that i foresee.

OK Tim ...that does present a monetary problem....wait, wait, I have the answer!!! Just make the "men's" facility a single facility to be used by either sex. Problem solved!!

Sorry, I should be more clear....I think they are called "unisex" restrooms- one toilet, one sink, one accommodation at a time. That'll work!!! I am hearing that this is currently being utilized here and there. So maybe that will solve the problem of the "bad" guys.

But, of course, please leave the ladies rooms alone. Thank you ever so. :)

Who determined "honey child" as a term of endearment? The federal government is absolutely against it. Go to a nursing home, hospital, etc. and call a patient that. You will be corrected and told it is a disrespectful term. I guess we can make up our own terms of endearment and use at will, because 'folks down home' see it that way.

Coming from a mother of two girls how do they plan on protecting them while in a locker room or restroom. This whole things freaks me out and makes me sick. This is only going to cause more problems and increase crime. How can you protect others from the sick people that will take advantage of this law. This is just plain crazy. I can tell you right now I will fight this all the way to the top. I will fight to protect my children.

Think about what this will mean....men, dressing like women will be in the Ladies Room and allowed access to Girl's Locker Rooms and facilities in Churches, Schools, etc. Think also about the Sexual Deviants and Child Predators who will eagerly take advantage of this opportunity to molest children and women in private areas, away from the view of others. Imagine the young Daddy, who is at the Mall with his little girl, who has to go potty. He can't take her into the Men's Room because she'd be exposed to men at the urinals, so he lets her go ALONE into the Ladies Room to take care of business. What will be waiting for her there, as she enters unprotected and innocent? I don't want my little granddaughters and neices put in that position. Would you?

Yikes!!! Just how much time do you ladies spend in Public Restrooms to be so twisted out of shape by this?
But most importantly Quirk"s Bill has nothing to do with restrooms. I think you have all gone 'round the bend.

Oh Bart---how short sighted of you, darling.

On the public restroom concern (cont.) I'm sure the longstanding absence of restroom language in the EXISTING law has been due to the assumption that all men and women know which one they are allowed to and supposed to use. Though not spelled out as so, the ambiguity of no additional "Public Accommodations" language allows people with any genitalia to enter the bathroom of their choice. People with a penis that feel feminine inside can use the LADIES room and people with a vagina that feel masculiine inside can use the mens' room. This freedom of expression also allows a heterosexual man up to no good to linger in a LADIES room without fear of questioning by a skeptical security guard being fearful of discrimination charges. Adults and children of all sexualities now need more guarantees when using public restrooms. Remove all the biological descriptions from this bill. Though "Race"is a listed attribute, every race isn't included. Not every "Religion "is included. Not every "Age"is included, not every "Physical and mental disability" is included. Why do we need every "Sexual orientation" included? Just say "Sexual orientation"period. Stop the feel good style of legislation, and get to work on the restroom safety language. Patch reading proponents of this bill please address this issue. You are irresponsible in requesting this bill without offering restroom language for solutions to the problems.

Watch it Mike....you are suggesting too much common sense be utilized and you do it in such a beautifully professional manner, honey child.

Lorna, I don't think that smile on Mr. Quirks will be quite as broad after this debacle is over.

At the very least he could do is provide the crime data on this specific issue. Interestingly they let Mr. Homan run wild in violating the ADA based on the Blake case and the EEOC and not a peep out of the council.

Who speaks for these people. In retrospect what difference does it make even if the law is passed as long as Homan is at the controls. Can you believe the county is still appealing the legal fees they must payout in that case, not to mention the 14 more lined up behind the one they already lost.

Mr. Quirk is the one of the reasons I keep referring to leadership. To present a new law that allows employees to interpret portions of it is mind boggling.

Sorry Buzz, I am in no way attacking Mr. Quirk. Only bringing to attention my particular concerns with the element of "bad" guys that look for opportunities. When you begin to besmirch him or his smile yikes!!! It is often the reason I give second thought to entering the foray. Personal attacks are not where I am coming from. Healthy conversation, concerns, suggestions, even humor are ok for me honey child, but personal and name calling turn me off and I realize it is time to pick up my marbles in most cases and go on home.

How about an anti-overweight discrimination bill? How bout an anti-tattoo discrimination bill? How bout an anti-white man discrimination bill?

See how ridiculuos this sounds? When and where does it end?

Liberals are the stink of this country.......

Lorna, I am not attacking Mr. Quirk either. I am however challenging his judgement in the form of political discourse which is the nature of the beast, so to speak.

Calling into question his reasoning is within those bonds of that discourse. An attack becomes so when the comments become personal and we know who is good at that.

Leadership is excepting responsibility for those decisions that will effect your constituents, and as voters we have to right to comment on those issues,.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_ad

I just can't imagine the expense of having to put urinals in the ladies room......

Mr. Patro was quoted in this article as saying that the issue of restroom use is still up in the air. He is irresponsible in pushing this anti- discrimination legislation while these restroom matters are not worked out. We get it. It is understood by many folks, including myself that gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. find themselves in discriminatory situations and awkward situations, such as Chrissti Polis in the McDonald's restroom. He is searching for happiness for these folks. Most people wish happiness to their fellow man, but no one is willing to give up their happiness and privacy for another's pursuit of it. Everyone was disgusted by the video of the McDonald's beating, NO innocent person deserves that. Through these posts, Mr. Patro simply has been trying to make people understand the plight of transgenders. Many others have described the various sexual orientations and conditions to enlighten us, but none have yet to answer the questions of restroom use. Be responsible and offer solutions. After all this new configuration of the law is strongly supported by the organization for which Mr. Patro is the President. It seems to me that the lengthy descriptions of the various genders within the bill is simply to force legitimization of their condition and not really to correct a flaws in the current law.

I still say that perhaps we should consider making all Men's restrooms unisex....one sink, one camode...no prob!!! But, DO NOT DISTURB TH LADIES RESTROOMS!! i know, I know, I am such a pest....keep saying the same thing over and over...but who knows it might just catch honey child!

Maybe we should just leave things as they are and allow the natural processes to evolve~ as they will anyway....

I goofed earlier (darned bifolcals) and now I say thank you, Bryan Sears, for posting this article for us to discuss and help come up with a solution to an otherwise perplexing problem. I have a feeling the bill will have more thought out safety changes made to it before it comes to the floor through your efforts and the constructive ideas by others posting here. Loopholes are never good and must be ammended. I have to say, this has been one of the more constructive set of posts I've seen on such a sensitive issue.

Buck, best suggestion yet.

Go here to see what this bill really is about....not just bathrooms...but access to children in schools with the intentent to indoctrinate without parents permission. Slick move, getting us to focus on bathrooms all night until one of them played their hand.

http://discussions.baltimoresun.com/20/balnews/bs-md-co-council-meeting-20120117/10

Denied emergency medical treatment? Com'on. I find it hard to believe anyone has been refused this, because of their questioned sexual orientation, as one proponent claims. If so, was it documented in a law suit? Denied a seat at a lunch counter? Com'on. Would any of you guys really remain at a lunch counter and eat the food served to you by someone that is displaying obvious displeasure to you eating in their restaurant? Stop hijacking someone else's plight from some 40 years ago. Please supply something original and documented. Not hearsay, and not the McDonalds video. Show us some video of transgenders being blasted with fire hoses or something of the sort.
BTW, excellent testimony Ms. Schatz. I was not able to attend the Work Session, though.

Oh yeah, County Council--the spell check on my computer keeps underlining the word "transgender", indicating that it is not a correct word. Could you please add in the bill to require all computer software to recognize this word as legitimate, so that it the law will not require as much cleaning up next year.

Using the restroom access issue is not an attempt to derail the bill. It is a legitimate point that people are asking the pushers, presenters, sponsors and cosponsors of this bill to work out before moving forward with it. No other points of protection are being disputed here (employment, housing, etc.). --just restrooms. None of the aforementioned people have come forward with a viable solution to allow protection for ALL in restroom situations and come up with regulations. Traditionally having only two recognized sexes only two separate restrooms were required by building regulations. Requiring a retro-fitted third "ANY GENDER" restroom to established businesses would cause financial hardship. At this, I am recommending in the bill, be included requirements for all businesses with restrooms within Balto. Co to remove their MALE and FEMALE placards and allow free unhindered, unquestioned access to all restrooms to all people, regardless of their sexual appearance. Besides the old placards are incorrect in essence and may insult someone.

A transgendered student at a Howard County High school was being harassed in school by other students. It seems that neither the boy nor the girl students felt comfortable using the restroom with the student that was in some process of her sexual transition. She apparently became uncomfortable also. To solve the problem the administrator made an exception to policy and began allowing this student to use the Faculty restroom. Problem solved, right? Wrong. Another student became uncomfortable using the large common "student" public restroom also. This student had no particular problem other than frequent non-medical diarrhea. Starting to take some embarrassment for it, she asked to have the same privileges granted to her in regards to the faculty restroom. She was denied. Sounds like the latter girl was discriminated. Hence opens the can of worms.

Everyone deserves the right to work and feel safe in their surroundings. The difference here is that in doing that for this small group of people, the majority of others are expected to give up their rights...as parents not wanting their children indoctrinated by transgenders and transvestites, and females of all ages, giving up their right to privacy and safety.

We have to work on a solution that will make everyone satisfied here....going to take lots of work to reword that bill full of loopholes.

Ms. Shatz, I admire your bravery in having to "come out" with your bottled up story. I'm guessing YOUR 'coming out' story wasn't embraced and met with sympathy and bravery because it didn't fit in with the evening's theme.

I don't understand why none of the folks that are so verbally approving of this bill are so quite when asked to produce a solution to the real bathroom inequities hushingly being imposed. My philosophy is to always offer a solution to a problem that you are bringing to the forefront. It is irresponsible for a group to bring a problem forth to the Council ask favorable language additions and simply sit back and watch them vote on it knowing that it was haphazardly written. All the definitions within it are perplexing too. It appears to written simply to gain recognition to a condition that lots of people are unfamiliar with. Recognition and awareness of these conditions should be sought in forms other than legislation--like radio commercials or the sort.

We tried to offer suggestions/solutions. Time will tell if they were considered. I thought they were really well thought out.

Did the originators and pushers of the bill offer constructive restroom solutions. I'm guessing it was left up to the opponents to have to come up with solutions to their "perceived" fears.

PFLAG President, Is this really the best poster child you could find to push your case? You really are doing a discredit to the productive, law abiding transgenders, by using this women as Exhibit A. Click on the link to hear more from PFLAG's representative.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/blog/bal-victim-of-hate-crime-beating-charged-with-disorderly-conduct-20111207,0,5109839.story

Unisex restrooms are one way to go since they are one stall, one sink and used by one person at a time. Privacy! That is one key part of the problem solved and while we are at it, puts a lid on how much the "bad" guys can get away with. Now, that solved.....Now, leave the women's restroom alone, period. Transgender folks should have absolutely no problem with this....I think....And, employers don't have to build new restrooms for the transgender men/women....just make these changes to the men's restrooms. See....problem solved!

PFLAG (Parents, Family & Friends of Lesbians & Gays supports this bill.

This bill is about getting and keeping a job. It will extend protections in the areas of public accommodations, employment, housing, education and finance to those with diverse gender expressions, regardless of sexual orientation or gender Identity.

Public accommodation means having access to being served at the lunch counter, being rented a hotel room, having access to emergency medical treatment by paramedics on the scene of an accident. The bathroom issue is used to stoke fear because that's all they have to talk about.

These same fear tactics were used when our national dialogue was about the inclusion of African Americans. It was used when we were discussing the fairness of extending protections to women. Neither of these two examples of inclusion brought on the predicted dooms day scenario that was raised in those discussions. Nothing bad has ever happened when we have included more people under the protection of our laws--Nothing.

PFLAG represents our 4000 individuals in Maryland and all of us believe this legislation is long overdue.

When we give up the rights of privacy for the majority to satisfy a small minority, we lose. I am not anti gay, anti transgender, or anti anybody except bad people. The 14th Amendment already covers this. I don't see why we need more unnecessary laws. MY privacy and the majorities privacy is at risk (in regards to the bathroom)

Thank you Buck....there is absolutely no doubt that the disposable sanitary toilet seat covers must be included. I don't know why I didn't think of that.

Mike...me a kidder? Ahhh alright, probably so at times. But sometimes a little humor helps the medicine go down.

Baltimore Sun reports that the 4 rapes referred to in Tuesday nights testimony before the County Council did not happen.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-01-18/news/bal-montgomery-co-police-transgender-bill-has-not-led-to-bathroom-rapes-20120118_1_discrimination-against-transgender-people-transgender-bill-anti-discrimination-bill

The bathroom issue is simple: Use whichever one matches the gender you pass for. If you look male, use the men's room (but be discreet in there if you're biologically female). If you look female, use the women's room (but be discreet in there if you're biologically male). In other words, don't freak people out in bathrooms with gender confusion! It's common sense and common courtesy.

Now about that anti-discrimination bill…
Unless we want to classify all medical and psychological problems as protected classes, we should steer clear of enacting this kind of legislation. I'm sure it sucks to have the mental anguish of feeling like you're trapped in the wrong body, but we all have burdens to carry and the whole of society shouldn't have to bend around every quirk of the human condition. If one's biological gender is in conflict with their gender perception, they need medical and psychological help, not legal help.

The only real grey area I see is when someone is in the process of gender-reassignment (taking hormones and transitioning to the opposite sex under a doctor's directive in preparation for surgery). But there's a lot of latitude in cultural gender norms and that situation is only temporary anyway. So rather than government intervening in a rare situation like that, I think it's better for doctor to help patient through a gradual transition that includes guidance on easing the impact it'll have on those around them.

Given how much some of you here want to exclude or control the lives of transgender people, just with regards to something as simple as a restroom, maybe it's a good idea to add some protections to the law? The comments from some about "INDOCTINATION" and "BRAIN WASHING" should back up the premise that there are people out there who come from such abject ignorance they would obviously disrespect the idea of fairness and engage in discriminate if allowed to (or in some cases, have outright said they actively support discrimination in the workplace! - wow!)

Simply put, so many voices standing up against equal protection is a strong argument for enacting equal protection rules.

To Anita Schatz. You keep saying there are already laws in place to protect people from discrimination. This is simply not true. In fact it is a blatant lie. There would not be organizations in absolutely every community in this country working toward social justice if your statement was true. Just because you say it a thousand times does not make it true.

The sponsors and co-sponsors of this bill apparently realize that this subject is so damn confusing that they have attempted to further explain the definitions of SEXUAL ORIENTATION, IDENTITY, AND EXPRESSION within it's language. No doubt this is just "cut and paste" legislation from other counties newly enacted laws. The council members could not possibly have come up with these terms on their own and no doubt wording drafted by PFLAG for the Councils' ease. The existing law that this bill would amend has never attempted to explain the various RACES, CREEDS, RELIGIONS, PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITIES, SKIN COLORS, SEXES, NATIONAL ORIGINS, AGES, OR MARITAL STATUSES, to whom it establishes protection, so why does the Council all of a sudden feel the need to explain all the various types of sexual orientations, identities, and expressions. My feeling is that this group of people feel dejected by their families and society and as a way to force acceptance from non-supporters of their life style, they have turned to our legislators to do the job and the Council has coward down to them. Remove all the nonsense language and let the existing word SEX cover these folks. After all these folks are claiming the be one of the sexes covered within the existing law--male or female. Councilpersons, leave the existing law as it stands. Your intentions are good, but you are over complicating things for yourselves.

The reason "Sex","Sexual Orientation" and "gender identity/expression" need to be listed differently in the county code is because they are as different as "race" and "color". And "sex" is different than "sexual orientation". And "Gender Identity" is different than "sex". If you want to be educated you should go to a presentation that discusses what gender identity is. PFLAG has invited everyone in the county to two different presentations right here in Baltimore County in the last two years.

So, instead of actually coming to a presentation and making a point about something that was actually said at the presentation you are making a blanket statement based on a preconceived idea of what will be presented. That appraoach is exactly how discrimination works. Thank you for proving my point. I am inclined to believe you are doing the same thing about this legislation. And by the way. We frequently have professionals at our presentations. At the most recent presentation on gender identity PFLAG had a professional from the Chase-Brexton Clinic.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." - Simple enough, eh?

Mark Patro... I respect the energy that you have added to this issue... I also disagree with you.
There should be equal protection for all... key word ~equal. No segment of society should receive special treatment. Same laws should apply to everyone...period.
If certain people feel as though they are somehow being slighted or overlooked, then perhaps the way current laws are being enforced should be addressed.
To create new law that can not be fairly or effectively enforced is wrong. Transgender human beings have the exact same laws to protect them that everyone else has.... why should they receive special treatment under the law that would by design discriminate against the majority. This entire issue can never be legislated away... the only winners in these cases will be lawyers profiting from the grey zones.
The arguments made for this law are not realistic or valid.
I asked for someone in support of this law to kindly explain the reason that it is needed. So far no one has done so.
This has more to do with bad law than transgender human beings that seek perceived additional protections.... a can of worms at best.
If this is the best that our elected officials have to offer, they need to be replaced.

Buck, the current law: i.e. the Baltimore county code has holes in it. It describes precisely who is protected, and those not defined in the current code are simply not protected. Men or women who identify with a gender that does not match their appearance are, and can be discriminated against in the areas of housing, employment, education, and public accommodations right now and it legal for people to do that precisely because there are no laws to protect them from these types of discrimination. People in Baltimore County who do not fit into the heterosexual-norm can also be legally discriminated against because there the state law gives four counties an exemption to the state law that was passed in 2001. Baltimore County is one of those counties. The exemption allows for the list of protected classes in each of the particular counties' codes to be defined by that county. This is what this bill will do. So, your point about there already being laws in place to protect the two classes of people listed in bill 3-12 is simply untrue. This law is absolutely necessary.

Buck, that was another thing I asked the council...what guarantee do we women and girls have that the cross dresser entering the women and girls labeled areas has had the sex change surgery. Will they carry and ID card of such and who will monitor those entering?

Most Transgenders have not had the surgery, thus the word TRANS. They are in transition and not a woman yet. They still have male genitalia and even after the surgery and hormone therapy that is supposed to complete the transformation, suffer much confusion about their sexual identities. Could it have something to do with cromosomes and not cutting off one part and upping the hormones?

I've done a lot of research on this and I found so much to support the argument that Trans people have emotional issues, not physical ones and the physical change just doesn't fix things.

Beat a transwoman and get released early. Where is the respect in our system?
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2012/02/02/md-juvenile-authorities-seek-release-of-youth-charged-in-transgender-beating-case/