Again, logic is completely absent from the Maryland Gay, Inc., side of the pro-HB235 hive.
And, sadly, again the proof comes from Autumn Sandeen (someone who, when last I checked, despite having been arrested in a state-level jurisdiction adjacent to Maryland does not live in Maryland – leaving one to ask: If there’s a problem with people from outside of Maryland articulating valid, substantive reasons for opposing a bill which will (a) other trans people who live in Maryland, (b) other trans people who may live elsewhere whenever they might happen to set foot in Maryland, and (c) serve as a blueprint for gays in other jurisdictions to other trans people in the same manner that Maryland’s gays are trying to, then why is it okay for trans people who don’t live in Maryland to shill for HB235?) :
How much of a real win will it be for transgender community activists against HB 235 if they’re leaving the lobbying against HB 235 to the antitransgender sentiments of voters on the religious right?
So, I must repeat word for word what I have already said about concerns from people who really don’t care about trans people anyway (read: ‘Equality’ Maryland, based on its actual history) over opposition to HB235 having come from from the christianist right:
Doesn’t the entire premise of HB235 – that affording trans people the same “public accommodations” rights that homosexuals wrote into law for themselves a decade ago doesn’t comfortably (read: apparently some margin higher than a “60 percent bi-partisan majority“) fit under the ‘politics of the possible’ umbrel-la-la – amount to “accept[ing] antitransgender sentiment from legislators as a reason to kill” the legitimate trans civil rights coverage that Sen. Rich Madaleno, if he can be taken at his word, wanted to push for until some amorphous and undefined (and certainly never definitively defined to demonstrate that no non-Marylanders were included therein) ”advocacy coalition asked [him] to not introduce the bill“?
If ‘Equality’ Maryland had put the time and energy into a real trans bill and only a real trans bill – as opposed to a first-priority gay marriage bill and an afterthought Gay,Inc. ‘trans bill’ – that it put into the disinformation-multiplied-by-censorship campaign that it is now employing in trying to ramrod HB235 through the Maryland Legislature, then….
Well, if you’re honest with yourself, you know what the answer is.
And if you’re honest with yourself, how could you possibly put any stock in a campaign being shilled for by someone who branded as “anti-gay” anyone who opposed the 2001 Maryland gay-only law for any reason – even opposing it based on the fact that the bill was designed to set up an anti-trans civil rights apartheid whose end result would be gays and lesbians having the ability to discriminate against the very people they worked so hard to keep out of ‘their’ bill – and who currently signs the comments emanating from her curiously-recently-increased presence at Pam’s House Blend with the declaration “I probably don’t like you very much”?
You know someone who would say this:
The bill never would have included gender identity in 2001. The idea that it did, and then gay activists took it out, is flat out false.
and not think that trans people (and everyone else) of 2011 can’t go back and check to find that what she is saying is technically accurate – that the 2001 bill was trans-apartheid-ish from the beginning of that legislative session – but, as with most everything else that she, ‘Equality’ Maryland and the trans-othering cabal are saying these days, even if technically accurate is nevertheless designed to do the moral and political work of a lie: Maryland’s gay elite signed off on the expungement of trans rights from the bill that was up for consideration during the 1999 session (joined at the hip was ensuring that the governor’s task force on sexual orientation never even considered the needs of the portion of the LGBT populace who was most in need of anti-discrimination protections), ensuring that in 2001 the needs of all trans people in Maryland would take a back seat to the wants of the half of Maryland’s gays who were already covered under actual, existing, verifiable, enforceable local ordinances.
In a perfect world……
We don’t live in a perfect world. We live in Maryland
I thought Maryland was a “discrimination-free zone.”
HRC wouldn’t lie, now would it?