Vaccinate Other States Against the Spread of the Gay-Manufactured ‘Incremental Progress’ Lie: Oppose the HB235 ‘Surge’!

The Maryland LGB (and that’s what it is; sorry Autumn and Yusef, but unless someone is hiding something, there are no T members of the Maryland Legislature) caucus is trying to pull a fast one.  Apparently, they’ve managed to bully the Rules Committee into aiding Morgan Meneses-Sheets’ last-ditch attempt to save her job disgorging HB235:

According to Equality Maryland executive director Morgan Meneses-Sheets, the gender identity nondiscrimination bill has made it out of the Rules Committee. “It got sent out of the Rules Committee, so it will go to the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Certainly the leadership and the support of the LGBT caucus members has absolutely made a difference this entire week that we’ve been working on this,” she says, “and we certainly are very thankful that they made that public statement.”

Meneses-Sheets also commends the work of Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-Montgomery) and, out gay Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-Montgomery).

“We’ve literally had thousands of emails and hundreds of calls made to get it out of Rules…,” she adds, “

And I wonder how many of those calls and e-mails have been soaked to the core with the disinformation and lies that ‘Equality’ Maryland has employed in order for the bill to get this far?

  • FACT: Ten years ago gays lied to the Maryland Legislature, claiming that trans people were already covered under Maryland state sex discrimination law.
  • FACT: Trans people in Maryland are no more covered under Maryland state sex discrimination law today than they were in 2001.
  • FACT: HB 235 does NOT unequivocally cover homeless shelters.
  • FACT: The unofficial opinion of one member of any administrative body – even the one that administers anti-discrimination law – cannot trump the plain language of a statute or strong persuasive judicial authority holdings which are in direct opposition to the unofficial opinion of that individual member of that administrative body.
  • FACT: Not even ‘Equality’ Maryland will claim that any coverage of homeless shelters that might be judicially found to exist under HB235 (via the case-by-case analysis that would be necessary to ever judicially find any such coverage) would include trans women being treated as women and trans men being treated as men.
  • FACT: The claim that ‘HB235 is better than ENDA, so why the fuss over public accommodations?’ is mental dry-humping of sub-ambulance-chaser shyster proportions.
  • FACT: ‘Equality’ Maryland has engaged in massive deception and disgustingly childish (not to mention privilege-infected) censorship in order to con people who might genuinely care about trans people that HB235 will not in the long run harm trans people.
  • FACT: The 2001 Maryland gay-only rights law established a legal regime under which gays and lesbians possess the legal right to discriminate against trans people.
  • FACT: One of the loudest, most obnoxious mouths to support that 2001 political hate crime – via a hydra of lies (trans people were already covered; anyone who took a principled, pro-trans stand against the separate-and-unequal bill was “anti-gay”; having the temerity to recount her history of political transphobia amounts to stacking the deck against her) – is also one of the loudest, most obnoxious mouths in support of HB235.
  • FACT: Unless they’ve moved recently, pro-HB235 shills Autumn Sandeen nor Laurel Ramseyer do not live in Maryland.
  • FACT: “Public accommodations” – and their use-by-deletion as a tool by gays (as well as trans people who feel as though they’re too pretty and/or too privileged to ever have to worry about being de-gendered on the fly in a place of public access) to further politically other all trans people – even moreso than employment and housing is the issue that non-Marylander trans people have not simply a right but a duty to speak out on.


  • QUESTION: How many of the “thousands” who called and e-mailed to aid Morgan Meneses-Sheets’ last-ditch attempt to save her job in support of HB235 were trans people? 
  • QUESTION: And how many of the “thousands” who called and e-mailed to aid Morgan Meneses-Sheets’ last-ditch attempt to save her job in support of HB235 were gays and lesbians who will in no way be adversely affected by the further entrenchment of Barney Frank’s hatred of trans people – particularly trans women – into law? 
  • QUESTION: How many supported Maryland’s gay-only rights law in 2001?
  • QUESTION: How many supported Barney Frank’s anti-trans ENDA 3685 in 2007?
  • QUESTION: How many came to the conclusion to support HB235 based on unadulterated, unscrubbed, non-deceptive information about how HB235 came to be and what it actually will and will not do?
  • QUESTION: How many came to the conclusion to support HB235 after forgetting – conveniently or genuinely – the circus surrounding what actually was ‘Equality’ Maryland’s top priority – the gay marriage bill?


A BIGGER QUESTION: If a Maryland organization can’t engage in honest dialogue either about what a bill that it is the primary pusher of will and will not do or the history of how the Maryland legal landscape has come to find itself with that organization’s signature cannister of legal nerve gas perched deceptively on the village green and ticking toward detonation, why should anyone be willing to believe that organization’s core narrative about its only remaining 2011 legislative weaopn: that the gas in the cannister was cunningly designed so as not to harm trans people – either in Maryland or downwind therefrom – by people who actually give a damn about whether trans people live or die?

11 Responses to Vaccinate Other States Against the Spread of the Gay-Manufactured ‘Incremental Progress’ Lie: Oppose the HB235 ‘Surge’!

  1. Cathy Brennan says:

    Just to be clear – I certainly didn’t *lie” and say folx were covered. What I said was that we should explore other ways to get folx covered – and that we should litigate to expand existing protections. Because the political reality is that SB 205 (the 2001 bill) wasn’t going to go anywhere with gender identity in it. If you are telling me I’m a transphobe because I supported SB 205, I’d have more respect for you, for at least trying to adhere to some standard of what a “legal historian” does – (you know, relay the history of things?)

    At least be clear as to what I said. But, hey, why don’t you look here to see what I said: – this is from March 19, 2001.


    My personal view is this – gender identity is homophobic, and constructed
    because people do not want to face the fact that people who are
    classified as “transgendered” are simply transgressing gender. I
    believe people who are transgendered are already covered under state law
    gender. The case of transsexuals is a separate case, and I don’t have
    answer to how to obtain protections for a group of people who
    need it. If I had my druthers, it would be under gender, but Title
    (federal) precedents make that a harder sell.

    I have been bashed over this issue, called a bigot, etc. I don’t give
    s*** about that, because I think it’s important to have these
    discussions. Also, it is my opinion is that there is NO research-
    strategy on obtaining civil rights for LGBT people currently being
    implemented in Maryland (for example, Del. Rosenberg’s hate crimes
    puts transgendered under sexual orientation, then there’s a separate
    gender identity discrimination bill, and according to your email,
    will be a safe schools bill that prohibits discrimination based
    on “real
    or perceived gender.”) Where’s the strategy? It’s asinine. (BTW, I
    always liked “real or perceived gender” if people feel they need a
    legislative solution – but again, I think we should litigate – and I
    confident that the person who would be the plaintiff would have many
    lawyers to help them).

    So, I hope this clarifies my thinking on this. And I may be wrong.
    But I
    have tried to think this through on a political and legal level. For
    it’s worth :-). Bottom line is that I want to get protections sooner
    rather than later, and I think we can get them under current law.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      So are you claiming that a different Bug wrote this?

      Having attended all of the hearings and work sessions, I can state that members of the commission believed that transgendered individuals could access protections that already exist based on sex/gender.

      I would also point out that a transgendered person who is discriminated against because of her sexual orientation would also be covered under legislation banning discrimination based on sexual orientation.

      Transgendered peopel are vulnerable to discrimination and harassment. We have a responsibility to advocate intelligently and strategically to protect people who identify as transgendered. This can be done under current law, if organizations and individuals would put their heads together on this. Instead, those organizations – and some menbers of the Gay media – continue to claim that if transgendered people aren’t explicitly included in Maryland’s anti-discrimination law, they will not be protected. That’s simply untrue, and it is irresponsible for leaders of our communities to insist otherwise.

      Telling a drowning person that he can survive by suddenly learning how to breathe water – and telling the drowning person this while you are standing safely out of the water, within reach of the drowning person, and holding a life preserver – is a lie.

      And some people might even view it as murder-by-omission.

      • Kathleen says:

        As Karen Ulane & Michael Kantaras can attest – appeals courts will bend over backwards to improve our lives.

        I’m sure Scalia, Alito, Thomas & Roberts would be very happy to resolve the issue in our favor on the federal sex stereotyping argument as well.

        Hey – since court decisions covered women under the 14th amendment – specific inclusion in nondiscrim laws is unnecessary.

        Oops – back to Scalia.

      • Katrina Rose says:

        Get thee to a Wal-Mart…

        …and don’t you dare ask for overtime.

      • Beth Morgan says:

        haha. I hope you took a screenshot of that, Katrina. :]

  2. TransGriot says:

    Protections that are we say in the Lone Star state, all hat and no cattle.

    They are worthless without P/A language in the bill.

  3. Beth Morgan says:

    major props for this post, Katrina.
    too bad EQMD deleted my posting of this and your first comment of this, but they kept your second comment of it so far.

    also, “folx” might be even more annoying than putting “yer” in for “your” (and “you’re,” too – seriously, I’ve seen people do that, so then it’s annoying and grammatically incorrect).
    it’s like trendy faux-crustpunk/xhardcorex or something. gah.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      Re: folx

      Its just something I’ve done on occasion since I started writing LGBT stuff.

      Be worried, though, if it appears in one of my law review articles 🙂

  4. TransGriot says:

    Kinda ironic that if HB 235 passes, I’ll have more rights as an African American the next time I visit Maryland than I will as a transperson.

    How fracked up is that?

  5. […] Vaccinate Other States Against the Spread of the Gay-Manufactured ‘Incremental Progress’ Lie: Op… […]

  6. […] sounds as off the mark as a claim that Maryland state sex discrimination law covered trans people even in the absence of the 2014 law which removed the special right of Maryland non-trans gays and […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: