The pro-HERO campaign has been launched.
Supporters of Houston’s nondiscrimination ordinance launched a formal campaign Wednesday urging voters to defend the measure this November.
ACLU of Texas Executive Director Terri Burke urged Houstonians to “send a message that this is a city that doesn’t discriminate.” Businessman Bobby Singh, invoking the threat of losing sporting events and conventions if the law is repealed, added, “Let’s send a strong message to people across the country and across the world that Houston is open for business.”
[…]
Foes have seized on the protections the ordinance extends to transgender residents, specifically the perceived threat of transgender women — people who were born male but identify as female — using women’s restrooms and locker rooms. They allege “transvestite men” may enter women’s facilities and commit sexual assaults.
Opponents also accuse Mayor Annise Parker, the first openly gay mayor of a major American city, of seeking to “criminalize faith” by forcing “individuals, families, churches, schools and businesses to accept, affirm and celebrate the LGBT agenda.”
Supporters on Wednesday indicated they will address both sets of allegations head-on.
Sonia Corrales, chief program officer at the Houston Area Women’s Center, said the majority of women and more than 90 percent of children are assaulted by someone known to them, and that similar nondiscrimination laws have been passed in 17 states and 200 cities without accompanying public safety concerns.
“It is a disservice to the public to continue to perpetuate myths about how and why sexual assault happens,” she said. “Nothing in HERO changes the fact that it is illegal to enter a restroom to harm or harass people or invade their privacy.”
Leslie Jackson, a minister at Cathedral of Hope, also decried the “voices of division” who “confuse religious freedom with the freedom to discriminate.”
“Religious faith does not undermine the value of equality for all under the law,” he said. “Religious faith demands it.”
Here’s their website, and here’s their Facebook page. I’ve said my piece about how I’d go about this, so I look forward to seeing how this goes. In the meantime, this is a team effort, so visit both pages and see what you can do to help. No bystanders allowed.
Addressing the bathroom question is certainly going to be important, because bathroom hysteria is going to be a central part of the repeal campaign. Sadly, I don’t know how useful facts will be, which is why I took a more indirect approach. Still, it’s important to emphasize how dishonest the claims being made about bathrooms by repeal proponents are. I’ve quoted Daniel Davies before, and this is as good a time as ever to bring his sage words back up: Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.
And look, regardless of the efficacy of any particular campaign tactic, I can’t overstate how much the repeal effort is based on vicious lies against people who live, work, go to school, and pay taxes here in Houston. Our neighbors, to put it another way. Most of the people who are leading the repeal effort call themselves devout Christians. I’m not a devout Christian – I don’t go to church, I don’t feel faith the way many people do – but I did grow up in a strongly Catholic family, and however un-devout I am now the teachings I learned as a child are still very much a part of who I am. If there’s one thing I know from those teachings I got as a child, it’s that there’s nothing remotely Christ-like about telling vicious, hateful lies about one’s neighbor. I don’t know what motivates someone who calls himself or herself a devout Christian to do such a thing. I was taught to love my neighbor. I have no idea how anyone could think this kind of behavior is loving. I’m glad that religious leaders will be part of the pro-HERO campaign. It’s important to convey the message that being religious is entirely compatible with supporting equality for all. I just hope that message can get out there as well.
The issue is not whether they will pretend to be women to an assault women. The issue is should a person whose characteristics are male be allowed into a woman’s bathroom, shower, etc.
I have not heard Ben Hall that he concerned about the assault part. In fact there are few people that are suggesting that. The concern is would any father or mother want a naked man next to their daughter, wife, mother, etc. I don’t want that to occur.
While people in support of that claim that assaults do not happen that is not true. In Ontario, Canada a man claimed he was a woman to enter a woman’s shelter and sexually assaulted at least two women. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sexual-predator-jailed-after-claiming-to-be-transgender-in-order-to-assault
But again that is not the issue, the issue do you want a man next to your daughter, mother, wife in the bathroom, showers, etc.
I personally think that what ever discrimination homosexuals claim, it does not begin to rise to the level of the group of people that are presently protected by the civil rights act. I, for example, can not hide the color of my skin nor the facial feature that would make most persons assume that I am Mexican. The ERO ordinance makes sexual preference the same as one’s color of their skin, sex, or ethnicity.
The recent 5th circuit court of appeals decision, found that the law discriminated against citizens, that the majority normally refers to as Mexican-Americans. I don’t have any Mexican in me, so I don’t refer to myself as a Mexican-American. People can look at us, just as they can a woman, African-American, Native-American, Asian-American, etc. and come to a conclusion that we ain’t white. There are no Homosexual-American, why is that? All other groups, exception white women, are hyphenated Americans. So the level of discrimination does not rise to the same level. In fact I find it amazing that only White people, can ever be Americans, everyone else is a hyphenated American.
Having said all that, I personally think that affirmative action programs should be based on class rather than race, sex, ethnicity, etc. Why should the daughters of the President of the United States enjoy benefits that the children of poor White parents cannot have?
Manuel is 100% correct when he says……”the issue do you want a man next to your daughter, mother, wife in the bathroom, showers, etc.”
The Sexual Predator (not transgender folks) is going to go into the restroom whether there is an ordinance allowing it or not. The assault issue is not what my vote will be based on. Lets be blunt. I don’t want my daughters standing next to a naked man with a Penis and breasts. Sorry and no I don’t hate gays.
So to be clear here, Paul, you support trans women using the men’s room, and trans men using the women’s room. Unless, I suppose, they can prove to Dave Wilson’s satisfaction that they have the approved genitalia for the restroom in question. Maybe what we need is for an army of volunteers to position themselves outside public restrooms to do package checks on everyone as they enter. Would you support amending the revenue cap to fund the creation of a Bathroom Enforcement Patrol?
(There’s no point in me mentioning that many, many cities in the US have HERO-like ordinances, or that HISD has a non-discrimination policy that mirrors HERO, with an identical provision for bathroom usage, is there?)
However irrational or speculative the invasion of privacy in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms may be, it is a concern of a broad segment of the community, and will have to be addressed respectfully for the ordinance to win voter approval.
All of this bathroom hysteria is based on a complete misunderstanding about transgender people. They’re generally not predators any more than the rest of us. I don’t want Paul’s daughter standing next to a naked trans person either. But life (at least my life) is not like a porno movie. I don’t see how the daughter gets into that situation. Maybe I’m not hanging out at the right bathroom???
Another thing; how’s anybody going to know there’s a trans in the bathroom? Nobody’s checking my junk without a warrant. This bathroom nonsense is only–only about hating on our GLBT neighbors. The HERO does not threaten anyone’s daughter. I’d like to see the politicians grow a pair and stand up for what’s right.
One more and I’ll shut up. The very real discrimination against LGBTs (those that need to pee, anyway) far outweighs the very hypothetical daughter scenario.
The Ordinance does not limit to bathrooms, that includes, showers, dressing rooms and other facilities where the norm is to take clothes off to change to something else. The Ordinance is not so limited as to the bathroom. The women’s bathrooms have stalls, so my wife tells me, so that is not likely to occur there, doors sometimes don’t close, but that is sometimes.
It is not about hate, I don’t even know why anyone would think that any time someone disagrees they hate. M@ do you hate everyone that disagrees with you on that issue?
Should we all carry guns into theaters like Rick Perry suggested?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rick-perry-guns_55b5604de4b0a13f9d18e3eb
Charles,
You say…
“you support trans women using the men’s room, and trans men using the women’s room.”
you know very well that isn’t going to happen. Transgender folks will keep using the restrooms they had been using prior to the passage of this ordinance. Nothing will change there.
you say….
“unless they can prove to Dave Wilson’s satisfaction that they have the approved genitalia for the restroom in question. Maybe what we need is for an army of volunteers to position themselves outside public restrooms to do package checks on everyone as they enter. Would you support amending the revenue cap to fund the creation of a Bathroom Enforcement Patrol?”
The Dave Wilson rhetoric is getting old and to be frank beneath you. You are far more persuasive and well spoken then to resort to the Dave Wilson drum beat every time you make a post.
lastly….
As far as other Cities are concerned I personally couldn’t care less. For you see it isn’t the transgender people I am worried about. NOT AT ALL.
Lets be clear. I have never thought about this issue until the HERO ordinance passed. I never thought is was a problem. My interaction with transgender people has been limited to Phylis Fry and Jeniffer Pool. Phylliss Fry reached out to me as a young lawyer and showed me more compassion and friendship as a young lawyer than anyone had ever done. She did so just because she was nice and for no other reason. I never thought about where she used the restroom. When she let me sit second chair in a Felony case (that she got a not guilty on) all I could do was marvel at her great legal work.
Prior to the passage of this ordinance was she having bathroom problems? I don’t know? Is it an issue we have to address? From all of the screaming back and forth maybe it is.
M,
There were probably other ways to address this however not all stakeholders were at the table.
You said
“Another thing; how’s anybody going to know there’s a trans in the bathroom?”
AGREED, I have no memory of ever being in the bathroom with a transgender person.
You said
“This bathroom nonsense is only–only about hating on our GLBT neighbors.”
DISAGREE, I am sorry you feel that way.
You said…
“The HERO does not threaten anyone’s daughter.”
AGREED
“I’d like to see the politicians grow a pair and stand up for what’s right.”
STRONGLY AGREE
However, we will never agree on the daughter scenario. Never.
Mainstream,
He has hit the nail on the head.
For the record I still bet it passess. Even though Parker screwed up the language.
This whole argument is nothing more than a bell ringing, shrunken head on a stick, oogah – oogah!!!! attempt to make up something icky to scare the credulous. It’s really pretty sad that it gets any traction at all.
No city ordinance (or lack thereof) is going to do anything to deter a sexual predator. I’m pretty sure that the Penal Code still has some provisions to the effect that sexual predation is a criminal offense; no city ordinance is going to trump that.
Airliners do not have separate loos for men and women. Practically all public restrooms have at least some private area, like a stall. Even locker rooms are moving away from group showers; in my decades of gym membership (including at the old Y that did have group showers) I never once heard of anyone using the “wrong” room.
Granted, back in the day, women at concerts at the Summit would leave the long line at the women’s room and use a stall or two in the men’s. The only reaction one ever heard from guys in that instance was “hey, don’t use that stall – women are waiting for it.”
I was brought up with the idea that it’s rude to stare, so I make a practice of not looking at other people’s body parts unless it’s in a situation where it’s appropriate (as in with my Director of Domestic Bliss, with the curtains drawn). I go camping quite a bit. Often people incorrectly think they’re adequately behind a bush or a rock when changing (or they’re not particularly worried about whether someone else gets a flash of their tan line). In those instances the etiquette is to find the geology, flora, and fauna in the opposite direction to be suddenly very fascinating.
I was once flashed by one of the adult straight men when I was a kid on a church youth group outing. I looked away, turned, and walked away; my only thought at the time was how unimpressive the gentleman was, and a resultant bit of befuddlement at the display. Scarring for life did not occur.
Grow up, people. If you’re really that danged terrified about seeing somebody else’s wee wee, stay home.
So Paul, it’s probably best that you try to keep your daughter at home until it’s time to send her to a cloistered convent – if you can find one. Either that, or teach her not to be an easily frightened fool.
. Your position is if I object to a man being in the restroom with my daughter then I should keep my daughter at home. Nice..another poster hiding behind a fake name. The world is upside down it really is.
Mollusk you are confused, are you stating that the ordinance will make it easier for sexual predators? You seem to think that is the argument of those that are against it. Well rest assured it is not. Have you ever heard the word “Privacy”. Some people have an expectation of privacy in certain places. It can be hard for many women and children to view a naked person who is of the opposite sex standing next to them when the sign on the door say women.
It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on current diagnostic criteria source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria
Let me ask this question would be alright for a father and his young daughter to bath naked together? I don’t think so, but you seem to think that it okay for a stranger to do so.
“It is estimated that about 0.005% to 0.014% of males and 0.002% to 0.003% of females would be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, based on current diagnostic criteria source”
If that is the case, it seems a few of you are getting mighty worked up over the tiny possibility of even encountering a transgender person, never mind one using a stall next to that of a female loved one. Given the stats showing the transgender person is far, far, far more likely to be assaulted than be the aggressor, I can think of thousands of bigger threats to your families.
It is disingenuous to say that we are getting worked up over any transgender person. With all of your years in law enforcement and the military you know it isn’t the transgender people we are concerned about.
PK, I’m trying to understand where y’all are coming from given most of the discussion against the ordinance keeps going back to what is being called “the daughter scenario” where a guy would be standing next to a daughter or wife in a bathroom stall. Given the parameters of the ordinance, we know gays will still be standing next to other males in the male bathrooms, lesbians will sit next to other females in their stalls in the female bathrooms, presumably bisexual folks will continue going the bathroom in their usual gender stalls, which leaves the question of transgender people; at least as far as the discussion most of you have been having in this and related threads.
Somehow, some of you believe the ordinance is an open invitation for sexual predators to prey on your children, specifically daughters since that is what people keep going back to in their comments. I have yet to find any compelling argument that the HERO ordinance does any such thing, nor does any of the data on child molestation support the claim that GLTB (sp?) are disproportionately molesting children. For example:
“Dr. Carole Jenny was the director of the Child Advocacy and Protection Team at Denver’s Childrens Hospital, and she also directed medical programs at the C. Henry Kempe National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect. Dr. Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 269 medical records of Denver-area children who were sexually abused by adults. Of 50 male children, 37 (74%) were molested by men who had been in a heterosexual relationship with the child’s relative. Three were molested by women, five were molested by both parents, and three others were molested by non-relatives. Only one perpetrator could be identified as being possibly homosexual in his adult behavior.” There are hundreds of such studies showing molesters tend to be family members or friends of theirs, not strangers met in a bathroom and virtually none who identify as gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.
So I’m not arguing anything or taking a specific stance other than focusing on what y’all are arguing about. I’ve already come to your defense previously when some suggested you hated gays, and defended some of the others from similar labels as being unsupported by what has been written on this blog. There may be many reasons someone doesn’t like the ordinance that have less to do with “hate” than with misunderstandings, Charles certainly having ample ammunition when it comes to the Wilson’s of the world and some of the bigger names.
But the suggestion that “alternate lifestyle” folks are not discriminated against flies in the face of my life experiences. When I was in boot camp, a couple of the guys were caught together and dishonorably discharged, the rest of us told they would also be prosecuted. When I went to graduate school, there was a big issue about allowing a student club for gays to exist, the court case dragging on for 9 years and the head of the corp making it clear he would expel any gay military cadets if they were caught. And to suggest there haven’t been cases of gay bashing in the area, discrimination in hiring, or even people kicked out of various establishments (more during the AIDS scare of course) seems strange to me because I’ve seen it all since moving to Texas nearly 30 years ago. My printing company farmed out work to local artists and tradesmen who happened to be gay or lesbian, all of them replete with stories of how they were treated over it.
So again, if I misread the bulk of your arguments regarding the ordinance, I apologize but even a cursory look shows the same “daughter dilemma” mentioned over and over.
Steven your propensity to obfuscate an issue remains well entrenched.
I was going to explain the small percentage but chose not do so. Why is that such a large number of person, men, women, children, etc. have to adjust the way they have conducted their lives for such a small number of people? Did you know that the majority of young people that sexually confused, outgrow their confusion? Why not study the issue?
Why persist with the sexual predator argument, Steven? It is the typical change the argument to something that is defensible.
Steven answer this question, What would society think of a father that takes a shower (naked) with his 13 year old daughter? If you answer they would not think about it, I would suggest that you are not being honest. If a father who is not a sexual predator is frown upon, why would it alright for a stranger to do?
I love statistics, one can prove almost anything with it, statistics show that a young man is more likely to become a homosexual if he is sexually molested as a child. They are great for confusing an issue.
Steven would you object to club for terrorists? Not sure what that argument about clubs has to do with the argument of naked men next to women and young girls, or the other way around.
By the way Steven, I am Manuel Barrera, who is Steven Houston? Is that your real name?
Y’all is that right Steven, it is Y’all? So lump everyone into one group. Ontario Canada one man pretended to be sexual confused and sexually assaulted at least two women. That makes people, like Y’all support such behavior, right Steven.
Y’all tend to change arguments, I believe I have stated that the level of discrimination that homosexuals have faced has not reached the level that I had to face. Steven if you are in police enforcement, answer one question, Why did Hispanic police officers in the Houston police department have to form an organization like OSSO?
So when did anyone claim that homosexuals have not been discriminated? Where is that post? I have stated that homosexuals can hide their sexual preference if they choose to. A black, brown person cannot.
Hypothetical, if a man who thinks he is woman sexually attacked a young girl would that make him a lesbian? Why is that the vast majority of sexually confused persons are men and women?
I do not want a naked stranger next to my wife, daughter, or granddaughter. Why is it that people, like y’all can’t grasp that concept?
If I misread the bulk of your arguments regarding your argument, I apologize but even a cursory look shows the same false hood mentioned over and over by people like y’all.
CORRECTION
Why is that the vast majority of sexually confused persons are men and not women.
You said,
“nor does any of the data on child molestation support the claim that GLTB (sp?)”
AGREED….the bathroom ordinance from my perspective has nothing to do with transgender people.
You said,
“But the suggestion that “alternate lifestyle” folks are not discriminated against flies in the face of my life experiences.”
AGREED….maybe that comment was not meant for me. Like I have said before if the bathroom provisions were not in the ordinance it would have passed and we wouldn’t be talking about this (in my opinion).
My position is if this ordinance allows just one predator (not transgender people) to commit a sexual crime (i.e. exposure, molestation, etc) then I will be against the ordinance.
Again I pin all this crap we have to go through on Parker. She is divisive (not because she is gay) but because she is a bully. No compromise ever, her way or the highway.
Steven answer this question, What would society think of a father that takes a shower (naked) with his 13 year old daughter? If you answer they would not think about it, I would suggest that you are not being honest. If a father who is not a sexual predator is frown upon, why would it alright for a stranger to do?
I think Manuel has a good point. It is not about being Gay or Transgender. That is not what I am talking about.
I’ll bite, Paul. Exactly where do you and “Felix” envision these showers with 13 yr old girls happening? Maybe my mind doesn’t wander enough to think of where this comparison is even logical. But I’d suggest that there is an inherent hatred/distrust/whatever-you-want-to-call-it baked into the question you pose.
I’ve seen enough of Manuel’s commentary on gays in general to know where he stands and I’m not thinking that you really want to be in the same “ideological shower” that he’s in. Feel free to convince me that you’re not.
To address Mainstream’s very valid earlier point, I think there’s a difference between those who believe this issue is about bathrooms, bakers, and pizza parlors because that is most of what they hear around them … and those that initiate those arguments. You and your brother have been among the latter.
PK, the response was all inclusive, rather than have me try to keep up with a dozen separate bits, largely facilitated by so many bringing up the same examples over and over again with slight variations. As I already stated you are not a hater of alt-lifestyle people, we’re good there but nowhere in the ordinance does it empower a predator to prey on another. MB had to go as far as Canada for a single example of a criminal, gasp, breaking the law. If you believe the ordinance empowers predators to break the law, something not found in the “17 states and 200 cities” discussed in the article, I guess I’d want to understand why you think Houston would be different, no cases found yet under the ordinance that I’m aware of.
MB, as with Paul, my response addressed different people’s comments, including one claiming women have already been using men’s bathrooms for years, a fact I have observed as stated. In direct answer to your question: “Why is that such a large number of person, men, women, children, etc. have to adjust the way they have conducted their lives for such a small number of people?” My answer: Simply because it is the right thing to do. If you claim it is okay to discriminate against one group without very good reason, you open the door to continuing that mindset. If you were told you couldn’t use a bathroom because you looked too ethnic, you’d be pretty hacked off and rightfully so, though society commonly did this years ago (including water fountains, yes?).
MB: “What would society think of a father that takes a shower (naked) with his 13 year old daughter?” Answer: If we dictate all laws by what “society” might think, we’re going to run off a cliff just as we did when “society” thought people that looked like you were inherently “up to no good” by virtue of your looks. But locally, do you think that sexual predators get a pass with HERO? Do you think all that prey on 13 year old girls are males (here’s a study that refutes that belief, suggesting women are more likely to sexually assault teenage girls: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf)? If showering is to be the new battleground for the anti-HERO types, it might behoove them to know that and perhaps work to eliminate communal showers.
MB: “who is Steven Houston? Is that your real name?” Answer: Why does it matter so much to you? Are you arguing the points made or the person making them? I write and as a writer, I have my nom de plume that I consistently use on these discussion boards. If it was good enough for Ben Franklin and Samuel Clemens, it’s good enough for me.
MB: “Why did Hispanic police officers in the Houston police department have to form an organization like OSSO?” Answer: From their website: “In 1978 several Hispanic members of the Houston Police Department (HPD) explored the need to create an official organization that could advocate the needs and welfare of current and future HPD officers. On April 8, 1981 the creation of “The Houston Police Organization of Spanish Speaking Officers” (O.S.S.O.) was formalized and chartered under the State of Texas non-profit rules and regulations. An Executive Board of Directors was elected, our OSSO logo was created and the rest is history.”
Apparently, there have been a variety of ethnic based associations with their department, including a black officer group, a white officer group, etc etc, too.
MB: “So when did anyone claim that homosexuals have not been discriminated? Where is that post? I have stated that homosexuals can hide their sexual preference if they choose to. A black, brown person cannot.” Answer: Other than point out that ethnic people can “hide their sexual preference” as well as anyone else as far as I know, I point you to your own comment: “I personally think that what ever discrimination homosexuals claim, it does not begin to rise to the level of the group of people that are presently protected by the civil rights act.” Without knowing what level of discrimination you have been subjected to based on your looks, it makes it tough to compare relative “amounts” of discrimination. You deny the level of discrimination reaches the level of other protected groups because they can “hide” it if they choose, as though that makes it alright. I suppose we should strip out religious protections from the law since people can “hide” them as they see fit? You can look up just how much discrimination they have been subjected to on your own, it may surprise you that many do consider it reaching some imaginary level worth passing a law about.
Lastly, before I hit the pool, I reiterate that being against HERO doesn’t mean you are a hater as Charles has suggested several times now. Different people see things in different ways but if concerns about showering, now that the bathroom stuff seems covered, is the only reason you are against the measure, well that’s pretty weak tea (as they say) unless you can come up with a lot more examples and closer to home.
Let me repeat:
No city ordinance (or lack thereof) is going to do anything to deter a sexual predator. I’m pretty sure that the Penal Code still has some provisions to the effect that sexual predation is a criminal offense; no city ordinance is going to trump that.
The argument that endorsing and enforcing the idea of equal rights for all is somehow going to make it possible for girls to have to pee in front of naked men is ridiculous.
The claim by some that this isn’t about subjugating some group or another sounds an awful lot like “some of my best friends are (black, Hispanic, Martian, whatever)” or “he/she is one of the good (blacks, Hispanics, Martians, whatever).”
Or maybe we should go back to having three restrooms?
Just like I thought Steven Houston, you don’t answer questions that you cannot answer or do not like what the answer might be.
OSSO, if you were one of the founding members maybe you would recall that treatment for Latino Officers was different, and not different as in the better kind. That is if you were truly there. Chicano Squad, doing homicide work for less pay and more work.
I look like a typical Mexican for those that think like that, short, brown, and facial features like Native Americans.
The homosexuals are discriminated is a bogus issue for what ever reason they claim a victim part. I will state that short, fat, ugly people are discriminated against much more often. God forbid that a person is short, fat, and ugly they face a hard life.
Answer the question if you are a father do you shower naked with your young daughters, would you, have you? Why should a stranger be able to so. It is something that will happen, whether there is an assault or not.
Mollusk, let me repeat the question that people have to answer is do they want a strange man showering next to their daughters, wives, or mothers? If you don’t mind, so be it, you vote for that. I will not and everyone that asks that is how I will frame the question because ERO makes that possible.
I understand why Mollusk and Steven want to change the framing of the question, it makes a big difference. That is why the mayor chose the language she did. She did so to deceive.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/uhd-professor-saves-student-from-being-assaulted-in-campus-restroom/32410370
Like I said earlier. it isn’t the gays or the transgender people we are worried about.
How many examples do you want? I can keep them coming.
Also about reporting crimes…..I give the this…
Because the assailant was apprehended, there was no legal or policy requirement that the University issue a notification (per the Clery Act, which addresses campus crime reporting),” said UHD in their email. “A decision was made at that time that a message to the UHD community was not necessary; in hindsight this was not the best decision. Information about this incident should have been shared, both on the basis of right-to-know and as a powerful reminder of the importance of paying attention to personal safety.”
Let me use short words.
Unwelcome naked strangers showering (or just standing there) with your wife, daughter, mother, father, brother, son, aunt, uncle, you, or whoever is already against the law. The Texas Penal Code calls it indecent exposure:
“Sec. 21.08. INDECENT EXPOSURE. (a) A person commits an offense if he exposes his anus or any part of his genitals with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, and he is reckless about whether another is present who will be offended or alarmed by his act.
“(b) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor.”
Even looking is a crime. The Penal Code, again:
“Sec. 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
“(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
“(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
“(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person’s own through a window or other opening in the room; or
“(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
“(a-1) For purposes of Subsection (a), the term “public place” includes a public school campus or the school grounds on which a public school is located.”
————
No city ordinance can or will change that. Claiming that HERO will do so is at best a display of ignorance, if not an outright lie.
Beyond that, saying “gay and transgender people haven’t been discriminated against as badly as blacks/Hispanics/Martians/whatever” is a logical fallacy called “false equivalence.”
Sheez.
Agreed, however but you are assuming you know the criminal mind. Clearly you don’t.
Mollusk, there is no ignorance or outright lie. The City Ordinance as proposed allowed gender confused men or women (But women tend to be gender confused) to use public facilities, where one may be naked.
ERO Ordinance
It is the policy of the city that all of its residents and persons subject to its
jurisdiction shall not be subject to discrimination based on an individual’s sex, race,
color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status,
religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, gender identity or pregnancy.
Gender identity means an individual’s innate identification, appearance,
expression or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not
correspond to the individual’s body or gender as assigned at birth.
Place of public accommodation means every business with a physical
location in the city, whether wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers for compensation any product, service, or facility. The term includes, but is not limited to, all hotels, motels, restaurants, bars, lounges, nightclubs or cabarets where food or beverages are sold or offered for sale, theaters, washaterias, bowling alleys, skating rinks, golf courses, and other places of public amusement, and all public conveyances, as well as the stations or terminals thereof.
Sec. 17-51. Prohibition against discrimination in public accommodations.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any place of public accommodation or any employee
or agent thereof to intentionally discriminate against any person on the basis of any
protected characteristic, except as required by federal or state law or court order.
Sec. 17-54. Exemptions.
This article shall not apply to:
(1) Any hotel, motel, restaurant, bar, lounge, nightclub, cabaret, theater, bowling alley, skating rink, golf course, or similar facility operated by a bona fide private club when the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and services of the entity are restricted to the members of such club and their guests and not for the purpose of evading this article;
Sec. 17-55. Criminal penalties for violation.
(a) A person who violates a provision of this article commits a criminal offense, a
Class C misdemeanor. A person is guilty of a separate criminal offense for each day or
part of a day during which a violation is committed, continued, or permitted.
(b) A criminal offense under this article is punishable in municipal court by a fine
of not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00. In no event shall the aggregate of all
fines relating to the same complaint filed by a complainant exceed $5000.00.
Mollusk wrote: Beyond that, saying “gay and transgender people haven’t been discriminated against as badly as blacks/Hispanics/Martians/whatever” is a logical fallacy called “false equivalence.”
Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.
There are many examples of “logical fallacies” Mollusk are you suggesting that you have evidence of whole scale lynching of homosexual in America that rise to the level of what occurred to African Americans? My argument is sound as to the levels of discrimination. If you can disprove that do so, by example not by saying it is a false equivalence.
This may be a false argument: Ugly People
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052002298.html
In the 19th century, many American cities banned public appearances by “unsightly” individuals. A Chicago ordinance was typical: “Any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated, or in any way deformed, so as to be an unsightly or disgusting subject . . . shall not . . . expose himself to public view, under the penalty of a fine of $1 for each offense.”
Mullosk tell me why it is a false argument?
Correction
Women tend to not be gender confused.
Corrections,
Steve had on his website
have not made it public, or came out of the closet as it used to be said
Greg, to be honest with you I don’t know. I have never even considered the issue until it was presented that way. All of you folks rant and rave about how nothing wrong ever happens in a bathroom and yet none of you commented on my post. Ignore it all you want but I will never vote for a law that allows a man to be in a woman’s restroom. Not going to happen.
Pull out all of your hate cards and be just EXACTLY like the people you complain of and be very vocal about it. You will play right into their hands. Good luck on the ordinance.
Also “GREG” I don’t speak for “FELIX”. If you have questions for him grow some balls and call him @ (281) 850-0171.
Opps..that is my number….his number is (281) 850-0172.
Greg,
One last question? Are you accusing me of hating Gays? Are you accusing me of speaking for Mike? Is your statement also the position of your employer Gene?
So Paul, which bathroom should Phyllis Frye use? Which bathroom should a transgender person in transition use? Are you going to seriously argue that someone dressed and passing as a woman should use the men’s room (or vice versa for a woman transitioning to male)?
Ross, I never have said that. If you are going to comment on my post then maybe you should have the decency to comment on them properly.
However, I am quickly learning that spreading Hate and misinformation is part of the strategy of the Pro-Hero people. How dare anyone disagree with you on this issue.
If you control peoples hate and fear you control them. (German circa 1930 – 1940)
Obviously, transgender people will continue to use the same one they always have.
Do you really believe they will change where they go or are you intentionally being argumentative?
I do not know of a State Law that would stop them from doing that do you? Is it possible you feel the need to follow the drum
Typo….meant to delete last sentence fragment.
Paul, you’ve said several times that you aren’t comfortable with having a man in the bathroom with your daughter. A transgendered person in transition still has their original genitals. So, for example, would you be against Caitlyn Jenner using the women’s restroom? Where do you draw your line?
PK,
I am confused by your post of the UHD example. The man who entered the bathroom and threatened the female student with a knife was not wearing female clothes, or representing himself to be a female. His actions were illegal before HERO, and will be illegal after HERO. Nothing in HERO would allow him a defense to being in the bathroom of the other gender. His “gender identity” is not that of a female. He does not call himself by female pronouns, he does not represent himself to his buddies as being a female, call himself by a traditionally female name, try to pass in society as a woman. He certainly is not undergoing hormone therapy to change his body to conform to the female gender, or planning to have sex-reassignment surgery.
What am I missing?
Mainstream,
The Criminal mind (not the transgender folks) is out to do evil. Once the criminal mind of a sexual predator devises his scheme I can easily see him sitting in a Woman’s restroom behind the wall of the HERO ordinance (i.e. dressed in woman’s clothes or not dressed in woman’s clothes) sitting in the stall just waiting for opportunity to unfold. That is how I believe the Criminal mind works. He will not care if he fits the definition of Gender Identity before he enters the restroom because you see the sexual predator is driven by more the legal/social protocols. The Sexual predator is motivated by evil. I don’t think we as a society should give him that tool.
As far as Hero allowing a defense to being in the bathroom of the other gender. I agree on that example but what if he was wearing a dress, sitting in a stall, and just looking real creapy? Would HERO say he could be in there just hanging out? I think it does. If I am right about my interpretation then I have a problem with the law.
Ross,
I said a man in a bathroom. I don’t care where Caitlyn Jenner uses the restroom. I am also sure she would not be disrobing in 24-hour fitness.
I am done with this thread. I am sure we will address this a million times between now and November.
Have a good night everyone.
MB: “OSSO, if you were one of the founding members maybe you would recall that treatment for Latino Officers was different, and not different as in the better kind. That is if you were truly there. Chicano Squad, doing homicide work for less pay and more work.”
Answer: I made no such claim about any of it. You asked me why the group was started so I cut and pasted the answer from their website as I stated above. It is my understanding that Victor Trevino and a handful of others started the group, it currently has a modest number of members, and their website claims credit for changing city hiring policies to bypass the need for college credit for veterans, something Ben Reyes had long claimed credit for at city council meetings. As the city police only has one group that qualifies as the majority bargaining agent and OSSO is not it, my understanding is that all or virtually all members belong to the real union too, for lawyers and such. From my most basic understanding of their past legal claims, there appeared to be merit that a single, multiple choice test is tougher on Latinos and blacks for whatever reason just as past discrimination in hiring was the impetus for the city giving minorities greatly preferential hiring since the early 80’s (as discovered in Nugent v. City of Houston).
MB: “The homosexuals are discriminated is a bogus issue for what ever reason they claim a victim part. I will state that short, fat, ugly people are discriminated against much more often. God forbid that a person is short, fat, and ugly they face a hard life.”
Answer: Again, I’ve seen them discriminated against my entire adult life in ways that few other groups would tolerate. I’m sorry if you believe that your status as a “short, fat, ugly person” has caused you problems but I suspect the way you comment here points to a deeper problem that you indeed have control over, or should have control over. If part of that is due to being discriminated against by gays at some point in time, just remember that more tolerance for others begets more tolerance for you too.
MB: “Answer the question if you are a father do you shower naked with your young daughters, would you, have you? Why should a stranger be able to so. It is something that will happen, whether there is an assault or not.”
Answer: I’m not a father so the only women I’ve showered with have been age appropriate, more or less (I sometimes feel guilty if the woman is in her 20’s or 30’s but I was raised as a catholic so I’m supposed to feel guilty about everything). People fixating on showers or bathrooms should probably not use communal facilities because, as pointed out above, the majority of sexual assaults on teenage females come from other genetic females: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
PK: “UHD professor saves student” and “All of you folks rant and rave about how nothing wrong ever happens in a bathroom and yet none of you commented on my post. Ignore it all you want but I will never vote for a law that allows a man to be in a woman’s restroom.”
Well, that had nothing to do with the HERO ordinance nor was the suspect trying to use the ordinance to justify being in the women’s bathroom. As Mollusk pointed out, no paper law is going to prevent a predator from trying to victimize people just as HERO does not encourage predators. If you had read the previous discussion about bathrooms, you’d understand Mr. Barrera found a single case in Canada where someone claimed transgender status to go in a bathroom to assault another. Using your logic, maybe all bathrooms should be closed given the majority of assaults on teenage girls comes from other women. For examples to have any weight in the discussion, they’d be best related to an opposite gender person using such an ordinance to assault someone, and there may even be a couple out there somewhere but compared to most sexual assaults on children which are from family and family friends, you’ll be found wanting for lack of examples. Heck, I’ve agreed that things happen in bathrooms, just not HERO related things, calling it “ignoring” because I went to enjoy the afternoon by the pool with two of my favorite females was kind of funny though.
PK: “The criminal mind”
Paul, if you come up with a comprehensive manner in which to answer all the questions society has about the vast world of criminal minds, a unified theory of criminal minds if you will, reserve the first copy of your book for me. You can even sign it to my pen name as a lark. You’ve now come up with a “criminal scheme” based on male predators dressing up like women to sexually assault women, Hollywood lost out big when you went into defense work because your fertile imagination is working overtime. As I understand it from my days as a volunteer with the women’s crisis team in Montrose, sexual assaults by men (it is now believed women assault women more often than men do, a huge paradigm change from years back) are about power. To dress as a woman diminishes one’s power, therefore I doubt your new found scenario will ever be a likely response to HERO passing (again) as it has not happened in all those other states and cities with similar laws.
Greg, as I told Charles in another thread, I think Paul has a genuine concern and is not a hater of various groups. I haven’t seen anything substantial by his brothers on the topic but while I think their views on many topics are probably pretty similar, none of them claim to speak for the other as a rule of thumb.
Mollusk: “Or maybe we should go back to having three restrooms?”
Given the argumentative nature of a few people on this website, it’d probably be easier to take that route and certainly fairer than forcing some to refrain from using the bathroom all day lest they be beaten or charged with a crime under former standards.
Steven why not go speak to some of the original members, most are retired but still alive, OSSO. Victor has a brother that is with HPD, why not go ask him. Or go talk to Victor he is still with us.
The real union, guess what some of those original OSSO members, have been officers of the “real union”. Times have changed and there is not as much need for OSSO as before, younger officers have not had to endured different treatment.
I see that you have refused to answer the question, is it okay for a father to shower naked with teenage daughter. Answer the question, non of this I was raised Catholic B.S.. If you think Catholics are to see sin every where, wonder how much harder it is for Jewish People.
Greg, fitness centers that are not considered private clubs. You are smarter than that, but like Paul says, what the ERO supporters are doing is trying their darndest to change the argument. Dave Wilson calls it Ordinance 530, which is the proper term for it as ERO would mean that no one would be discriminated against. White heterosexual men are not included.
SH says “I have seen them discriminated against my entire life”. That is a very odd statement, it would suggest that you have been associating with homosexuals your entire life? How is that? I knew of one that lived in the neighborhood where I grew up, and can’t recall that he was discriminated against. I met some Lesbian women when I was in college and even dated one before she realized that she preferred women. I don’t recall her being discriminated against. In fact, I could not tell that she was a lesbian until she traded me in for another woman.
SH, I bet that if I posted photos of six individuals and one is homosexual, you will not able to pick him out. I bet you can pick out the African-American, Mexican-American, Asian, Woman. If you mean they could not be open about their sexual preference and you call that discrimination, then I would agree.
When I was sixteen I worked at a car wash, the owner was a homosexual, he would take many of the young boys that worked there home. They stated that he had naked photos of a lot of the young boys. While he had no qualms doing that he was under paying them for the amount of time they worked. They were unable to determine what they should be paid. They would ask me to figure it out. Moral of the story, you don’t have to be in a different shower for sexual predators to do what they do.
Naked men do not belong in a shower with women that do not want there.
correction
traded me in for a woman.
MB: “SH says “I have seen them discriminated against my entire ADULT life”. That is a very odd statement, it would suggest that you have been associating with homosexuals your entire life? How is that? I knew of one that lived in the neighborhood where I grew up, and can’t recall that he was discriminated against. I met some Lesbian women when I was in college and even dated one before she realized that she preferred women. I don’t recall her being discriminated against. In fact, I could not tell that she was a lesbian until she traded me in for another woman.”
Answer: If you’re going to misquote (I fixed it for you), don’t bother. The real life examples I gave you came from a broad range of discriminatory practices that I happened to observe. Before “no ask, no tell”, there were many gays in the military, many as worried about that inevitable blanket party they would receive if found out by the rank and file as the inevitable dishonorable discharge and criminal action were they found out. For the record, there were a LOT of short, ugly, fat guys in basic training that depended on us much taller, leaner folk to help them through. Then, my printing company and other workplaces depended on the expertise of gays, lesbians, etc, all of whom quickly found out I didn’t care about their consensual bedroom antics with like minded adults (and I still don’t care).
You keep bouncing back to the man in the shower scenario though it hasn’t been a problem anywhere else. You clearly don’t care that the law protects teenage girls from sexual predators, nothing in HERO giving a pass. But as others have pointed out, you seem to hold a grudge against gays, don’t like how they shut you down in political dealings in favor of their own, and so on. As such, you paint them with a mighty broad brush that would be laughed out of town had you applied it to Latinos, blacks, Asians, whites or other groups. That is your prerogative, however limiting it may be.
I’m pretty glad that I opted to spend a pleasant Sunday with my dog rather than hit refresh for every update on this.
Steven, I appreciate your point that you don’t view Paul in the same league with those who have a more genuine and/or distasteful hatred toward gays. I certainly don’t see his comments as being as incendiary as say, Dave Wilson, Steven Hotze or Jared Woodfill might. But I also don’t see a perfectly binary distinction. To insistently raise the fictional bathroom/shower narrative the way Paul has offers no evidence of a fair mind on what it is that this law actually does.
While I respect yours or anyone else’s view that Paul can be talked to, engaged in dialogue, debated rationally, or whatever … I leave that mission in life for others.
Greg, he’s generally a decent guy and I left them to go at it while I went to the pool for much of the day. I suspect it will pass by a healthy margin but I jumped in because I figured there would be more depth to the reasoning, but you make a good point. Thanks for adding your bit.
So Steven, you claim that it has not been a problem, what is your definition of problem? My definition of discrimination does not include sexual preference.
In defense of PK, Greg Wythe, knows not what he talks about. Read the ordinance. What is fictional about something that the ordinance will allow? Will the ordinance allow a man who thinks he is a woman to go into the woman’s bathroom? Yes or NO. If yes, where is the fiction? But you already know that the ordinance allows that, that is why you tend to claim fiction or SH who changs the argument to “It has not been a problem else where”
It is funny that someone who is so anti-illegal talks about painting with a broad brush, that would be you Steven Houston.
The only fiction and story telling comes from people like Greg Wythe and Steven Houston.
Look you all vote for it, I will vote against it, but I will not allow the supporter of men in women bathroom, showers, to get away with being untruthful about what can happen. The chances are slim of it happening to someone as the percentage of sexually confused persons is small, but that does not mean you make it permissible.
Like PK said, bye bye, continue with your fantasy world.