Lance Berkman campaigns against allowing boys into girls' bathrooms

The sad thing is, a law, not unlike one passed in most cities and/or states in the US, that would have protected veterans and the elderly from housing and employment discrimination, was derailed by doubling down on an invented moral panic about transgender people and counting on the ignorance of voters for it to work.

That it succeeded so remarkably is not something to be proud of.

 

You need to educate yourself on the full story rather than lazily pick off the headlines from HuffPo or Kos. It's more nuanced than that. Remember this is a city that has elected a lesbian mayor and the bulk of voters are liberals.

 

I have a master's degree, am applying for a PhD at UT, attend public policy forums (including this one, where it was discussed), and have been a journalist and political consultant in elections in four countries. I don't read the HuffPRo or Kos. I think I'm better educated than the average business major from Rice.

I'm not a stranger to Houston politics -- I was born there and my grandmother worked as secretary for Bush up until his ill-fated Senate run. He taught me how to spell my name when I was four and had me type it on the old IBM selectric typewriters in his office so I wouldn't bother the campaign workers.

I was also a Republican precinct chairman in the 90s in Walker County.

I also played D&D as a kid, listened to Motorhead, never worshiped the Devil, and know a moral panic when I see it.

As for Harris County being a bastion of Bolshevism, you do know that Obama carried it in 2012 by only about 500 votes, right?

 

Harris County doesn't vote on City of Houston ordinances! Did you not know that?

And Rice doesn't even offer an undergraduate business degree!

I mean come on, son.

 

^^ biggie just got the mic dropped on him, lulz

 

This is a fairly accurate depiction of the D&D!

It doesn't matter how many posts you make here, you are not going to change anyone's opinion! The Prop was put up for a vote and the outcome decided its fate!
You can continue arguing about it ad nauseam if you like, but the results of the ballot will still be the same! Whether you agree or disagree with results, you should
take comfort in knowing that democracy is alive and well in the US.


This should help end the arguing....

Spoiler

Let it go....

.......
.......
.......

 

Well, we'll see if they actually had any intention of protecting veterans or the elderly....or if they just included that so as to not ONLY be voting about an ordinance that was really about giving transgender individuals special treatment. I mean, everything else in that ordinance was already protected under federal laws, so there's no rush but if they want to put forth a new ordinance to add extra protection for veterans and the elderly stripped of the part about transsexuals, I'm sure no one will object.

Of course, if adding the special treatment of transsexuals was their true main objective, it's back to square one for them.

 

The yes side spend three times as much as the nos and had better endorsements --- including the president and Hillary.

If you don't show up to vote, you can't really put the blame on those who do.

 

I love how elected officials focus on special interest groups when bigger issues are at stake.

 

Homosexuals have always had the right to marry, it just had to be to someone of the opposite sex. Analogies are never perfect, but this one strikes my as more apt than most.

So, if the ordinance had passed and a veteran came to city hall saying he was denied employment because he was a veteran, they'd just laugh and say "Sorry, but unless you're a man trying to use a woman's bathroom, we don't actually care"?

I don't think the Vote Yes campaign was lacking for resources, given the house visits, flyers, and mail I got. They had a harder message to communicate though.

But, I don't think the motives of the opposition was much hidden. It really does have to do with wishing transgenders didn't exist. And it has to do with conservative opposition to Parker's gay agenda (which she exacerbated with her authoritarian bluff). I think those two things motivated the provision of money and organization to the bathroom campaign from probably a not very big pool of white conservatives (and they don't even have to be residents to help the effort in this regard). They were able to find foot soldiers and votes in minority populations who are less sympathetic to LGBT than the white inner-loopers.

 

Are you trying to inner-loop-shame me? My point is still the same -- Houston is way more purple than the blue it is reputed to be.

I apologize for pigeonholing you as a business major, bigtexxx.

 

Unsurprisingly you completely miss the mark. I'm suggesting that the reason they wanted the ordinance had nothing to do with the elderly or veterans, it had everything to do with trying to give transsexuals special privileges.

IF they really care about veterans, the elderly, or any of the other non-transsexual protected classes the ordinance was intended for then they'll just pass another ordinance with the transsexual language left out....it'll have no opposition and will provide the extra protections they claim to want.

Of course, IMO the special privileges for transsexuals was the only thing they really wanted and they thought if they were able to sneak it in with a bunch of things no one objected to then no one would notice. They noticed. Since that was their main objective and it was thwarted, they won't re-introduce another ordinance without it. They never REALLY cared about any of the protected classes in the ordinance, they were just using them to further the agenda of a pet special interest group.

 

But da bathrooooooomz! Derp.

 

Which bathroom should I use?

 

That's a lot of special interest groups!

 

Just go on the sidewalk, even #2. That's what we do in San Francisco.

 

Well, inclusive to say the least...I don't get how this was so easily spun into a stealth transgender molester high-five, when the language seems pretty clear to me.

 

But only one they care about....which is why they won't try to put the ordinance through without the part trying to advance the transsexual agenda. Without the part that defines a person's sex as being the same as their gender, the parts related to public accommodation of transsexuals. That's the ONLY part they cared about trying to pass.

If they cut that BS out they could have an ordinance with no opposition that would prohibit discrimination in city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment, and housing based on an individual’s sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, or pregnancy.....but that's not something they care about.

 

Week technically, the opponents were scared of non transgender molesters claiming to be transgender.

Not of transgenders themselves