Posted on 08/04/2003 6:29:34 PM PDT by hotpotato
California Gov. Gray Davis added fuel to his opponents' recall fire by signing a controversial bill that authorizes fines of up to $150,000 for companies or nonprofit groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that discriminate against cross-dressers, transsexuals or drag queens.
The governor signed the measure Saturday along with the $71.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2003-4. The move fell under the radar screens of most California media outlets.
The law, which will take effect Jan. 1, 2004, adds "gender identity or expression" to the characteristics protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and specifically protects residents whose "perceived gender characteristics are different from those traditionally associated with the individual's sex at birth."
The Assembly approved the bill in April by a vote of 41 to 34, the minimum needed to pass. The state Senate, led by Democrats, followed suit earlier this month with a vote of 23 to 11.
The new law, which provides an exemption for religious groups, makes California the fourth state to bar discrimination on the basis of "perceived gender," behind New Mexico, Rhode Island and Minnesota.
Homosexual-rights advocates hail the law as a victory that's been a long time in coming.
"It's a very big issue for the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] community in California," Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, told the Associated Press. "It's something we've been working on for three years."
The measure, titled AB 196, was one of a package proposed this year by the five-member Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus. Earlier this year, the state Assembly passed a bill that would award virtually all the rights of marriage to homosexual "domestic partners." The Senate is expected to take it up next month.
"Having a law that specifically states who's protected makes it clear to employers that the majority of people in California want transgender people to be able to work in a nondiscriminatory environment," said Chris Daley, co-director of the Transgender Law Center in San Francisco.
Arguing for its necessity, the bill's sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, cites a 1999 study by the San Francisco Department of Public Health indicating the city's transgender population had a 70 percent unemployment rate.
"We must do everything in our power to protect such fundamental human rights," he said.
Opponents call the move bad for business. Employer groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association warn the law's overly subjective definitions will spawn frivolous lawsuits. Just about any comment or action between workers could be grounds for a lawsuit, they contend.
Assemblyman Dennis Mountjoy of Monrovia was one of several members who spoke about how the measure harms California businesses during debate in the Assembly.
"If I have a Christian bookstore, how could I possibly follow this law?" he asked. "How could I possibly have an employee that's here today in a dress, tomorrow may come in a suit, and then stay in a dress? How can I possibly employ this employee and still have the Christian bookstore and live by my faith?"
Randy Thomasson, executive director of Campaign for California Families, a statewide family issues leadership organization, describes the law as "attacking persons of conscience."
"Average people think it's outrageous to force the sex-change lifestyle upon businesses and Boy Scouts. Gray Davis has apparently lost his senses," he said. "With his signature on AB 196, Davis has declared war on Californians who object to sex-change operations."
As WorldNetDaily reported, Davis' signature will likely motivate opponents to turn out in greater numbers for the Oct. 7 recall vote.
Less than a year into his second term, Davis is grappling with a staggering deficit projected at more than $38 billion and rock-bottom approval ratings. He becomes the first sitting governor in the history of California and only the second in U.S. history to face a recall election.
The governor derides the drive to oust him as "a hostile takeover by the right," and allies have said they expect to spend $15 million to $20 million to keep him in office.
With the Aug. 9 filing deadline looming, hundreds of people – from activists and filmmakers to a comedian and billboard queen – have filed to have their names added to the ballot. Self-described "smut peddler" Larry Flynt joined the dozens who have paid the $3,500 filing fee.
U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who bankrolled the recall signature-gathering recall effort with $1.7 million of his own money – is the only declared Republican in the race. Failed gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon and state Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks are expected to run. Others contemplating a run are state Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa Cruz, actor Arnold Schwarzenegger and controversial, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage.
Opponents of the "cross-dresser bill" plan to hold a news tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. at the State Treasurer's Building in Sacramento to highlight the law's detrimental effect on business. Speakers will include Thomasson and other pro-family leaders, including local ministers representing black, white and Latino voters.
"By supporting the transsexual agenda that hurts everyone else, Gray Davis has earned his recall," said Thomasson. "The in-your-face transsexual agenda makes voters very angry. ... Gray Davis tried to hide his actions by signing this radical sex-change bill under cover of the budget, but he won't get away with it."
Meanwhile, the GOP cannibals are going to blow the recall, no doubt.
As to your total dismissal of animal studies, the problem is it is unethical to do similar studies on humans.
Studies *already* exist on the effects of cyproterone acetate on humans. Cyproterone acetate is used in the treatment of prostrate cancer. No studies exist that indicate that these men are at a greater risk of gender identity disorder or are suddenly overwhelmed with the urge to wear women's bras, panties and garter belts. Cyproterone acetate is also used in birth control pills for women to reduce excessive body hair growth and does not result in an increased risk of gender confusion or lesbianism.
Chemical castration is simply decreasing or eliminating the male sex drive. It does not cause an individual to think or believe they are of another gender. There is no scientific data that supports a relation to blocking testosterone and causing a male to believe he is actually female. The flip side of that are the female body builders who inject testosterone to build body mass. They do not report an increase in lesbianism (though they do report that testosterone increases their sex drive but for the gender of preference PRE injections).
As I said, there are a lot of theories floating around out there about the origins of TG/TS that are just theories without data to support them but that doesn't seem to bother those that push those theories for their own agenda. For their own reasons, these people need to believe the hype but there are also a lot of people out there that are just as convinced that psychics can talk to dogs or dead people because they can't emotionally handle the concept of death and it must be so because they've seen it with their own eyes on TV!
Actually, the correct flip side of that would be that testosterone injections in females would cause them to believe they were men trapped in women's bodies or cause them to want to pass themselves off as males or masturbate while wearing boxer shorts, but there are no studies that support that theory either (nor even such claims).
Studies show that if you destroy the olfactory of a male rat, the male rat ceases sexual behavior. By your "logic," if a human male loses his sense of smell, his sexual behavior ceases. I don't find your definition of logic in my dictionary. No reputable scientist will claim that research results from laboratory rats alone is incontrovertible proof of the human condition. The data is out there on offspring of women who use androgen blockers. I suspect it does not support your theory or you would refer to that data rather than rat research as would *every* person who is looking for a physiological/biological cause for TG/TS.
It is not logical to jump from male rat sexual behavior (which is defined as mounting, intromission and ejaculation) to the human male crossdressing fetish. How human women dress and "act" is a product of our social environment and is learned. Women "act" at being women (social perception) the same way males "act" at being male... or "act" at being female. Scottish perception of an aggressive male is a man in a skirt (kilt). Your assumption above is not only not a logical conclusion, it's bad science.
Now, answer the question: Will a boy that is misprogrammed will have an easy time in society?
And your point is? That it's better to hoodwink the public into believing something that's not been proven by using a bunch of doubletalk? The public is ignorant sometimes but not all times. In the end, you will do more harm to your cause by generating suspicion, distrust and resentment.
I teach a college level course on toxicology.
As what? No reputable scientist would attempt to persuade the public that research results mean anything more than what they really mean. You don't seem to grasp the concept of scientific studies supported by empirical data before you promote a theory as fact. I'm not gullible enough to not know that a good number of people on the internet misrepresent who and what they are. You are definitely no scientist.
I'm not interested in your guesswork and unsupported theories. You aren't fooling anyone here.
I know. What a strange choice of words..even for WND. More like "consciously ignored by media outlets."
Still blowing smoke. That research was performed on FIFTEEN cadavers! Only 15! Hardly a conclusive test group. Moreover, fourteen of those fifteen transgendered were known to be taking progesterone when they died. Only one said he did not and there are those that are skeptical of that one. Scientists without an agenda (including those involved in the research) believe the changes in the hypothalamus were due to the progesterone therapy.
I'm sure you knew these facts but chose to omit this very important information. I wondered when you would produce this bogus claim.
Programmed in what way? Surely you aren't going to use the "my brain was washed by hormones in the womb in the sixth week" or "sixth month and that explains my transgenderism" argument. None of which has been proven.
You really *don't* know what you are talking about. You do, however, seem to be quite practiced at twisting logic and information to suit your agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.