Maryland Senate President: trans protections "antifamily

[tko_ak]

"I personally believe it’s antifamily, and so I am going to vote against it. The problem is this: I have senators that are not going to hire, uh, people with male sexual organs who wear a dress to serve as receptionists, OK? Um, and so if they're not going to do it, if the senators and house members themselves wouldn't hire a person in that

Comments

[fabfemmeboy]

I love that he flat out says "Nope, we're bigoted assholes so we're not going to force the People not to be!" Like, usually they try to spin it better than that, speak in broad terms about capitalism or freedom or something. This is pretty blatant. Refreshing, almost. If it weren't so infuriating.

[tko_ak]

What I don't understand is how, in such a blue state, this happens. I mean, I know Maryland isn't super liberal in the more rural areas, but the vote failed 27-20 in the senate. There are 35 Democrats in the Senate. I expect Democrats is Congress to be inept, but we've actually seen progress at the state level - especially in the northeast. For a state completely dominated by Democrats - the governor's mansion, both houses of the legislature, both senate seats, and 75% of the congressional seats - it's pretty embarrassing for Maryland Democrats. WTF do they keep this idiot around?

[fabfemmeboy]

You, as a gay Republican, should know it's not nearly as simple as one party being good on gay rights and the other one sucking. Look at the way the House vote on marriage went down, where despite having a majority they were going to lose so they pulled the vote. And trans issues are, as we are all painfully aware, far more dicey than gay ones at this point

[tko_ak]

it's not nearly as simple as "They have Democrats so we win."

I'm glad you picked up on my point. ;)

[eve_from_oz]

How (in the screwed up view of this person) is this "antifamily"?

"not going to hire, uh, people with male sexual organs who wear a dress to serve as receptionists"

So a person with female sexual organs wearing men's clothing would be A-Ok? /sarcasm.

And I can't read the actual article because the work (a high school) internet filter is blocking it for "Mature Content, Sexual Orientation" Seriously?!

[tko_ak]

Because high schoolers never have sexual orientations.

But hey, at least it wasn't restricted as "immoral lifestyle choice content" or something like that.

[eve_from_oz]

"Because high schoolers never have sexual orientations."

Especially not in private boys schools whose attitudes in many areas are permnanently set to 1950.

It's a pretty messed up filter, it doesn't block Wiki entries with explicit photos of female genitalia (I discovered walking through a health ed class) but try to find out about hoopskirts and you get blocked for looking up lingerie.

[fenm]

I dunno; I've worn a few hoop skirts in my time (I kid you not), I'd say they're pretty obscene d-:
/You have to sit juuuuuuust right...

[fenm]

"I have senators that are not going to hire, uh, people with male female sexual organs who wear a dress pants to serve as receptionists, OK?"

About a half a century ago, THIS made sense to people, too.

[tko_ak]

With his attitudes about family and gender roles, I'm surprised he thinks men are even employable as receptionists. Isn't that supposed to be women's work?

[fenm]

Heh... yeah, good point.
Love your icon, btw. (-:

[tko_ak]

Thanks. It's hard to go wrong with Hobbes.

[marauderthesn]

I'll give you two guesses as to which party he belongs to. Ignorance isn't partisan.

Fred Phelps has run for office as a Democrat multiple times.

On the strictly practical level, I kind of doubt there are MTF women lining up around the block to work for Maryland state senators...

[randomguy3]

Why on earth would anyone care about the sexual organs of a receptionist? It's not really relevant to the job...