Men in Skirts Use Women’s Restroom at Mass. Marriott Hotel
Compassionate hypotheticals aside, take a look and get back to me.
MassResistance — March 12, 2010 — Transgender madness in Massachusetts: The Peabody Marriott Hotel hosted the annual “First Event” transgender conference on January 15-17, 2009.
For all of you liberals who preach tolerance and inclusion, be honest. Would you really have no problem with a man in heels in the ladies room?
Ladies…?
These photos and videos illustrate the insanity that will descend on all of America . . . unless this sexual radical movement is stopped: Seven-foot men in dresses using the women’s restroom. Hundreds of cross-dressers swarming the hotel, upsetting other guests (who were not forewarned). A transgender rock concert.
This is what protecting “gender identity and expression” really means.
Mass. Bill H1728 (now before the Legislature) would punish any opposition to such madness with fines and jail time. Even schools would be opened up to cross-dressing children, transgender restrooms and locker rooms, and sports teams. Employers would be subject to new non-discrimination regulations. (At the federal level, ENDA would force this on the country if passed.)
So, if you progressive women don’t mind, why should we?
And for those of you who thought the Scott Brown election meant The Bay State may have gotten her mind right, you don’t know the Massachusetts Legislature.
Mass. Senate to vote on draconian bill to punish criticism of homosexuality with fine & jail term
Sneaked language into unrelated school “anti-bullying” bill.
POSTED: March 10, 2010Massachusetts may be on the verge being another “first” in America which could spread to other states.
On Thursday, the Massachusetts Senate votes on a bill containing draconian language that would criminalize criticism of homosexuality published on Web sites and other media with fines of up to a thousand dollars and imprisonment.
h/t Brian Camenker, MassResistance
March 14th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
We already have a federal “hate crimes” bill that achieves the same.
Just one more step… It’s so easy. Just do it because you’ll feel good.
Don’t worry about the consequences of normalizing deviant behaviors. It will only affect others, not you.
The insane tyrants are running the asylum. I wonder how the evolutionists are able to reconcile this deviance with their speculation. Don’t they care about Homo sapien fitness? It does fit the animal right’s activist agenda. So, maybe crossbreeding in the lunatic asylum is more common than I would have expected.
If they could, they would probably breed with themselves. Then again, there is a whole world of untapped possibilities.
In the next phase, PETA will replace or augment Planned Parenthood.
This not the sci-fi, horror flick that I expected reality to be. I am still so naive.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:53 am
Bob, I always have to chuckle at the Ads by Google that come up when you run a story like this.
Right now I’m looking at “Dating with Shemales” at http://www.ladyboykissess.com. Amazing!
March 15th, 2010 at 10:35 am
Now for a feminine opinion — EEEEK!! Over the years since we were first introduced to the possibility of aberrations like this (Phil Donahue comes to mind), I’ve given thought to which facilities they would use as I really wouldn’t be wanting to share a restroom with one. However, I always thought it would be more difficult to spot the interlopers than was depicted by this tape.
I would love to know how many guests checked out because of this freak show and if they gave that as a reason. But perhaps a segment of our population has become numbed to deviant behavior (or so liberals would like us to be).
March 15th, 2010 at 10:52 am
As a female, I am disgusted to see such a thing. I knew it was about time that this would happened. If I was at the hotel, I would have checked out. I have a 5 year old girl and a 10 year old son and DO NOT want them to think that this is acceptable behavior. This is another reason why I homeschool. I do not want my young ones taught that this is moral and acceptable behavior.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:19 am
“People weren’t told…” – (a) didn’t they notice? (b) can’t they read the postings in the lobby?, (c) isn’t it possible the TG women weren’t doing anything more evil in the restroom than “#1 and #2″?
My Lord! Six and seven foot crossdressers! Would it have been ok if they were 5’6″”? Did they choose to be tall?
Personally, I find the idea of right-right fascists voyeuristically filming videos in the hotel far more creepy.
Oh, and before you censor (ref. 1st amendment freedom of speech and of assembly) and delete this post… Yes, I am a TG woman; yes, I use the restroom appropriate to my presentation, and no, I’ve never done anything perverted in wither gender restroom.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Lisah,
You must have us confused with a tolerant, inclusive left wing site.
We very, very seldom delete comments unless the liberal poster has become persistently unruly. You should have been around during the run-up to the last election. Between liberals and The Paulies, it got downright ugly here because we didn’t bow down to their chosen.
Also, using the First Amendment doesn’t give you an automatic license to say whatever you want, wherever you want. You know better.
March 15th, 2010 at 11:46 am
I guess TG folks get confused by the restroom signs with graphic depicting a person in pants and a person in a skirt. It’s not what you are wearing that determines which restroom you use; it’s what “equipment” you have. Even when I wear jeans, I still go in the room with the little gal in a skirt on the door. However, I hate to think of the new signs they would have to put on the doors to explain this. Anyway …
If this kind of legislation goes through, how long before you have high school guys claiming to be transgendered so that they can get into the girls’ locker room? There’s no way of proving they aren’t transgendered. What would keep a rapist from donning a dress and assaulting women in a public restroom?
This is still a mostly free country and I have no problem letting consenting adults do whatever they want in the privacy of their homes. But as the old saying goes, their freedom to swing their fists ends at the end of my nose and I shouldn’t have to have my nose and my children’s noses rubbed in other people’s sexual practices. Keep it a home folks, or at the very least in private clubs or venues where young children are not forced to watch.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Did I miss something, or did someone say the restrooms were being used for something other than their intended purpose? Don’t yoou get it? We just don’t want males in our restrooms.
And as for the confusing signs, isn’t it the liberals that have pushed for these graphic signs so you didn’t need to speak English?
March 15th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Bob,
Sorry about the ‘fascist’ and ‘censor’ jabs… I *have* been deleted from other blogs where there was really only one opinion tolerated. You’re right – there are limits on freedom of speech and assembly, but they tend to be limited to areas of libel and violence – not to things some of us might find offensive (like ‘gun rights’ )
March 15th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
eNeecie,
Being TG is not about ‘sexual practices’ (could write a whole book here – actually, several people *have*). It’s about ‘identity’ – imagine (if you can) if you felt exactly like you did today, but had a male body. For true TGs, dressing is not about sex – if you believe that, then you probably believe a woman dressing in a short skirt is asking for rape. Please do your homework.
You’re entitled to your opinion, and you’re free to associate (or not) with whom you choose, but please don’t expect me to go home every time I need to go to the bathroom. I promise to mind my own business when I’m in ‘our’ bathroom.
March 15th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Lisah,
This topic came up here a year or so ago, and the TG person found that while there were very strong disagreements, the conversation remained civil.
Don’t believe all you hear about the intolerance. There is a difference between that and disagreement.
bp
March 15th, 2010 at 1:24 pm
First, let me out myself as one of the “liberals” who preach tolerance and inclusion.
The First Amendment gives NO license in a private venue. Speech is NOT protected when the venue is not government controlled or a public accommodation. Thus, the owner of this site (or any privately owned site) is free to delete comments as he wishes.
The conference referenced (and, oddly surreptitiously filmed) looks to be an event specifically for cross-dressers and transgender people. I don’t know why a venue (hotel, or otherwise) would announce that they were holding a convention of ANY description to any other guest. Should they tell guests that they are holding a convention for the NAACP in case their white guests are offended by people of color? Should they tell guests that they are holding a convention of a particular religious view, in case their guests are offended by public indicators of a religion that is contrary to their own? Of course not. If people are “offended” by the presence of convention goers, they *should* check out.
No, the issue here is whether, or not, the guests were using the “appropriate” restroom (allegedly in the lobby (no evidence of that is shown)). I am very curious about what is offensive about a transgender woman using a restroom marked “women”. I think it worth noting that no claim has ever been brought against a transgender woman for misbehaving in the women’s restroom, anywhere in the country where there exists an anti-discrimination statute as feared here.
The fears put forth by eNeecie suggest that the fear is rape. I hope you will believe me when I tell you that a rapist has no fear of a sign on the door telling him he shouldn’t enter. If we truly care about safety, we should do more to prevent potential rapists from entering a women-only space than merely putting up a sign that advertises that the space is for women-only.
And, I agree that she and her children shouldn’t have to witness another’s sexual practices; indeed that is absolutely against the law. Relieving oneself in a public restroom is neither a sexual practice, nor (in most jurisdictions) against any law. And, for that matter, neither is choice of dress (thank goodness that this *is* still a mostly free country!).
Denise
March 15th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Lisah,
I had to reread the comment about rape and miniskirts about three times before I figured out how you made that leap. The short answer is: no, I don’t think that, never have. And you have to make a lot of assumptions about who I am and what I believe in order to come up with that.
I spent several minutes trying to clarify my comments which you and UMLawGirl07 seem to have misinterpreted, but I deleted them because there really is not point. We are not actually having a conversation; we are merely making comments on a website.
If you want people to understand you, then you might start by trying to understand other people. For one thing, people don’t fit into neat little stereotypes. You are commenting on a conservative site run by a black man living in Massachusetts. Bob doesn’t fit into any stereotype. He is a free thinker which is why I like his site. And like him, I don’t ascribe to any one person’s or one group’s set of beliefs. I think for myself. So if you are trying to guess my thoughts, you will probably get it wrong. And I suspect that a lot of the people commenting on this site are attracted to this site for the same reason and are mavericks as well—so I wouldn’t try guessing their thoughts either.
March 15th, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Actually eNeecie,
I fled Massachusetts for Virginia last August. More humidity, but better job…
March 15th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
Whoops. Well, I found your site during the election but only became a regular in the last few months. I knew you recently moved but I got it backwards–I thought you moved to MA. Well, I think my point is still valid
but I should get my facts straight.
Oh, and kudos on the better job!
March 15th, 2010 at 7:35 pm
eNeecie,
For my part, I apologize if I seem to have been trying to guess your thoughts. It was my intention to comment only on the comment itself (hence, I only addressed your concern a rapist and “sexual practices”).
And, again, for my part I really DO try and understand before trying to be understood. I love your line about people not fitting into neat little stereotypes. I subscribe to that 100%! I hope I did not, inadvertently, put you into a stereotypical box. I understand that people will often do that with transgender people (assuming, for example, that their dressing as men, though born as women, or vice versa, is a sexual practice — which, to be sure, I believe it to be for some people). Applying a stereotype to a class of people is fraught, whether that class be conservatives, liberals, or transgender people.
As an aside, I had to chuckle at your choice of the word “maverick”. I had someone use that word to classify me, some years ago (well before John McCain adopted it for himself) as they couldn’t understand how a person with such a conservative background and education (raised as a Catholic, educated in business and finance and working as a Chief Financial Officer) could hold such liberal views on some topics.
In any event, I’m sorry you (and apparently others) have declined to further engage.
Bob, I also extend my congratulations on a better job — in the economy of the past several years, that’s worth a lot!
Denise
March 16th, 2010 at 6:31 am
There were transgender people in America before there were pilgrims in it. They exist and have existed in every country, every culture, every age. Their existence does not do harm.
The countries that did not ever oppress them were not filled with misstreatment of women nor an increase in assaults or sexual missbehaviour, nor have any of the countries, states, cities and counties that have ended the discrimination against them.
It’s been what 30 years or so since the first law allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they consider right for them was passed. And since then many many places have enacted such laws. How many rapes and sexual missconducts has this really caused in all these places over a whole generation?
0.
None. Null, zip, nada, squat.
So whats really the problem?
Oh and if ‘plumbing’ determines who uses the bathroom then google Buck Angel and remember your arguing that pornstar Buck should be in the womens bathroom because of his plumbing irrespective of the rest.
Now if you want safe bathrooms I’m all for safe bathrooms… transgender people get raped and murdered all too often so safe bathrooms is a grand idea. As clearly far too many men can’t keep their hands off transgender women and then like to kill them so their mates won’t know about it so making transgender women use the mens is putting them at risk.
And while rapists dont ‘put on a dress’ to rape women rape does happen in bathrooms.. rape of transgender women, rape of men by men, rape of women by women, rape of children by either men or women. Not rape of others by transgender people, strange that but it’s so but it’s actually very very rare. Your kids are far more at risk near the local priest, their aunts and uncles (most child abusers are close friends and family!) than transgender people.
But still the standard public bathrooms aren’t safe for the elderly, the disabled, for children, for women, for transgender people. What’s the answer? Easy. Single user bathrooms. Remove that unsafe area in front of the stalls. Put the stalls further apart and have them uncvnnected seperate single-user facilities. Put security camers outside the stalls so people can’t sneak in or have more than one person in one at a time. Thats what will genuinly make bathrooms safe. And that has nothing to do with transgender people.
I mean really what do you want? Safety and a real democracy with real equality and real justice for all? Or to misstreat transgender people?
March 16th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Batty, while I generally agree with your points, I personally ascribe less malicious intent to the commentators (even considering some of the comments calling transgender people “aberrant” or “deviant” — n.n.’s comments excepted; I actually do think that person is vile and intends harm).
Perhaps I am naive, but I suspect that most people are not moved to vote against such anti-discrimination measures because of ill will toward a class of people, but rather due to ignorance. Having feelings of being transgender are outside the vast majority of people’s experience. Most people find it difficult to empathize with a feeling that they, or someone very close to them, have never experienced. Moreover, for many years (rising drastically during the McCarthy era), being gay was promoted as being socially unacceptable and even harmful. It has only been recently that attitudes have changed — the majority of Americans, and especially American youth under age 35, now believe that being gay is no big deal and discrimination against that class should be stopped.
When you combine this ignorance of transgender experience with a history of demonizing gay people, you end up with knee-jerk reactions to people who do not follow society’s prescribed gender rules (which, of course, is what gay people fail to do).
Sadly, rather than learning the truth about the experience with which they are unfamiliar, they rely on their “gut instinct” that this is somehow “wrong”, and are supported in that belief by people who would promote such beliefs for their own gain. It is this reliance that ultimately does the damage, not an underlying maliciousness. In my humble opinion.
As a woman who has been raped, I have to tell you that I completely get fear. Fear is an extraordinarily powerful driver (and, of course, one that can save your life). But, misplaced (as, I believe, here), it is debilitating and harmful. The only way to overcome fear is with education.
March 28th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Hi! This is my first posting and I realize I come late to this particular discussion. To be perfectly transparent, I am a transsexual and I am VERY conservative in political opinion and in my values as well. Being transsexual is my identity only until I have completed my medical treatment and has nothing to do with behavior such as sexual orientation. Research shows more and more that this is a biologically based condition, not a social construct. Interestingly it has been found that one in five hundred identified birth males have Klinefelter’s mosaic disorder. This causes a proportion of the body’s cells to have XY chromosones and a proportion to be XXY. No one in my situation would wish this condition on their worst enemy, but it is what it is.
When I use the ladies room, my intention is to use the facility, mind my own business and leave. I think you would find that to be the case in most every person in my situation. We don’t mean to be offensive and intrusive, just as any other woman does not mean to be offensive or intrusive in the ladies room.
I think that liberals who try to pass “special” laws that protect “classes” of people are wrong. I simply want the rights afforded to me in the Constitution. There is no need for extra protections.
March 28th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Welcome.