What’s Wrong With Miami-Dade’s Proposed Discriminatory, Anti-Equality “Transsexual/Transgender” Ordinance?
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q: DOES THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE ACTUALLY LEGALIZE DISCRIMINATION?
A: YES! This proposed “Transsexual” ordinance legalizes discrimination, pure and simple! So far, at least thirty-six (36) reported cases of discrimination have been documented as a direct result of these unjust laws. Truly, they are modern-day Jim Crow laws. The proposed ordinance unjustly discriminates, marginalizes, and penalizes everyone wishing to protect their children and families from the sexual behavioral choices and practices of an individual with sexual identity issues or who is in denial of his/her sex. County ordinances must be based on clear, factual, objective legal concepts and standards, not on ambiguous, capricious propaganda terms, subjective allegations, arbitrary claims, or personal feelings. Nor should ordinances be used to promote an ideological agenda.
Q: IS THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE BASED ON FACTS?
A: NO! This proposed discriminatory “Transsexual” ordinance is based on lies, distortions and manipulations of facts. The proposed ordinance’s arguments are completely bogus. For example, ordinance promoters allege that so-called “transsexual” discrimination is “pervasive” and “serious”, yet they could not name a single company or government entity that discriminates against this so-called “category.” Furthermore, according to a Special Investigative Report prepared last year by the U.S. Hispanic Publishers Federation, not a single discrimination complaint has ever been filed in Florida with the exception of Broward County where six “gender identity or expression” complaints were filed and not a single one was found to be valid.
Q: WHAT EXACTLY ARE ‘SEXUAL IDENTITY’ AND ‘SEXUAL EXPRESSION’?
A: “Sexual Identity” and “Sexual Expression” are discriminatory ideological propaganda terms, i.e., terms specifically used to advance an extremist ideology. According to scientists, so-called “sexual identity” and “sexual expression” are arbitrary and highly fluid terms based on “personal feeling” and the subjective perception of one’s sex. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines “gender identity or expression” as an individual’s sense of being male, female, something other, or something in-between. As such, these terms are purposefully arbitrary and scientifically undefinable. This invariably produces confusion, discrimination, and litigation. Commissioners owe it to their constituents to reject the proposed ordinance as arbitrary, discriminatory, ideologically-based, and legally, as well as ethically, deficient.
Q: ARE ‘SEXUAL IDENTITY’ AND ‘SEXUAL EXPRESSION’ SCIENTIFICALLY DEMONSTRABLE OR OBJECTIVELY DEFINABLE TERMS?
A: NO! Neither “sexual identity” nor “sexual expression” are scientifically demonstrable, genetically provable, nor objectively definable biological realities. To amend Miami-Dade’s Anti-Discrimination ordinance to include a freely chosen, arbitrarily created “category” that is not scientifically demonstrable, genetically provable, or objectively definable is discriminatory, unjust and against the public interest. Because this proposed ordinance does not adequately define the controversial ideological terms “sexual identity” and “sexual expression,” it is patently unjust to subject Miami-Dade residents to this ambiguous, capricious, and discriminatory ordinance.
Q: DOES THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADDRESS A LEGITIMATE COUNTY CONCERN?
A: NO! Far from it. The Miami-Dade County Commission and its committees are obligated to address public health, safety, and welfare concerns. So-called “transsexualism/transgenderism” is not one of them. Absent a concrete showing that the alleged “problem” this discriminatory, ideologically-based ordinance purports to solve is real and widespread, Miami-Dade Commissioners should not waste any of their valuable time and resources on this clearly ideological non-issue.
Q: DOES THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE EXPOSE BUSINESSES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PEOPLE TO FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION OR PROSECUTION?
A: YES! Absolutely! Businesses, organizations and individual residents could unknowingly commit and be unjustly prosecuted for violations of the proposed ordinance for protecting privacy rights or not building or providing so-called “gender neutral” facilities. For example, if they do not allow men claiming to be women use women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, showers and/or dressing rooms. It has already happened in other parts of the country. Lacking clear boundaries and precise definitions and terms, anyone can unknowingly commit an offense under this ideologically-based proposed ordinance, and be unjustly investigated or sued and dragged into court.
Q: SHOULD ANYONE BE FORCED TO ACCEPT AS TRUE WHAT DNA AND BIOLOGY PROVES IS FALSE?
A: NO! No one should be forced to accept as true what DNA and biology proves is false. An individual can freely chose to believe or behave in whatever sexual role he or she chooses, but they have no right to force everyone else to accept or approve their freely chosen sexual behavioral choice, or so-called “sexual identity or expression.” Especially when this sexual behavioral choice or so-called “sexual identity or expression” is directly contradicted by biology, their chromosomes, and their DNA!
Q: DOES ANYONE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEMAND LEGAL BENEFITS, PRIVILEGES OR PROTECTIONS BASED ON WHATEVER THEY ALLEGE IS THEIR FREELY CHOSEN “SEXUAL IDENTITY” OR “EXPRESSION”?
A: NO! No one has the right to demand legal benefits, privileges or protections based on whatever they allege is their freely and voluntarily chosen so-called “sexual identity or expression.” An individual’s sex is not a “flavor-of-the-day” thing. Sex is a readily knowable, scientifically demonstrable, biologically-provable reality. Objectively speaking, an individual’s sex is a precisely determinable genetic fact that is not up to them to decide. As a scientifically demonstrable biological reality, sex is not based on an arbitrary whim, personal feeling, capricious belief, or private fantasy. Like it or not, sex, like age, race or color, can never be changed. While an individual’s physical appearance can be cosmetically modified, their DNA or chromosomes can never be altered.
Q: DOES THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALLOW INDIVIDUALS TO USE WHATEVER BATHROOMS, DRESSING ROOMS, SHOWERS, OR OTHER SEX-SPECIFIC PUBLIC FACILITIES THEY WISH?
A: YES! The discriminatory “transsexual” ordinance irresponsibly allows individuals with sexual identity issues or in denial or rejection of their sex, to use whatever bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers, and other sex-specific public facilities they wish. Authorizing individuals with sexual identity issues the use whatever bathrooms, dressing rooms, showers, and other sex-specific public facilities they wish to use, violates constitutional privacy rights and legalizes discrimination against Miami-Dade County residents and their families. This proposed ordinance has nothing to do with sexual equality and everything to do with legalized discrimination!
Q: WILL THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE INCREASE HEALTH CARE COSTS AND OTHER BURDENS FOR MIAMI-DADE RESIDENTS?
A: YES! This proposed “Transsexual” ordinance leaves the door wide open for individuals to file alleged discrimination lawsuits if health care dollars are not spent on costly, non-medically required sex reassignment and sex reversal surgeries which average $50,000 per person. It is unwarranted and unjust to force Miami-Dade taxpayers and the public health system to pay for these elective, non-medically required surgeries.
Q: IS IT TRUE A “TRANSSEXUAL” HAS NOWHERE TO FILE AN ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT?
A: FALSE. Under the Fair Housing Act, the EEOC and HUD accept “gender identity or expression” discrimination complaints. Furthermore, because EEOC and HUD regulations do not cover public accommodations, this discriminatory ordinance would legalize the violation of privacy and safety when a male claiming he is female, enters bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dressing rooms of the opposite sex as has already been thoroughly documented. In fact, in 2007, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver in Etsitty vs. Utah Transit Authority ruled that a male bus driver could not use female facilities while on his bus route because it could expose his employer to liability claims.
“’Sex change’ is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.” – Dr. Paul R. McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL FORUM | FORO NACIONAL REPUBLICANO 