Maryland Shouldn't Expand 'Non-Discrimination' Laws
Maryland's state legislature is now considering bills that would extend
"non-discrimination" protections in employment, housing, and public
accommodations to transsexuals, transvestites, and other cross-dressers.
The
expansive definition of "gender identity" in the bill would allow people to
change their sex every day, if they wanted to. FRC's Vice President for Policy
Peter Sprigg testified against the bill at a committee hearing yesterday in
Annapolis. He pointed out that "gender identity disorder" is classified as a
mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, and that
"transgendered" people need mental health treatment to overcome their
disturbance, not legislation to affirm it.
Peter added that "residents who
believe it is better for men to remain men and women to remain women ought to
have freedom to act on those beliefs, without facing stigma or punishment."
Dr. Paul McHugh ended the practice of performing "sex reassignment
surgery" when he was psychiatrist-in-chief at Maryland's prestigious Johns
Hopkins University Hospital. He wrote, "We have wasted scientific and technical
resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness
rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it." Let's hope the
Maryland legislature rejects the idea of "collaborating with madness," and
defeats this bill. 
FRC:
Testimony of Peter Sprigg before the Maryland General Assembly
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"The expansive definition of "gender identity" in the bill would allow people to change their sex every day, if they wanted to. FRC's Vice President for Policy Peter Sprigg testified against the bill at a committee hearing yesterday in Annapolis."
The law already protects people based on their religion. Hmm. [sarcasm] They could actually change their religion every day! What a bad law!! [/sarcasm]
It doesn't surprise me that the FRC have been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=524 It does surprise me, however, that the Maryland legislature allow extremists like them in the building, let alone to testify. I wonder when they will bring up that bankrupt "predators in bathrooms" meme.
I've always suspected that Paul McHugh has always been very enraged that his profession, psychiatry, has been unable to "cure" trans people. I think it inflames his arrogance that the surgeons have a cure but he doesn't. That would be OK with me if he didn't take out his anger at trans people who just want to get over their issues and finish living their lives by trying to deny them the only treatment protocol that has been found to work. It always seems to me like sour grapes on his part.
Dr McHugh, former advisor to the Vatican on sexual matters, is an expert in the field of addiction. He's never actually treated a case of GID.
Moreover, his views were published in a religious journal, not a medical one. They're quoted often, because he's almost the only one espousing such views. To say they are "on the fringe' is an understatement.
It's true that Johns Hopkins no longer provides surgical treatment. Their surgeon left, so they now refer patients with GID elsewhere for surgery. They closed down that section over 25 years ago, before 1980, when Dr McHugh was last involved.
Some quotes from a real expert on the issue:
"Q. Dr. Cole, does the fact that a condition is listed in the DSM
mean that it necessarily has a purely mental or
psychological cause?
A. Absolutely not. It's listed in the DSM because it
has to do with the mind, with the brain, with
emotional suffering. I mean, you also have learning
disabilities in there.
You have, you know, people who have sexual
problems, a man with erection problems, a woman
with orgasm problems, that's listed in the DSM, but
it has nothing to do with somebody being unstable.
Q. So the fact that gender identity disorder is listed in
the DSM, does that tell us anything one way or the
other about whether the condition has a
physiological or biological cause?
A. No, it doesn't. It's very controversial even within
the Benjamin Association to have it listed in the
DSM. There are many people who argue it should
be moved over to a medical kind of diagnosis as
opposed to a psychiatric diagnosis."
The "Benjamin Association" is now the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Dr McHugh is not a member, and never has been. He's no more qualified to be than a podiatrist.
"Dr Cole was asked if he was familiar with the criteria for gender identity disorder in the DSM?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And do those criteria refer exclusively to the
conflict between the person's gender identity and
their anatomy as well as distress that conflict
causes?
A. Yes.
Q. Is there anything in those criteria relating to having
any kind of bizarre or disordered thinking or
behavior or to any kind of emotional unbalance or
instability apart from the distress caused by having
the wrong body?
A. No.
Q. So would it be true that being diagnosed with GID
does not mean that the person is otherwise unstable
or disturbed or mentally ill?
A. Absolutely.
Q. In practice, are transsexual people who have
completed their gender transition anymore likely to
have psychological problems than non-transsexual
people?
A. No."
This is all on the public record, in such legal cases as Kantaras vs Kantaras. The Family Research Council is aware of this. However, it doesn't fit their religious viewpoint, so they omit it, instead adducing Dr McHugh and his...eccentric... ideas yet again.
It's also important to note that John's Hopkins was also where John Money's egregious medical malfeasance and misreporting of facts in the case of David Reimer's failed sex assignment took place.
People love to use John's Hopkins shutting down of their gender reassignment programs as some kind of example of what leading authorities think that should end all discussion, but John's Hopkins credibility was irretrievably damaged by Money's treatment of Reimer while on their staff, and even more so by the University's almost complete silence on the matter and failure to punish his outrageous behavior in that case.
Just wanted to add something regarding the notion that just because GID is listed as a mental disorder that people who have it are somehow crazy...
Not only is this correct-
Q. Is there anything in those criteria relating to having
any kind of bizarre or disordered thinking or
behavior or to any kind of emotional unbalance or
instability apart from the distress caused by having
the wrong body?
A. No.
- the fact of the matter is that the main reason psychological counseling is part of the Standards of Care for people presenting with gender identity issues is *specifically* to eliminate the possibility that they are suffering from some profound mental disorder, as there are other conditions that can affect one's self perception in a similar manner like multiple personality disorders and schizophrenia.
In other words, the people who get past that vetting process and are diagnosed with GID only get there after having shown through clinical observation that they *aren't* crazy.
As usual, the people clinging to their bigotry cast this as an issue of giving special rights to people based on "madness", when in reality these types of laws protect EVERYONE who might be harassed and denied services based on someone else's perceptions of who they are or should look like.
Being biologically intersexed on a genetic level isn't a mental illness, but IS people with less than typically male/female looks get harassed over gender perceptions all the time.
Being a "normal" but very tall woman with broad shoulders and a strong jawline isn't a mental illness...but that person might as well be transgendered if someone decides they are.
Being a "normal" but very short, thin man with delicate features isn't a mental illness...but that person might as well be transgendered if someone decides they are.
If anything is a mental illness, it's the idea that people like this need to suffer just so people who actually have GID can be punished in an attempt to coerce them into fitting antiquated societal stereotypes, despite clear evidence from decades of study by real experts (not transparent neoconservative religious ideologues masquerading as objective researchers, like Paul McHugh does) that shows that doesn't work.
What's very telling is that this type of legislation almost never mentions having GID as being a prerequisite for being protected, rather it protects people from discrimination based on being *perceived* as having GID...the same way anyone who is denied a rental or job because of being *perceived* as Mexican or Jewish is protected under civil rights law regardless of whether they are any of those things or not.
Yet opponents repeatedly spread the lie that this is ONLY about giving "special rights" to transsexuals and crossdressers.
What's amusing is that in his photo, Peter Sprigg himself has what appears to be some rather feminine facial features, and the suit and tie could be seen as overcompensation for less than fully masculine origins...I've seen female to male transsexuals with a more decidedly masculine presence, so Mr. Sprigg's personal provenance is as suspect as any based on outward observation alone.
Now imagine if every time Mr. Sprigg the suspected F to M transsexual went to use the bathroom in a public facility, he was followed, verbally harassed, threatened with legal action, held in custody and his official ID saying he is male was completely disregarded until the police came.
Imagine that even with his uber-manly suit and tie, his superiors deemed his looks "not masculine enough" because he has a round face and clear skin and sensitive looking eyes that clients felt were "creepy" in a man and evidence that he was a transsexual, and fired him.
Imagine that with no actual evidence to support it, an emergency responder decided to not treat Mr. Sprigg's injuries in a car crash because he simply *thought* that Mr. Sprigg was born a woman, and decided that his religious views superseded a transperson's right to emergency medical care.
All of these scenarios are very real occurrences in the lives of both gender variant people and those who simply are suspected of it...while I would never wish that kind of ostracism and pain on someone else, I do wish that the likes of Mr. Sprigg and his supporters could get a taste of it so that they would understand that one does NOT have to be a transsexual to be harassed and discriminated against based on the perception that you are.
Were they to experience this first hand, maybe they would take their blinders off and quit championing public policy based on people's LOOKS.
"He pointed out that "gender identity disorder" is classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, and that "transgendered" people need mental health treatment to overcome their disturbance, not legislation to affirm it."
Assuming that this so-called "gender identity disorder" really is a disorder, why is it okay to deny them fair treatment? Is it okay for me to deny mentally retarded people fair treatment? I mean, come on, they need mental health treatment, so I shouldn't have to encourage their retardation by giving them rights!
"Peter added that "residents who believe it is better for men to remain men and women to remain women ought to have freedom to act on those beliefs, without facing stigma or punishment.""
Freedom to act on those beliefs? What does that entail, freedom to harass verbally or physically?
Taking your viewpoint, you're saying that transsexuals are mentally deficient. Is it okay for individuals to belittle mentally deficient people? Taking your viewpoint, can I act on my (hypothetical) belief that retarded people -shouldn't- be retarded? Can I harass them? Can I deny them housing and employment (except in cases where a certain mental capacity is clearly necessary for the job)?