Sexual Deviants, Transgenders, Women’s Restrooms and the Media

One of the big issues with the Sexual Orientation/Gender Identity Bill being discussed in Springfield right now is the ability for men to use women’s restrooms. This has caused quite a stir and the media is giving much attention to the topic. In a recent KY3 interview, Mike Landis asked Springfield Citizens United spokesman Calvin Morrow to list any situations he knew of in which transgender men entered women’s restrooms for nefarious purposes. Mr. Morrow couldn’t list any off the top of his head, and Landis was sure to report that.

In response to that report, I emailed the following to more than 20 media outlets (including Mike Landis) this morning. We’ll see how well they ignore it… after all, they have their narrative and bias and that’s how they “roll”.

Anyhow – here it is:

Mike Landis Asks, Mike Landis Gets

In a recent story by KY3, Mike Landis asked Springfield Citizens United spokesman Calvin Morrow about examples of sexual deviants using transgender restroom laws insincerely and as a tool to prey. Spokesman Calvin Morrow didn’t have any examples off hand.

In response to that article, I thought I would share with you what I have found in about an hour of research since reading the article. 

It is my sincere hope that KY3 and Landis will be willing to publicly discuss these examples on account of the fact they asked for them. 
Here goes:
  1. March 2014, Toronto: A man claiming to be a woman is jailed after gaining access to a women’s shelter and prey on two women. 
  2. September 2006, Sydney: Government officials are made aware of a male sexual predator posing as a female to be imprisoned with women. He subsequently assaulted and impregnated at least one female inmate. Speaking of – has Sheriff Arnott been asked about how he feels knowing that if passed as/is, the potential for “inter-mingling” inmates?
  3. March 2012, Dallas: Paul Witherspoon, a registered sex offender, is ticketed for using a women’s restroom after becoming “Paula”, a transgender.
  4. 2010 and 2012, British Columbia: Being accused of sexually assaulting 60 girls, convicted felon and repeat sex offender Matthew Harks becomes a transgender in prison. If the SOGI Law is passed in Springfield, Mr/Ms Harks would not be prohibited from using a women’s restroom.
  5. April 2014, San Fransisco: Women’s Rights, Transgender Rights, Twitter engineer and transgender, Dana McCallum is charged with five felonies that include rape, false imprisonment, and is also charged with domestic violence.
  6. September 2013, Oklahoma City: Christopher T. Gard waits inside a women’s restroom until a young girl comes inside, he locks the door, and while the girls hear her screams while she is held at gunpoint and choked. Gard was wearing only a pair of women’s panties.
  7. August 2013, Marion County, AR: Sexual predator Carl Dahn is arrested after being dressed in women’s clothing and sexually soliciting himself to what he thought was an underage girl, but was instead an undercover police officer.
  8. May 2013, Detroit: Transgender Sean Gossman is charged with child pornography after federal police uncovered a thumb drive linked to him with incriminating evidence. 
While only some of the stories actually portray examples relating to Mike’s question, it would disingenuous to say that the other stories could not be inductively attached to the Springfield SOGI Bill. That is why I listed them. 
Alright, I’m a little tired so I’m going to wrap up. However, before I do, I have one more link. It has many of the same stories and more. It is a list of stories that should be discussed in the media given the “bathroom concern” is the talk of the town. 
Have a good one!
—-
Update: I found a new article. In May 2013, Palmdale, CA, a cross-dressing man was caught video taping women in a Macy’s dressing room.
Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Sexual Deviants, Transgenders, Women’s Restrooms and the Media

    • Rick – thanks for the interest. Right now we are encouraging citizens of Springfield and also those outside the city that either work, do business, or have other involvement in Springfield to contact the City Council and express opposition.

      You can do so by:
      calling (417) 864-1651
      faxing (417) 864-1649,
      or emailing at citycouncil@springfieldmo.gov.

  1. You so-called Christians need to watch this: http://www.mostwatchedtoday.com/tag/phil-snider-of-the-brentwood-christian-church/

    You people are dangerous with this stupidity, it’s just a ruse to incite homophobes/bigots to keep fellow Americans from having equal rights because you don’t agree with them – and those few anecdotes just show that there are sick people in the world of all “flavors” – the pedophile that killed a 10 year old girl in our community after having sexually molested her worked for the public school system – so are you going to espouse discriminating against schools? Many children are molested by those in the clergy – are you going to espouse discriminating against churches? I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and I cannot believe that He would be okay with you people trying to keep others down because you don’t approve of their lifestyles.

    And now a little education: it has been proven that the majority of pedophiles are white, HETEROSEXUAL men – shall we discriminate against them too?

    Lastly, and this is for Calvin Barrows: how can a self-respecting black man advocate denying equal rights to anyone?

    • I love when people misspell people’s names… I have to assume it is an attempt at demeaning the person… like when people misspell my last name where the article they’re responding to states the correct spelling multiple times.

      If it’s not to demean, I find irony in their attempt to make an intelligent point and not even do the research to see the correct spelling of the person they are ridiculing.

      Now – to the points you made. I totally agree with you that the people I mentioned are sick individuals. That is our point. Why give them one more tool to be deviant with?

      Second – Though I am a Christian, you will not find me injecting Christianity in to the conversation… at no time have I written or said “Christians believe xyz so you should do that, too.”

      What I HAVE said is that all people should be left to their own conscience – to do what they want as long as they are not physically harming others in doing so IF they are on their own property.

      I will defend a photographer who doesn’t want to do a photo shoot for a gay wedding because of his/her beliefs.

      You know who else I’ll defend?? I will defend a gay cake baker for refusing to make a cake for somebody who wants a cake to say, “Straight Pride, No Other Way…” or something like that. You get the point.

      As a matter of fact – let’s talk philosophy: you know what I think about gay marriage (off topic, I know, but a good example to show that you have no idea about my philosophy you are chastising)?

      I don’t believe government should get in the way of a pact made by two people and God. That promise is one that should only be between the two people, the person marrying them, and God. Government shouldn’t be involved. Period.

      You know why? Because I default to freedom.

      With that said, I hope you’ll take the time to read a previous post from a few months back:
      https://swmothinker.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/sexual-orientation-freedom-and-the-law/

      Have a great day, Julie! 🙂

      • Firstly, never even mentioned your name, so how could I have misspelled it? And your “philosophy” about lgbt people are made very clear by how you titled your piece. You see, I don’t agree with you calling lgbt “sexual deviants”. Therein lies my issue with your assertions.

        By your own logic then, we should also outlaw catholic priests, football coaches, etc., etc. There are “deviants”, as you call them, of all stripes, gay, straight, Christian, Jew, Muslim, atheist, black, white, Hispanic, asian, male, female. Where do we stop discriminating once we begin (or rather, continue)?

        When my black husband married whiter than white me, many of the same arguments used today against gays were used against us; in fact, one minister actually told me that he couldn’t marry us because I would be committing beastiality, as my husband was nothing more than an animal. To me, this discrimination is no different; and it is no different than the racism and discrimination my husband experienced in the ’60s, ’70s and still today. People obviously follow you, and while I think that you are most likely an intelligent, well-meaning individual who has every right to his opinion, there are some not so educated, not so well meaning people who will take what you say and discriminate against fellow Americans without regard for others. I feel you have a responsibility not to feed these fringe lunatics sensationalized information that will make them feel “righteous” when being discriminatory. I just don’t understand how any American, especially a minority, can discriminate against others.

  2. Julie – hey, thanks for the convo… I feel like while you may have been really upset when you first replied, we are actually able to communicate better than I thought we would.

    Anyhow, to your points:

    1. I was talking about your spelling of Calvin “Barrows” – it’s Morrow.

    2. As a Mexican, if somebody wants to tell me to “get out” because I’m Mexican, I’m not going to look to government to punish them for their stupidity and ignorance. And if my black stepdad experienced the same thing but due to him being black, he wouldn’t run to government – he would probably just knock the person out regardless of consequence (I’ve seen him do it).

    3. I think the flaw in comparing the race and even gender issue with the current LGBT issue is that the LGBT community has never experienced institutionalized discrimination such as slavery (race) or not being able to vote (race and gender). Those were government sanctioned acts that were reprehensible, but issues we have been able to make history and not current.

    4. The only argument against number three would be marriage – and I hope I have been clear in my thoughts about marriage in general and the government’s involvement in anybody’s marriage.

    5. The title was “Sexual Deviants, Transgenders, Women’s Restrooms and the Media.” You have claimed that because I said “Sexual Deviants, Transgenders….” that I’m saying transgenders are sexual deviants. By this same logic in grammar you are saying that transgenders are sexual deviants ARE women’s restrooms ARE the media?? Like, literally, transgenders are a woman’s restroom… a “thing.” I suppose I don’t follow. My grammar tells me that when placing a comma you are separating the things you are listing… so if I say red, white and blue, I’m not saying red is white is blue… they are three separate colors. I hope that clears any grammatical issues I may have up.

    6. Lastly, ALL sexual deviants should be prosecuted under the law. Further, as the liberal term goes: in my opinion, “if we can save just one” little girl from experiencing a straight, white male who is NOT a transgender from PRETENDING to be one and using this law to gain access to violating her, we should do it.

    Again, I appreciate the conversation and hope you are having a splendid weekend!!

  3. Well, so I stand corrected on Calvin Morrow’s name – I got the spelling from a newspaper article, so I guess I should have researched to make sure it was correct – you got me there!

    And if someone asked you to leave because you are Mexican, whether you want the support or not, you are protected by anti-discrimination laws and ordinances, are you not? So it’s all fine and well from your position of “safety” to proclaim that you don’t want it – but others, not as “enlightened” as you , or simply those who don’t agree with you (is that still allowed in this country?) may want that protection – I don’t think it’s up to you or I to deny that protection to others, even if we don’t want it, do you?

    And once again, you and I have a different definition for “sexual deviant” – I don’t think transgendered people are “deviants” either – I think when one feels they are the opposite sex trapped in the wrong body, that it is a very real thing, due to a mistake of nature, or “birth defect” if you will. Would you tell a parent of a baby with a cleft palate not to get it corrected because that is “how God made them”? So how is it any different when one wants a sex change (if they can afford it) or simply chooses to live as the gender they feel they truly are inside?

    I’m not quite sure what you were to trying to express with your comment #5 – I guess more correcting of my grammar or punctuation? Even so, I’m still not sure what you are trying to say. In any case, it has become quite clear to me that we are on totally opposite sides of this issue and will remain so. Good luck with your life, and I hope you feel better having “corrected” my comment.

  4. Okay, now, after rereading, I get your point in no. 5 – more English lessons, I suppose. I do understand how commas work, however, listing those together, despite the commas, made it appear you put them in the same “category” – do you understand how I could have gotten that impression? I agree all sexual deviants should be prosecuted under the law, but I don’t think you can justify discriminating against an entire group of people (who are NOT deviant) based upon the possibility that one deviant could “pretend” to be transgendered and attack a child – but that same logic, to “save just one” child, then we should discriminate against Catholic priests, teachers, neighbors, etc., etc. and keep those children out of church, school as someone could “pretend” (or not, in most cases) to be a priest, teacher, coach, friend of parents, the list goes on and on. (Did I use commas correctly there?) Most pedophiles are heterosexual white males – perhaps we should discriminate against them (wow, that would be a new experience, now wouldn’t it)? Do you see my point? I frankly think that this is just a “red herring” (the whole bathroom issue) so that people can feel justified about discriminating against others, no different than arguments that were made against bi-racial marriage that were, in my opinion equally disingenuous and ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the thought that somehow allowing gays to marry will impinge on the rights of others; that it somehow hurts the marriage institution. I aver that divorce, adultery and violence do much more to hurt the institution of marriage that any two same sex individuals getting married will ever, ever do. It seems by your comments that we are much closer in our opinions on that matter, but I just wanted to point out that they are similar spurious lines of reasoning. Basically, you are “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” just in case some pedophile cooks up in his her mind to do such a thing – never mind they could already do this – evidenced by your own submissions. How will discriminating against an entire group of people actually accomplish keeping this from happening? I know, I know, it makes it “easier” for them – well, maybe people shouldn’t send their children into strange bathrooms without accompanying them (I never did when my kids were with me – of course, they went alone at school, where any “deviant” teacher could have gotten to them;) maybe parents should take some responsibility for protecting their children as well.

    There are good and bad people in the world of all types – and, I’m sorry, ridiculous theories such as this just feed into people’s irrational fears and bigotry. Again, I know you don’t agree with me, but felt that perhaps, given my lack of command of proper grammar and punctuation as so kindly pointed out by you, that I had not conveyed that opinion in a succinct manner. (if you’ve gotten the impression that you’ve insulted me, then you’ve hit the jackpot!)

    • Well, I kinda stumbled on this website, and found the list of perves who snuck into women’s restrooms an interesting read. But I have to ask, why would the repeal of this ordinance have any affect on whether or not a guy dresses up like a woman and enters a restroom to assault someone? I mean making it legal for a person to use a restroom of the gender with whom s/he identifies doesn’t make it legal for a person to camouflage him/herself to perform a nefarious act.
      Also, if people want to make this an issue about religion, I ask, that since I am Episcopalian, and we do not descriminate based on sexual orientation, may I refuse housing or a job to a “Christian” who does descriminate against gays? That type of descrimination is against my religion and I cannot condone or support it. I mean it’s a 2-way street right?
      Finally, do I understand you run a business? Basically, I would like to know the name of your business or place of employment so I can be sure not to patronize that establishment.
      Thanks.

      • To begin, sorry it has taken so long for me to get back to you. I have been off line for a while due to work requirements.

        No, I do not run a business. If that is the way I made it sound I am sorry. I do know several people who do and (without going back and reading what I wrote) I would venture to say I’m using the knowlege I have gained from them to discuss this issue.

        If I did own a business I would in fact tell you the name of it and you would be able to use your pocket book to show your disapproval of my philosophy and conscience. That is much better than having the government do it for you and/or force me to do something against my will.

        The restroom issue: There is nothing that keeps a man from dressing as a woman to enter a restroom of the opposite sex other than the law. The point I was making is that having such a law opens a door for deviants who are not actually transgender to do so. Since, as it has been expressed by the City Attorney, all you have to do is “feel” like the opposite sex inside in order to use the biologically opposite gender restroom. Who are you to tell anybody what they “feel?” Now, AFTER they have committed a deviant act they can be in trouble; however, after they do so is after somebody else has been violated and after somebody else has become victimized.

        I suppose it’s a conversation about proactive vs reactive measures to keep women and children safe.

        I hope you stick around, because I say sincerely that I do like dissent. It makes me question my logic and philosophy and I do enjoy debate.

        -Nick

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s