Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see D-Day Normandy 1944 at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. This movie discussed Operation Overlord, otherwise known as the Battle of Normandy. On that day, the longest day, the allies lost countless lives. Memorial Day is an important tribute to those who have given their lives for our freedom and liberty.
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution contains the Equal Protection Clause that prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. So, why would Annise Parker, in her last term, champion an equal rights ordinance, especially when our Constitution covers discrimination? Could it be that this is simply a slight of hand, a distraction for the true purpose? Maybe Exxon wasn’t enough and she wants to run every business out of town? Why would she say that the ordinance was created in response to a Washington Avenue bar denying entry to a black man but never discuss the ordinance with NAACP leaders?
I have followed much of the local reporting on Parker’s edict and I feel like many people are missing the bigger picture. One of the basic government functions is public protection. The government is tasked with providing police, fire, and ambulance for the general public. Also, the government should pass laws that assist public safety. So, how would Parker’s policy affect public safety?
Imagine that you are the parent of a young child. After church, your family visits a local restaurant and your daughter needs to use the restroom. You take her to the bathroom. Inside, there are two small, narrow stalls; so, you send your daughter into one of the stalls as you stand guard outside. Your daughter is speaking, but you can’t quite understand her words. Just then, you see a man peering under the bathroom stall and staring at your four-year-old daughter as she uses the restroom. You think this is fiction? Think again.
On a Sunday morning in October 2010, Lincoln Moreno, a serial peeper, was looking at a four-year-old girl as she used the bathroom at Café Express in Meyerland. The child told her mother, “Mommy, there is a man in the restroom.” The mother did not see anything at first. Then, she looked down and saw a shadow of a head underneath the stall and a bag. Once captured, law enforcement discovered that the man had electrical tape, duct tape, a sock with a pacifier, a plastic bag, and a recording device.
Moreno also has a lengthy criminal history. This was his eighteenth criminal trespass conviction in Harris County. He has a prior conviction for indecency with a child. After he was arrested for the Café Express peeping, several of his relatives came forward and said that he molested them in the past.
Since Moreno was not using the recording device, the only crime on the books that fit the facts of Moreno’s voyeuristic conduct was criminal trespass and that, in itself, failed to result in adding Moreno to the sex offender registry. State Representative Garnet Coleman publicly decried this “serious flaw in our system” because the “punishment didn’t fit the crime.” Garnet Coleman said that he wanted to create a new legal penalty for peeping in a restroom that defined the offense as a sex crime. Coleman told reporters at the time that these crimes are “most often committed against women and children.” “Individuals who grotesquely and repeatedly violate an individual’s privacy during a private moment should be on the registry.”
In 2011, Coleman sponsored House Bill 2822, which amended the criminal laws relating to disorderly or lewd conduct in a public place. This bill was lost in committee. Today, the law remains unchanged.
During the 83rd Legislative Session, in 2013, Garnet Coleman, instead of taking up the Lincoln Moreno matter, authored House Bill 3324, which added the words “gender identity or expression” to the penal code. This language would enhance an offender’s punishment if the crime was committed with this specific bias or prejudice. This bill was left pending in the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.
Given this context, the obvious question of the day is whether the equal rights ordinance now provides a defense (or a cover) for people like Lincoln Moreno. Is this equal rights ordinance the type of liberty that men and women have sacrificed their lives for? Doesn’t the Constitution already cover equal rights and discrimination? Shouldn’t the focus be on protecting women and children? Should this equal rights ordinance be made law before we make laws to protect children from Lincoln Moreno? As the city council members vote on this ordinance, they need to think about Lincoln Moreno and his victims.
royko says
Great potential for an Op-Ed submission to the local PRAVDA which supports the Mayor’s insanity.
Yvonne Larsen says
The Greater Houston Partnership supports this ordinance…
plindow says
I guess we’ll all just have to go before we leave home and no iced tea for us!
[email protected] says
Simpler solution than changing the law: Little girl’s dad beats the crap out of the guy. No jury in Harris County will convict him of it.
I’m Tom Zakes and I approve this message.
Mainstream says
The short answer is that before the non-discrimination ordinance passes, this creep could be charged with criminal trespass, and after the non-discrimination ordinance passes, he can be charged with criminal trespass. I am confident a Harris County jury can make an informed distinction between creeps and a transgendered person who poses no threat to others in a public restroom. This particular person is not transgendered and was not dressing as or claiming to be a woman; he is simply a creep.
Don Hooper says
Except, after the ordinance passes he could have a defense to the charge of criminal trespass, which was the point of the article.
Jeff Larson says
Don, he can raise the defense, but any competent prosecutor would rip it to shreds.
Male-to-Female transsexuals, both pre-op and post-op, use women’s restrooms every day in Houston and in Harris County. By and large, this poses no problem and is in general undetected. Some of these people might draw a second glance as they pass by, because they may have both prominent breasts and an Adam’s apple. However, with a singular exception that Woodfill and crew have pounced on, once in the restroom, they keep to themselves and do their business, the same as pretty much everyone else using the restroom. They aren’t there to gawk at other women, even if they identify as lesbian, and if they did, they could be prosecuted the same as any other woman who went around peeping into stalls.
There are many reasons to be against this ordinance. Number one on my list is that as far as I can tell, it really could be used to persecute (and perhaps prosecute) the stereotypical baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. The bathroom hysteria is just that, hysteria. Transsexuals use women’s restrooms every day, and we don’t hear of them molesting kids. There won’t be a wave of perverts in women’s restrooms if this passes (well, there might be, but once word gets out that the ordinance doesn’t protect them and several of them end up in jail, that’ll pass quickly). About the most one can say for that portion of the ordinance is that current law does subject a pre-op transsexual to criminal trespass prosecution (a rare thing), and this ordinance would put a stop to that. The tail is wagging the dog here; the restroom stuff is a small portion of the ordinance, and not the right reason to oppose it.
Moreover, resorting to hysteria contributes to the loss of the culture war. You see perverts in restrooms, where none exist today (at least, no transsexual perverts among the transsexuals using the restrooms). But when you spout off about this, a large majority of people under 30 see in you the worst stereotype of a Republican: A cranky, middle-aged white bigot trying to beat up on one of the most oppressed minorities that exists in society today, all while hiding behind “morals” and “traditional values” to justify his bigotry. It doesn’t matter if you’re really bigoted or not, that’s what people see when you use that argument. Messaging matters.
Don Hooper says
Jeff, when you attempt to pass laws protecting and affording defenses to people like Lincoln Moreno you come off as a short sighted. Houston has elected a gay Mayor three times. I am not sure there is this bias you think exists. Mayor Parker says this is about her, I take her at her word.
Jeff Larson says
Don, that’s where you’re wrong. Nobody is trying to protect Lincoln Moreno. Nobody is actually protecting Lincoln Moreno. I’m not, and even Mayor Parker is not. Nor is she accidentally protecting him while seeking to accomplish some liberal goal that neither you nor I support.
The ordinance does not give cover to child molesters. Period. Lincoln Moreno trying to claim, “But officer, you can’t arrest me – I’m a transsexual!”, is about as ridiculous as Lincoln Moreno trying to claim, “But officer, you can’t arrest me – I’m a woman!” Any competent police officer would just look at him and say, “Yeah, right, buddy – me and my partner are transsexuals, too. Put your hands behind your back.”
Here’s a clue…had there been a genuine transsexual in the bathroom, the little girl would have said, “Mommy, there’s a funny lady in the restroom.” Or much more likely, she would have said nothing at all, since there would be nothing suspicious to comment on.
Fighting a government that overreaches in trying to protect LGBT rights = good.
Shrill screeching about nonexistent transsexual child molesters in women’s restrooms = bad.
Don Hooper says
Jeff, why don’t you spend your time passing legislation protecting women and children, the victims here? Call Garnett, a big supporter of the Mayor, and say hey let’s straighten state law before we tackle this idea. The clue here for you is then I don’t have an argument.
Jeff Larson says
1. It is absurd that someone can be convicted of this particular offense as many times as Moreno was. That was catch and release taken to an unfathomable level.
2. The evidence to put Moreno away for good was there all along, but it took the media, not a change in the law, to get people to come forward with it.
3. Coleman’s HB 2822 did not die in committee. It passed out of committee by an 8-0 vote, and then was killed by the Calendars Committee, in a House with a Republican supermajority. I guess this sort of legislation must not have been a priority for Joe Straus, either.
4. At the end of the day, you have failed to make a case as to why you are blaming transsexuals for the crimes of perverts like Moreno. Moreno is not a transsexual, nor could he pass for one. Parker’s ordinance, with all its sins and flaws, did not protect people like Moreno.
Actually, now that I think about it, I did do something about this. I ran for a House seat, because I don’t believe conservatives should allow bills like HB 2822 to die because of “business as usual”. After the primary, I had a long chat with both the candidates who made the runoff about “business as usual”. I sincerely hope Dennis Paul, who won that runoff yesterday, takes it to heart.
Don Hooper says
Jeff, you need to try a 100 or so trials in front of Harris County juries before you can start telling prosecutors how to do their jobs in my house.
Voter says
The other day, someone brought up an interesting point to counter the argument of the “anti-discrimination” avocates. If the ordinance passes, will this mean that a Jewish bakery owner cannot refuse to make a cake with a Nazi symbol or that an African American caterer cannot refuse to serve a Klan event? This is just another example of government trying to pick one group over another based on the political winds of the day, rather than protect liberty for everyone by allowing all citizens to express themselves freely in the public domain and in their private business. I would venture to say that there are a greater percentage of small businesses in Houston owned and operated by these so-called protective classes, than the percentage of citizens advocates allege need protecting. If gay wedding planners and florists were to object to doing straight weddings, they could have a far greater impact in the free marketplace and it would be in their right. However, we know they would not because the majority straight community supports (and values) such gay owned businesses. What this is really about is a political power grab by one particular faction of the political spectrum.
Manuel Barrera says
Jeff you missed the point. The fact that gender confused individuals use women bathrooms often and no problems occur is true, but that is not the argument. The argument is that it facilitates sexual predators going into women’s bathrooms. Those incidents do occur and have occurred. Why pass an ordinance that is not needed? If there is a need for such an ordinance, where is the argument. I have not seen the argument from the side that is pushing for the passage.
Or if you prefer using the Mayor’s own words, “one time is one time too many” for a sexual predator to molest a woman or child. She, however, was referring to discrimination of gender confused individuals.
Jeff Larson says
Manuel, I think you misunderstand me. I agree with you that the ordinance is a solution in search of a problem. I disagree that it “facilitates” predators going into women’s bathrooms in any way.
When I say the hysteria about this ordinance is about nonexistent predators, I don’t mean that nobody every goes into the wrong restroom with the intent to commit a crime. Of course it happens: Lincoln Moreno is just one grotesque example.
What I mean by “nonexistent” is this supposed wave of predators who will be emboldened by this law, and suddenly take to women’s restrooms with the ready-made alibi of, “But officer, you can’t arrest me. I’m a transsexual!” That isn’t going to happen, and any “criminal mastermind” dumb enough to try it is going to learn how little protection the ordinance provides as he rides to jail in handcuffs.
That sort of hysteria and fear-mongering is precisely the same sort of manipulation that liberals use when they argue for gun control or against gun rights. Striking down this ordinance will provide exactly as much protection for women and children in restrooms as gun-free zones provide protection from criminals with guns – none. Worse, there are so many good arguments against the bill, arguments that appeal to the rational mind and win over people who haven’t thought it through, that it’s just foolish to resort to an argument that makes you appear prejudiced.
Manuel Barrera says
Officer you can’t arrest me can happen in Houston as HPD officers have orders that allow a gender confused individual to use a bathroom, the officer should not issue a citation or arrest by policy. If the officer does he could be reprimanded, it has already happened in a City facility.
A man could enter women’s showers and look at them if he is gender confused, he would be considered as any other woman looking at women’s bodies.
We have a lot of sick people in the world we do not need to facilitate their ability to cause danger.
For the record men who think they are women is considered a deviation from the norm.
” Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental illness, stated that people who identify themselves as “transgendered” are mentally ill or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or unhappiness.
“From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’ actually means,” Dr. Berger said, adding, “I am speaking now about the scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical.”
“‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which their chromosomal configuration attests,” Dr. Berger stated.
“Some times, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’.”
“The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery,” Dr. Berger stated.”
link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/psychiatry-expert-scientifically-there-is-no-such-thing-as-transgender
Jeff Larson says
Actually, transsexual Tyjnae Moore was arrested for this in a Houston library in 2010, and spent two days in jail before pleading guilty to entering the restroom of the opposite sex, even though this offense carries no jail time and has a maximum find of $500. I suppose that’s one way to coerce a guilty plea when no offense took place.
The same month Moore was arrested, Parker appointed transsexual Phillis Frye to the bench as an associate municipal judge. I wonder how Moore would have ruled, had the case come to her?
My question is, would the law also be powerless to stop a homosexual man or woman who went into the “correct” restroom, and started peeking into stalls at people for the purpose of gratifying themselves? I have a hard time imagining that the law would be any kinder to a transsexual who did the same thing.
Your appeal to authority by quoting Dr. Berger is noted. Please note that he is in the minority of psychiatrists with regard to treating gender dsyphoria (DSM-5 term), what used to be called gender identity disorder in DSM-IV (the “bible” of diagnoses for the psychiatric profession).
Here’s what the Merck Manual, a reference guide for physicians, has to say about gender identity disorder:
“Treatment is aimed at helping patients adapt rather than trying to dissuade them from their identity; in any case, the latter approach is ineffective.”
Which, I suppose, is a high-faluting way of saying that you can’t convince a transsexual to just “get over it” and “act like a man” any more than you can just “pray away the gay”.
You can find physicians on both sides of any issue. For example, there are licensed MDs who subscribe to homeopathic medicine. Maybe they’re right. I’m not betting on it, any more than I’m betting that Dr. Berger has a high success rate with treating people who are “deluded” about their gender identity.
Manuel Barrera says
Parker’s executive order on gender confused individuals being able to enter bathrooms of the opposite sex occurred after 2010, so your analysis is not correct.
Crazy is crazy as crazy does, to quote Forest Gump, We can’t fix it, so let us just pretend that it is okay. The same argument can be made for adults that prefer children. Where are we to draw the line? The line keeps shifting.
While they may not able to cure them of the delusion now does not mean that we don’t keep trying, that is not the way medicine works. If it did we would not have cures for many things, including people with AIDS now living much longer and more normal lives because doctors did not give up.
Besides the argument is that the ordinance makes it easier for evil persons to do harm to others. I think we can agree on that.
Jeff Larson says
You have statistics that show these sorts of “bathroom incidents” skyrocketed after 2010, right? I notice the rhetoric surrounding that decision practically mirrors the rhetoric surrounding the ordinance that was passed yesterday. Curiously missing are reports of women fleeing bathrooms that were infested with leering men claiming to be transsexuals. You’d have thought that if Parker had created a refuge for creeps, we’d have at least had some backlash now.
I do like contrarian science and I’m quite fond of Ignaz Semmelweis. If Dr. Berger can figure out a way to cure gender dysphoria, power to him. Until then, in the real world that we do live in, doctors treat gender dysphoria with counseling, hormone therapy, and surgery, and require their patients to live as the target gender for a full year prior to surgery. Since professional psychiatrists are prescribing that their patients to enter the “wrong” restrooms as part of that transition, you are left to figure out how to accommodate what has already been shown to be a non-problem, or to deny medically recommended treatment to people on the grounds of “morals and safety’.
Now, as for “evil persons doing harm to others”, if your concept of that is that it gives cover to perverts, then no, I don’t agree on that. I’m much more concerned about malicious lawsuits under the other parts of the law, which is what we should have been complaining about but didn’t, choosing to squawk about bathroom hysteria instead.
Manuel Barrera says
If one cannot answer the question, change the question. I pointed out that after the incident that you mentioned Annise Parker issued an executive order that allowed gender confused individuals to enter bathrooms that did not match their biological makeup.
If there were more incidents they would not be reported because reporting is not allowed in Houston facilities. If an employee were to report it they could find themselves being reprimanded.
I don’t believe the ordinance adds or diminishes the ability to file lawsuits for the vast number of people that the ordinance seeks to protect, since I am a minority I would be one such person. What the ordinance does it give the City the right to investigate businesses and possibly file criminal charges, up to $5,000 fine. The City would have to create a bureaucracy to handle the complaints if they did materialize. The person in charge of that department now is on record of claiming that someone that had a video that proved the innocence of an individual, that by posting the video they were allowing a guilty person to get away with a crime. The case had not gone to court. A city lawyer who claimed someone was guilty before a trial. The jury found the person not guilty and were upset that the district attorney had even pursued the case. Those are the type of people that would be investigating complaints.
People can believe that they are what ever they want to believe, but they should not have the right to make others believe that they are not what they look like. If it looks like a man, if it walks like a man, if it pees like a man, it must be a man. After all the surgery they can walk in because they would now look like a woman.
Have a great day.
Jeff Larson says
It’s a valid question, and you’re ducking it. Where are all the WOMEN reporting that there were creeps in the bathroom, creeps that police did nothing about?
There weren’t any. You’re fantasizing. The policy changed, and nothing of any substance happened. You have your drawers in a bunch over nothing. You look like a fool complaining about a problem that doesn’t exist.
Moreno was last caught in 2010, BEFORE the policy changed, and BEFORE Moore was arrested. Where are all the women who won’t go into restrooms because they complained about a man in the restroom after the policy changed, and police refused to remove him?
Manuel Barrera says
Jeff, I made a mistake in thinking I was arguing with a rational person. I made a mistake.
You are obviously way beyond your ability to argue as you have resorted to name calling, bye.