A January 24, 2010, article showcased the bigotry of a Loudoun county supervisor named Eugene A. Delgaudio (R-Sterling). The Washington Post's Sholnn Freeman writes:
At a Jan. 6 meeting, supervisors voted to expand Loudoun's nondiscrimination policy to prohibit bias on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring by the county. Delgaudio fought the change in the meeting, saying he was especially offended by language in the measure that sought protection for transgendered people. In the debate, he called the board's attempt to protect transgendered people "freaky" and "bizarre." In a subsequent newsletter to supporters, Delgaudio wrote that "if a man dressed as a woman wants a job, you have to treat 'it' the same as a normal person."In response to criticism about his words, Delgaudio read "a revised statement with the word 'it' taken out. He continued: 'With apologies to real-life Tootsies' and 'to all their defenders who are calling me all sorts of names and . . . are saying I should apologize'" (Freeman).
I don't know where to begin. I am appalled by Delgaudio's statements. I am horrified by Delgaudio in general. This is a man has been directly quoted as writing that "forcing the [Scouts] to hire homosexuals is the same as being an accessory to the rape of hundreds of boys" ("Anti-Tax in Loudoun, Anti-Gay Everywhere"), regarding whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to ban gay men from being troop leaders. This is a man who is so blinded by bigotry and hatred that he cannot see people as people. He does not appear to be capable of being reasoned with.
What kind of person calls other groups of people "it"? Honestly? I realize that "it" is just one word, but it is completely dehumanizing. "It" should be reserved for things, like chairs and rocks. And--putting aside Delgaudio's inability to understand what the term transgender means--what is so wrong about a person who does not dress in normatively gendered clothing? I fail to see why even a man dressed as a woman (who, incidentally, would not be protected under nondiscrimination policies protecting sexual orientation or gender identity) would not be deserving of being treated "the same as a normal person."
Now, I realize that by stating "a man dressed as a woman" Delgaudio actually was referring to a transwoman; he is simply too bigoted to understand that neither the sex one was determined at birth, nor the subsequent gender one was raised as, are indicative of some form of innate, unchanging sex/gender that one must be. Nevertheless, clothing is just that. Why should what a person wears have any bearing on whether that person should be treated with respect?
And as far as Delgaudio's views on transgender people (not to mention gay people) . . . he just makes me sick. Truly. I generally try to ignore people like him. It's generally not worth the time and energy to rant about transphobic, homophobic bigots who are hateful and can't be reasoned with. It just upsets me and doesn't affect him.
At the same time, sometimes enough is enough, and I can't just let this slide. At some point in time, one needs to take a stand against all of the hate that's out there. And I think that in this case, one of the worst parts is that Delgaudio doesn't seem to realize how hateful his statements are. He actually seems to believe that his views are reasonable--that it's acceptable to first dismiss the legitimacy of transgender people's identities and then treat them as less than human, that it's logical to equate being gay and being a child rapist. It simultaneously outrages me and tears at my heart that someone could actually believe poison like this.
