Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This Bathroom Law Confusion
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1 of 166 (782856)
04-29-2016 3:13 PM


I don't think I understand this bathroom bill thing. Yes it bothers me to tamper with the normal male and female sex designation of bathrooms but as for the practical issues involved I don't get why people are worried about GAYS choosing to use the one they think they fit best psychologically. I mean if you're worried about children being molested shouldn't you worry about that happening to boys in the men's room rather than by female-identified males in the women's room? And gay men in the women's room aren't going to be a threat to little girls.
So what is the worry? Are they worried about predators taking advantage of the law and POSING as gay to get access to children or something like that? Are they worried about gays that don't clearly LOOK gay so it will be a matter of men looking like men in the women's room and so on?
I guess there might be a problem with transgenders like Jenner who says he identifies as a woman but is nevertheless a heterosexual male. He may be primping at the women's room mirror but nevertheless feeling attracted to the women in there? How does that get sorted out?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Asgara, posted 04-29-2016 3:34 PM Faith has replied
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 04-29-2016 3:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 9:19 AM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by 14174dm, posted 04-30-2016 8:53 PM Faith has replied
 Message 49 by ramoss, posted 04-30-2016 10:58 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 54 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-01-2016 3:05 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 3 of 166 (782858)
04-29-2016 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Asgara
04-29-2016 3:34 PM


Yes but in a bunch about what exactly? Some say it's worries about molesting of children, which doesn't make sense as I say; others say it's about "privacy." Are they just not imagining the actual situation or is there a problem I'm not grasping?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Asgara, posted 04-29-2016 3:34 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by DrJones*, posted 04-29-2016 3:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 10 by NoNukes, posted 04-29-2016 6:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 166 (782863)
04-29-2016 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by DrJones*
04-29-2016 3:42 PM


I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us, and I don't think that's bigotry, but I'm trying to figure out the actual problems if there are any. I agree with you about the danger of molestation being more likely with the present designation, as I said, but I keep thinking I'm missing something. Also, if people have already been using the sex-designated room of their preference without problems why do we need a law at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by DrJones*, posted 04-29-2016 3:42 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by DrJones*, posted 04-29-2016 4:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 11 by Rrhain, posted 04-29-2016 8:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(5)
Message 19 of 166 (782880)
04-30-2016 2:45 AM


I've been thinking more of the laws that favor the LGBTs rather than the laws trying to stop it. The pictures Rhain posted show people anyone would take for the sex they WANT to be so why do you need a law to give them permission to use the restroom of their choice? This is part of what I'm having a problem with. If you LOOK male why would there be a problem with using the men's room, and same if you LOOK female using the women's room?
The transgender question Moose raised does seem to be the only real gray area and in that case what interests me is the fact that they remain heterosexual but because of looking like the biologically opposite sex they would now be using the restroom of the sex to whom they are attracted. There may not be a problem here either except that it's not the same thing as being gay where there is no attraction to the biologically opposite sex.
I don't think it's bigotry that promotes the laws against the LGBT law, I think it's confusion and not understanding the actual situation. The law attempting to oppose the LGBT laws shows a complete lack of understanding the actual situation. I do think there may be a more rational objection among conservatives, though, that I need to find out about, and even if it's more rational it may still not address the actual situation well enough.
Again, though, I don't see any need to HAVE a law permitting someone who LOOKS male to use the men's restroom, same for the one who looks female to use the women's room, and it's THAT law that is freaking out the right. Why not just leave well enough alone? Use the restroom where you'd fit in best.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 3:07 AM Faith has replied
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2016 5:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 21 of 166 (782882)
04-30-2016 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tanypteryx
04-30-2016 3:07 AM


AND the laws they have passed don't make any sense at all and are ass backwards, forcing people who look like men to use women's restrooms and people who look like women to use men's restrooms.
But these laws are coming AFTER the pro-LGBT laws, right? They are a reaction to them, and I'm agreeing that they don't address the actual situation. But what I'm also saying is that I don't see a need for the PRO-LGBT laws in the first place if, as Asgara said, transgenders have used the restroom they look like they fit into without a problem anyway. And why should there ever be a problem for someone who looks like the sex that is on the door to the restroom? And beyond that, there are lots of women who are recognized as women who don't look particularly feminine, who also wouldn't be kicked out of the women's room, and the same for men who aren't particularly masculine looking using the men's room. I mean there are degrees and gradations that aren't a problem either.
BUT there is felt to be a need for these LGBT laws, which as I say are the reason the right is getting all freaked out. Why is there a need felt to have such laws if it's just a matter of looking like you fit into the restroom of your choice, which doesn't ruffle any feathers anyway?
There is more to this than meets the eye.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 3:07 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-30-2016 8:23 AM Faith has replied
 Message 31 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 12:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 166 (782888)
04-30-2016 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
04-30-2016 8:23 AM


I thought there were laws specifically about the use of restrooms. I know one was proposed in Texas, so I thought that's what all this is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 04-30-2016 8:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-30-2016 9:23 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 166 (782896)
04-30-2016 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
04-30-2016 9:23 AM


A little patience would go a long way here
Two subjects, the LBGT laws related to bathrooms and the other subject the earlier LBGT laws related to protection.
This thread is about bathrooms. Is this included in the general antidiscrimination laws or a separate thing? I'm not sure it really matters but I'd like to know what the anti-LGBT bathroom laws are aimed at.
Sorry, I really haven't been keeping up with this, just enough to be aware that some states are formulating laws to stop LGBT laws permitting them to choose whatever restroom suits them. When I read that your biological sex must determine which room you can use I knew there was some kind of confusion and misunderstanding involved. As Rrhain points out, it's not reasonable to demand that your biological sex determine which room you can use because it's how you look that people react to.
My impression is that the reactive laws are based on fears about some kind of trouble or danger that would result from allowing people to choose whatever restroom they feel suits them, and I believe those fears are not justified from what I've read about them. As I've been saying, if people are able to use a restroom without looking out of place why is there a problem at all?
As for fears that are likely not reasonable, what's the point of accusing people of bigotry when they just need to be better informed about the actual situation? There are a lot of people who have no experience of these things AT ALL, you can't suddenly impose a completely unfamiliar situation on them, change their familiar experiences into something that sounds strange and dangerous, and demand that they conform to your understanding, especially in this militant strident accusatory tone that is in itself threatening.
So far I see no REAL danger in letting people choose which restroom to use. If there is more to it than that I'll need to find out about it later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 04-30-2016 9:23 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 04-30-2016 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 166 (782897)
04-30-2016 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
04-30-2016 9:19 AM


Why do you have to write such long posts, Mod? They risk getting unread you know.
I mean if you're worried about children being molested shouldn't you worry about that happening to boys in the men's room rather than by female-identified males in the women's room?
This is on the best points I've seen made on this topic. Bravo.
I understand what you've been through here so I assure you that that was sincere, it was not sarcasm. That is a great point, well made.
Thank you. It seems obvious to me and an indicator that there is a lot of confusion on this subject.
So what is the worry? Are they worried about predators taking advantage of the law and POSING as gay to get access to children or something like that?
Depends who 'they' are.
The politicians aren't. They want to convince their voters of this, and it is working a bit. But it is a bit of a misfire, especially based on the evidence of your perspective.
It's the same plays the hateful have used against blacks and gays but which have been defeated.
I'd really like to see more understanding of the perspective of ordinary people who are freaked out by militant campaigns to change their familiar experiences. Even the politicians who are making these new laws don't seem to have a real grasp of the realities. I don't think it's about hate and bigotry, I think it's about feeling forced to accept something totally strange that seems threatening.
He may be primping at the women's room mirror but nevertheless feeling attracted to the women in there? How does that get sorted out?
The same as when gay men use the men's bathroom and gay women use women's bathroom and bisexual people use either.
Yes, that's true, and I realized it later. No issue there.
Are they just not imagining the actual situation or is there a problem I'm not grasping?
Your astonishment is equal to the astonishment you have seen from the left regarding refusing to bake cakes for gay weddings.
From my point of view the situations are completely different. The status of marriage in the Bible is sacrosanct, it's not just a matter of sinners being sinners, it's a matter of forcing us to oppose God's law by actively supporting a social structure the Bible condemns. It isn't about homosexuality as such at all, it's about marriage, and if nobody understands it but a certain group of Bible believers, still we have to refuse to serve gay marriage according to our understanding of the Bible.
But we are not required to oppose sin because we're all sinners. Cross-dressing is sin, homosexual acts are sin, but so are heterosexual acts outside of marriage, so is divorce etc., so are all kinds of things people do all the time that would break the system if you tried to make them into crimes. Everybody would be in prison or hung on the scaffold.
So the question about restrooms from the Christian or conservative point of view isn't about violating a Biblical ordinance, it's about whether there is any actual problem or danger to society in general, or to nonLGBTs, by allowing people to use whatever facility they fit into, which seems to be the reason for the laws attempting to prevent it. I think the general peace of society would be better served by backing off this one. There is no real threat, no real danger, and it's just a matter of this being recognized. If I'm wrong I guess I'll find out eventually.
I'm not trying to persuade you, but maybe you can use this to build empathy with your opponents?
All I can do is express my opinion. If it builds empathy, great, if it doesn't I can't help it.
I certainly understand people not wanting all this gender confusion being imposed on us
It's not being imposed though is it? It's just a fact about humans that we have to learn how to deal with. Most of the burden of dealing with it has historically been placed on the transgendered.
But people who have no experience of these things do experience it as having something strange and dangerous imposed on them out of the blue. In the case of gay marriage the law IS imposing on Christians and putting us in an untenable position. I don't think the restroom situation is similar but nevertheless people who are unfamiliar with all these things do feel it as something alien being forced on them. Those who have lived with the social ostracism have no sympathy for them, don't really care what they do to the rest of society because they consider themselves unjustly treated, but it would help a lot to try to get a bigger picture in spite of all that.
They were ostracized, denied lifesaving medical care, attacked, raped etc., etc., with little consequences to the perpetrators.
Yes, and now you are out for blood and don't care what you do to society as a whole.
Now people are increasingly agreeing that this is a terrible way to deal with the facts. This terrifies the right who want to codify laws as a way to extend the hate.
It is very few who express that sort of hatred, the rest are confused and fearful.
I've been thinking more of the laws that favor the LGBTs rather than the laws trying to stop it. The pictures Rhain posted show people anyone would take for the sex they WANT to be so why do you need a law to give them permission to use the restroom of their choice?
Empathy mode. Let's imagine you are transgender and you and your friends spontaneously visit a restaurant, cafe or bar. You go to use the toilet that matches your gender, but is at odds with the sex you were assigned at birth. The manager says you can't. Now you have to use a toilet that feels wrong or leave.
You've been embarrassed, been personally insulted (if someone denied you service because they questioned your femininity, you'd be upset), and now you have to cut the social event short or potentially put your safety at risk (I can tell you from personal experience that going into a man's restroom when you look like a girl is a terrifying experience in some places).
I do understand this, and I think it is mostly a matter of getting it across. When all we hear is that there is a law proposed that wants to change who can use what restroom, and have no understanding of what that would entail in reality, and nobody is bothering to try to explain it, just getting all accusatory about bigotry and hate and discrimination, you ought to recognize that a lot of people are likely to freak out and for good reason.
Wouldn't it make life better if people could go to new places without having research their policy towards irrelevant personal details about them? These 'pro-LGBT' laws are about providing security, confidence, and remedy against hate and bigotry and simple ignorance based discrimination which are harmful to society as a whole.
Again, I think you are blinded by your own personal experience and need to see things more from the other side, which does NOT experience these laws as about a necessary security for some people that does not threaten anybody, and are reacting understandably to being called names and vilified about something they've never given half a thought to before.
This is part of what I'm having a problem with. If you LOOK male why would there be a problem with using the men's room, and same if you LOOK female using the women's room?
As you know, not all transgendered people 'fool' all of the people all of the time. Some transgendered people are clearly gendered differently than their sex.
Sex hormones are powerful, and they leave many clues. Clues that humans are very very adept at spotting. A person that transitions during puberty may be utterly indistinguishable from a person of that sex from birth. A poor person who transitions in their late 30s? That's a big clue. And not all transgendered people opt for sex reassignment, and avoid hormone treatment even if they can afford it.
Well, mount a campaign to clarify all this and stop calling people who don't understand such things bigots and haters.
Your lengthy post is too much for me. If there's more in it I want to respond to I'll have to come back to it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 9:19 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 12:59 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 166 (782899)
04-30-2016 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
04-30-2016 9:19 AM


The idea that Conservatives are freaking out in response to liberal lawmaking may be true, but liberal law making is because of the impacts to real people that Conservative law making and conservative social views being enacted with those with power against others were having.
OK, well I agree that conservatives are overreacting and need to see things from the other side. There are certainly hills we are called to die on but I don't think this is one of them, and I can continue to give this opinion. It would help, however, as I keep saying, for those on your side to stop treating ordinary people whose fears are based on lack of familiarity with these things, as some kind of monsters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 9:19 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 36 of 166 (782919)
04-30-2016 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Modulous
04-30-2016 12:59 PM


public awareness project
Well, mount a campaign to clarify all this and stop calling people who don't understand such things bigots and haters.
Cercle Hermaphroditos, 1895
Mattachine Society, 1940s
Transvestia: The Journal of the American Society for Equality in Dress, 1952
Transvestia, 1960
Hose and Heels Club, 1962
Dewey's Coffee Shop, 1965
Compton's Cafeteria Riot, 1966
National Transsexual Counseling Unit, 1968
Stonewall Riots, 1969
The 70s:
Andy Warhol
Queens {magazine}
Transsexual/Transvestite Action Organization
National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, 1979
FTM International, 1986
The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto, 1987
Southern Comfort Conference, 1991
Transgender Nation, 1992
GenderPAC, 1995
National Gender Lobby Day, 1996
Transgender Day of Remembrance, 1998
Transgender Pride flag, 1999
National Transgender Advocacy Coalition, 1999
Transgender Foundation of America , 2001
Transgender Network, 2002
National Center for Transgender Equality, 2003
San Francisco Trans March, 2004
International Transgender Day of Visibility, 2009
Did all that. Sorry you hadn't noticed. The screams you were blocking out included accusations that you were ignoring us, by the way
Um, those don't sound like clarifications that would help persuade people to your cause, they sound more like provocations that could drive people to further dig in their heels against you.
I'm thinking of a nice gentle campaign WHEN THE LAWS THAT SCARE PEOPLE ARE PROPOSED, that would describe the actual situation that they'd be facing:
  • people who mostly look like the sex they have chosen to be, who already use the facilities of their choice without being noticed
  • Female-identified gay men in the women's room who are no threat to the women or girls there because they have no attraction to women or girls, and no threat to boys because there are no boys there
  • I wonder how many gay women prefer the men's room or would not be noticed there. Seems like they'd be the ones threatened rather than the men. Not going to threaten anybody in any case.
  • A warning about some who would look out of place, such as a hulking biological male in female dress. These are the people who are probably going to need the most aggressive campaigning for acceptance. Like those who pass, though, the point is that there is no threat to anybody, even if they freak you out.
That is the sort of campaign I'm thinking of. You'd have to modify it to accommodate the realities as you know them.
When I first heard about the proposed law in Texas to make restrooms a matter of personal choice I was also freaked out: What destructive dangerous thing is the Left trying to do to us now? It took the recent laws insisting that only your biological sex qualifies you for a restroom which made me aware of the absurd consequences of such a law, and some thinking about exactly what freedom of choice would entail in reality, to lead me to the position I'm defending on this thread.
But most people don't have any frame of reference for thinking about these things, and just dumping a whole new social project on them that is strange and feels dangerous is not fair to them. Hence the need for some kind of information campaign like the above.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Modulous, posted 04-30-2016 12:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2016 6:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 05-01-2016 10:21 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 166 (782922)
04-30-2016 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rrhain
04-30-2016 6:35 PM


Re: public awareness project
I'm not trying to get Brownie points here, I'm trying to come up with a reasonable solution to a tricky problem. You refuse to consider the rights of the majority or of society at large, like all on the Left merely accusing them all of hateful attitudes, and I'm objecting to that.
Christian love does not require me to force something on society that is experienced as odious by a majority. What about love for THOSE people? They don't count to you. If they have an unreasonable idea about the situation you have to change it but your angry attitude isn't the way to go about that. What about a concern for a stable cohesive society too? I don't think this situation threatens that but it's felt that way by a lot of people and it should be addressed in a sympathetic way.
It also isn't loving to treat people's sins as normal when as a Christian you know they are forbidden by God and only going to take them to Hell in the end. This pertains to ALL sin of course, but you want us to pretend that cross-dressing and gay sex are OK when that's the kind of lie that can only destroy them in the end. There's no love in that. This also doesn't have to be part of this discussion, which is mostly a practical problem for social peace, but if you are going to bring up loving your neighbor it does have to be part of THAT discussion.
I think I've come up with a fairly reasonable way of thinking about this situation on the level of society, which IS a difficult one for a lot of people even if you in your superior wisdom think they should all be dead. I think you need to drop your strident self-righteousness and get real.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2016 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 7:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 50 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2016 11:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 42 of 166 (782926)
04-30-2016 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tanypteryx
04-30-2016 7:25 PM


Re: public awareness project
So it's just a few who are objecting to laws allowing people to choose which restroom to use, just a very few influencing governors of states to come up with contrary laws? Really?
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 7:25 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2016 8:58 PM Faith has replied
 Message 47 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 9:19 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 166 (782929)
04-30-2016 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 14174dm
04-30-2016 8:53 PM


Re: Reality of Politicians
Yes, if you read more of the thread you'll find that I agree that it's not a big problem, but that it's not completely unreasonable that a LOT of people think it is, because all they hear is the rhetoric and namecalling from the Left instead of a rational explanation of how it's not the big problem they fear it is. Attitudes such as yours and Rrhain's and Tanypteryx's just escalate their fears when what is needed is some appreciation of the fact that they aren't being given a reasonable understanding of the realities involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 14174dm, posted 04-30-2016 8:53 PM 14174dm has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 04-30-2016 11:34 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 63 by 14174dm, posted 05-01-2016 10:54 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 46 of 166 (782930)
04-30-2016 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
04-30-2016 8:58 PM


Re: public awareness project
I'm sorry, NN, I really don't know what you are trying to say here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2016 8:58 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1559 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 166 (782943)
05-01-2016 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Tanypteryx
04-30-2016 9:19 PM


Re: public awareness project
Republican-controlled state legislatures and Republican governors are the ones behind the anti-LGBT laws. These are people who think the existence of LGBT people is a violation of their rights and they are intentionally doing everything in their power to make these people's lives miserable.
As I've been saying, I don't think so. I think it's due to not grasping the reality of the situation, and that dropping your kind of angry rhetoric might be the start to getting a more reasonable response out of them. A governor who insists that you can only use the restroom you are biologically qualified for doesn't understand the actual situation.
These are the same assholes who a few generations ago were lynching blacks and some of them are killing LGBT people when they get the chance.
Demonizing other people's views on the basis of your own moralistic judgment isn't any better when you do it than when your opponents do it. And besides it was Democrats who were lynching blacks.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-30-2016 9:19 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-01-2016 10:29 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024