You’re in the politics section.
You’re expecting society to conform to your unique needs while reserving the right to be non-conforming to its standards, you must realise that’s a tough sell to most people. Even if everyone agrees that gender roles are social constructs, they *are* constructs within society, and they’re deeply-rooted. This may seem like a simple request, but it’s actually a tall order. The reality of this difficult situation is that you’re asking other people to sacrifice their comfort for the benefit of your own comfort, and that’s a big request. The sensible option would be to either have three bathrooms - male, female and “do not wish to disclose” or switch to unisex bathrooms across the board, but that’s not what the fight is over - the fight is over barging into spaces that people consider inherently “theirs” by the virtue of their sex. I think you’re oversimplifying the matter by using blanket statements like this. You’re confusing what a regular proponent of birth sex-specific bathrooms considers self-preservation for bigotry, and I don’t think it’s that simple.
Those events were purposefully associated with public indecency which is not protected by the first amendment, but that argument was a losing one from the start since they’re more akin to a pride parade. You can very easily argue that they’re political in nature, or that they’re self-expression, or a myriad of other arguments that do fall under the first. Ultimately it’s your choice to participate, or not. The east fix here is to simply look the other way - they’re not bothering you when you’re not there.
I literally just want people to actually be free to express themselves and any laws that limit those expression is a violation of freedom of expression. Of course, I don't believe people should be free to do harm to others, but someone dressing in drag, crossdressing, or simply existing does not harm others. Now, of course, I don't want people exposing sexual acts to minors as that does harm the minor. I also don't want people sexually exposing themselves to adults who did not consent to that happening, again, that harms people. But if someone isn't violating others, then I find it a tall order to consider drag queens, crossdressers, and trans people existing to be harmful toward other people. I have to be real with you and say that no one is going to please everyone and arguing the that discomfort of others is a reason to create laws limiting freedom of expression is honestly immature. Sorry if someone living their life makes another person uncomfortable, but that person can simply not get involved and even leave. If an adult man (crossdresser or drag queen) is out in public and minding their own business, then it should be their right to do so. It is not another person's right to tell them that they are uncomfortable and that the other person should change for them. Doing so violates their rights to expression. And bathroom laws don't help anyone. Trans people using the bathroom doesn't hurt anyone. They aren't protecting women and children as most cases of them being violated in the bathroom are criminals who already ignored the laws, to begin with. Laws that harm trans/gender-nonconforming people don't make the world safer, they only make the world harder for people trying to live their lives.
They (not referring to Foxi) want to keep re-writing the rules until certain groups constantly lose no matter what they do. There have been several recent incidents wherein transgender individuals were assaulted by groups after entering bathrooms corresponding to the sex they were assigned at birth, like conservatives want, because they outwardly appeared far more masculine/feminine instead.
Even these laws (the topic) are a greater problem because they do limit freedom of expression in ways that benefit no one. What's the cutoff? Do we only limit the expression of men or do we include women as well? Should women be allowed to dress like men or in masculine clothing, like tomboys? If that isn't the case, why? And why can't those same answers be allowed to gender-nonconforming guys? If this is about the appeasement of others, what's the limit to these laws? Equally, I still have to ask how these laws are helping anyone. How are gender-nonconforming people harmful to anyone? If they are, what's the psychology behind the harm? Simply put, these laws help no one and only exist to appease people too immature to grow up and realize the world doesn't revolve around their worldviews.
I’m a very practical man - I look at the matter based on the equipment within, not the sign on the door - I treat that as a suggestion. The disconnect people feel is partially caused by inconsistency in how your (the royal your) case is argued. I have a specific set of “ograns”, to simplify the matter, so when nature calls, I go wherever the nearest urinal is, and only failing that do I look for stalls nearby - the situation has to be extreme for me to consider going next door to my designated space, which I have done by the way because I don’t particularly care - I need to go, so I’m going, good luck stopping me. On the flip side, I imagine that if I had a different set of organs, I’d probably go to the nearest area that has stalls and sanitary bins, the later being very bizarre contraptions indeed that kind of over complicate the simple notion of a rubbish bin, but then again, lady-specific equipment is usually complicated. As such, you kind lose me when you say that you want to go to a room that’s not equipped to serve your body type, regardless of what the badge on the door is. May as well be “M” for Mario and “W” for Waluigi for me, when I need to take a piss, I’m taking a piss, and it’s either going on the porcelain or the nearest wall, so trying to stop me has negative consequences, but not for me.
All these bans will be repealed on the same grounds eventually, I just wish there were bigger penalties for playing fast and loose with obviously unconstitutional legislation this way.
I mean, we tried putting up a couple gallows in front of Congress but you guys cried foul, and we’re not allowed to bring back dueling because you don’t like guns, so what are we supposed to do, frown a lot?
Don’t say Trump didn’t warn you about the RINO’s. We tried telling you, but you didn’t listen. Now he’s shitting all over the right’s obsession with “woke”, and he’s right, as he tends to be.
Pence is just a religious nutjob, they make up the majority of Trump's base, but they obviously don't care for him in particular. I don't think it was that long ago Trump was parroting the "woke" talking points, either, so as usual he's simply trying to pull a Mac from Always Sunny and take both stances so he's "always right." Problem being that he always takes the wrong stance first, and that's why he's bankrupted so many businesses and lost so many elections for the Rs. COVID was one wrong stance too far, but it's kind of ridiculous that it took a killer pandemic to wake people up to a narcissist's incompetence.
Ehh… I’m sure we had the same conversation in 2016. You guys are hearing words, but you’re not listening. Trump doesn’t give a shit about any of this, and he never has - Trump only cares about money, which is his core selling point. He’ll say or do whatever gives him votes, which is his core strength. He lies, cheats and dupes people I don’t respect in order to forward reform I care about - that was always the reason why he got a thumbs up from me, but it’s a tough point to get across. What you don’t understand is that the alternative to the right following in the footsteps of Trumpism is the right following in the steps of christofascism, this was always the case. You can nurture a right that cares about fiscal policy (which will take a couple years to properly raise, but that’s besides the point) or you can have a right that cares about where you go to take a shit - that’s the reality. You guys are making yourselves a very uncomfortable bed to lay on. But hey, not really a topic about Trump, so it’s not tremendously relevant to the discussion.
Or option C: a right-wing party which can accept slightly lower profit margins in return for a higher standard of living and happiness across the entire nation. Libertarians who care more about their own individual liberties and freedoms than the profits of corporations choosing to fight "wokeism." Constituents who come to realize that all the media disinformation and rageporn keeping us divided benefits only the capitalist class of a couple hundred people in this country.
Wasn't even that long ago we all had a mutual hatred of cops and you would regularly see right-wing bikers get in fist fights with 'em. Those are the real wholesome family values we need to be defending!
So-called libertarians have so-called issues with the so-called progressives because you’re trying to compel their speech (Bill C-16 in Canada is a good example). There’s also the issue of trying to establish a so-called protected class, which is inherently contrary to the idea of equal justice under so-called law (HR-1913, for instance). They don’t like people’s rights being abridged or denied, but the so-called progressives keep delegating control of those spheres of life to the government, which will always lead to rights being trampled at some point down the so-called line, so maybe you’re just reaping what you sow, so to speak… but that’s none of my business, I’m just sipping tea.
@
CameronCataclysm:
@
Xdqwerty:
@
Xdqwerty:
