this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1148 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2393 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FfaerieOxide@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Why do you want to other trans people?

There's alot of other ways you could have divided bathroom use but you ignored race, occupation, sexual orientation, housing status, handedness, whether they support the Yanks or the Mets, if-or-not they wear flip flops, number 1 or number 2, time since their last covid test, attractiveness, their tact when sniffed, and dick size.

Could have segregated bathrooms by any the above categories but you chose to suggest a bathroom for (presumably cisgender) Man, a bathroom for (presumably cisgender) Women, and an "Other" bathroom occupied by people who are not just not men and not women (whose absence of a space "for" them is a salient if side point) but people who very much fit within the binary categories "Man" and "Woman" but you still want separate, with the odd, ends, and enbys, from the Cis People bathroom.

Think about why it is you want a "Cis People Bathroom".
Don't even think about the invasion of genital privacy or general propriety required to effect the border you wish to erect.

Think about why this is a thing you want.
Why you want people, who have genders—which are every bit as real as yours—, to have to expel the semi-solid remains of food and wastes and toxins filtered from their blood in a separate room from you.
What is it about these people that makes their shit stink more (or less) enough to warrant their doing so separately?

Surely it's not as simple as "Their gender turned out differently than a 13-second-old genital exam told them that it should, for which they need be punished."

Respect if that's it. "Fuck Trans People." Not the way I'd go with things, but it's an ethos.

I don't think that's it, though.
You seem nice enough I doubt naked bigotry compels your actions.
You seem well-informed enough—further—to know just how expensive a "fuck you" a third for every second bathroom would be just to keep a percentage point the populace apart 'pon poop and piss.

So if it's not naked bigotry, and it wouldn't be very effective bigotry even if it was, what is it that makes you think trans people need to not be around people who aren't trans during the 15/1440 minutes a day the average ass spends on a toilet?

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 year ago

You and I both know they have no answer.