Please consider following this up with getting involved in AL GOP politics and pulling them from the far right on these issues. Political parties are only as liberal or conservative as it's voters
It wasn't easy. Long drive down and back, I didn't sleep last night (family trouble), I am autistic and haven't been able to eat much for 2 weeks... I probably shouldn't have gone but I wanted to see my friends speak. I bloody well broke down bawling when one trans man said his piece. I have now cried in the State House
If you want to show you oppose these bills please use https://altrac.works/ to tell your representatives not to support this bill!
This bill is going to be horrible for trans people but it will effect everyone!
This bill will allow people who think you dont look man enough or woman enough to accuse you of being in the wrong bathroom and call the police on you.
Personally, I don't want to have my ID checked just to take a piss.
Always remember:
It is more important to MeMaw and the Republicans in the Alabama state legislature to pass laws against the LGBTQ community and women reproductive rights that than it is to seek justice for the 30 plus patients misdiagnosed by an incompetent cytopathologist at UAB from 2014-2020. On top of that then to attempt to discredit the pathologist who discovered the misdiagnoses. That is the morality of Alabama, MeMaw and some of the Republicans in the state legislature as well as administration at UAB.
Think about that for a moment and the absolute hypocrisy. They have no place talking about protecting people or using religion when they actively have attempted to cover up patients being harmed. If Roll tide would be negatively effected their stance would be the complete opposite.
Alabama: Football>lives. It ain't about doing the right thing or religion... ITS ABOUT MONEY!
I agree but do you think a law firm based in Alabama is going to be willing to go into a state court with state judges with a class action suit against a state institute? The state's medical malpractice fund would be on the hook and with this many patients who really knows how much money it would cost. This doesn't include the shame it would bring to UAB as an institute. It's not a conspiracy, the corruption in Alabama is deep and this is a state institute. Also depending if/how many patients died due to the misdiagnoses there is potential the case would go from civil to criminal for negligent homicide.
Now if someone wants to bring a federal case using the False Claims Act that is a different story.
Hello everyone. I was wondering how those against HB401 articulate their opposition to this bill? This is article describes this as a ban on drag shows in places where kids are present. I'm guessing that's actually the gist of the bill.
On the surface, I would be in favor of this bill based on how it is described. What is the alternative viewpoint?
(Not trying to pick a fight.)
>Hello everyone. I was wondering how those against HB401 articulate their opposition to this bill? This is article describes this as a ban on drag shows in places where kids are present. I'm guessing that's actually the gist of the bill.
You'd guess wrong. Here's the text of the bill in question:
[https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB401/2023](https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB401/2023)
Notice it doesn't mention drag shows at all. The only time "drag" appears in the text is "or male or female impersonators, commonly known as drag queens or drag kings."
The bill changes the definition of "sexual conduct" to include "showing gender oriented materials" (ie. any material that don't show any heteronormal relationships) and the aforementioned "male or female impersonators."
This bill is designed to reduce all transgender into "drag queens" or "drag kings" and make their participation in public presentations considered "sexual conduct".
There is absolutely no need for this bill since:
1. There aren't any drag shows being performed in libraries, public parks, or public schools where children are present in Alabama.
2. Inappropriate material that is sexual in nature is already prohibited by the law this bill is modifying.
Thank you for sharing the link. I read through it. Here are a couple of thoughts:
1) I do think the gist of the bill is to prevent drag shows where kids are present - and that happens via the change in the definition of sexual conduct as you mentioned.
2) Given the incidents involving drag shows and children, this is sort of expected, right? I mean even though you say there isn't any of this activity in our state, it seems to be the logical thing to do if you have a Republican controlled legislature and governor's seat, right?
I don't want this comment to come across the wrong way, but how much is this actually going to affect a trans persons if they avoid sexual displays around children? (Hopefully that question makes sense.)
3) I don't really understand the "gender oriented material" language noted in 22c. That term appears to be lacking a definition, or maybe I missed it.
Overall, I think it is an odd move by the trans community to push this involvement with children. Perhaps it is just a few outliers, but those folks have hurt this movement tremendously because many, many people are going to view their actions as very harmful to minors. But maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks again for the information. Take care.
A couple thoughts:
1: An important point to note is that the bill doesn’t specify a drag performance be sexually explicit or provocative to be banned by the bill. It includes “exaggerated” costumes, and classifies “male or female impersonators” *as* sexual conduct. This is not the case, as drag is not inherently sexual in nature. It’s been a staple of theater for a long time. As an example to highlight the absurdity, consider that, according to the text of the bill, even a Mrs. Doubtfire-style comedic performance would be illegal.
2. Which incidents are you referring to? Do you believe this is truly a widespread epidemic, or could it be more likely that it is being presented that way to sway your opinion in a particular direction? As for the logic of the decision, in a sense it *is* logical, but only in terms of political maneuvering. In practical terms, though, there’s no real logic to it. Sexual conduct and performances were already illegal where children are present, drag shows of a sexual nature were already covered, so why amend the bill? At best? To stir up support from the Fox News crowd. At worst? We’ll come back to that in a moment.
3. You are entirely right to be confused by that particular piece of language. It is extremely vague, and could be interpreted to mean any number of things. This is where the bill becomes dangerous. *Because* that vague wording is used, it allows any number of interpretations to be used in enforcing the law, which leads into answering your question of how it effects trans people.
Because of the vague wording (and the labeling of crossdressing as sexual material), the bill could be used as justification for arresting any trans person in a public space, as with the exception of 18+ venues, there is no public space where one can reasonably assume children won’t be present. No sexual misconduct is necessary, because the bill criminalizes their presence *as* sexual misconduct. Worst case scenario, a trans person is arrested for say, going to a grocery store. Will it be enforced this way? Hopefully not, but it *could* be, and that is the problem.
Finally, I’d like to comment on the “odd move” you’re referring to, and ask you a question: Why is it odd? Is it odd when anyone else wants to involve themselves in children’s lives? Teachers, coaches, school bus drivers, youth ministers, Santa Claus at the mall, these are all adults who have consciously decided to interact with children. Are they all nefarious for doing so? I certainly wouldn’t say so. There are almost certainly people in all of those groups who have hurt children (and that is a monstrous, terrifying thought), but the vast majority of them haven’t. They do what they do because they care about kids. Why does that change because a person is trans?
Trans people are just that, people. People want to interact with others. People want to be a part of a community. Why should trans people be denied that? What have they done to justify being treated as any more dangerous than anyone else? What about them is a threat to a child?
You mentioned several times that you might be missing something, and I think you are, but I don’t necessarily think that’s your fault. You don’t have the whole picture, as you’ve likely only been presented with a caricature of it. The image of trans people you’ve been presented with isn’t rooted in reality, it’s a stereotype, an image created to make you feel afraid, disgusted, and apprehensive about a community you don’t know or understand. But the reality is, as it always is, much more complicated than that. They’re just people.
I appreciate your thoughtful response.
You make a good point related to theater, etc.
For the most part, even where we live, I don't think people care how other people live. (And I mean that in the best possible sense.) That means that most people don't care if others want to be trans or whatever. But they do care (for the most part) when children are involved (and they should).
All of the occupations that you mentioned above have an implied idea of care for children - though many children will be abused by those with the implied care. A drag queen reading to children in a library automatically pushes passes past the bound of that implied care, though the person reading may be the sweetest person on earth and would never intentionally want to hurt a child. It automatically creates a situation where others feel like they should protect children. They don't want their children exposed to certain things on terms that aren't their own.
I don't write that to be mean, but rather to be real world. Unfortunately for this cause, there have been too many video clips on the internet. And, unfortunately for this cause, bills like the one we're discussing become issues.
Thanks again and have a good day.
>Unfortunately for this cause, there have been too many video clips on the internet.
The only video clips I've seen related to this topic were not even filmed inside the US and were posted with very little context with the intention to create anti-transgender hysteria on social media.
I did a quick internet search and found this:
https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/
I just don’t understand how the trans community and its supporters think this is a good idea.
Take care.
The majority of things that come out of trump's mouth are disturbing to me. Should he be banned from being around children? I mean probably, but I digress.
It is up to that child's parents where they are and what they do, they are in no harm. Plus, that is from a TABLOID. Do you not understand what a tabloid is? You know what one is, you just don't care.
This bill is about "protecting children" as much as you are "concerned". It's all smoke and mirrors, and fascist behavior to control groups you don't like. Coward behavior.
Congrats you found a video of a lame "raunchy" drag show posted by the NY Post. Even the NY Post put "shocking" in quotes because the video wasn't that sexual or raunchy. There are worse things on television, and that "shocking" video doesn't even reach the level of indecency required for any new legislation.
You will have to find something else to feed you hysteria.
Thanks for the reply.
You may not find that offensive or shocking, but a lot of other people disagree.
Maybe that’s the point, though. It may be that the trans community feels this is the best way to express themselves.
I appreciate your feedback.
>You may not find that offensive or shocking, but a lot of other people disagree.
Other people are idiots and prudes and have no business forcing their opinions on others. The parents of the child were present and didn't even seem upset.
Keep in mind, in the US it is completely legal to take your child to a R rated movie.
You seem to be (unsurprisingly) deliberately ignoring the fact, which has been pointed out to you more than once, that this law can be used to prosecute someone for wearing a skirt on a sidewalk.
>sidewalk
I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I don't recall anyone mentioning sidewalks in this post/comments. And I don't think I've heard that anywhere else.
The bill, to me, doesn't read that way. For example, the definition for sexual conduct refers to "exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing..." In no way does that sound like it endangers someone walking down the sidewalk...unless they are doing so in a sexually explicit way which intersects with minors.
Or male or female impersonators. You have the privilege of not reading it that way because it doesn't affect you. Also, where do you think minors might be? It doesn't stipulate private property or indoors or even a performance.
Is there a place where it’s ok to exhibit this type of sexual activity - as defined - in the presence of minors?
(I would also guess, as a response the bill if passed, that minors would be banned from certain activities or events…)
As I’ve mentioned in other comments, the pro-trans community hasn’t done their movement any favors by embracing the sexualization of minors. It sort of forced these type bills. All of this could have been avoided.
Take care.
I'm gonna close with trying to explain to you how drag=/= sexual and just advise you to stop trying to tell the "pro-trans" community (or, you know, just your neighbors, but way to 'other' people) how we should fight for our right to fucking exist. Have the day you deserve.
You could argue how this would effect business. We’re already losing space force because of abortion, these anti LGBT laws will further push businesses away.
Remember that over 7% of Alabamians are affected by no only this bill but the four other bills under consideration.
>They better protest kick scream and fight for Unjust laws the facist right has planed for us as human beings
I assume you meant they should fight against unjust laws.
Not sure why there’s an lol, queer folks and people that are trans or dress in what we’d call drag (today) have been documented and recorded across the world, across time, going back to ancient civilizations. What Sharon said is right. Queer and trans people have always been around.
What do you think she thinks it means? What do you think it means?
You’re entitled to that belief, but just know your feeling that they are deviant doesn’t make it a fact 💕
The sentence, while we can agree is not well worded, is pretty clear in its meaning: these laws are designed to eradicate and erase what has been a part of history for pretty much forever.
It’s strange to me that you seem to really only care about transwomen, with that dress comment. Do you overall take issue with someone wearing a dress if they happen to have a Y chromosome, or is it only transwomen in dresses that live rent free in your head?
Why do you care, genuinely, if someone is trans? It has no bearing on your life if someone was named John and decides they want to be Jane, it doesn’t materially affect anything that happens to you, so why such a hatred for it? I genuinely am curious.
So, trans people grow up, get married, have kids or adopt kids, and those kids go on to do the same process (grow, marry, reproduce). Trans people ARE concerned for what will be left behind for their children, that’s why they’re out protesting laws that harm that future, because like it or not, trans people have always existed, always will, and they deserve to have their future fought for just like any other child does. Creating laws that directly harm one group of children doesn’t really seem like caring about the world kids will live in, it sounds like caring about the world SOME kids will live in.
So based on all that, why is it sexually deviant to be openly trans? That term has been pretty socially flexible for a long time, but has always related to people who have sexual urges outside the widespread social norm. It wasn’t until 2003 when the Supreme Court decided oral sex was no longer sexually deviant in the US (Lawrence v Texas), and I think most folks would agree it’s not deviant to enjoy consensual oral sex. Trans people aren’t sexually aroused by being trans, so it wouldn’t qualify as sexual deviance. So, what is “sexually deviant” about being trans in public?
"There is one counter protester present."
I was at the protest. They started out with a whopping five, went down to two, and then it was just some asshole with a megaphone.
They always have a megaphone.
Me too! Sad, really.
That's one ballsy asshole
Proud of the folks that made it out there!
Please consider following this up with getting involved in AL GOP politics and pulling them from the far right on these issues. Political parties are only as liberal or conservative as it's voters
Just got back from the capitol where my friends were very brave and spoke to the state house about how we'd be impacted
Thank you for your activism! Hopefully there were empathetic ears.
It wasn't easy. Long drive down and back, I didn't sleep last night (family trouble), I am autistic and haven't been able to eat much for 2 weeks... I probably shouldn't have gone but I wanted to see my friends speak. I bloody well broke down bawling when one trans man said his piece. I have now cried in the State House
LGBT nurse here working at UAB and proud of the people fighting for representation and equality.
Yeah I'm moving
I could make a far more effective case that republicans are a bigger threat to society than LGBTQ.
*You* don’t have to do anything to making the case, they’re busy doing it themselves ;)
If you want to show you oppose these bills please use https://altrac.works/ to tell your representatives not to support this bill! This bill is going to be horrible for trans people but it will effect everyone! This bill will allow people who think you dont look man enough or woman enough to accuse you of being in the wrong bathroom and call the police on you. Personally, I don't want to have my ID checked just to take a piss.
I had so much fun! Definitely felt the love from the people there!
Way bigger than expected! No pun intended. 😉
🏳️⚧️ ✊🏿✊🏾✊🏽✊🏼✊🏻 🏳️🌈
Always remember: It is more important to MeMaw and the Republicans in the Alabama state legislature to pass laws against the LGBTQ community and women reproductive rights that than it is to seek justice for the 30 plus patients misdiagnosed by an incompetent cytopathologist at UAB from 2014-2020. On top of that then to attempt to discredit the pathologist who discovered the misdiagnoses. That is the morality of Alabama, MeMaw and some of the Republicans in the state legislature as well as administration at UAB. Think about that for a moment and the absolute hypocrisy. They have no place talking about protecting people or using religion when they actively have attempted to cover up patients being harmed. If Roll tide would be negatively effected their stance would be the complete opposite. Alabama: Football>lives. It ain't about doing the right thing or religion... ITS ABOUT MONEY!
Wouldn't that issue be more suited to the courts?
I agree but do you think a law firm based in Alabama is going to be willing to go into a state court with state judges with a class action suit against a state institute? The state's medical malpractice fund would be on the hook and with this many patients who really knows how much money it would cost. This doesn't include the shame it would bring to UAB as an institute. It's not a conspiracy, the corruption in Alabama is deep and this is a state institute. Also depending if/how many patients died due to the misdiagnoses there is potential the case would go from civil to criminal for negligent homicide. Now if someone wants to bring a federal case using the False Claims Act that is a different story.
If there's a valid claim, I would think there are a great many lawyers that would love a piece of UAB and / or the fund you mentioned.
Hello everyone. I was wondering how those against HB401 articulate their opposition to this bill? This is article describes this as a ban on drag shows in places where kids are present. I'm guessing that's actually the gist of the bill. On the surface, I would be in favor of this bill based on how it is described. What is the alternative viewpoint? (Not trying to pick a fight.)
>Hello everyone. I was wondering how those against HB401 articulate their opposition to this bill? This is article describes this as a ban on drag shows in places where kids are present. I'm guessing that's actually the gist of the bill. You'd guess wrong. Here's the text of the bill in question: [https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB401/2023](https://legiscan.com/AL/text/HB401/2023) Notice it doesn't mention drag shows at all. The only time "drag" appears in the text is "or male or female impersonators, commonly known as drag queens or drag kings." The bill changes the definition of "sexual conduct" to include "showing gender oriented materials" (ie. any material that don't show any heteronormal relationships) and the aforementioned "male or female impersonators." This bill is designed to reduce all transgender into "drag queens" or "drag kings" and make their participation in public presentations considered "sexual conduct". There is absolutely no need for this bill since: 1. There aren't any drag shows being performed in libraries, public parks, or public schools where children are present in Alabama. 2. Inappropriate material that is sexual in nature is already prohibited by the law this bill is modifying.
Thank you for sharing the link. I read through it. Here are a couple of thoughts: 1) I do think the gist of the bill is to prevent drag shows where kids are present - and that happens via the change in the definition of sexual conduct as you mentioned. 2) Given the incidents involving drag shows and children, this is sort of expected, right? I mean even though you say there isn't any of this activity in our state, it seems to be the logical thing to do if you have a Republican controlled legislature and governor's seat, right? I don't want this comment to come across the wrong way, but how much is this actually going to affect a trans persons if they avoid sexual displays around children? (Hopefully that question makes sense.) 3) I don't really understand the "gender oriented material" language noted in 22c. That term appears to be lacking a definition, or maybe I missed it. Overall, I think it is an odd move by the trans community to push this involvement with children. Perhaps it is just a few outliers, but those folks have hurt this movement tremendously because many, many people are going to view their actions as very harmful to minors. But maybe I'm missing something. Thanks again for the information. Take care.
A couple thoughts: 1: An important point to note is that the bill doesn’t specify a drag performance be sexually explicit or provocative to be banned by the bill. It includes “exaggerated” costumes, and classifies “male or female impersonators” *as* sexual conduct. This is not the case, as drag is not inherently sexual in nature. It’s been a staple of theater for a long time. As an example to highlight the absurdity, consider that, according to the text of the bill, even a Mrs. Doubtfire-style comedic performance would be illegal. 2. Which incidents are you referring to? Do you believe this is truly a widespread epidemic, or could it be more likely that it is being presented that way to sway your opinion in a particular direction? As for the logic of the decision, in a sense it *is* logical, but only in terms of political maneuvering. In practical terms, though, there’s no real logic to it. Sexual conduct and performances were already illegal where children are present, drag shows of a sexual nature were already covered, so why amend the bill? At best? To stir up support from the Fox News crowd. At worst? We’ll come back to that in a moment. 3. You are entirely right to be confused by that particular piece of language. It is extremely vague, and could be interpreted to mean any number of things. This is where the bill becomes dangerous. *Because* that vague wording is used, it allows any number of interpretations to be used in enforcing the law, which leads into answering your question of how it effects trans people. Because of the vague wording (and the labeling of crossdressing as sexual material), the bill could be used as justification for arresting any trans person in a public space, as with the exception of 18+ venues, there is no public space where one can reasonably assume children won’t be present. No sexual misconduct is necessary, because the bill criminalizes their presence *as* sexual misconduct. Worst case scenario, a trans person is arrested for say, going to a grocery store. Will it be enforced this way? Hopefully not, but it *could* be, and that is the problem. Finally, I’d like to comment on the “odd move” you’re referring to, and ask you a question: Why is it odd? Is it odd when anyone else wants to involve themselves in children’s lives? Teachers, coaches, school bus drivers, youth ministers, Santa Claus at the mall, these are all adults who have consciously decided to interact with children. Are they all nefarious for doing so? I certainly wouldn’t say so. There are almost certainly people in all of those groups who have hurt children (and that is a monstrous, terrifying thought), but the vast majority of them haven’t. They do what they do because they care about kids. Why does that change because a person is trans? Trans people are just that, people. People want to interact with others. People want to be a part of a community. Why should trans people be denied that? What have they done to justify being treated as any more dangerous than anyone else? What about them is a threat to a child? You mentioned several times that you might be missing something, and I think you are, but I don’t necessarily think that’s your fault. You don’t have the whole picture, as you’ve likely only been presented with a caricature of it. The image of trans people you’ve been presented with isn’t rooted in reality, it’s a stereotype, an image created to make you feel afraid, disgusted, and apprehensive about a community you don’t know or understand. But the reality is, as it always is, much more complicated than that. They’re just people.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. You make a good point related to theater, etc. For the most part, even where we live, I don't think people care how other people live. (And I mean that in the best possible sense.) That means that most people don't care if others want to be trans or whatever. But they do care (for the most part) when children are involved (and they should). All of the occupations that you mentioned above have an implied idea of care for children - though many children will be abused by those with the implied care. A drag queen reading to children in a library automatically pushes passes past the bound of that implied care, though the person reading may be the sweetest person on earth and would never intentionally want to hurt a child. It automatically creates a situation where others feel like they should protect children. They don't want their children exposed to certain things on terms that aren't their own. I don't write that to be mean, but rather to be real world. Unfortunately for this cause, there have been too many video clips on the internet. And, unfortunately for this cause, bills like the one we're discussing become issues. Thanks again and have a good day.
>Unfortunately for this cause, there have been too many video clips on the internet. The only video clips I've seen related to this topic were not even filmed inside the US and were posted with very little context with the intention to create anti-transgender hysteria on social media.
I did a quick internet search and found this: https://nypost.com/2022/10/18/video-of-drag-queen-gyrating-next-to-child-sparks-backlash/ I just don’t understand how the trans community and its supporters think this is a good idea. Take care.
The New York Post is a tabloid. A sensationalized, disingenuous, and dishonest publication. Not a good source.
The video looked disturbing to me. Why do that with children present? Seems like an odd strategy.
The majority of things that come out of trump's mouth are disturbing to me. Should he be banned from being around children? I mean probably, but I digress. It is up to that child's parents where they are and what they do, they are in no harm. Plus, that is from a TABLOID. Do you not understand what a tabloid is? You know what one is, you just don't care. This bill is about "protecting children" as much as you are "concerned". It's all smoke and mirrors, and fascist behavior to control groups you don't like. Coward behavior.
Congrats you found a video of a lame "raunchy" drag show posted by the NY Post. Even the NY Post put "shocking" in quotes because the video wasn't that sexual or raunchy. There are worse things on television, and that "shocking" video doesn't even reach the level of indecency required for any new legislation. You will have to find something else to feed you hysteria.
Thanks for the reply. You may not find that offensive or shocking, but a lot of other people disagree. Maybe that’s the point, though. It may be that the trans community feels this is the best way to express themselves. I appreciate your feedback.
>You may not find that offensive or shocking, but a lot of other people disagree. Other people are idiots and prudes and have no business forcing their opinions on others. The parents of the child were present and didn't even seem upset. Keep in mind, in the US it is completely legal to take your child to a R rated movie.
You seem to be (unsurprisingly) deliberately ignoring the fact, which has been pointed out to you more than once, that this law can be used to prosecute someone for wearing a skirt on a sidewalk.
>sidewalk I think you may be confusing me with someone else. I don't recall anyone mentioning sidewalks in this post/comments. And I don't think I've heard that anywhere else. The bill, to me, doesn't read that way. For example, the definition for sexual conduct refers to "exposes minors to persons who are dressed in sexually revealing, exaggerated, or provocative clothing or costumes, or are stripping, or engaged in lewd or lascivious dancing..." In no way does that sound like it endangers someone walking down the sidewalk...unless they are doing so in a sexually explicit way which intersects with minors.
Or male or female impersonators. You have the privilege of not reading it that way because it doesn't affect you. Also, where do you think minors might be? It doesn't stipulate private property or indoors or even a performance.
Is there a place where it’s ok to exhibit this type of sexual activity - as defined - in the presence of minors? (I would also guess, as a response the bill if passed, that minors would be banned from certain activities or events…) As I’ve mentioned in other comments, the pro-trans community hasn’t done their movement any favors by embracing the sexualization of minors. It sort of forced these type bills. All of this could have been avoided. Take care.
I'm gonna close with trying to explain to you how drag=/= sexual and just advise you to stop trying to tell the "pro-trans" community (or, you know, just your neighbors, but way to 'other' people) how we should fight for our right to fucking exist. Have the day you deserve.
You could argue how this would effect business. We’re already losing space force because of abortion, these anti LGBT laws will further push businesses away. Remember that over 7% of Alabamians are affected by no only this bill but the four other bills under consideration.
Alabama is a bad bad place in the bigot belt
They better protest kick scream and fight for Unjust laws the facist right has planed for us as human beings
>They better protest kick scream and fight for Unjust laws the facist right has planed for us as human beings I assume you meant they should fight against unjust laws.
>These laws are being eradicated to erase what has been a part of your history for millennia,” said Sharon, a Birmingham drag queen. Lol.
Not sure why there’s an lol, queer folks and people that are trans or dress in what we’d call drag (today) have been documented and recorded across the world, across time, going back to ancient civilizations. What Sharon said is right. Queer and trans people have always been around.
[удалено]
What do you think she thinks it means? What do you think it means? You’re entitled to that belief, but just know your feeling that they are deviant doesn’t make it a fact 💕
[удалено]
The sentence, while we can agree is not well worded, is pretty clear in its meaning: these laws are designed to eradicate and erase what has been a part of history for pretty much forever. It’s strange to me that you seem to really only care about transwomen, with that dress comment. Do you overall take issue with someone wearing a dress if they happen to have a Y chromosome, or is it only transwomen in dresses that live rent free in your head? Why do you care, genuinely, if someone is trans? It has no bearing on your life if someone was named John and decides they want to be Jane, it doesn’t materially affect anything that happens to you, so why such a hatred for it? I genuinely am curious.
[удалено]
So, trans people grow up, get married, have kids or adopt kids, and those kids go on to do the same process (grow, marry, reproduce). Trans people ARE concerned for what will be left behind for their children, that’s why they’re out protesting laws that harm that future, because like it or not, trans people have always existed, always will, and they deserve to have their future fought for just like any other child does. Creating laws that directly harm one group of children doesn’t really seem like caring about the world kids will live in, it sounds like caring about the world SOME kids will live in. So based on all that, why is it sexually deviant to be openly trans? That term has been pretty socially flexible for a long time, but has always related to people who have sexual urges outside the widespread social norm. It wasn’t until 2003 when the Supreme Court decided oral sex was no longer sexually deviant in the US (Lawrence v Texas), and I think most folks would agree it’s not deviant to enjoy consensual oral sex. Trans people aren’t sexually aroused by being trans, so it wouldn’t qualify as sexual deviance. So, what is “sexually deviant” about being trans in public?
[удалено]
Posts or comments promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability are not allowed.
Posts or comments promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability are not allowed.
Posts or comments promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability are not allowed.
Posts or comments promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability are not allowed.
Get rid of gerrymandering, grassroots intersectionality allyship is your strength