The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
The image is of a transgender man. Some states have passed laws that make it a crime for him to go into a mens restroom. By law, he must use the womens restroom. So cis women are expected to see someone who looks like that in a restroom and just accept it. It's the law.
No, what's far more likely is that this person continues to go to the men's room and nobody makes a stink about it. Just like when one of these men who can fully transform into a feminine visage will continue to use the women's bathroom and probably not get reported because nobody there will notice. There just aren't very many of them.
Laws don't prevent people from doing something. They just outline consequences.
again, there's always going to be collateral damage in any law or policy
but there are going to be exponentially more people who are protected from being attacked by sexual predators who just don a tiara than trans people who are unfairly discriminated by those rules
there's a long history of sexual predators using the trans loophole to do terrible things and these laws about preventing that, not about regulating who must stand or sit while p
The part you're missing is that under these laws, there is no reason for a cis man to "don a tierra" to enter a woman restroom. They can just stroll in without any attempt to alter their appearance whatsoever, because theblws dictate that trans men also must go into tje womens restroom often appearing exactly like a cis man.
Without the laws, trans men would go into the mens restroom, not the womens restroom. So there never has been a "trans loophole" and if you have any links showing this long history I'd be interested in seeing it.
The law does nothing about cis men dressing up as women to enter a womens restroom unnoticed. Rather it removes even that thin need for disguise.
It's about denying gender theory in the law.
It's about taking the claim of "trans women are women" (and the same for men) as the absurd claim it is and clarifying that no, trans women aren't women.
They are men who feel they are women. And society has no obligation to treat them as women, as they aren't women.
Weren't you the one who earlier today told me that these laws were not "targeting trans people", and now you are giving some speech about the whole point being to deny the existence of trans people as a matter of law? Sure sounds like you think they are targeting trans people.
The part you're missing is that under these laws, there is no reason for a cis man to "don a tierra" to enter a woman restroom. They can just stroll in without any attempt to alter their appearance whatsoever, because theblws dictate that trans men also must go into tje womens restroom often appearing exactly like a cis man.
Without the laws, trans men would go into the mens restroom, not the womens restroom. So there never has been a "tran
a guess a handful of sexual assaults is a small price to pay to let caitlyn pee where she wants
No, what's far more likely is that this person continues to go to the men's room and nobody makes a stink about it. Just like when one of these men who can fully transform into a feminine visage will continue to use the women's bathroom and probably not get reported because nobody there will notice. There just aren't very many of them.
Laws don't prevent people from doing something. They just outline consequences.
Actually transgender people have been using the restrooms that match their gender presentation for decades with no issues. They just want to go in, do their business and get out just like everyone else.
But the new laws specifically target them and criminalize that activity. So yes those laws will very much alter the consequences. So lots of people prob wouldn't risk jail or a criminal record to take a piss. Instead the law will force them into the women's restroom. But I'm sure the other women will not even notice and just assume that person is a trans man rather than a cos predator and feel perfectly safe
Weren't you the one who earlier today told me that these laws were not "targeting trans people", and now you are giving some speech about the whole point being to deny the existence of trans people as a matter of law? Sure sounds like you think they are targeting trans people.
The target is gender theory not trans people. A trans person can keep being a trans without the state damaging him directly.
Which isn't the same as "affirming" them lol, they get treated as everyone else.
The negative rights of trans people are intact with those laws, so there is no targeting.
No positive rights should be given to trans people in particular though. No special legal victim hood state, no special legal consideration. IE no gender theory becoming the law.
The equal protection clause really takes a beating in Luciom's fantasy world.
Equal protection clause is validated, all men are treated the same, all women are treated the same.
What's not validated is the insane gender theory claim according to which you decide if you are a man or a woman.
People with red hair, or vegans, aren't discriminated if they don't have their own bathrooms. Same for trans or Mormons or people without a leg and so on.
InsoO- I deleted your post where you referred to transgender people as "touched in the head". That's just a euphemism for mentally ill, and will be considered the same irt forum policies. So please refrain from using that or any such euphemisms regarding mental health references to transgender people in the future.
Thanks
Equal protection clause is validated, all men are treated the same, all women are treated the same.
What's not validated is the insane gender theory claim according to which you decide if you are a man or a woman.
People with red hair, or vegans, aren't discriminated if they don't have their own bathrooms. Same for trans or Mormons or people without a leg and so on.
So another American thing you don't understand but insist on interpreting. Got it.
On the issue - what is the one issue you think the federal courts are split on? Your stamping out gender ideology seems to have a broach numerous freedoms.
As usual, the reality is that it is more complex then you believe.
Do you have any evidence of transgender people sexually assaulting anyone in a restroom?
i never said transgender people
but there's a very long list of sexual predators taking advantage of the "i'm trans" bathroom loophole, which is the entire reason for these laws
but no, it feels better to act as victims and pretend like this is only meant to harass and humiliate trans people
I'll take that as a No.
Just confirming here to see if you disagree with any of the logic:
1 some people don't like others watching them pee
2 some people don't care either way
3 some people may like others watching them pee, and may like watching others pee, but those people are suspect so their preferences don't need to be considered
therefore, it is better to have private spaces for people to pee
********
Also, this has always been the case in women's restrooms - are men somehow less deserving of privacy than women?
Equal protection clause is validated, all men are treated the same, all women are treated the same.
What's not validated is the insane gender theory claim according to which you decide if you are a man or a woman.
People with red hair, or vegans, aren't discriminated if they don't have their own bathrooms. Same for trans or Mormons or people without a leg and so on.
Unfortunately, men are not treated the same as women. I wonder how women would react if they were expected to pee with other women watching them.
I'll take that as a No.
Just confirming here to see if you disagree with any of the logic:
1 some people don't like others watching them pee
2 some people don't care either way
3 some people may like others watching them pee, and may like watching others pee, but those people are suspect so their preferences don't need to be considered
therefore, it is better to have private spaces for people to pee
********
Also, this has always been the case in
I have never been in a public bathroom where there wasn't a private place to pee if I wanted.
this entire time i'm picturing chillrob being so urinal shy because he doesn't want people seeing his prince albert
this entire time i'm picturing chillrob being so urinal shy because he doesn't want people seeing his prince albert
Ouch! Probably guys who have that want as many people seeing them as possible.
Really I use urinals all the time, but I don't particularly like the ones that don't even have a divider between them. And when I was a kid in elementary school I didn't like the long trough ones we were expected to use.
Ouch! Probably guys who have that want as many people seeing them as possible.
Really I use urinals all the time, but I don't particularly like the ones that don't even have a divider between them. And when I was a kid in elementary school I didn't like the long trough ones we were expected to use.
i shudder and cringe at the thought of it but know a few people irl who had them or had partners with it and they swear it's painless and sex is better for both partners and they love it
i can't get the mental image of the cheese wire or having it get caught on something etc etc and couldn't ever do it, i'd also focus on the outlier cases where it went very badly
i never said transgender people
but there's a very long list of sexual predators taking advantage of the "i'm trans" bathroom loophole, which is the entire reason for these laws
but no, it feels better to act as victims and pretend like this is only meant to harass and humiliate trans people
Sorry but I'm not following you. What is the "trans loophole" that cisgender predators have been taking advantage of to sexually assault women and how do these laws close it? All the reasons I saw proclaimed by the politicians introducing these laws and voting for them was to "protect" women from these perverted transgender people who are going into women's restrooms and attacking them. I never heard a single mention of these laws being needed to reduce the number of cisgender rapists out of women's bathrooms. Seems like the laws against rape would cover that pretty thoroughly. These laws were all about generating a scare over a nonexistent threat from trans women using women's restrooms.
I'm open to reconsidering that view but can't follow the argument you seem to be making.
On the issue - what is the one issue you think the federal courts are split on? Your stamping out gender ideology seems to have a broach numerous freedoms.
As usual, the reality is that it is more complex then you believe.
Adams v School Board of St. Johns County, Florida , 11th circuit, en banc decision 7-4 to affirm that bathrooms matching biological sex don't violate equal protection (or title IX for that matter).
Previously district had agreed with jjj, appeal as well 2-1.
Grimm v GLOUCESTER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, 4 th circuit (2020), 2-1 decision (2 Obama judges unsurprisingly) that reads like a trans activist manual agrees with jjj.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-fo...
For the first time yesterday federal courts in the US have ruled discrimination based on gender identity a hate crime. Something a lot of people here don’t even think exists because they’re too lazy to learn about it, but not too lazy to very vociferously post their opinions about it thousands of times on the internet.
