Question about the homophobia thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a portion of men who seek out women’s bathrooms to feel good, peep, and masturbate. Remember hearing about the hidden cameras? Those are from men. The number of men who will use these tossed out norms like “bathrooms are for women” to do perverse things is going to go UP when they have more access. I’ve never said it’s trans women who are the problem. The problem is that if women are no longer allowed to ask a male-presenting person from leaving the women’s bathroom because they’re seen as transphobic, then ANY man with a perverted agenda will have more access. All this data focusing on trans women is irrelevant; it’s that removing the norm to prevent men with dirty minds from accessing women’s only spaces is Dani for women.

If you are a female presenting person, no one is going to know and the vast majority of women won’t care. But to continue to hammer that anyone can wake up any day and be a women will put women at risk.

Forcing trans men to use the women’s bathroom because they still have a vagina is normalizing male presenting people using the women’s room. If trans men use the women’s bathroom, you won’t be able to tell if it’s a trans man or a cis man going into the bathroom. Your trans bans are doing the opposite of what you say you want to prevent.

[Anonymous]

^^Agree!

[Anonymous]

I'm responding to questions about why we need gender norms at all. Not advocating for laws to prevent trans people from using any bathroom they want to use.

What I am saying is that it's ok to keep a norm that male-presenting people are not welcome in women's bathrooms or locker rooms period.

This is separate from sports and prison conversations.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think the bathroom issue is a distraction.

The real issues are medical intervention for minors and support for parents trying to navigate this issue on behalf of their children as best as they can. State intervention in custody decisions related to gender affirmation is not okay.

Prisons are a niche issue and we should be addressing all inmate safety more broadly.

Sports mean a lot to student athletes and we probably need more stringent criteria for competition to keep things fair for cis girls and trans boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I think the bathroom issue is a distraction.

The real issues are medical intervention for minors and support for parents trying to navigate this issue on behalf of their children as best as they can. State intervention in custody decisions related to gender affirmation is not okay.

Prisons are a niche issue and we should be addressing all inmate safety more broadly.

Sports mean a lot to student athletes and we probably need more stringent criteria for competition to keep things fair for cis girls and trans boys.

I’m the pp with a trans son and I basically agree with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a portion of men who seek out women’s bathrooms to feel good, peep, and masturbate. Remember hearing about the hidden cameras? Those are from men. The number of men who will use these tossed out norms like “bathrooms are for women” to do perverse things is going to go UP when they have more access. I’ve never said it’s trans women who are the problem. The problem is that if women are no longer allowed to ask a male-presenting person from leaving the women’s bathroom because they’re seen as transphobic, then ANY man with a perverted agenda will have more access. All this data focusing on trans women is irrelevant; it’s that removing the norm to prevent men with dirty minds from accessing women’s only spaces is Dani for women.

If you are a female presenting person, no one is going to know and the vast majority of women won’t care. But to continue to hammer that anyone can wake up any day and be a women will put women at risk.

Forcing trans men to use the women’s bathroom because they still have a vagina is normalizing male presenting people using the women’s room. If trans men use the women’s bathroom, you won’t be able to tell if it’s a trans man or a cis man going into the bathroom. Your trans bans are doing the opposite of what you say you want to prevent.

But there are very few Trans Identifying Females who commit sexual assault?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Sorry the truth is tough to face.

You know who should do better? All of the nut jobs in the GOP who are trying to take away people's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Agree very much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Agree very much.

Sorry, it’s true. The non-crazy Republicans left the GOP years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Agree very much.

Sorry, it’s true. The non-crazy Republicans left the GOP years ago.

So everyone who’s left is truly “crazy”? Anyone who votes R for any position? How can you stay in a country which has so, so many crazy people? Best to move on, perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Agree very much.

Sorry, it’s true. The non-crazy Republicans left the GOP years ago.

So everyone who’s left is truly “crazy”? Anyone who votes R for any position? How can you stay in a country which has so, so many crazy people? Best to move on, perhaps.

Pp. meant everyone who’s left (in the GOP) is truly “crazy”. Sorry for being unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I realize that discussions of this nature frequently get contentious, but why did you lock this thread? I think it's useful to hear ideas and share experiences about why some people are not on board with aspects of LGBTQIA+ activism, as long as they aren't hateful .

NP. Look, I want to believe you are well-intentioned, but just the way you posed the question betrays your bias. What you call “LGBTQIA+ activism” is people fighting for the simple right to live their lives in peace. To be able to use the bathroom, change clothes, seek health care, care for their children, and go to school or work without fear of humiliation, abuse, or arrest.

If you want to debate that right, then you want to debate people’s right to exist. There’s no way to do that without being hateful.

We are talking about positions held by mainstream Republicans, not positions held be the fringe in this country. To not allow debate about positions held my a large percentage of the country outside of big cities shows the divide we have in this country.

The non-crazy Republicans left the party a few years ago. The only people left are the extremists.

Wtf? And this right here is the problem not only with this thread, but with the entire country. People make baseless proclamations like this, paint an entire political party with a broad brush, and act like they’re the only one whose opinion matters.

Do better.

Agree very much.

Sorry, it’s true. The non-crazy Republicans left the GOP years ago.

You can keep repeating this til you’re blue in the face. Doesn’t make it true. Although I know you want it to be.