Maine governor

[CommonSense]

Anonymous wrote:The point, which is not ridiculous, is that any attempt by the President to cut federal funding in Maine unless transgender athletes are restricted from playing sports would be illegal and in direct violation of court orders.

What is ridiculous is Trump still going on about that Olympic boxer WHO IS A WOMAN.

It doesn't restrict transgender athletes from playing sports.
It does restrict biological males/men from competing against biological females/women.
A biological male/man cannot become a biological female/woman.
That is the science.
That is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I get where it sounds scary for boys or men to play certain sports with women (not from the locker room standpoint because, seriously, who would live life differently from the sex they were assigned at birth just to get into a locker room?!?) but from a strength standpoint."

It doesn't sound like you have much knowledge or experience of alternative sexualities. There are plenty of people for whom "getting into a locker room" is a goal. And there are plenty of people who "get off" on making other people uncomfortable.

Have you ever been to a draq queen brunch? Do those guys look like their primary motivation in life is...making the divisional field hockey playoffs?

Yes, the main issue is the unfairness of the strength differential. But the other serious issue is a power issue. Transwomen often enjoy violating womens' spaces. They are getting attention, making a political statement, and fighting the fight.

Many Democrats enjoy this power issue too. By siccing progressive activists on the daughters of conservative suburbanites, we are showing them who's boss. If the girls feel uncomfortable, so much the better.

Where is your proof that is happening? We know one male who is Dumpy admitted he liked making teen girls uncomfortable and would go in their space to see them undressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White upper middle class Dems who are political (dcurbanmoms types) are much more excited about trans rights than rank and file Dems are. Most minority groups are less interested, most struggling single gals are less interested, most state and local government workers are less interested.

We like trans rights, including the right for people born male to compete in women's sports. We like this for four reasons:
1) It marks us as special, as high class. Again, less affluent Dems aren't as into this stuff as we are.
2) It's a great way to punish right wingers, religious types, soccer moms from red states and red suburbs/exurbs
3) It's a great way to drive Republicans crazy and make them say homophobic and transphobic things. It helps us cement our ownership of LGBTQIA+ voters.
4) For the really senior insiders among us, the ones who are happy enough working with powerful Republicans toward shared goals, issues like this help keep the public's attention off bigger issues

Spot on. DCUM posters have no idea just how out of sync they are on this issue. The rest of the country sees you all as the baddies, you know.

dp I think you are wrong on this. Most Democrats are fearful for saying anything for being labeled transphobic. As usual, the majority of people are in the middle and the extremes get their way. I think you should live your life as you want to but,just not be allowed to compete against biological women. We have worked too hard for our rights just to give them up to biological men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I get where it sounds scary for boys or men to play certain sports with women (not from the locker room standpoint because, seriously, who would live life differently from the sex they were assigned at birth just to get into a locker room?!?) but from a strength standpoint."

It doesn't sound like you have much knowledge or experience of alternative sexualities. There are plenty of people for whom "getting into a locker room" is a goal. And there are plenty of people who "get off" on making other people uncomfortable.

Have you ever been to a draq queen brunch? Do those guys look like their primary motivation in life is...making the divisional field hockey playoffs?

Yes, the main issue is the unfairness of the strength differential. But the other serious issue is a power issue. Transwomen often enjoy violating womens' spaces. They are getting attention, making a political statement, and fighting the fight.

Many Democrats enjoy this power issue too. By siccing progressive activists on the daughters of conservative suburbanites, we are showing them who's boss. If the girls feel uncomfortable, so much the better.

Where is your proof that is happening? We know one male who is Dumpy admitted he liked making teen girls uncomfortable and would go in their space to see them undressed.

You are correct, PP. “Donald Trump deliberately walked in on two young Miss USA 2001 contestants while they were naked and getting dressed for a rehearsal, one of the former beauty contestants has claimed in an interview with the Guardian.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-miss-usa-dressing-room-2001-rehearsal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"I get where it sounds scary for boys or men to play certain sports with women (not from the locker room standpoint because, seriously, who would live life differently from the sex they were assigned at birth just to get into a locker room?!?) but from a strength standpoint."

It doesn't sound like you have much knowledge or experience of alternative sexualities. There are plenty of people for whom "getting into a locker room" is a goal. And there are plenty of people who "get off" on making other people uncomfortable.

Have you ever been to a draq queen brunch? Do those guys look like their primary motivation in life is...making the divisional field hockey playoffs?

Yes, the main issue is the unfairness of the strength differential. But the other serious issue is a power issue. Transwomen often enjoy violating womens' spaces. They are getting attention, making a political statement, and fighting the fight.

Many Democrats enjoy this power issue too. By siccing progressive activists on the daughters of conservative suburbanites, we are showing them who's boss. If the girls feel uncomfortable, so much the better.

Where is your proof that is happening? We know one male who is Dumpy admitted he liked making teen girls uncomfortable and would go in their space to see them undressed.

Not the PP, but it is very obvious that elitist progressive Democrats are extremely misogynist. Their reduction of womanhood to a series of grossly regressive stereotypes which are best performed by men is about as anti-female as you can get. I have to think for some of them, the misogyny is actually what they enjoy. (This also ties in to their absolute refusal to be honest about the lives of women in Gaza.)

One of the saddest posts I have ever read here was from a progressive Democratic woman who was excoriating herself for being less of a woman than prominent transwomen like Hunter Schafer. That internalized misogyny is heartbreaking, and is what progressive Democrats are teaching their daughters. And for some of them, they enjoy the humiliation ritual of prostrating themselves before men that they believe make better women than they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White upper middle class Dems who are political (dcurbanmoms types) are much more excited about trans rights than rank and file Dems are. Most minority groups are less interested, most struggling single gals are less interested, most state and local government workers are less interested.

We like trans rights, including the right for people born male to compete in women's sports. We like this for four reasons:
1) It marks us as special, as high class. Again, less affluent Dems aren't as into this stuff as we are.
2) It's a great way to punish right wingers, religious types, soccer moms from red states and red suburbs/exurbs
3) It's a great way to drive Republicans crazy and make them say homophobic and transphobic things. It helps us cement our ownership of LGBTQIA+ voters.
4) For the really senior insiders among us, the ones who are happy enough working with powerful Republicans toward shared goals, issues like this help keep the public's attention off bigger issues

Spot on. DCUM posters have no idea just how out of sync they are on this issue. The rest of the country sees you all as the baddies, you know.

dp I think you are wrong on this. Most Democrats are fearful for saying anything for being labeled transphobic. As usual, the majority of people are in the middle and the extremes get their way. I think you should live your life as you want to but,just not be allowed to compete against biological women. We have worked too hard for our rights just to give them up to biological men

A refusal to stand up and say anything about something that you know is a moral and ethical wrong makes you a baddie. And that’s what is going on here.

“I’m too scared to say anything because extremists that are morally and ethically wrong will call me names” is not a compelling argument for Democrats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

MAGA is over, sport. The tide is turning.

Best of luck!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:here is the main govenor dancing at a drag show, so i guess she doesn't get it and will die on this hill and make the left look terrible, wake up people this is why trump won
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/watch-resurfaced-video-of-janet-mills-performing-at-halloween-drag-show-who-told-trump-see-you-in-court/ar-AA1zC9A8

WTF is wrong with that?

Trump won because idiots think this is an "issue".

Data from a January 2025 New York Times/Ipsos survey shows that 79% of Americans oppose allowing biological males who identify as women to compete in women’s sports. In a political climate where the overwhelming majority favors this restriction, overtly aligning yourself with transgender athletes—say, by dancing at drag shows or vocally pushing back against these restrictions—can be perceived as out of step with mainstream views. In other words, such public displays may hurt your image by associating you with a stance held by only a minority of voters, potentially undermining your broader appeal.

Ok. The governing bodies of these sports should take up the issue.

Exactly. This isn't a national issue.

It IS a national issue. Under Biden the head of the NATIONAL Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) defended Trans Folks in girls sports, under Trump the same guy head of the NCAA banned Trans Folks in girls sports. He specifically said that he just wants to comply with national law, government guidance, and court decisions. He wants to stay out of trouble, not "take up the issue" and accept responsibility for the reaction.

It became a national political tactic because Republicans know how to trigger the boomers, but it's not an actual national issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

I think the MAGA in DC are being extremely destructive, but I am sometimes convinced that the Democratic elite are doubling down on this issue so they can remain the party in opposition, as if they want to lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

I think the MAGA in DC are being extremely destructive, but I am sometimes convinced that the Democratic elite are doubling down on this issue so they can remain the party in opposition, as if they want to lose.

Yes destructive to the unelected leftist shadow government parasite class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had lesbians on my high school sports team. They were lovely and afforded everyone privacy in the locker room and beyond. This is a person issue not a type issue.

Lesbians are women.

That doesn't make it OK for them to look at other women or expose themselves.

Well, they don’t, because they are women and therefore do not have the assault and harassment patterns of men.

We aren't talking about men here so irrelevant...

And have you seen the TERFs on here? They are very aggressive. No way would I want to be in the locker room with one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

I think the MAGA in DC are being extremely destructive, but I am sometimes convinced that the Democratic elite are doubling down on this issue so they can remain the party in opposition, as if they want to lose.

Yes destructive to the unelected leftist shadow government parasite class.

Oh look. More brain worm MAGA bigots making up insane narratives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a transgender woman takes testosterone blockers that put her testosterone levels at that of any other woman, what biological advantage would she have? Height?

They don't. Unless, of course, pre-transition the man was a hulking behemoth of an individual. Bone structure will not change with blockers. Muscle mass will change, though. But the number of those types of individuals is pretty small, I bet, probably around the same number as cis women who are more masculine in body type (ex: Ilona Maher, a cis born woman who is a hulking beast of a rugby player).

I'm a trans male. I am 5'10" (I was a very tall female before I transitioned). I'm on the short side for males, but my muscle mass is on par with fit cis males. My surgeon that I used for my top surgery aligned my scars so that they blend in with my pec muscles. I change shirts daily in either my office gym or gym where I'm a member and no one can tell. The only time when it is slightly more noticeable is in the summer if I let my chest get too tan because scars don't tan. Bet even then, it's not a glaringly noticeable thing.

I have never been harassed as a trans male unless I was wearing something showing support for the trans community, like a hat/shirt/pin/etc. like when I was on the metro on the way to pride one year.

They can make all the changes they want, but the fact will remain most of us trans individuals are so passing that you'll never know you're peeing or changing next to us. Who your little bathroom "laws" hurt are the cis people who don't look like their stereotypical gender... the masculine looking females or the feminine looking males. Because they never think the 5'10" muscular dude is trans but they always seem to think the 6'0" skinny effeminate cis guy is trans.

A cheek swab to qualify for NCAA competition harms nobody. Stop the ridiculous drama.

The issue isn't trans males. It is trans FEMALES. I've never seen anyone complain about a former woman beating biological men in ANY sport. Biological women do not want to share a locker room with a trans female or compete against them.

Yes, of course.

This issue could be solved so easily. Cheek swabs that test for sex required for NCAA and HS state finals eligibility. Essentially, over a certain level of competition, require cheek swabs. Federal rule-making for intersex. Done.

But the problem is that all this requires progressives to realize that most of the country sees them as the serious bad guys on this issue, and that level of self-introspection is not something progressives have. And it also requires deviating from the religious belief that people have gender souls that are separate from and more important than their physical sex. I just don’t think the elites that control the Democrats now can do that.

They need to stay insane until MAGA gets this country back to JFK greatness.

I think the MAGA in DC are being extremely destructive, but I am sometimes convinced that the Democratic elite are doubling down on this issue so they can remain the party in opposition, as if they want to lose.

They aren’t for anything. Opposing things and being contrary is there main position. Just like being anti-Trump. It’s not a position in and of itself. Biden epitomized this. He stood for nothing and whatever opinions he had were overwhelmed by the extreme democrat left wing machine. And America looked at that crap show and said give us some Trump! Obama made Trump 1 possible and Biden made Trump 2 possible. After Jan 6 I thought it would be decades before republicans returned to office but then we had Biden. Find some popular positions and maybe a spine and things will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had lesbians on my high school sports team. They were lovely and afforded everyone privacy in the locker room and beyond. This is a person issue not a type issue.

Lesbians are women.

That doesn't make it OK for them to look at other women or expose themselves.

Well, they don’t, because they are women and therefore do not have the assault and harassment patterns of men.

We aren't talking about men here so irrelevant...

And have you seen the TERFs on here? They are very aggressive. No way would I want to be in the locker room with one of them.

I would be willing to bet my entire lifetime savings that the advocates for sex-based rights here — I won’t use your misogynist slur — do not have a fraction of the rates of sexual crime convictions that transwomen as a group have.

But if you believe otherwise, show the data. Show us the studies that prove that advocates for sex-based rights have sexual crime conviction rates that far outstrip those of transwomen. We will wait.