Conservative DCUM'ers: how far back do you want LGBTQ rights rolled back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

Nobody says that ever. Stop making up imaginary things to be angry about.

Oh, so you are in favor of allowing women to enforce sex-based restrictions to places like women’s rape crisis centers? You are in favor of allowing a rape crisis center to require staff be female-bodies?

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

Are you talking about England or the DMV? Have there been reported issues in DC of trans women going to rape crisis centers and cis women complaining? I know a couple of the pp’s like to post things about other countries.

Answer the question, please. It is not specific to rape crisis centers.

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

No, the general population is not law enforcement and can’t legally enforce laws. This should be obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

You have a 1 in 33 chance in DC that the other woman in the bathroom with you is a transgender woman. That's because 3% of the population of DC is transgender. Assuming you live in DC or ever even visit. The suburbs also contain a high percent of trans people.

And? Have you been to college or send a kid? The bathroom are the bathrooms. They are not separated by sex or gender or graduating year or height or anything othere than do you have to pee or not. Relax.

When you go to the Smithsonian and there’s 1,000 people there, 30 of them are going to be transgender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

You have a 1 in 33 chance in DC that the other woman in the bathroom with you is a transgender woman. That's because 3% of the population of DC is transgender. Assuming you live in DC or ever even visit. The suburbs also contain a high percent of trans people.

And? Have you been to college or send a kid? The bathroom are the bathrooms. They are not separated by sex or gender or graduating year or height or anything othere than do you have to pee or not. Relax.

This is not true everywhere. Or, even in most.

[Anonymous]

The thing is, if your promotion of trans rights means that you favor removing women’s ability to create and maintain single sex-based rights, you are therefore in favor of removing rights that women have historically fought for at tremendous cost. Women in the US have been killed, been raped, been assaulted, and been subjected to horrific violence to protect their hard-earned sex-based rights, which grew out of many years of sex-based oppression.

You can’t expect people to just happily accept destruction of sex-based rights. Therefore, you see a lot of pushback. If trans rights were just accretive to society and didn’t come with cost to women’s sex-based rights, I don’t think there would be much pushback at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

You have a 1 in 33 chance in DC that the other woman in the bathroom with you is a transgender woman. That's because 3% of the population of DC is transgender. Assuming you live in DC or ever even visit. The suburbs also contain a high percent of trans people.

And? Have you been to college or send a kid? The bathroom are the bathrooms. They are not separated by sex or gender or graduating year or height or anything othere than do you have to pee or not. Relax.

When you go to the Smithsonian and there’s 1,000 people there, 30 of them are going to be transgender.

So what? Some will be old, some will be young, some will be rich, some poor, some talk, some short. They all want to learn about the stuff in the Smithsonian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

You have a 1 in 33 chance in DC that the other woman in the bathroom with you is a transgender woman. That's because 3% of the population of DC is transgender. Assuming you live in DC or ever even visit. The suburbs also contain a high percent of trans people.

And? Have you been to college or send a kid? The bathroom are the bathrooms. They are not separated by sex or gender or graduating year or height or anything othere than do you have to pee or not. Relax.

This is not true everywhere. Or, even in most.

This shows the progressive bubble that PP lives in if they believe all colleges are like Vassar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, if your promotion of trans rights means that you favor removing women’s ability to create and maintain single sex-based rights, you are therefore in favor of removing rights that women have historically fought for at tremendous cost. Women in the US have been killed, been raped, been assaulted, and been subjected to horrific violence to protect their hard-earned sex-based rights, which grew out of many years of sex-based oppression.

You can’t expect people to just happily accept destruction of sex-based rights. Therefore, you see a lot of pushback. If trans rights were just accretive to society and didn’t come with cost to women’s sex-based rights, I don’t think there would be much pushback at all.

I assume you don’t live in DC or MD then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

Nobody says that ever. Stop making up imaginary things to be angry about.

Oh, so you are in favor of allowing women to enforce sex-based restrictions to places like women’s rape crisis centers? You are in favor of allowing a rape crisis center to require staff be female-bodies?

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

Are you talking about England or the DMV? Have there been reported issues in DC of trans women going to rape crisis centers and cis women complaining? I know a couple of the pp’s like to post things about other countries.

Answer the question, please. It is not specific to rape crisis centers.

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

No, the general population is not law enforcement and can’t legally enforce laws. This should be obvious.

You are deliberately avoiding the question, which tells me all I need to know.

Let’s say a Korean immigrant to the US has pooled together some hard-earned cash and wants to open a spa in Washington state using traditional Korean spa practices, which involve total nudity of all customers in a shared room. Should male-bodied people be allowed access to that space? Yes or no? Does that owner have the right to build a business based on sex-based access? Yes or no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

Nobody says that ever. Stop making up imaginary things to be angry about.

Oh, so you are in favor of allowing women to enforce sex-based restrictions to places like women’s rape crisis centers? You are in favor of allowing a rape crisis center to require staff be female-bodies?

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

Are you talking about England or the DMV? Have there been reported issues in DC of trans women going to rape crisis centers and cis women complaining? I know a couple of the pp’s like to post things about other countries.

Answer the question, please. It is not specific to rape crisis centers.

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

No, the general population is not law enforcement and can’t legally enforce laws. This should be obvious.

You are deliberately avoiding the question, which tells me all I need to know.

Let’s say a Korean immigrant to the US has pooled together some hard-earned cash and wants to open a spa in Washington state using traditional Korean spa practices, which involve total nudity of all customers in a shared room. Should male-bodied people be allowed access to that space? Yes or no? Does that owner have the right to build a business based on sex-based access? Yes or no?

Now you’re just lying. Everyone can read your question. I answered it. You wanted to know if cisgender women could “legally enforce” laws. No. The answer is no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, if your promotion of trans rights means that you favor removing women’s ability to create and maintain single sex-based rights, you are therefore in favor of removing rights that women have historically fought for at tremendous cost. Women in the US have been killed, been raped, been assaulted, and been subjected to horrific violence to protect their hard-earned sex-based rights, which grew out of many years of sex-based oppression.

You can’t expect people to just happily accept destruction of sex-based rights. Therefore, you see a lot of pushback. If trans rights were just accretive to society and didn’t come with cost to women’s sex-based rights, I don’t think there would be much pushback at all.

I assume you don’t live in DC or MD then?

Do you actually believe people in DC or MD don’t see the impact of the destruction of sex-based rights? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, if your promotion of trans rights means that you favor removing women’s ability to create and maintain single sex-based rights, you are therefore in favor of removing rights that women have historically fought for at tremendous cost. Women in the US have been killed, been raped, been assaulted, and been subjected to horrific violence to protect their hard-earned sex-based rights, which grew out of many years of sex-based oppression.

You can’t expect people to just happily accept destruction of sex-based rights. Therefore, you see a lot of pushback. If trans rights were just accretive to society and didn’t come with cost to women’s sex-based rights, I don’t think there would be much pushback at all.

However trans athletes and fair competition ultimately shakes out...it has nothing to do with the fight over reproductive rights. The right can try and try and try and try to distract voters from abortion rights issues with the issue of trans sports competition but they are wasting their time.

The data is clear that the voters are going to stand up and fight back to regain basic reproductive rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing is, if your promotion of trans rights means that you favor removing women’s ability to create and maintain single sex-based rights, you are therefore in favor of removing rights that women have historically fought for at tremendous cost. Women in the US have been killed, been raped, been assaulted, and been subjected to horrific violence to protect their hard-earned sex-based rights, which grew out of many years of sex-based oppression.

You can’t expect people to just happily accept destruction of sex-based rights. Therefore, you see a lot of pushback. If trans rights were just accretive to society and didn’t come with cost to women’s sex-based rights, I don’t think there would be much pushback at all.

I assume you don’t live in DC or MD then?

Do you actually believe people in DC or MD don’t see the impact of the destruction of sex-based rights? Wow.

So you don’t live in them. Because if you did, you’d obviously have said yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

You have a 1 in 33 chance in DC that the other woman in the bathroom with you is a transgender woman. That's because 3% of the population of DC is transgender. Assuming you live in DC or ever even visit. The suburbs also contain a high percent of trans people.

And? Have you been to college or send a kid? The bathroom are the bathrooms. They are not separated by sex or gender or graduating year or height or anything othere than do you have to pee or not. Relax.

This is not true everywhere. Or, even in most.

This shows the progressive bubble that PP lives in if they believe all colleges are like Vassar.

Not at all. But if Vassar has bathrooms like this , so what? This is just a terribly important issue.

What women has not gone to use the "men's" room on occasion when it has a short line and women's romm line is out the door? You pee and life goes on. Relax.

[Anonymous]

Not* a terribly important issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don’t want any rights rolled back for anyone, and that includes women.

This is a contentious issue because women’s sex-based rights are being destroyed in favor of male-bodied people’s gender-based rights. If you continually tell people that rape survivors need to be comfortable with people with penises in rape crisis centers because the feelings of the people with penises matter more than the rape survivors, expect pushback from across the political spectrum.

If trans activists didn’t make the destruction of women’s sex-based rights a key part of their platform, there would be a lot less pushback.

Nobody says that ever. Stop making up imaginary things to be angry about.

Oh, so you are in favor of allowing women to enforce sex-based restrictions to places like women’s rape crisis centers? You are in favor of allowing a rape crisis center to require staff be female-bodies?

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

Are you talking about England or the DMV? Have there been reported issues in DC of trans women going to rape crisis centers and cis women complaining? I know a couple of the pp’s like to post things about other countries.

Answer the question, please. It is not specific to rape crisis centers.

Are you in favor of allowing women to legally enforce their rights to single sex-based spaces? Yes or no?

No, the general population is not law enforcement and can’t legally enforce laws. This should be obvious.

You are deliberately avoiding the question, which tells me all I need to know.

Let’s say a Korean immigrant to the US has pooled together some hard-earned cash and wants to open a spa in Washington state using traditional Korean spa practices, which involve total nudity of all customers in a shared room. Should male-bodied people be allowed access to that space? Yes or no? Does that owner have the right to build a business based on sex-based access? Yes or no?

Now you’re just lying. Everyone can read your question. I answered it. You wanted to know if cisgender women could “legally enforce” laws. No. The answer is no.

Okay, let’s rephrase it since you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you in favor of women using the legal system to legally enforce their rights to single-sex spaces? Do you believe women should retain the legal right to maintain single sex-based places, and use the legal system to enforce that legal right? Yes or no?

What’s telling to me is how hard you are trying to avoid the hard truth here, which is that you are in favor of the dismantlement of women’s historically hard-fought sex-based rights. You know that’s the outcome you are promoting here, and you are dancing around desperately to avoid the truth.