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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So to answer your question about the spa, I don’t know anything about Washington State law. That state is 2500 miles away and I’ve never been there. Most of us live in the DMV.

Since you obviously live there, is she breaking the law or does the state law allow her to refuse service to transgender women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live in California, which is leaning further into the destruction of women’s sex-based rights than MD or DC. And people are increasingly and openly angry about that destruction here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So to answer your question about the spa, I don’t know anything about Washington State law. That state is 2500 miles away and I’ve never been there. Most of us live in the DMV.

Since you obviously live there, is she breaking the law or does the state law allow her to refuse service to transgender women?

Avoiding the questions (and the truth of your answers) again. I will ask again:

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live in California, which is leaning further into the destruction of women’s sex-based rights than MD or DC. And people are increasingly and openly angry about that destruction here.

So push for legal changes or move to a state that allows discrimination against transgender people. Isn’t that what we are always being told by the right? States rights and all that. Find a state you like better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So to answer your question about the spa, I don’t know anything about Washington State law. That state is 2500 miles away and I’ve never been there. Most of us live in the DMV.

Since you obviously live there, is she breaking the law or does the state law allow her to refuse service to transgender women?

Avoiding the questions (and the truth of your answers) again. I will ask again:

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?

You are giving vague questions. What does “use the legal system” mean? Call the police if a trans woman is legally using a spa? Call the police if a trans woman is illegally using a spa? One is a false police report and the other is a crime. I have no idea what the laws are in every state. If you want to open a spa and discriminate against transgender people then do so where such discrimination is legal. Period. You do not have the right to “use the legal system” on things that aren’t crimes.

[Anonymous]

I’ll add this since nuance isn’t your favorite thing.

Yes you may use the legal system if a crime is being committed.

No you may not use the legal system if a crime is being committed. In this case, YOU are committing a crime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ll add this since nuance isn’t your favorite thing.

Yes you may use the legal system if a crime is being committed.

No you may not use the legal system if a crime is being committed. In this case, YOU are committing a crime.

No you may not use the legal system if a crime is NOT being committed. In this case, YOU are committing a crime.

added not. Missed that word.

[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.

Yes. You are delusional. My daughter and her friends are not being threatened by trans women. Their threats are from violent straight men, as always.

[Anonymous]

Can I call the police to enforce laws that don’t exist? No.

Can I call the police to enforce laws that exist? Yes.

Can I complain online and say I should personally be able to “legally enforce” laws that don’t exist even though I’m not law enforcement? Sure, complain away. Just don’t murder someone for being in the bathroom with you. Murder is actually illegal.

[Anonymous]

I love how our trans activist absolutely refuses to admit that trans rights come at the expense of women’s hard-fought sex-based rights.

OP, the posts above should tell you all you need to know about why there is increasingly sharp pushback across the political spectrum to the trans rights movement. Americans see the destruction of women’s sex-based rights, and they don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love how our trans activist absolutely refuses to admit that trans rights come at the expense of women’s hard-fought sex-based rights.

OP, the posts above should tell you all you need to know about why there is increasingly sharp pushback across the political spectrum to the trans rights movement. Americans see the destruction of women’s sex-based rights, and they don’t like it.

Overturning roe is the destruction of women's rights. That is what you need to know and that is where people are focused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how our trans activist absolutely refuses to admit that trans rights come at the expense of women’s hard-fought sex-based rights.

OP, the posts above should tell you all you need to know about why there is increasingly sharp pushback across the political spectrum to the trans rights movement. Americans see the destruction of women’s sex-based rights, and they don’t like it.

Overturning roe is the destruction of women's rights. That is what you need to know and that is where people are focused.

The right is focused on trans women in bathrooms and apparently wanting to “legally enforce” trans women out of the bathroom. Reminder, 1 in 33 women in the bathroom with you in DC is a trans woman. Please don’t murder them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So to answer your question about the spa, I don’t know anything about Washington State law. That state is 2500 miles away and I’ve never been there. Most of us live in the DMV.

Since you obviously live there, is she breaking the law or does the state law allow her to refuse service to transgender women?

Avoiding the questions (and the truth of your answers) again. I will ask again:

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?

You are giving vague questions. What does “use the legal system” mean? Call the police if a trans woman is legally using a spa? Call the police if a trans woman is illegally using a spa? One is a false police report and the other is a crime. I have no idea what the laws are in every state. If you want to open a spa and discriminate against transgender people then do so where such discrimination is legal. Period. You do not have the right to “use the legal system” on things that aren’t crimes.

Thanks for neatly demonstrating my point. I don’t need to say anything further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So to answer your question about the spa, I don’t know anything about Washington State law. That state is 2500 miles away and I’ve never been there. Most of us live in the DMV.

Since you obviously live there, is she breaking the law or does the state law allow her to refuse service to transgender women?

Avoiding the questions (and the truth of your answers) again. I will ask again:

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?

You are giving vague questions. What does “use the legal system” mean? Call the police if a trans woman is legally using a spa? Call the police if a trans woman is illegally using a spa? One is a false police report and the other is a crime. I have no idea what the laws are in every state. If you want to open a spa and discriminate against transgender people then do so where such discrimination is legal. Period. You do not have the right to “use the legal system” on things that aren’t crimes.

Thanks for neatly demonstrating my point. I don’t need to say anything further.

Same. Enjoy “legally enforcing” people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how our trans activist absolutely refuses to admit that trans rights come at the expense of women’s hard-fought sex-based rights.

OP, the posts above should tell you all you need to know about why there is increasingly sharp pushback across the political spectrum to the trans rights movement. Americans see the destruction of women’s sex-based rights, and they don’t like it.

Overturning roe is the destruction of women's rights. That is what you need to know and that is where people are focused.

The right is focused on trans women in bathrooms and apparently wanting to “legally enforce” trans women out of the bathroom. Reminder, 1 in 33 women in the bathroom with you in DC is a trans woman. Please don’t murder them.

I am fine with anyone using a bathroom. It's a bathroom.

The right just tries to use this issue to try to deflect from the catastrophic pushback they got and will continue to get from overturning roe. I don't think they actually care if someone is trans or if someone has an abortion. The right is just looking for some votes for their authoritarian regime.