This was largely made an issue for political purposes. Interesting and no one seems to recall, Trump said he was fine with the teans using any bathroom they want in Trump Tower.
This was right after he came down his escalator in 2016.
Many guys have penis issues and seem to not be able to use a urinal if they are being watched by a woman.I call bullshit.
It is very true. He changed his "political" stance after Bannon made clear his target market did not like this kind of acceptance.If that is true
Why would a woman be watching.Many guys have penis issues and seem to not be able to use a urinal if they are being watched by a woman.
Because a woman is in the male bathroom, the guys assume they are being watched and judged at the urinals.It is very true. He changed his "political" stance after Bannon made clear his target market did not like this kind of acceptance.
Why would a woman be watching.
Leftists love acting like everyone that doesn't agree and walk step with them when somehow a far right Nazi.Right wingers love pigeonholing people into manufactured gender roles, so they can control them.
I don't think anybody else bothered by trans folks. I think this is an oversimplification to justify not listening to people.If you're a sane person who doesn't get triggered over how people present themselves then trans folk won't bother you.
That's exactly how the left operates exactly to the T.But anyone who challenges their paradigm is a threat, so they must be destroyed.
Because a woman is in the male bathroom, the guys assume they are being watched and judged at the urinals.
Yeah I wouldn't feel that way either.Good God.
You belive this. You post some very strange things.
Only in your mind would the topic be "tolerance" rather than "political expedience." Otherwise, what's supposed to be the reason Obama didn't champion gay marriage the moment he got into the position of the most powerful politician in the land? What was he afraid of?I know we were, the Trump's expediency is to become more intolerant, Obama's was to become more tolerant. You also need a little help with your memory, Obama expressed support for gay marriage in 2012, Obergefell was in 2015.
Obama didn't champion gay marriage until SCOTUS made it safe for him.
Are you sure this time about when he did it? The timing seems to be tough for you to nail down and is the overriding point, the "when"....not what was the position, the conclusive decision. You are focused on the point in time. You already answered the "why", the reason, you said it was due to "expediency", I agreed both Barak and Don did it for politics. The timing of it could be again a matter of expediency, you don't seem interested in finding that out, I'm not here to help you along with that.the reason Obama didn't champion gay marriage the moment he got into the position of the most powerful
Oh, you want a timeline? Politifact provided one that I found in one minute. Here's their conclusion re: Obama's "evolution" (his word):Are you sure this time about when he did it? The timing seems to be tough for you to nail down and is the overriding point, the "when"....not what was the position, the conclusive decision. You are focused on the point in time. You already answered the "why", the reason, you said it was due to "expediency", I agreed both Barak and Don did it for politics. The timing of it could be again a matter of expediency, you don't seem interested in finding that out, I'm not here to help you along with that.
I'm much more interested in what was their final destination, were they for increasing freedoms and rights, or against that. If you find that not important, well there you are.
Obama, a consistent supporter of civil rights for gay couples, nevertheless said as early as 2004 and through 2008 that he didn’t support same-sex marriage. He had written that he believed "that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman." In 2010, he said he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself. This week, the president said he thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married. On the Flip-O-Meter, he earns a Full Flop.
Interesting thank you for reading it and sharing your thoughts.The truth is, the Democrats never stood up for the principle in the first place. I remember one of the first signs of failure was with the ENDA bill that was supposed to formally end discrimination (without relying on a court). You see, that bill was watered down into a defeatable form, because it changed anti-gender discrimination into special rights for transgender people. You might object to that - but I read the text of the bill! It said an employee could either be a man and suffer all the gender-specific rules for dressing and grooming the way they want men to, or else you could be a woman and suffer all the indignities they do in that regard to women. They _never_ stood up and said that "are women allowed to do that?" should not be a question. If they had -- if they had said that no, women don't have to put up with absurd, sexist demands that they "put their faces on" with disgusting PFAS-laden oily concoctions, and no, they don't have to say they are MEN to demand that right - then I think they would have found a groundswell of support from people who think fair is fair. But by making it a special right allowed only to trans men, they made it easy for the congress to desert the cause.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?