Why do you call the bill anti - trans? Why not just fucking describe the bill for what it does?

This is the same shit the abortion activist do. Anti-choice this, pro-life that. Just describe the bills without attaching your passive aggressive shit to it.
The "Family Policy Institute of Washington" can eat my cisgendered ass.
@2 The initiative in question would repeal the current state rule that allows for transfolk to use the bathroom that reflects their gender identity. I figured that out by reading the first paragraph. Try harder next time.
@3 -- Actually, your explanation is way more clear than the article (except for the fact that you probably meant @1, not @2). The headline is ambiguous (is the bill against "trans discrimination" or is it "anti-trans" discrimination). Then the picture shows people who are fighting for trans rights. One could easily gather that a bold set of advocates are trying to push for trans rights the way that folks fought for gay rights in this state -- by initiative. But no, it is some crazy set of right wing nuts who want to reverse what the legislature did, because they are afraid of cooties (or something).

You can figure out what is going on by reading that first paragraphy, but it sure takes some crazy dissecting. Why not:

"Just Want Privacy" has launched a campaign dedicated to repealing the state Human Rights Commission's rule allowing transgender people to use the sex-segregated bathroom that aligns with their gender identity. They will file a ballot initiative after raising $100,000 and collecting 1,000 volunteer signups to repeal the law.

I'm bummed you guys didn't cover tonight's Republican town hall in S.C.
Oh for the love of Christ I just have to pee. Get the fuck out of the way.

Poor Pepper suffers from Pretzel Logic Disease.

Such a widespread infection among Republicians, its apparent source is a fevered brain obsessing about stuff None of Their Fucking Business.

That, and licking toilet seats, another Republican obsessive habit.
Trans invading womens public bathrooms and lockerooms to sexually harass is an imaginary problem.

Pants wearing het pervs are an ongoing problem, for instance this oh so Christian fellow:


Instead of legislation to address an imaginary problem, we could use some help with the actual and ongoing sexual harassment and assaults from heterosexual men.

But bigots like Pepper don't actually care about women's safety or well being.
I think what is being forgotten in all this is that guys who sneak into locker rooms to creep are already doing so, and will continue doing so. But to suggest that all of a sudden tons of guys are just going to start stampeding into changing rooms claiming to be trans is a pretty silly idea. Fact is, the vast majority of men are not interested in doing so, and those who are willing to do it already do it.

It is like suggesting that legalizing heroin will cause everyone to start doing heroin. Humans just do not work that way.
This initiative is a tool to help drive conservative voters to the polls this November. If this wasn't an election year, it wouldn't be happening.

@6 A lot of Regressives interpret founding documents (like the constitution of the state of Washington or the U.S. Constitution) in the exact same way they do the Bible: holding it up as Unyielding Truth when it suits them, and ignoring parts that are inconvenient. The judiciary exists and is vital to our democracy, no matter how loudly you and your ilk howl about "activist judges."
This wouldn't be America if we didn't have to vote on every detail of how minorities should live their lives.
Why do people care so much about penises? There should be penises swinging everywhere you look in all public bathrooms.
People are afraid of what they don't understand. The trans community needs a galvanizing public relations campaign - something like "on the wrong bus" or something to convey the despair of not feeling your gender match your biology.
One small detail you may be forgetting:
New Rule allows creeps to legally use women's locker rooms so long as able to claim gender identity as female.
Advocates try to deny it but that is what Rule says.

"Gender identity" isn't nearly so simple as just putting on a dress and claiming to be female.

Opponents try to deny it, but that's what the law says.
Thanks for link but so much in there to read.
So can you please explain why subjective self-determined gender identity is not THE sole criterion?

Definition in your link supports my reading:

"Gender Identity: A person’s internal sense of being male, female, or
something else. Note: Because gender identity is internal, a person’s
gender identity is not necessarily visible to others."
So Rule doesn't even require "putting on a dress".
Appear like John Wayne and if one claims "I identify as a female", one can use any locker room.
@20 oops
I meant
"Appear like John Wayne and if one claims "I identify as a female", one can use female locker room."

(I wish SLOG would allow corrections in comments.)
@17: My understanding of the issue is that the law on the books right now allows people to use the restroom that fits their internal gender identity, and this proposed law would reverse this. Please let me know if I am off on this.

So it seems to me that your imagined scenario is already possible under your interpretation of the current rule. Has men dressing as women to sneak into women's changing rooms been a big problem in Seattle?

If not, will killing this proposed bill suddenly make it a problem?

It's exactly that sort of preposterous "hypothetical scenario" that makes the entire argument on the anti-transgender side look so ridiculous. When you actually run into a bona fide trans person who outwardly displays hyper-masculine traits and yet self-identifies as female, get back to us, um'kay?
Whoa, podners! Relax. Calm down. Don't freak out because you get new information.

The NEW Rule says that self-determined gender identity is THE ONLY criterion for whether a person can use a locker room.

If you think that there are no deviant cis-men who will abuse the rules to use a locker room to look at T&A, go right ahead and deny reality. Then you can also deny that men rape women, too.

How big an issue? I have no idea. But the Rule is written as I state it. Don't argue with me about it. That's the Rule.

Once the vast majority of WA voters understand that "self-determined gender identity is THE ONLY criterion for whether a person can use a locker room", we'll change the Rule.

If you want to be in forefront of progressive change, get with reality and stop denial.
@24: Your information is not new. It is the same tired bullshit that we have heard a thousand times over.

Trans people have had the right to use appropriate facilities for ten years. That is how long the equal protection law has been in place. In that time, there has not been a rash of "deviant cis men abusing the rules". Further, such abuse is not protected under the rules. Your hypothetical "John Wayne" nonsense is not allowed and never will be.

Get some new material, for chrissakes.
If you think it is not new, then WHY is there a NEW Rule?
I have asked you before.

Check your denial.
So, theoretically, women in a locker room might see a great big swinging dick owned by a "trans woman"? That sounds nice.
@26: And I have answered you before.
#27, that woman staring at another woman's genitals is the one society has to worry about.
@29, that other woman's gentials being a giant cock?
#30, it doesn't matter what the genitals in the situation are. The one staring is the pervert.
For Danni's bravery, TSA has now singled her out. On a recent flight security mentioned recognizing her from the news, informing her she had no constitutional rights in an airport, and gave her a pat down despite already knowing her body would register as anomalous.

The reason you didn't hear about it? For transgender individuals this is simply another day that ends in Y. We have to deal with people like RentBoy on a daily basis, marginalizing us for shits and giggles.
The swinging cock and balls are in the right, the lady who looked up and saw said swinging cock and balls is in the wrong.

I don't wanna live on this planet anymore.
33, you're intentionally missing the point, so much so I am pretty sure you're not on this planet right now. The lady who started genital policing other people is in the wrong, regardless of the genitals of the second person. Even when you eliminate the penis (you are way too focused on swinging cock and balls, seriously. I'm bi and you're kind of making me uncomfortable with your obsession over the penis) and just talk about two vaginas, the voyeur is in the wrong. The voyeurism is the issue, not the genitals.
@33: Being a man, perhaps I am off base, and anyone feel free to correct me, but I think women are worried about predators and creeps in the locker room (behavior) rather than simply penises or balls swinging about (body parts).

See, even a person with a vagina in a lady's room is going to cause trouble if they are leering or engaging in other inappropriate behavior. The shape of the genitals is already pretty irrelevant to the issue of safety.
Remember we are talking about "the weaker sex" this is why feminism needs to be stopped! These poor helpless females even when in numbers in public spaces they are so vulnerable! We must protect them! This is why they should remain in the home, it is far too dangerous for them to venture out. They also need to be fully covered wearing a hajab so that males are not tempted if they do go out. No more teaching females self defence or athletics or allowing them as political leaders or allowing military service! Especially combat and the special forces... Can you imagine a Navy Seal afraid to pee around ANYONE, LOL!!! I don't know how society survived all these years without bathroom police. This is pathetic!
Yup the rare and likely lone trans woman that enters the restroom or locker room with all those cis women is the predator, the danger, ALL THOSE cis women in there would be merely helpless even in large numbers against that trans woman! So they must be protected!!! I mean it's not like the trans woman would be the target for attcks or harassment? Nope, nature don't work that way. She needs to go in the Men's room!!! Since she is not cis gendered she would have nothing to worry about in a Men's room right? As far as locker rooms, well we all know that history shows that fights, harassment and embarrassment, assult (including sexual) never happens in same sex units, especially with those adolescents! I mean they do have a coach/ teacher accompany them to make sure of it. So things like that would only happen if trans folk were in there, and of course it's not the trans person who's safety we would need to worry about...hell no, they are the predators! They don't need protection from the majority, the majority needs be protected from them! Pathetic!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.