Good.

But Sydney, The Stranger published that article about de-transitioners which the advocates KNEW was going to be used to stir up the bigotry train and then get enough signatures to take their measure to the ballot! It was an established, obvious fact to everyone!

Oh wait, they still didn't get enough signatures? And is there any record of anyone using that article to drum up support?

Shorter Just Want Privacy: "Dear transphobic supporter - we Just Want (your) Money".

This is actually a good thing for the Christogrifters. They can do this all over again and raise even more money from the rubes. Hey, it beats getting a real job!

So glad this failed. We have another ridiculous one like this, which actually made it onto he ballot, coming up in 2018. By that time, I will be officially 'out' and hopefully my friends and family will vote 'no.'

@2 That's great you don't have anxiety around people publicly debating your right to exist in public spaces and taking political action against you. It must be wonderful.

That good @1 was before the update from Just Want Privacy. Good that they couldn't gather enough signatures. Bad that they're going to continue.

Everybody is safe now! Yay!

There they go again. Glad the initiative failed to make the ballot, but Washington State is doing it again. It's allowing people to collect signatures for iniatives to take away or bar people from enjoying their civil rights. I remember in the 90s how furious I was when all the anti-gay initiatives clogged the ballot. YOU NEVER EVER PUT PEOPLE'S CIVIL RIGHTS UP FOR A VOTE! They are guaranteed by the Constitution. If some one gets signatures for initiatives for housing discrimination or job discrimination or barring equal access of any kind, he/she should be turned away from the registrar's office. Let him or her go through the courts and try to get an initiative on the ballot that bars Jews, or Asians, or gay/trans people, or people of color from whatever some asshole wants to restrict them from doing. Again, please. Let's change the rules about initiatives. Anything that is presented to the State which limits instead of expands liberty should immediately be rejected.

"safety and privacy of women and girls in Washington"? I've been going to public bathrooms as a woman and girl for over 50 years and I have never ever worried about my safety or privacy, other than having toddlers peer under the door or having to hold the door shut with my foot because it doesn't lock properly. Trans people in bathrooms is about # eleventy billion on my list of Things I Worry About In Public Bathrooms.

Am I totally out of touch, or does this pearl-clutching over where trans people pee seem disingenuous? Like they know it's really a non-issue, and they really don't give a fuck, but they see a crack into which a wedge might be driven, and when the thumpers see a crack they reflexively get to poundin"?

What a bunch of silly dicks.

Bigots, TERFs, and idiots like @10 lose again. Let's be honest here, like Trump, @10 has a mental illness. Doesn't mean they should be denied their rights, but they are bat azz crazy.

You folks are all so unbelievably conventional and you're thinking… And I'm being polite to call it thinking.

@14. People rarely form their own opinions anymore. They repeat what they're taught as if it's their own set of thoughts. Mainly because they're afraid to be disagreeable, also because what they're taught is a one or two dimensional way in which to view the world that makes sense to them and provides reasonable answers(as long as you don't stray outside the parameters that all philosophies are constrained by)

It's a fucking tragedy that there are basically two schools of thought in our country and neither tolerate any sort of nuance. Neither allow for the other to maintain any humanity during a difference of ideals. And both are slipping further away from pragmatism, free thought, and compromise and into the trenches of idealism where everyone is afraid to put their heads up and see what's going on around them for fear of having their wig peeled off.

It's too bad your thinking is so poor, @14. You would know when to use you're and your correctly.

@15 do please share, what's your pragmatic free-thought compromise on where trans people should be allowed to pee?

@17. I don't think your question is about where people want to pee. It's about seeing if I'm "the other" and then acting as you've been conditioned to.

But in the spirit of fair play, I'll bite...

1. Let anyone pee where they want to and where it makes them feel safe, regardless of gender.

2. Let the smaller, weaker sex who is actually in more real danger decide who gets to come into their bathrooms. They are more hyperattuned to those risks, ( I am a man, I could pee in the plastic bushes at the mall and feel safe, so I'm not sure my voice is as valid in this realm)

3. Have private bathrooms for people who don't feel safe in public ones. Trans people aren't the only people who encounter intimidation and violence in public spaces.

Those took me about 3 minutes to write. If I spent more time on it i.e. If I really thought it was an important issue, I could come up with more ideas, roll them around in my brain longer and empathize a fair bit of nuance for either side of the aisle, make an effort to talk to people who it affected, and then weigh the outcome of any decision I might decide is most fair, or most safety conscious.

Then I would remember I am just a single person, unimportant in the large scheme of things, my opinion is hardly important( but at least it's my own), and move on with my life in a direction that is less encumbered with a purpose that champions or denies a group that Hardly anyone comes in contact with.

@6 you might as well have anxiety about getting hit by lightning. Your "right to exist in public" was never under threat and was never going to happen anyhow. Just because the thing that won't happen might affect you doesn't mean you get to abandon rational thinking.