this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
1170 points (94.8% liked)

politics

19144 readers
91 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A district judge in Wisconsin has sided with an 11-year-old trans girl over her use of the girls’ toilets and temporarily blocked school officials from preventing her access.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah yes, the people that are against letting men in the women’s spaces are the ones that want to go in women’s spaces. Impeccable logic you have there.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Trans women are women, bigot.

I'd imagine that trans women don't want to use the men's room because of people like you who consider restrooms to be peeping opportunities.

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm talking sex, not gender.

Quit the name calling.

Also again with trying to deflect and call the people that want to stop any potential for "peeping opportunities" the ones that are the "peepers" lol. Make it make sense.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Also again with trying to deflect and call the people that want to stop any potential for “peeping opportunities” the ones that are the “peepers” lol.

I don't want 11 year old girls being forced to use men's restrooms. Why do you want that so badly?

[–] Whirlybird@aussie.zone -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

11 year old biological boys you mean?

Why do you so desparately want biological males to be allowed in to female-only spaces? You're trying to make out that the people that don't want biological males in biological female toilets are the creepy ones here and it's bizarre lol.

Why do you want 11 year old biological girls in the mens toilets with you? Why do you want that so badly?

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think people should use the restroom that corresponds to their gender. You keep going on about meaningless biological differences and making up hypotheticals about men in women's restrooms. The story is about a girl using the women's restroom. Note: they're not called "Biologically male restrooms" or "Biologically female restrooms". They're men's restrooms and women's restrooms. Gender. The social construct. Not the genitalia that you keep obsessing over.

Do you seriously believe that someone would go to all the trouble of dealing with the bullshit that bigots are delighted to put trans people through just to perv on people in the commode? Do you think the 11 year old plaintiff in the story is doing that? Are you really gonna libel an 11 year old?