so HUD is proposing a rule that would require shelters to discriminate against trans people

[oberstenzian@mastodon.social]

@tillybridges I commented! I’m not supporting any anti-trans anything ever. And if this idiotic county decides to do anything physical or kinetic to my allies I will absolutely put my *life* on the line to protect those I care about.

[puck@sfba.social]

@tillybridges
" Through these revisions, the rule would ensure equal access to qualifying facilities would be provided in accordance with the sex of an individual based on his or her immutable biological classification as either male or female rather than the ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity."

My gods, has no one in the R party even taken a biology course? They know absolutely nothing about gender. It's like their whole concept is if you have a pee-pee you're a boy, if you have a hoo-ha you're a girl.

Then there's this:

" Many faith traditions believe that sex is an immutable characteristic determined by a creator, that male and female are the only two sexes, and that it is wrong for a person to deny his or her sex. (18) Accordingly, many faith-based homeless shelters and other providers have sincerely held religious beliefs that they should conduct their ministries in ways that are consistent with this fundamental belief."

Then they shouldn't receive tax dollars.

[alienghic@timeloop.cafe]

@tillybridges

I wonder what kind of argument to take in the comment.

The EO is an attempt by one unpopular religion to shove it's beliefs on everyone?

Saying gender variant people don't exist is a willful denial of reality as we have documented cases of gender variant people existing in many cultures and many times.

There are plenty of other species who can change sex through their life.

Also this is just an effort by some vicious tyrants to gain political power by attacking a small powerless minority.

I'm not sure if any of those would be convincing arguments.

[mildpeach@mstdn.social]

@tillybridges done & done

[tillybridges@mastodon.social]

@alienghic honestly I suspect the volume of negative comments will have more effect that the reasoning in any single one of them

[christymarx@beige.party]

@tillybridges
Here's my comment:

"This proposed rule has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with anti-trans bigotry. It is pure discrimination on the basis of gender identity. There is no good reason for this discrimination and it will instead make life less safe for people in need. It is shameful and unconstitutional. If people of supposed "faith" cannot accommodate someone in need no matter what their gender identity, then there is something wrong with their "faith". It certainly doesn't align with genuine Christian values. THIS RULE IS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN PLACE."

[me@social.jlamothe.net]

@tillybridges The fact that they have the gall to call this "equal access" makes me* so angry. That's some real Ministry of Truth shit right there.

* a white cis het male

[marcella@blahaj.zone]

@Puck@sfba.social @tillybridges@mastodon.social "It's like their whole concept is if you have a pee-pee you're a boy, if you have a hoo-ha you're a girl. " More like "if you have short hair you have a pee-pee, if you have long hair you have a hoo-ha". One reason we can't get across (besides the multi-billion propaganda and complicity of mainstream media) is that their assumptions are even more primitive than any minimally educated person would dare to assume.

[503bartley@pdx.social]

@tillybridges

This is painfully wrong.
Medical science has validated folks w/ gender dysphoria didn't ask for it & don't want it.
I have family members dealing with this as best they can.
Punishing them for this is very wrong.
Once upon a time (1781), two of my ancestors went up Kings Mountain and came back with Purple Hearts.
Every generation since has bled to protect Americans, even Americans with problems. {more}

[503bartley@pdx.social]

@tillybridges 2/2

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
What in God's name is wrong with letting them have that?
Please do not implement this insane idea.

SENT

[sonic81@nerdculture.de]

With this government, the first and only thing I suspected was the comment section to be a honeypot. But I only see an optional email field, so commenting should be in private. I'll share this and comment once I get my vpn up.

[riley@toot.cat]

@alienghic The Republican transphobia does not stem from religion, actually. It's a deliberate GOPster strategy to designate trans women and children as the new scapegoat after they deemed Obergefell to mean that gay men were now too strong for them.

Some religions just ran with it, because their own authoritarian streak has become indistinguishible from the Drumpfistas' version of it. The Mormons have ... discovered ... new anti-trans prophecies only this year, for an example.

Obligatory source reference: https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2018/01/22/secret-history-bathroom-bills/

@tillybridges

[helianthropy@tech.lgbt]

@tillybridges 🤮

That language is so gross and speculative.

[gyrfalcon@dmv.community]

@alienghic @tillybridges I mentioned increased incidence of negative mental health outcomes that result from the gov’t telling someone who they are allowed to be. Although, one could point out that the first page of that book says “created them man and woman.” not “or”.

[alienghic@timeloop.cafe]

@Gyrfalcon @tillybridges

The patriarchal Christians skip that origin story and go for the other version where woman was created later