Anti-trans organizations have said that their position against gender affirming care center on "protecting kids." Now, a Florida judge has allowed them to proceed with their next target: trans adults.
Several weeks ago, a federal judge in Florida halted a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth, declaring it likely unconstitutional. Yet, transgender adults were also heavily impacted by the law: 80% of gender-affirming care providers for trans adults in the state were forced to stop. Consequently, many found themselves forced to flee the state, temporarily or permanently, in order to access care. Those forced to stay clung to the hope that the provisions targeting them might also be overruled. However, those hopes suffered a setback when the 11th Circuit Court determined that discriminating against transgender individuals in healthcare would be allowed, at least in the short term. Relying on this verdict, the Florida Judge Monday declined to block the sections affecting trans adult care. Now, the precedent has been set for adult care bans, a stark contradiction to some anti-trans activists' assurances that their sole aim was to "protect children."
Earlier this year, Florida passed SB254. The bill did not only prohibit gender-affirming care for transgender youth, but also casted stringent requirements for care on trans adults. Specifically, the laws bars nurse practitioners from administering care and mandates that providers distribute inaccurate medical forms, laden with misleading narratives, suggesting treatments are experimental. This was a substantial change, as the vast amount of trans adult care is provided by nurse practitioners. A representative from a clinic in the state, SPEKTRUM Health, estimated that 80% of such care would be affected. Further, the new informed consent form dictates a pre-requisite of "social support" before a trans individual embarks on care, despite many trans adults losing social support from their families after they transition. Though the initial discussion centered on the effect of the bill on trans youth, trans adults across the state suddenly saw their prescriptions dropped by their providers as a result.
read more: https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/no-longer-about-kids-florida-judge
Literally nobody ever believed it was about "protecting the children." This was never anything more than a cheap shot by those with low and questionable moral value to force everyone else down to their own level in the swamps. Anyone who tells you they are doing this "as a proper Christian" are the same kind of people who are so morally bankrupt that they can't even tell you what it means to love thy neighbor without looking up the words in their favorite piece of fiction.
Literally nobody ever believed it was about "protecting the children."
Liberal rubes sure did. They'll keep insisting that's the case too, even as bans on trans adults existing sweep forth. Liberals absolutely don't give a fuck about us.
Wow who could've thought that fascism would simply stop once it got its way?
What if I told you... that's a feature, not a bug?
It's far too much to type and way too philosophical for anyone to give a shit about, but, tldr: the US (and arguably the world) is on a freight train speeding at absolute destruction. No one in power is pushing the stop button. (In the US) one party is (sometimes) pushing a slowdown button but the other party is always slamming any button they can find that doesn't say stop on it. They know where it leads, and this is what they want. Everyone "knows" the current institutions and systems are failing, but the only politically relevant (so, in the US, not the actual left) force with power is the far right wingers who desire destruction and their only resistance is the left and right wing liberals in the middle going "noooo the institutions!" but no one actually cares about the institutions, besides other liberals. They lack any ability though, due to their political ideology, to actually fight for the beloved institutions. They can only rely on the powerful far right to "come to their senses" and stop pushing the death button. Unfortunately for them, the far right will not stop without someone stopping them- forcefully. And since the far right and liberals effectively eliminated the far left and even the center left for the most part... there's no one to counter that far right fascistic death drive.
But you don't even need that accurate assessment of things to understand the situation. Just know they want to abolish public education, medicine, doctors, anything related to "science" broadly, any non-Christian religions, non-white people, LGBTQ+ people and anything tangentially related to gay stuff (imagined or real), etc. pretty much infinitely.
These people are the proto-Nazis of our time. Not everything will align perfectly, but it doesn't have to. They want to burn medical information, they want to destroy what they see as "perverted secular society" burn it all away and cleanse the land for some great rebirth of a Christian Nationalist theocracy where white men are elevated above everyone and your white male status plus property owning status is all that matters. I know this all sounds cliche and overstated at this point... but they keep proving it true every chance they get.
The worst part is that ultimately they're the only side making progress towards their goal because their goal is aligned with the way things are going and must go. But the difference is we can arrive at that destructive moment, whenever it is, and come out the other side in some Christian theocracy nightmare world or something much better than we can currently imagine possible. As it stands right now, that nightmare vision seems to be the only viable conclusion. Which is rather depressing...
This is a real "which side are you on?" moment. You're either for helping trans people or want us gone.
Florida becoming the foundation of American fascism over the past 20 years is such a weird development. It used to be the party state. It did and still does have a huge supportive queer community.
I can only point to wealthy retirees shaping Florida's trajectory
It's also fitting the vanguard of America's descent into fascism will one of the earlier places (in the US) to be rendered uninhabitable by the climate change.
Fascism is a death cult.
It was never about kids.
Anyone that knew their history knew that the whole "PROTECT THE CHILDREEENS" rhetoric was nothing more than a ploy to get a foot in the door for all this shit.
The next cis person to say
as if participating in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie will fix this... I swear to fucking god...You really think such a ban isn't supported by a large amount of voters? You think it's purely the "bourgeoisie" that's transphobic?
It's a pretty reliable statistic that whenever anti-trans legislation goes to a public referendum, it fails. When this kind of stuff is a genuine public vote, the public almost always votes in favor of trans rights.
It's also a reliable statistic that the more a politician talks about being anti-trans, the worse they do electorally.
Anti-trans legislation is being pushed through by appointed judges, unelected committees, state cabinets, shit like that. It's not being pushed by a public vote.
no it's that a system controlled by the wealthy can't and won't fix this. the perpetual culture war prevents working class solidarity and ensures the continuation of exploitation. fascism is just the byproduct of the system working as intended.
I know it isn't supported by a large amount of voters. You can look at polling that shows even conservatives are split on it and a lot find it offputting. It is being pushed by the bourgeoisie because they need a scapegoat for their economic system failing while the work to change to a fascist capitalist mode of production and crush anti-capitalist organizing.
And if it was supported, guess why it would be supported? Because the bourgeois media systemically spread hatred of the group.
Edit: also what you said isn't related to what I wrote. How does however many people supporting transphobia relate to us being in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which will not allow us to take effective action against transphobes through its mechanisms?
No one is saying that its only the bourgeois that are homophobic. But it is the fact that liberal democracy only works for them that makes it so a party can rule as a minority.
Generally these bans are not popular. Not with enough people that they would pass. Everywhere a referrendum has occured the anti-trans side has lost, as with abortion as well. These aren't popular policies.
The anti-democratic way our institutions are set up allows a party to hold a majority of power with a minority of support. That is what the bourgeois want and care about, and what will not change through
Maybe it's overstated, maybe it's been said before, but it stays true:
Death to America
my heart goes out to all my fellow trans people trapped under American fascismIf you think communism and fascism are the same then you don't understand either.
Yeah yeah, "I just sit at the table with nazi's, it doesnt make me a nazi!"
The famous cry of the piece of shit that doesnt want people to know they are a piece of shit.
Right because communists are famously known for tolerating Nazis. Ask the Red Army how they felt about the Nazis in Berlin back in 1945.
Yeah, Tankies and the red army.
Fought nazi's in WW2.
Became the nazi's in 2020.
Thanks for the apt fucking comparison.
Whoa, the red army survived the destruction of the USSR in 1992? I guess comrade Tim Curry had it right after all
"I know you are, but what am I" Took you an entire day to come up with that zinger of a comeback?
Hey dude theres a fly on your nose. You should try to look directly at it.
Everywhere facism has come, communists have been the first to die fighting it.
Everywhere fascism has come, liberals have thrown the doors wide open for it, hoping to get rid of the communists.
Your entire political orthodoxy is "sitting with nazis for money until they kill you too"
That's literally what liberals are doing.
Communists are saying we should fight fascists
Liberals are the ones who insist that makes us the same as them.
Liberals are the ones who keep going on about good republicans and swooning over mitt Romney and Liz fucking Cheyney.
Tell me again who's sitting with nazis and ignoring that fact.
Fascism as an ideology arises as a response to socialism and positions itself in opposition to socialism. They are not at all the same.
The more apt critique is that aside from the GDR for its last few years almost no socialist society has had a good record regarding LGBT+ rights.
no socialist society has had a good record regarding LGBT+ rights
Cuba does
this is not true. Cuba's been ahead of the US consistently. LGBT rights are not a finish line labelled 'gay marriage'; they decriminalized decades before the US.
and their recent reforms are constitutional, not protections subject to whims of courts or simple parliamentary majorities. Cuba didn't roll over one day in the 2010s and suddenly decide 'we're pro lgbt now', these efforts are built on decades of acceptance & reforms, that only recently became entrenched & certified to the highest legal standard.
Cuba currently has the best records for LGBT rights but that has not always been true.
LGBT marriage was illegal until 2019 the constitutional changes made it legally possible. There was a civil union proposal from 2006? 2007? but that never got passed.
I have been active in LGBT rights since the 1990s. Trust me you aren't talking with someone who hasn't been paying attention or thinks it ends with marriage rights.
I mean no, they've had a better record than most western countries for most of their existence, gay marriage legalization is just less important than other rights. Especially in places where legally recognized families aren't as heavily emphasized legally or economically.
Remind me when did any western country get all homeless and/or malnourished lgbt people into better conditions? When did they have universal Healthcare for trans people that wasn't gatekeeped to hell and intentionally underfunded?
When did Cuba do any if this other than the trans medicine which as I recall was in the mid 1990s.
Cuba being economically socialist has intersectional effects that massively benefit lgbt people in a way capitalism never can or will.
Cuba being authoritarian will mean people will necessarily be less free
What do you mean by authoritarian in this context?
A government that cannot legally be opposed or advocated for the complete replacement of with a non-Marxist system.
So a good thing then? Why would you want capitalism to return?
Hy would creating a system that does not respond to the desires of its population be good? What if it becomes obvious that socialism isn't working or if change is needed? The freedom to replace the government is critical.
Hy would creating a system that does not respond to the desires of its population be good?
How is crushing far right dissent not keeping with the desires of the population?
What if it becomes obvious that socialism isn't working or if change is needed?
Then you modify socialism. As socialists keep doing rather successfully. Socialism is an iterative process after all.
The freedom to replace the government is critical.
If you started advocating the overthrow of your government what would happen to you?
If the people want a different system what is the justice in forcing them to maintain a system that does not work for them? Why should the jackboot of the socialist state crush the desires if the people should they desire something new?
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence. In the USA there have been communists running that advocated the removal and replacement of the government. There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution.
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence. In the USA there have been communists running that advocated the removal and replacement of the government. There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution
Pure
We literally have had candidates suggesting this who were not killed.
Sorry to burst your bubble but it is legal and possible in the USA.
No one cares if you have the right to impotently suggest it. If you actually make a serious attempt to do it though you're getting Fred Hamptoned.
Fred Hampton advocated violent revolution which has nothing to do with why he was murdered. Hampton was murdered because he effectively organized non-white neighborhoods and the LEO couldn't handle that.
Oh, you mean like that thing you'd have to do if you wanted to peacefully or otherwise transition governments and not just impotently complain? He got murdered for that? Huh.
If the people want a different system what is the justice in forcing them to maintain a system that does not work for them?
But they don't, so there is justice in maintaining that system against a small amount of dissidents and foreign sabotage.
Nothing would happen to me if I advocate for the overthrow if Im not advocating for violence.
Historically this is how black communists get bullets and white communists get prison cells.
There even is a specific right to completely replace the government in the constitution.
And remind me of the mechanism, and how it doesn't involve forces that are invested in the status quo?
In my hypothetical situation they do want the change and right now you cannot even suggest that due to the authoritarian structure of the state.
Okay, in the real world they don't, and they want the state to protect them from a backslide into an inherently violent economic system by targetting people who advocate for that system.
Ok and what if down the road the government gives way to severe corruption and no longer represents the people and they want a change?
The fact is Cuba is authoritarian because the mechanisms to remove the government do jot exist and the people have no say in the direction unless they agree with the state.
Ok and what if down the road the government gives way to severe corruption and no longer represents the people and they want a change?
The exact same as any country where the government is severely corrupt and doesn't represent the people; it must be forcefully overthrown.
Cuba is authoritarian because the mechanisms to remove the government do jot exist
That's literally every country
the people have no say in the direction unless they agree with the state.
I thought we were talking about Cuba, not the USA.
You might want to read the US Constitution as it literally has mechanisms for the removal of the entire government. Im bringing that up as a point because you are completely incorrect that "every" country has this.
We are talking about Cuba when we talk about how only people who agree with the state can run as in the USA there are socialists running who want to completely change our political structure. You can't do that in Cuba and that is why is is authoritarian and the USA is currently not .
Where are you getting that you have to be a socialist to run in Cuba?
The fact that the government does not permit any other party to run other than the communist party. There is no free and fair elections inCuba as a result of this.
Candidates don't run as part of a political party. It sounds to me like you're just repeating nonsense some anti-communist made up.
Can a candidate run that suggests ditching the pursuit of communism and adopting a capitalist state? If they can't then it's authoritarian.
We've established that I think you're definition of authoritarianism is good and democratic in this context
You can think it is good but you have a remarkably flawed concept of democracy if you think outright fixing elections is democratic in any way. What you are rejecting is the right of people to decide how they should be ruled. That brings about significant issues as to the legitimacy of said government.
Now you're accusing them of fixing elections? Geez.
When you get to decide who can run and mandate tbat only one ideology can be represented do you think that's a free election or a fair one? It cannot on any level represent the people because only candidates the state approves of can run. That isn't how it works in democracies. It is why Cuba is not free or democratic because...it's an authoritarian state like China is.
When you get to decide who can run and mandate tbat only one ideology can be represented do you think that's a free election or a fair one?
You know anyone who is eligible can run right?
It cannot on any level represent the people because only candidates the state approves of can run. That isn't how it works in democracies. It is why Cuba is not free or democratic because...it's an authoritarian state like China is.
That isnt true, but if it was,
Why do these nondemocracies have higher approval than democracies? Why do more of their citizens say they're in democracies?
The eligibility is directly determined by the state and they will not permit non-socialists from running which means it cannot be free or fair. It's literally part of the definition of what free and fair elections are. So no not everyone can run. In fact ONLY socialist can run which is why the elections are fraudulent.
Citizens in non-democracies frequently lack the free speech to oppose the government openly so things like an approval rating in Cuba mean nothing except to indicate the people who are foolish enough to think they are real.
Do more Cubans think they live in a democracy? Could they give their actual opinion without reprisal? No they cannot.
Cuba is an authoritarian state with no real democratic element. Im not sure how you don't know what "democratic" "free and fair election", and "authoritarian" means but there you go.
You've cited literally none of this. Just anticommunist make shit up hours.
Do you need me to cite a dictionary for you? Seriously your issues have been regarding definitions of commonly used words in political philosophy.
If you need sources they are the OED and the original Cuban constitution as well as the most recent constitution of 2019. In those places you will find the meanings of the terms "authoritarianism", "free and fair elections", and "democratic". In the Cuban constitutions you will find the laws regarding eligibility.
This is not anticommunist shit. These are factual statements regarding Cuba that you would understand if you had any formal education in political philosophy. Im fairly positive you have none given what you have demonstrated here.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cuba_2019
Cite the excerpts that support your claims.
Im going to do this piecemeal because my phone sucks. Here's your first bit:
"The socialist system that this Constitution supports is irrevocable"
Right there you have everything needed to prove the state is authoritarian as you cannot propose a new system. It is clear as day.
How many more overt examples do you need or can I suggest you just audit poli sci 101 on line? You likely do not need to watch more than two-three classes to learn how far off the mark you are.
So people can directly vote in that portion and that makes the system authoritarian?
What if they voted "you cannot advocate for exterminating x minority" would that also make it authoritarian?
It seems to me you're pointing at direct democracy and screaming authoritarian because it doesn't align with what you would have voted for.
What makes it authoritarian is the fact that you cannot change the structure of government from socialism to a different system if that is what the masses want. Authoritarian states are labeled such due to the structure of their systems.
No that would not make a government authoritarian as it does not impact the structure of the government.
No Im not talking about direct democracy because only the Kurds in Syria have anything approaching that.
When the state decides who can run and who can run in opposition to others that does not permit fair elections as you can easily choose weak opponents for the candidates you want in office. Cuba DOES NOT have free elections or fair elections because of this.
If you can't replace the government it is authoritarian. If you can legally fix elections, as Cuba can, you are not democratic.
There are currently no socialist nations that are not authoritarian. That could change but right now every one is to some extent.
As an aside you are using a lot if words that you very clearly do not know the meaning of. You can fix that.
What makes it authoritarian is the fact that you cannot change the structure of government from socialism to a different system if that is what the masses want. Authoritarian states are labeled such due to the structure of their systems.
They could pass a constitution that doesn't say the socialism is an integral part of cuban justice. They just didn't.
Did it occur to you that there is a very important reason for this, connected to why Cuba is more free than your country?
As an aside you are using a lot if words that you very clearly do not know the meaning of. You can fix that.
Are you upset by me describing a constitution made from the grassroots and passed by a vote among the entire population as direct democracy? Because Cuba is a mixture of representative and direct democracy but in this case it was entirely direct democracy.
Cuba isn't more free than the USA. You can't choose your government, your top executive, nor can you suggest changing what kind of Marxist state you want to achieve. Cuba is not free.
Cuba's constitution wasn't created by direcy democracy. Direct democracy would mean ALL Cuban citizens would be part of creating the constitution.
You seriously need to stop using words like "free" or "democracy" because you keep misusing them. Cuba is neither free or democratic. Being able to vote doesn't make a state democratic when they can fix the vote like Cuba can.
Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations because the kinds of people attracted to socialism aren't interested in any opposing views or critiques as you are proving right now.
You can't choose your government, your top executive
You have more say in your government because the bourgeois media apparatus doesn't manufacture support for their favorite candidates. All candidates get the same amount of advertising.. You also cannot choose your top executive in the US, where the executive holds much more power.
nor can you suggest changing what kind of Marxist state you want to achieve.
Source? They've agreed that they're some kind of socialist, Marxists in a political context are all socialists.
Cuba's constitution wasn't created by direcy democracy. Direct democracy would mean ALL Cuban citizens would be part of creating the constitution.
Look into how it was made. Everyone was given the opportunity to contribute.
Being able to vote doesn't make a state democratic when they can fix the vote like Cuba can.
Again, you still haven't provided any evidence that they fix votes, and you can't, because international election observers have looked at their election process and haven't found any evidence that they fix votes. Not letting fascists run isnt "fixing the vote" it is a democratically agreed upon overton window.
Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations
The US literally has 100, 000 people in concentration camps and has the largest gross and by capita prison population in the world, which is often used for slave labor. US cops extrajudicially execute 1000 people a year on the conservative side. The US supported apartheid while Cuba sent soldiers to fight against the apartheid government, but yeah, Cuba is the unfree place.
because the kinds of people attracted to socialism aren't interested in any opposing views or critiques as you are proving right now.
"You're not agreeing with my misinformed and ignorant takes which proves how close minded you are"
Record scratch, let's rewind to something
Even IF the USA went fascist it would still be freer than almost all socialist nations
Okay, but have you considered:
Source on Cuba letting in elections inspectors? I can't find anything that suggests this and only sources that say the opposite. If it helps I can read Spanish.
Source for them not letting in inspectors:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/27/cuba-hails-legislative-election-as-victory-despite-criticism
Okay, but have you considered, in response to your claim that fascist governments are freer:
Alternatively, a source that should meet with your standards: link
The DPRK is the least free society on earth right now if you consider that to be socialist and Hungary, which has fascists in the highest office, is freer than DPRK
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was quite possibly the least free society in history if you consider them socialist.
Keep crying your tears child because you clearly cannot argue from a position of knowledge. Tankies that take socialism as a religion are the WORST.
you clearly cannot argue from a position of knowledge.
debate nerds and their consequences
The other person doesn't know what "democracy" means or understand how voting systems work so what civil way would you describe their uneducated views?
The DPRK is the least free society on earth right now if you consider that to be socialist
Let me guess, you get your propaganda about them from the country that killed 20 percent of Koreans so that it could keep its fascist puppet dictatorship going, or from its allies.
Hungary, which has fascists in the highest office, is freer than DPRK
It is funny how ignorant you are on what fascism is while claiming I'm ignorant. Have you actually researched how fascism is distinct from liberal democracy? Because liberal democracies with fascists in office can exist without becoming fascist. Fascism is primarily a switch in the primary way of increasing profits changing from abstract surplus labor extraction to concrete surplus labor extraction. If you dont understand what that means, literally learn basic economics.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge was quite possibly the least free society in history if you consider them socialist.
Let me guess, you consider the nazis to be socialist too huh? Honeslt this reeks of not knowing your history and falling for the "nationalist socialist" label. If you have a 101 knowledge of their history it is obvious that they weren't socialist.
Keep crying your tears child because you clearly cannot argue from a position of knowledge.
Tankies that take socialism as a religion are the WORST.
People who take anticommunism as a religion to the point where they endorse fascism as an alternative are the worse. Consider:
It's more like you don't know what the words you are using mean so you keep asserting points that are fundamentally incorrect like Cuba being free or democratic ir having fair elections.
This isn't propaganda. Cuba is authoritarian like China is or Vietnam but unlike how DPRK is because that's not even socialist it's just a hereditary autocratic monarchy.
As ever, the only right liberals care about is the right to impotently complain.
What if the government ceases to be socialist due to corruption should the people not be able to correct that?
What if they decide they don't want to be socialist because it doesn't work for the majority?
Authoritarianism is never a positive situation in governance.
Impotently complaining does nothing to bring change "authoritarianism" is just a liberal euphemism for "resists our dominance"
No it isn't. You do not have free speech to the same degree for example. You cannot attempt to run for office as a non-socialist. These are critical rights to look at when determining if a nation is authoritarian.
Cuba is one of if not the most authoritarian state in the Western hemisphere.
No it isn't
Yes it is
You do not have free speech to the same degree for example.
How are you quantifying that?
You cannot attempt to run for office as a non-socialist.
The fact that authoritarians can't run for office makes it less authoritarian, not more.
These are critical rights to look at when determining if a nation is authoritarian.
I disagree, I think the rights to food and shelter are far more critical.
Cuba is one of if not the most authoritarian state in the Western hemisphere.
The fact that you cannot oppose the government publicly or suggest replacing it makes it authoritarian. This isn't a debate about the definition of an authoritarian state. You either know it or you don't and right now it's very clear you don't.
The rights to Food and shelter are not relevant to the question of government structure. If Iran fed, sheltered and clothed their population as Islam requires they would not be less authoritarian given they are a theocratic state.
Did any capitalist countries at the same time have meaningfully better stances on LGBT rights?
when i was looking for chronological comparisons the French apparently decriminalized sodomy in the Revolution, just like the Soviets, but didn't ever reinstate it lol. in fact the Code Napoleon as it was promulgated to other states also decriminalized sodomy in other parts of europe, notably italy, western germany, and bavaria. germany re-banned it when unified (prussians)
Sone have depending in the time period. At this point you have the most protections in Cuba but you lack enough other rights that it becomes a wash.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
Stop doing nazi propaganda.
How quickly they try to co-opt the holocaust and other peoples oppression when they are outed for what they are.
To be clear, you are accusing the mainstream Jewish holocaust expert who wrote the essay of being a tankie?
Youre talking about the OUN holocaust collaborators who invented the idea of the holodomor, right?
You think proof I'm talking bullshit is going to change my mind tankie? Think again. I'm on to your pathetic technique of citing scholars who who agree with you even though they don't share your ideology, so it seems like neutral corroboration. It's not going to sway me because I'm not going to read it anyway.
Why would i read, when I'm akready right about everything? Checkmate red fash tankie!
"Tankies" are the only people who stand up for the marginalized people in the west, the empty sloganism of "Non-Tankies" have only probed them to be fair-weather friends.
NATO lefties chastising the Marxist left for wanting to temporarily keep a military/police force then hopping to another burner account to 'reluctantly' defend a settler state with the worlds second largest armed forces:
Show
Accurate username. But at the same time your sense of humor tells me a lot about your actual character/level of maturity.
Yes, because someone that calls for death to nazi's obviously is a holocaust denier.
Classic tankie logic right there, folks. now quickly run back to hexbear and lemmygrad and cry some more so more of your cohorts come and spew laughable stupidity.
We all knew where this was going, but I honestly didn't think we'd getbl here so quickly.
Mfw they ban testosterone and all the ski doo dealership owners go back to being flabby little dweebs
kids were just the foot in the door if they cared about kids they would give a shit about school shootings
These people will never stop ripping rights away from others. I’ll never understand people pushing their will on others.
I have seen a lot of my social circles going from yeah trans/gay people can be misogynists to only people with vaginas who should be allowed to go to women's bathrooms to the "skittles community" is destroying womanhood and modern feminism is too woke. Its very scary times, I no longer feel safe amidst the people I used to call friends.
Sorry to hear that. Be assured there are places you can go where you will feel more welcome.
Bigots continue being bigots after they get what they want? Who could have guessed? Death to Florida
