Bad hot take.

And here’s the tell — “usually.” If they aren’t available, then that’s just too bad. They don’t actually care how trans persons are treated.

Moreover, the argument is not compelling. Why couldn’t cis women who are uncomfortable with trans women instead use the gender neutral toilet?

(1) The First Amendment does not espouse a jurisprudence that seeks to create some kind of market fairness in idea competition!

(2) Private entities don’t have obligations to support other private entities to aid them in spreading their ideas!

No further comment needed.

Yearly reminder that pride is not just a nice little parade, it is grounded in resistance to oppression. This is especially important to remember this month, when in the UK and the US, our trans siblings are under threat. Their ability to enter public spaces on equal terms is being threatened; 1/

(1) The ‘it’s because of pronouns’ is not only old & boring, but deeply damaging. Stop throwing trans and non-binary people under a political bus to try to curry favour with right-wing extremists. It will not help anyone.

(2) Working class people can have legit econo concerns, but they can also

This approach to HEI is unhelpful.

The idea seems to be that HEIs are full of dumb people who don’t know that these softwares exist and need to implement them.

In many cases, though, a variety of these (some better/worse) have already been.

So: If we already have these, what are saying we NEED

Tip: use a dictionary before engaging in language policing.

This still isn’t normal.

But, also, I’m rather confident that there’s an oath of office. Did he…. Forget?

And what a bad example/argument. That postcolonialism ‘stuff’ you’re bashing relates *directly* to the ethics of why it’s bad to kidnap people.

The fact that you don’t see this is painful.

Don't worry, we've fixed the economy now. It was the shower heads all along!

Such modern ‘unlawful entrants’ break the law in much the same way. They then do abide by ‘local laws.’ So, beyond the mere assertion that they make that they cannot fall into such a compact by adherence to all other rules, there’s no actual argument to this effect. It’s just unsupported assertion.

To try to explain their way of out the problem they create (how to explain frmrly enslaved persons citizenship) now there’s a mental element involved in how one entered. The actual violation of the law is not, per se, what matters.

But this would contradict their social compact claim, then.

In this single section, there’s an equivocation here as to the meaning of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’, and that equivocation is based on a question begging assertion that points to a single source, and either unintentionally and purposefully misleads as to the meaning of the quoted source.

I cannot recommend highly enough abstaining from that eccentric aberration of stuffing yourself into a tube, queueing forever to have your bag scanned repeatedly, eating one peanut, and double checking the size of your carry-on. Others apparently call this strange cultural practice ‘flying.’