The devil is in the details. Specifically, definition n4.
Simply being trans is considered obscene and a felony if too close to a school
-
Features
It never was about protecting kids
- Thread starter Loren Pechtel
- Start date
The devil is in the details. Specifically, definition n4.
dannyk
Member
I’m not clear myself based on the wording of n4 whether there needs to also be sexually explicit behaviour exhibited by said transgender person. Eg Just being within 2500ft may not by itself fall foul of that code?
If there is genuine concern for safety risks posed by transgender individuals in schools, one would expect to see corresponding safety measures, such as Transgender attack lock down drills. We don't have those.¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ideologyhunter
Contributor
So what do we do when we are attacked by the transgendered?
TomC
Bless Your Heart!
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
- Messages
- 9,097
- Location
- Midwestern USA
- Gender
- Faggot
- Basic Beliefs
- Agnostic deist
What does transgender mean for the purposes of this law?
I occasionally hear nonsense like "What is a woman?" I don't have a problem answering that question. But I'm not only unsure about trans, I'm also confident that nobody else can clearly describe it either.
Tom
I occasionally hear nonsense like "What is a woman?" I don't have a problem answering that question. But I'm not only unsure about trans, I'm also confident that nobody else can clearly describe it either.
Tom
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,077
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
If a man has hair longer than three-quarters of an inch, he is transgender.
If a woman has hair shorter than six inches, she is transgender.
This simple rule brought to you by the Master Simpletons at "Everything was perfect in the 1950s, and we need to go back to that perfection at any cost".
Please subscribe to our newsletter.
That's easy. Someone Matt Walsh will never satisfy sexually. Trust me, the definition holds.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,691
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The issue is that it runs far afoul of equal protection, naming a suspect class that has already according to the SCOTUS been deemed protected (discrimination on gender identity is sex based discrimination).
Simply put, it is illegal to discriminate in the law on the basis of sex, specifically to discriminate on how people act on the basis of sex; if it is legal for a "male" by any definition) to dress in pants and make hip thrusts near a school, it must be legal for a "female" (by any definition) to dress in pants and make hip thrusts near a school.
To that end actually building legislation that makes any thing or benefit coded differently along any concept of sex or gender is illegal.
The only legal law would be "any sexually explicit behavior by anyone within 2500 meters of a school" which is patently ridiculous: kids themselves engage in sexually explicit behaviors around schools.
Elixir
Made in America
That's why we need to put the little fuckers in jail.
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,691
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Admittedly, I think a lot of it comes from some attempt to conflate rather than separate cultural and general behavioral norms, which goes back to the Purity Problem.
Nobody should be prohibited from the vestiges of others on any basis of mere accident of birth, nor unelected or non-governmental office.
If the priesthood is not a legal station, and it ought not be, I ought not be barred from dressing as a priest.
Having genitals that look one way or another is not a legal station but an accident of birth, and likewise should be no legal separator of behavior, expression, or mannerism.
Such things are cultural, inventions that ought not bind us.
Nobody should be prohibited from the vestiges of others on any basis of mere accident of birth, nor unelected or non-governmental office.
If the priesthood is not a legal station, and it ought not be, I ought not be barred from dressing as a priest.
Having genitals that look one way or another is not a legal station but an accident of birth, and likewise should be no legal separator of behavior, expression, or mannerism.
Such things are cultural, inventions that ought not bind us.