News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
She did this as an act of civil disobedience and let them know in advance she was coming and was going to use the women's restroom.
But imagine she didn't. Instead she went to the capitol, and, following the law, used the male restroom. Just look at her. Do you think she wouldn't have been harassed or possibly arrested for doing so?
In practice, trans bathroom bans work like this:
Use the restroom the law requires you to: get harassed, beat up, and possibly arrested.
Use the restroom that matches your presentation: violate the law, hope no one clocks you, and you don't get arrested.
I'm a trans woman myself. You wouldn't know it if you saw me in public. And I don't even have any ID documents with an "M" on them. If I wanted to obey the Florida bathroom law, I would have to use the men's restroom. But then when I inevitably caused a scene, I wouldn't even be able to show an officer that I was just complying with the law.
Trans bathroom bans are ultimately just a means of driving trans people from public life entirely. Comply with the law? Get assaulted by some chud who thinks you're violating the law. Disobey the law? Risk arrest for actually violating it.
There's a reason labeling this a genocidal movement is not hyperbole.
This is not an exaggeration, the anti-trans movement literally aims to "eradicate [trans people] from public life entirely", those are their words.
Here are some citations, numbers, and evidence to back up what you're saying and why we should view trans bathroom bans as genocidal rather than about safety, like anti-trans activists claim:
from: https://theconversation.com/baseless-anti-trans-claims-fuel-adoption-of-harmful-laws-two-criminologists-explain-206570
These laws aren't designed to protect cis women, they are designed to police gender (this impacts cis people too!) and eliminate trans people.
Michael Knowles has a seriously punchable face
From Project 2025
"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."
They want trans people existing to not be protected under the First Amendment.
Jesus. Breaking the law is genuinely safer for you... What insanity.
Yeah, in practice, I simply refuse to travel to any state with a bathroom ban.
That alone is not the crazy part, though. Of course many laws have edge cases where you should ignore them for practical reasons in rare circumstances. But here, it's not an edge case. It's right there in open sight.
The harassment and danger is the point. It's meant to drive trans people away from public spaces. It's disgusting.
It’s funny how everyone forgets trans men.
My state has had a bathroom bill for K-12 schools. Every day I went to work I committed a misdemeanor that could have cost my school funding and sent me to jail.
I’ve been told that I can be comforted by the fact that trans women are the target - which, yeah, they don’t want to kill trans men. They just want to drive us out of public life and force us to either detransition or be dependent on the generosity of cis men.
can I just say as a cis male how weird it is how everyone forgets trans men exist and that everything they say that applies to trans women also applies to trans men. I'm surprised how no one has ever brought up a 14th amendment equal protection clause argument against these laws because clearly the the intent of the laws and the language of these laws was written exclusively for trans women.
We don’t really “exist” in the fucktard framework. Trans women are evil “males” (farenghi voice) who want to peep on ladies in the restroom, because that would somehow be a smarter route to being a sex pest than becoming a youth pastor. Trans men are crazy - we get a status of being perpetual teenage girls. “Tomboys” that are refusing to grow up.
They want to kill or imprison trans women, they want trans men to either be institutionalized or forced into submitting to a cis man (the number of gay trans men with boyfriends that misgender them is fucked up.)
and then there are the opposite cases, where in order to comply with the law, manly masculine men would be forced to use the women's restrooms.
you know, with women.
especially the easily frightened at everything because they have been societally coddled and protected for the entire history of this country white women.
i don't know. I'm not ever going to personally deal with that, but I think that if all trans people were going to comply with these idiotic and pointless laws that don't protect the people they are written to protect the trans women probably would have it easier than trans men. I really don't see too many men being seriously traumatized seeing a woman in the men's room (especially when cis females have used men's rooms with men in them regularly at places like concert venues when the line to the women's room is long or too far away).
but then again I don't really give a shit, just flush and wash your hands.