

So you see your trans brother as ‘genetically’ a woman? I am sure he loves that.
You know, your brother could have been born with XY chromosomes and a genetic mutation. Your family wouldn’t have discovered the Y chromosome until she went through puberty. And I use she here because that’s how she would have been socialized, and that would have been her sex assigned at birth too. If this was your sibling, would she be genetically male or genetically female?
And nothing in any of your arguments has demonstrated to me that you aren’t for segregation. Not just for myself but also for black people really. You’ve argued that bigots have a right to public spaces where they don’t have to be around folks that they don’t find repugnant. Simply through mob rule. Which is allowing the feelings of one group to infringe upon the rights of another. Because hurting your feelings isn’t considered harmful in our culture. While exclusion from public spaces and activities is.
Which shows to me that you don’t understand what a human right is or where they came from when our constitution was written. The founders believed in natural rights, they wrote the bill of rights to ensure that certain rights were never infringed upon. They are enumerated but not exhaustive.
For the state or mob to infringe upon the rights of the individual, there needs to be demonstrated a government interest in keeping the community safe. Little girls aren’t getting ran over by genetic males on the soccer field. So there is no public interest here, only political ambitions and the feels of bigots.
And just so we’re clear, your language is a repetition of those neoliberal and right-wing talking points above.
Trans healthcare and hormones are very nuanced, a child could be put on puberty blockers and in the Presidents opinion be genetically male. Even though it is very easy to demonstrate that that child is not a danger to the well-being of any of the other children on the field.
Yes, bigots have a right to their opinion, we don’t police thoughts obviously or speech, or at least we try not to. But that does not give them the right to tell children that they can’t play sports without demonstrating how doing so is depriving other children of their right to play sports in a safe environment.
So, now that I am calmer, I hope I have explained to you well enough why essentially everyone is disagreeing with you and downvoting you in this comment thread. Please look in the mirror and do some self-crit if you are indeed a leftist.
But she’s not though, the law that she’s charging people under is not the domestic terrorism law because it’s obvious on the face of it that it is not terrorism and any defense attorney would have a field day with that charge.
What she is doing, is having people charged under malicious destruction of property. And in this instance, it’s government property, because Tesla receives financial assistance from the federal government. I mean it’s not actually government property, but as far as the laws concerned the charge can be the same.
Keep in mind too, that arson or use of explosives are going to be their own separate charge. And that if a person’s intent is to say vandalize a Tesla dealership, probably the best way to do that would be some sort of liquid substance that would damage a whole lot of paint jobs very easily. And by best here, I mean you still may end up with a felony charge, but you likely won’t do time if it’s a first offense while still causing a lot of financial damage to Tesla.
When my younger brother vandalize a Hummer dealership with his friends, he did get a felony because of the amount of damage that they caused, but he did not do time in prison.
If he would have set those cars on fire, it would have been arson. And if it would have been government property, at least in the eyes of the law. The minimum sentence would be 5 years. Which is what Pam Bondi is pursuing.