Jump to content

It's today then ... (Trump thread)


mikehoncho

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

 

If you think...

 

So basically, I can just walk into any women's toilets and if anyone says anything to me, I can say I identify as a woman. Not that I would - but if that's the case, what's to stop anyone doing that? And then, why have gender specific bathrooms at all?

... you might be a Republican.

 

That's the whole talking point about trans bathroom bans- that something that seems to happen so infrequently should still lead to a ban because the women and children. Coincidentally, the people saying this tend to be the same people that say trans people are deluded loonies, it's a very neat package.

 

Not saying you think that way, Herbie, I know you don't. Your friend might have been disconcerted to see a trans woman in the bogs, but she can rest assured that it's 99% certain that Trafford Tranzie was only there because she wanted to use the facilities.

 

 

Firstly, I don't think like that - I asked it as a question; I didn't make a statement. I was asking what the cut-off is to be allowed usage. And I also followed it up with suggesting 1 bathroom for all:

 

"In fact, that's not even a bad idea - you can have individual urinals for those who want to use them, and also a load of stalls. Anyone can use a stall in complete privacy anyway."

 

And I'm very far from being a Republican.

 

 

That's why I said you didn't think that — it's just close to the thinking that a lot of Republicans come out with, that being "what's to stop a bloke putting on a skirt and walking into the womens' toilets to have a perv". Mike Huckerby, turd that he is, basically said he'd have done that as a lad if he thought he could get away with it. Now, he was just making a point AND being a cunt, but that's generally the thinking, real-world evidence be damned.

 

And I was making a play on a Jeff Foxworthy joke. That was probably a mistake, because I don't know if people outside of the US know of Foxworthy, lucky sods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the adding to LGBT is done by some, specifically the term queer, so that they can be included and distance themselves from "Boring CIS straights" as it were. Just because you have a particular kink doesn't make you LGBT but the way queer has seemingly become an umbrella term for "something a bit different" is problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I stopped at Q — I'm a proper PC tumblr liberal type, but I feel like it's like a parody of leftie thinking to just keep adding to acronyms to avoid upsetting anyone.

LGBT isn't an acronym. An acronym needs to spell a word - like NATO, Scuba, Laser, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

 

I stopped at Q — I'm a proper PC tumblr liberal type, but I feel like it's like a parody of leftie thinking to just keep adding to acronyms to avoid upsetting anyone.

 

Initials.  Or you will upset someone, probably Dart.

 

Or me.

 

LGBT is an initialism. And initialisms & acronyms are both types of abbreviations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I stopped at Q — I'm a proper PC tumblr liberal type, but I feel like it's like a parody of leftie thinking to just keep adding to acronyms to avoid upsetting anyone.

LGBT isn't an acronym. An acronym needs to spell a word - like NATO, Scuba, Laser, etc.

 

NATO and Scuba aren't words any more than LGBT is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

 

 

I stopped at Q — I'm a proper PC tumblr liberal type, but I feel like it's like a parody of leftie thinking to just keep adding to acronyms to avoid upsetting anyone.

LGBT isn't an acronym. An acronym needs to spell a word - like NATO, Scuba, Laser, etc.

 

NATO and Scuba aren't words any more than LGBT is.

 

Scuba isn't a word? You high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...