ad_email
ad_facebook_468

2 responses to “The bathroom scare: Old tactics aimed anew at trans-equality bills”

  1. neche

    “am I hiding, or waiting to ambush someone”.

    The above link is :safe for work: more’s the pity, ecause terrorizing of women is deemed amusing if men say it is, and if they tell us stopping it impedes their rights.

    This is how the transgendered view their oppression and terrorizing of women. This is what you enable. Over 90% of men who call themselves “transgendered” and say they have a right to use women’s washrooms are biological males with penises.

    Let them use the men’s rooms. They are men.

  2. Tony

    regarding the comment from neche:

    I’m not transgendered. In fact, I’m a very masculine gay male. So I’ve been in locker rooms and bathrooms around straight men when they have been freely making some really violent homophobic statements around me not knowing my sexual orientation. And frankly I’d be very concerned for the physical safety of a transgendered male to female (penis or not) who was forced to go into a men’s bathroom. They too have very real concerns about rape or being beaten up or much worse killed at the hands of some violent macho bigot.

Leave a Reply

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

Your support keeps us going. Thank you!

A Closer Look

Why some think the dissent cries ‘wolf’ over Supreme Court marriage decision

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26 decision striking down state bans against same-sex marriage has been touted as “probably the strongest manifesto in favor of marriage” and pilloried as “a threat to American democracy.” The huff and puff will soon die down, and here’s a look at the legal bricks that will remain standing and why some might think the dissent is crying “wolf.”

» more


Breaking News

EEOC decision gives concrete remedies for federal employees facing bias

A U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision Thursday could provide important remedies to thousands of federal workers who might face sexual orientation discrimination and may increase pressure on Congress to advance the ENDA.

» more


“Justice that arrives like a thunderbolt”: On same-sex marriage “the fight is over”

June 26 has been solidified as the historic date for LGBT history in the United States. It is the day in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could not enforce laws prohibiting same-sex adults from having intimate relations. It is the day in 2013 when a Supreme Court procedural ruling enabled same-sex couples to marry […]

» more


Supreme Court: States must license and recognize licenses of marriages for same-sex couples

In a widely expected yet stunning victory for LGBT people nationally, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today (June 26) that state bans on marriage for same-sex couples are unconstitutional. The decision requires states to both issue marriage licenses to couples and to recognize marriage licenses obtained in other states by same-sex couples.

» more


Supreme Court upholds health insurance subsidies critical to people with HIV

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6 to 3 decision, upheld the right of the federal government to provide health care insurance subsidies to people with low income in states that have chosen not to participate in the Affordable Care Act by setting up insurance “exchanges.”

The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, is a big political victory for the Obama administration and a big relief for people with low incomes, including many people with HIV.

» more


Abercrombie case: LGBT and evangelicals on the same side

It is a rare occasion when LGBT legal activists find themselves on the same side of a case as the conservative Christian Legal Society and the National Association of Evangelicals. It is also rare to find LGBT legal activists on the same side as conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and his fondness for hewing to the original explicit language of a law.

But so it was with EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch June 1, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer cannot escape federal law’s requirement to accommodate a job applicant’s religious practices by claiming the applicant never told the employer about his or her religious practices.

» more