Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Transgender issues (formerly "Transgender/Athlete Controversy") Transgender issues (formerly "Transgender/Athlete Controversy")

04-15-2022 , 10:06 AM
Multiple prisoners at an all women's prison in NJ are pregnant. Love is beautiful even when it is behind bars. I know a lot of people thought that men would try to fake being trans women to be housed with women, but that isn't happening here. Only 3.5% of the all women's prison are transwomen.

Some antitrans prisoners are suing because trans women are being treated fairly: "Two Edna Mahan prisoners filed a lawsuit last year seeking to end New Jersey’s gender identity policy for prisons, claiming they were harassed by trans inmates and that transgender inmates were having sex with female prisoners."

However, it isn't just some of the cis women who are unpersoning (this word is brought to you by mr mctrollson) these trans women as even the guards are getting on the transphobia. "We opposed this policy change believing it would be detrimental to the general population of female inmates being housed at Edna Mahan and also bring added stress to our correctional police officers assigned to this institution," the union's president told NJ.com.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nj-inmate...112415372.html
04-15-2022 , 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bahbahmickey
Multiple prisoners at an all women's prison in NJ are pregnant. Love is beautiful even when it is behind bars. I know a lot of people thought that men would try to fake being trans women to be housed with women, but that isn't happening here. Only 3.5% of the all women's prison are transwomen.

Some antitrans prisoners are suing because trans women are being treated fairly: "Two Edna Mahan prisoners filed a lawsuit last year seeking to end New Jersey’s gender identity policy for prisons, claiming they were harassed by trans inmates and that transgender inmates were having sex with female prisoners."

However, it isn't just some of the cis women who are unpersoning (this word is brought to you by mr mctrollson) these trans women as even the guards are getting on the transphobia. "We opposed this policy change believing it would be detrimental to the general population of female inmates being housed at Edna Mahan and also bring added stress to our correctional police officers assigned to this institution," the union's president told NJ.com.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nj-inmate...112415372.html
Hard to follow your post but the article is crystal clear.

Despite the many facts we know, such as 'Hetero cis women who are incarcerated eagerly will participate in consensual sex with most cis males (prison staff) who offer it, but at least have access to condoms', we will have certain left leaning activists argue 'there is nothing to see here' as they stick their fingers in their ears and cover their eyes, suggesting we should assume nothing about the future beyond what we see today.

These same people will act as if the suggestion that a criminal cis male, who has a compulsion towards sex crimes against women, would never lie and say they are trans, if they needed no surgery or drugs, because they (the criminals) fear stigma. So instead they (the sex offender criminals) would rather stay in a prison with all males, generally hostile to them for their crimes, instead of moving into an all women's facility, where their targets are captive and many will be willing.

And as this does become increasingly and predictably problematic in the future with more claims of non consensual pregnancies and crimes they refuse to acknowledge it and address while



And then when the more extreme people on the right, over react and seek to ban ALL trans people from being able to get into the appropriate prison for any reason you will see the same people caterwauling about what an injustice it is and 'look how terrible those people are putting in these draconian measures that will hurt all trans'.

And while they are correct about the far right, they will be oblivious to their role, in denying any pragmatic solutions that then triggered the far right to action. Cut, paste, repeat this sad pattern over and over again.

it is very sad, imo, that so many 'well intentioned' people on the left cannot put their more activist leanings to the side to avoid and not play their necessary part in this predictable pattern as time and again they say 'don't look at us. Just look at how deplorable the right again is'.
04-15-2022 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
Didn't Lindsey Wagner play BioWoman?
Dude, that was Linda Carter. Get your pop culture straight!

04-15-2022 , 10:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Dude, that was Linda Carter. Get your pop culture straight!

The above is Wonder Woman. I was talking about The Bionic Woman.
04-15-2022 , 12:02 PM
I know what you meant Laggy. I was an avid watch of both shows and got your connection of 'bio' to bionic but just took the opportunity to squeeze in a Linda Carter gif. A true natural beauty of her times. Any time.

Are we still allowed to offer such compliments these days or is that a cancelable offense?
04-15-2022 , 12:08 PM
breathtakingly wunderschland
04-15-2022 , 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
These same people will act as if the suggestion that a criminal cis male, who has a compulsion towards sex crimes against women, would never lie and say they are trans, if they needed no surgery or drugs, because they (the criminals) fear stigma. So instead they (the sex offender criminals) would rather stay in a prison with all males, generally hostile to them for their crimes, instead of moving into an all women's facility, where their targets are captive and many will be willing.
You realize this entire narrative you have constructed where the evil left believes no male sex abuser would ever lie is entirely made up in your head, right? Like who - exactly - do you believe actually thinks this? Find someone - anyone - to quote. Nobody ITT has said this. I've never heard anyone in the trans community say it. I've never heard a left wing politician say it.

And then you turn around and try to blame the right's "overreaction" as a, well, reaction to the left thinking this outrageous thing. But that whole narrative also falls apart when you utterly fail, as you are about to do, to actually demonstrate that this is a belief the evil left holds. It isn't.
04-15-2022 , 04:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Dude, that was Linda Carter. Get your pop culture straight!
Quote:
Originally Posted by lagtight
The above is Wonder Woman. I was talking about The Bionic Woman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I know what you meant Laggy. I was an avid watch of both shows and got your connection of 'bio' to bionic but just took the opportunity to squeeze in a Linda Carter gif.
Lmao. A true gem.
04-15-2022 , 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I know what you meant Laggy. I was an avid watch of both shows and got your connection of 'bio' to bionic but just took the opportunity to squeeze in a Linda Carter gif. A true natural beauty of her times. Any time.

Are we still allowed to offer such compliments these days or is that a cancelable offense?
Got it!

I think it's considered permissible to compliment a lady these days if you get their permission to do so first.
04-16-2022 , 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackontheturn
If it's +EV to claim trans identity to get an edge in some competitive domain then you can bet that some small subset of people are going to try to exploit that. Just like there are unscrupulous people who try to exploit loopholes in every area of life.

It's completely acceptable to condemn such cheaters without putting down trans people as a group, or infringing on anyone's right to live as they choose, adopt whatever gender identity they prefer, or undergo medical procedures to alter their appearance to be more similar to their preferred gender identity.

No right is unlimited. Your right to swing your hand ends where my face begins. Your right to free speech does not extend to slander, inciting violence, or shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. The right to live in your preferred gender identity does not extend to allowing biological men to compete in elite level athletic competitions against women.

It's not even a question of inclusion/ exclusion. Biological men who choose to adopt a female gender identity should not be restricted from competing against men, and should not face any stigma for doing so.

What is controversial about any of these points?

I'd say it is (in my opinion) a very reasonable take.

But I would also say that there is a lot of hatred towards trans people, and some of the people behind that hatred will try to use issues like these to hurt and harm those they hate. Their rhetoric will use many of the same themes, but will likely be more aimed at blaming transgender people in general. Buyer beware.
04-16-2022 , 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I'd say it is (in my opinion) a very reasonable take.

But I would also say that there is a lot of hatred towards trans people, and some of the people behind that hatred will try to use issues like these to hurt and harm those they hate. Their rhetoric will use many of the same themes, but will likely be more aimed at blaming transgender people in general. Buyer beware.
Of course some bad cis males will try to take advantage. That should not be controversial to say. No one should be attacked for saying it. And society should be able to consider some measures to protect women (both cis and trans) from that abuse.

And of course some bigots will use in rhetoric and actions many of the same themes to instead attack trans people. That should not be denied.


BUt the latter should never be weaponized against the former and yet so many on the far left do.

Just as you see uke, admit 'travel tips' are good, fine and smart to offer, you immediately see him do the left shift and then attack me based on his guess or what he says 'he thinks he sees' in the comments that might be 'slut shaming'. So he immediately he goes on the attack to try and shut down any 'travel tips' talk.. just in case.

Same as he did when I brought up 'prison safety' and the fact that cis males will abuse an open door policy where a person by declaration only (no history of trans, no surgery, no drugs) can be diverted from going to a male prison and instead go straight to a female one simply by saying the words 'I am trans'.

He has admitted he is fearful any 'criteria' put in place to prevent cis males abusing it will be weaponized against trans (some might) and thus nothing should be done and even talking about it has to be attacked.

This is what 'cancel culture' on the left looks like in one key area. This one is about making certain topics of discussion off limits. No matter your intent (protect trans and cis) this is an area that if you dare go there, understand we will label you with all our assumptions about your intent and you will be dealing with accusations of 'slut shaming', 'being anti trans', etc and good luck to you defending against that.

Many people in the middle quickly see these 'no go' areas and just avoid them, when they might otherwise offer their views. Cancel = successful.

You have this pretense that this dynamic is not a thing. That it is not in play. When it very much is and if very much understood by those who have weaponized it.
04-16-2022 , 12:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
You realize this entire narrative you have constructed where the evil left believes no male sex abuser would ever lie is entirely made up in your head, right? Like who - exactly - do you believe actually thinks this? Find someone - anyone - to quote. Nobody ITT has said this. I've never heard anyone in the trans community say it. I've never heard a left wing politician say it.

And then you turn around and try to blame the right's "overreaction" as a, well, reaction to the left thinking this outrageous thing. But that whole narrative also falls apart when you utterly fail, as you are about to do, to actually demonstrate that this is a belief the evil left holds. It isn't.
Ya but i am not interested in your gaslighting and lies.

I like that you realize your prior positions were wrong and you always try to deny them later.

Anyone can look back at the genesis of the 'Prison talk'.

I expressed one constant issue and fear. That was that Prisons should not allow any prior cis male to simply declare to be trans and then be transferred to a women's prison as that would put all women, trans and cis at threat from cis male predators.

You immediately tried to change my words instead of replying to what i said. Your tactic, is to say something true ("you realize trans women can get caught up in any such checks) as if I was arguing against that and then to proceed to argue against the position YOU MADE UP as if it is mine.

Two things can be true at the same time. I can be right that allowing this process puts all women at risk. And you can be right that some trans women may be delayed in transfer if they have no prior history. You being right about the second part (which I was never arguing) has no bearing on my first point but you always act like it does.

Until you make a post like this above where you pretend you never really held that position.

Here is the first exchange again (in spoilers), if anyone wants to see uke's lies and gaslighting.

I am trying to discuss one thing, cis male abuse and he immediately suggests it is a way to actually attack trans and will only argue that Bogeyman he is created until you see the last post I put here, which jumps to today where he is not pretending he never made such arguments.

Checkmate.

Spoiler:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
uke, this is an area where I am not looking to disagree with you but it seems to me this is not a transgender issue Jk is identifying.

From the article clicked thru the tweet...

Quote:
"...Police have been criticized for saying they will record rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being committed by a woman if the attacker “identifies as a female”.

Police Scotland said that they would log rapes as being carried out by a woman if the accused person insists, even if they have not legally changed gender...."

Surely no one sensible for 'gender declaration only before going to jail' for rapists or any criminal? Surely a person in the legal system facing serious jail time should have to demonstrate at least a minimum of trans identity prior and not just upon arrest and looking conviction.

I know there is a habit on this forum to pretend nothing that is happening at the moment is ever a threat to happen but letting men, in the system, avoid the hard time of most mens' jails and instead spend it in easier prisons and surrounded by women is folly, NO?

or is this place so far gone that even that cannot be admitted as any thing more than doom speak as it has not happened yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
...

I get that fearmongering about bizarre hypotheticals of cis men faking being trans keeps you and JK Rolling up at night. The change to the rules was about logging crimes based on the gender people identify as, a completely reasonable policy. Nobody said anything about giving out automatic go-to-female-prison cards or whatever other nonsense you are dreaming up.

Just like the fake issue of bathroom bans before it, the basic operating procedure is to endlessly fear monger about devious cis males sneakily taking advantage of something and then magically the policy suggestion is something that ends up worse for trans people. Who could have guessed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Actual summary:

Article : Men being sent to jail with a simply declaration of being a transwoman will now be processed as a women and instead sent to women's jail

QP : wait that is no safe. It is not safe for the women whether cis or trans. Both would be put at threat by men wanting to be in an easier prison and with women

QP : surely some minimal requirement where the person can demonstrate it is not just an arrest day transition declaration and that they have either lived as trans or spoke to a doctor or others. They should require some prior proof and not just a arrest processing declaration

uke : I am fearful that the huge number of arrested actual 'hidden' transwomen would get caught up in this. You know, ones that have never talked about it with anyone but while in processing make that declaration for the first time. Thus any and all men should be able to simply vocally declare. that should be good for all. Never fear, no Males would take advantage and it is crazy to think criminal males would lie like just to be around women and serve easier time

Everyone else : really? Are we playing this that stupid?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
The ARTICLE linked was talking about MALES who might fake being trans and not actual trans. Willd clarified something not in the article after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
Wait, what.

So even though Willd pointed out that the article is NOT saying simple declaration alone is what the article is saying YOU ARE saying you are for simple declaration by criminals as the standard.

OK i did misunderstand you and your reply. You are a wacko. Allowing men at arrest with zero history of being trans prior simply to say they are trans and to end up in women's prisons is stupid.

That you say not allowing them to do that might catch up some genuine trans women just shows how far you will go to extend your wacky view.

NO. No men, with zero provable history of being trans, talking to any professional about transitioning or anything other then an arrest time declaration SHOULD not be automatically considered a transwomen and processed thru to women's prison.

You are absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Are you just being extremely dense? You realize that if you don't let people self-declare their gender that affects actual trans people, right? I know, I know, it's easier to always focus on the made up "hypotheticals" of actually cis men trying to scam the system.

Not that this had anything to do with the story about reporting gender, but you then jumped to random speculations about what happens in the prisons where you wanted men to serve the "hard time" of a male prison. And just as before, you can protest you only care about the hypothetical of cis men pretending to be trans women blah blah blah but OF COURSE it affects trans women by the exact same policy.

Pretending "this has nothing to do with a trans person" is just hopefully disingenuous. Just like the people who claimed we need to ban trans people because they really pretended to care about the fearmongering of cis men exploiting it.

Remember: listen carefully to whether someone consistently talks about threats against trans people, or threats - real or imagined - when you try to be inclusive of trans people. Notice if this is their endless pattern, it says a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
My position has nothing to do with a trans person anywhere in the chain so you can strawman somewhere else.

I am speaking to solely to an article that suggested an unethical and criminal man (not a trans woman) who simply verbally declared they were trans at the time of arrest would be processed as a woman.

If someone wants to ignore that process as problematic then quite frankly they are dangerous.

We should all be able to say any process that would allow that should be challenged and that has NOTHING to do with transwomen being the victims of crime often. That is just a weirdly specious conflation which seems like almost a reflexive whataboutism.

If that article proves to be false, then great. But replying to it as written before clarifications as I did should be seen as the right side of THAT issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
A sadly common tactic is to constantly frame trans issues as trans women being a threat. In reality, the victims of violence are disproportionately trans people. Whether it is bathrooms - what if predatory cis men pretend to be women to be able to rape people!!!! - to prison - what if predatory cis men pretend to be women to try to avoid hard time!!! - it is always positioning your arguments where the aggressor is the putative trans person and never the victim. JK Rolling is a master at this. Cuepee is a bit of a bumbling apprentice, but coming along.


Of course in reality, being trans in prison is likely to be a far worse "hard time" than for cis people with those trans women Cuepee would submit to male prisons so that they get some "hard time" either victims of violence in gen pop or more likely subjected to endless solitary. And once again, as soon as the new topic of prisonns comes up the frame will never be about the violence against trans people ,but fear mongering about hypothetical what-ifs of fake trans people exploiting the system. Every time. The pattern is sick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
I hope so.

The concern is not a transgender woman in a woman's facility but that some men may see this as the easier time and prefer the company of women, if locked up, so they cannot make this an easy exploit. Simply thinking 'it has not happened yet, so don't worry or think about it or try to create rules to block it' would not just be dumb but dangerous.

I worked in a minimum security prison for about 8 months between HS and UNI, as an inmate supervisor in the Inmate Run kitchen and more than half the inmates where lying on any given day to get access to other diets when they got bored of the normal food. They were suddenly Halal or Kosher, Vegetarian or some odd extreme diet all of which let them get more custom designed meals. And a week later they were something else.

I know the UK has had some controversy already in this area, with a story about a transwomen violent sex offender being locked up with other women she then immediate abused but the only fix I see for something like that is putting her in solitary confinement.



And that was just to sate a food appetite. You can imagine what they would do for their more base appetites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
You will change your view and stop lying soon enough.

You will mirror my view while pretending you always did just as you have on many issues we have discussed in this thread.

The summary article that was cited in that tweet DID NOT say what you are saying here or what Willd clarified with later.

So AGAIN my reply was to an article that was saying cis males could identify as female solely at the time of arrest and be treated as women in processing and then on to female jail.

That would be stupid and dangerous to allow even if uke thinks it would never happen.

You uke are arguing for a system where only the honor system would stop a criminal cis male from lying to endanger women. You are saying the honor system will suffice. That it is enough of a protection. You are naive and dumb.

I am saying make that cis male at least establish he has expressed this sentiment at least one day before being processed for a prison and not just use the honor system with these criminal men.

You act like my position is the unreasonable one.


Prisons for men suck. They suck bad. Men kill and die to escape them. Serving that time in a womans prison would be a luxury in comparison without even considering the access to women. that you think the honor system is enough to keep criminal men from lying is you doing the opposite of what you accuse me of. You refuse to see any threat out of need to think every action is somehow a threat to the trans women.

Questioning cis men first protects ALL women including trans women.

Checkmate. View changed!!!

04-16-2022 , 12:48 PM
Can't be checkmate if the king isn't in check. A 2000 (literally) word post later and the simple fact remains that zero people - least of all me - have ever said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee, making things up
These same people will act as if the suggestion that a criminal cis male, who has a compulsion towards sex crimes against women, would never lie and say they are trans, if they needed no surgery or drugs, because they (the criminals) fear stigma.
Your fantasies about what the evil left thinks is entirely in your head.
04-16-2022 , 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Can't be checkmate if the king isn't in check. A 2000 (literally) word post later and the simple fact remains that zero people - least of all me - have ever said this:

Your fantasies about what the evil left thinks is entirely in your head.
And yet your gaslighting and backpedaling aside your very first reply (lumped in with JK Rowling) says just that.

As always I am happy when my point sinks in with you, you realize you are wrong, and change to my point while denying your position. it is template and how things will always be. But anyone can see in the spoilers you said just that.
04-16-2022 , 01:34 PM
uke what considerations should be allowed in a case like this.



All of the crimes, including a gross sexual assault of a 10 year old girl, committed as a cis male.

After being caught and faced with jail, she declares herself a trans woman, and due to the risk a trans woman might face in jail, probation, instead of jail time is recommended by the D.A..


This person is caught laughing and mocking the system that went so easy on them and making fun of the victim.
Quote:
Jailhouse phone call reveals transgender child molester, 26, LAUGHING at soft sentence and MOCKING victim who breaks her silence to say 'the things Tubbs did to me and made me do that day were beyond horrible for a 10-year-old girl'

- DA George Gascon admitted that child molester Hannah Tubbs, 26, should not have been prosecuted as a juvenile and should have received a harsher sentence
Tubbs, a transgender woman, was sentenced last month to just two years in juvenile facility after pleading guilty to molesting a 10-year-old

- At the time of the offense in 2014, Tubbs, then identifying as male, was two weeks shy of her 18th birthday

- While in jail, Tubbs boasted to her father in jailhouse phone conversation that she'll be able to plead out and won't have to register as a sex offender

- She also laughed about the prospect of leaving the country 'next time' she gets in trouble

- Gascon, who is facing second recall for being soft on crime, announced on Friday changes to policies in exceptional cases such as Tubbs'
Your position to mock the idea or even discussion of any measures to try and ensure even cis male criminals do not have to face any process to ensure they are in fact trans, out of fear that some some legitimate trans women may get caught up in it, is just not going to be tenable or acceptable to society at large. We will not accept that cis men, being put in a place where they can do real harm to women (cis and trans) is just a tradeoff we are to turn a blind eye to.
04-16-2022 , 01:39 PM
Lol. Buddy, it is just not a position of the evil left - and certainly not me - the utter fantastical nonsense that " criminal cis males would never lie and say they are trans". This is a pure figment of your imagination. You can be all hopelessly confused about me critiquing your rhetoric (jumping from an article you admitted you never read to fake trans people in prisons) but that critique is just not and can not and will not be the same thing as believing that no criminal would ever lie. No matter what you want to imagine.
04-16-2022 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuepee
uke what considerations should be allowed in a case like this.

All of the crimes, including a gross sexual assault of a 10 year old girl, committed as a cis male.

After being caught and faced with jail, she declares herself a trans woman, and due to the risk a trans woman might face in jail, probation, instead of jail time is recommended by the D.A..

This person is caught laughing and mocking the system that went so easy on them and making fun of the victim.

Your position to mock the idea or even discussion of any measures to try and ensure even cis male criminals do not have to face any process to ensure they are in fact trans, out of fear that some some legitimate trans women may get caught up in it, is just not going to be tenable or acceptable to society at large. We will not accept that cis men, being put in a place where they can do real harm to women (cis and trans) is just a tradeoff we are to turn a blind eye to.
This type of case should be entirely apolotical. It shouldn't be part of the culture wars. It shouldn't be used as fodder by people who attack trans people at every opportunity, or try to endlessly center the conversation on fake trans people. It shouldn't be used as part of this pattern to highlight the worst possible trans people.
04-16-2022 , 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
This type of case should be entirely apolotical. It shouldn't be part of the culture wars. It shouldn't be used as fodder by people who attack trans people at every opportunity, or try to endlessly center the conversation on fake trans people. It shouldn't be used as part of this pattern to highlight the worst possible trans people.
Right.

So strawman aside as usual, lets all just stipulate that two seperate things can be considered and/or true.

- One is that nothing should be used as a sideline way to attack or harm real trans person.

NOW SEPERATE TO THAT

- two we should be able to discuss potential abuse by criminal cis males, without someone like you offering that strawman 'whatabout'.


So again uke, on the topic of cis male abuse ONLY, what should be done???
04-16-2022 , 01:56 PM
And i know you will NEVER address that latter question. It is simply not in you to not take every opportunity to conflate the two. To pretend the very offense to be attacked by you, is the 'raising of cis male abuse' which you believe should never be said and which you want to cancel.
04-16-2022 , 02:30 PM
I'll tell you what. If you decide to talk about a hundred trans issues where you are doing deep dives flushing out the nuances of the trans issues and spamming the thread with photos and links - but those issues are ones supporting trans people and identifying ways we can help them - then 1 out of 100 times we can pause and go deep on fake trans people in bathrooms or fake trans people in sports teams or fake trans people in prisons or whatever fake trans people issue most excites 2000 word posts from you.

Probably 1 in a 100 is a bad ratio, but I'll be magnanimous and let you have that.
04-16-2022 , 06:09 PM
Oh look, QP’s found another “fake trans” moral panic to spazz out over while actual trans people struggle with suicide, bullying, and discrimination.
04-19-2022 , 03:17 AM
04-19-2022 , 03:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
The existence of gay people isn't an "adult topic". Kids in K-3 have gay parents. Mine specifically has gay grandparents. I know you have insane takes about childhood education where kids aren't even learning cool **** like planets, but on this planet, education intersects and connects with society in a myriad ways. This isn't taking about the details of anal sex.

The laws vary, as mentioned. Some are super vague some that readings of them, particularly literal ones, make it seem like you can't do anything, which causes this incredibly chilling effect. Let educators teach kids, which is what they are trained to do, not under threat of GOP politicians threatening what they can and can not say for political gain.
Socialists regard your property as their property, but even more nefariously they regard your children as their property
04-20-2022 , 09:32 PM
A while back I mentioned one of sons favourite books, the family book, which depicts a range of different families, as an example of age appropriate ways that kids can learn about diverse worlds. It is one of the most innocuous books imaginable. So I was surprised to see it on the list of books banned at a county library: https://twitter.com/dwuhlfelderlaw/s...fNUKfTXmYP4FNQ

Also sorry, conservatives, your wives have already read 50 shades of grey five years ago. You can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
04-21-2022 , 12:47 AM
Two Toni Morrison books, a Judy Blume book - I wish I could say I was surprised. I was going to post the image of the list here, but I think the Education thread will be a better place for it. Not that this isn't a fine place to bring it up as well.

      
m