Woke LA DA George Gascon SUSPENDS attorney who 'misgendered' transgender child molester.

It means 'gay', but the article doesn't explain how the bills have anything to do with saying the word "gay."

 

The 80s and 90s were so much better

 

The article clearly claims that the bill makes it so that it may not be said that if a historic figure was part of the LGBTQ+ community, depriving the youth of roll models.
It seems it's all too complicated for you. So sad.

 

The days before internet was widely available....

 

Quote it. I know you are wrong because unlike you I have read all seven pages. You also know you are lying yet you keep on doing it This why you refuse to quote the bill to back up your false claims.

11 pages in and you still can't back up a single one of your nonsense claims with a single quote from the bill.

 

Quote the part of the article that you are talking about.

 

it's the first line:
Earlier this month, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law House Bill 322, colloquially dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, restricting public school teachers from discussing LGBTQ+ history or people in public elementary schools.

It seems you never read it, and just ranting nonsense.

 

So you are switching from Florida to Alabama now and just pretending that some how applies to Florida?! Your dishonesty is breath taking and I find it likely you are lying about the proposed Alabama legislation just like you lied about the passed Florida legislation. I mean we do have a pattern of your behavior to examine here.

 

If they support putting a person with a penis (otherwise known as a MAN) in a WOMAN'S prison then why do you expect people to not deduce from that they are supporting rape? Fine, maybe they don't think rape is good but it doesn't seem like they are taking preventative measures against it here
Just a thought

 

The criminal in the OP did not rape anybody though.
He did kill a person.

And it remains so that the GOP support the idea of child marrying an adult.

 

So we can put a MAN KILLER in with WOMEN? Thats OK as long as they didn't rape someone? Strange logic.

That's a completely different topic but feel free to make a thread about it and I'll join you in my support against kids marrying adults. Unless its something like an 18 yr old marrying a 16 year old and they met when she was 16 and he was 14. But anything more extreme than that kinda situation I do not support.

 

What does that have to do with what you said, which was: "it may not be said that if a historic figure was part of the LGBTQ+ community, depriving the youth of roll models?"

 

what is the difference between what I said and what I quoted?

 

It would be strange logic if them other women are nice an sweet. But they are not. That's why they are in jail

You can marry at 16 with a 40 year old in the US because the GOP want it so. It's rape in a normal country. And here you are worried about a man raping women, but do not want to talk about it when the GOP supports it. lol

 

the problem is, YOUR scenario about the marriage age is a different topic. and I don't even support or defend that. Please correct me if I'm wrong but your comment about the women not being nice and sweet, you are saying they deserve to be rape bait?
Wow, strange man! First you talk about completely different topic and then it sounds like you are saying they deserve it. Nobody deserves rape in prison, they are supposed to be there to get reformed, not become worse (unless they did something so bad they are lifers).
I personally think you will say anything and bring up any non related topic just to get those trans men into womens prison
Again, its strange you seem so passionate about it.

 

The same red line is rape. At one point you far right wingers got a problem with it, but on an other subject you lot flip flop back and find rape alright.

 

Well, what you quoted did not include LGBT "historic figures" or "roll models."

 

You say this, the article that I quoted for you specifically says "LGBTQ+ history or people". I seems you do not understand English well enough.

 

Also from the article, which does a pretty good job summing up what these laws achieve: "allow parents to decide what their children learn about sexuality at a young age." NOT creepy teachers.

 

That has nothing to do with "it may not be said that if a historic figure was part of the LGBTQ+ community, depriving the youth of roll models"

 

A good post. There does seem to be people playing whataboutism to change the subject every time they lose the debate.

 

Those are YOUR words. The law does not seek to deprive kids of "roll models." It's actually ROLE not ROLL.

 

Indeed. And you quickly changed the subject to whine about something else. So it's obvious you can only agree on: it may not be said that if a historic figure was part of the LGBTQ+ community, depriving the youth of roll models"

 

When a person has a problem with transsexuals raping girls, but does not want to comment when a grown male does it to a minor after a mariage... than it's not "whataboutism", but hypocritical and pathetic.


While this transsexual hasn't even raped a person, so that's just anti-LGBQ+ hating / fear mongering.
The person did murder a person (or at least, I do think the trial still has to start but the outcome is a sure thing).

 

The law does not seek to deprive kids of "roll models." It's actually ROLE not ROLL.