zlacker

>>Anon84+(OP)
I don't know if it's literally the same people, but it's pretty amusing watching conservatives be hardcore no compromises first amendment absolutists when it comes to speech they agree with, while simultaneously being willing to define it as narrowly as necessary when it comes to silencing speech they don't agree with.

>>p1neco+OE
The central premise is always centered around the teaching to kids. Show me powerful conservatives who want trans/LGBT books banned from Amazon, or pressuring major book publishers, or outright actual bans in which parents aren't allowed to teach their children from these books. It starts and ends at the classroom/children.

>>TheCap+iF
One quick example: two Virginia Republicans tried to stop Barnes & Noble from selling two LGBT books to kids.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/20/gender-q...

>>Timon3+FW
so again, erotica to kids...

>>vxNsr+Qx1
It's always "about the children", until it suddenly isn't. It was "about the children" when conservatives were attacking gender-affirming care, until suddenly laws were introduced to ban it for everyone. It was "about the children" when conservatives attacked drag shows, until suddenly laws were introduced to ban it in public for everyone. Why is it going to be different this time?

>>Timon3+zI1
Please point to the laws that target adults?

I’d prefer if you could point to the actual text in the law, not some sensationalized headline.

>>vxNsr+z53
One example is this Texas house bill: https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88...

Axios puts it nicely: it "states that a health professional who provides gender-affirming care to a trans person under 26 — or even refers a patient to another provider — could be sentenced to jail and lose their medical license."

Is this sufficient, or do you need more?

>>Timon3+Ty3
So, two things:

1) that bill was introduced in march and went nowhere... so not really anything at all, tons of lawmakers push pie-in-the-sky legistation bec they're nuts but aside from hitting the committee, it goes nowhere bec it's nuts.

2) This appears to limit it to under 26, and while yes, theoretically that is an adult, it's not all adults and is really meant to prevent people who don't have fully developed brains from making life altering decisions. Its the same reason most doctors will refuse to perform hysterectomies on women under the age of 30. kids and young adults make really dumb decisions that they often regret for the rest of their lives... why not protect them from that, especially at a time when there is a clear social contagion.

>>vxNsr+Vt5
Look at where we are right now: I showed you that conservative politicians introduced legislation to ban transitioning for some adults. Where before the point was "it's just in schools and with kids", now it's suddenly "why not protect them from social contagion". Can't you at least keep your principles for 3-4 comments before dropping them?

>>Timon3+L67
Protect children from social contagion. But again. It not a passed law. It’s simply something an eccentric no name lawmaker in Texas proposed. It doesn’t appear to have made it out of committee… should we judge the entire Democratic Party based on the crazy proposals of the socialists who are under their umbrella?

There was a dem lawmaker who wanted to add an amendment to some bill in Montana that removed language about pedophilia… should we assume that all democrats are propedophilia now?