#[0]

I enjoyed this one but I’m guessing most people won’t get it.

“The simple fact is that trannies are predatory degenerates.”

This is correct, but it’s because those last two words combine into a shorter one: men. They’re just men.

This assertion is not, by the way, some kind of self-flagellation; most men aren’t predatory degenerates. But when we talk about sex stuff, “predatory” and “degenerate” tends to describe men more than it does women. And while AGPs may identify as women, their sex drive and general behavior when they don’t realize anyone is looking clearly indicates that they’re men with a fetish, not women trapped in men’s bodies as their “sexed brain” or “gender identity” arguments would have you believe.

By the way the rest of the paragraph isn’t really true; most AGPs aren’t exhibitionists, and the ones that didn’t get good therapy in time do tend to genuinely believe they’re actually women.

I wouldn’t care that much either if this was just about pronoun use in their presence for the purposes of conversation, but “trans people” want pronoun enforcement even in contexts for which we are not present, and they want it regardless of how credible their professed gender identity is.

Not all, but some do, and this is the legal reality in Canada, where a guy with a very male name and presentation was able to sue woman-only aestheticians for refusing to wax his balls, and to a lesser extent in the UK, where until recently people could be fired for stating that they don’t believe you can change sex (still the reality in the USA, although to be fair our employment laws suck in general).

Since they’re the ones that tried to weaponize the law against the people that didn’t want to play along, it really is everyone’s business, and I am definitely bothered enough by it to care.

“People can choose where they work.” implies that you believe it’s reasonable for most people to switch employers over an objection over whether or not their employer’s insurer covers kink-affirmative care.

“I think the vast majority of people are actually fine with it” implies that you don’t understand that conservatives make up half the country.

Actually, I guess if “fine with it” just means “not opposed strongly enough to make a fuss”, then in that case this law is fine, because people can choose where they work (somewhere other than Texas), and I think the vast majority of people are actually fine with it (not opposed strongly enough to make a fuss).

Since you’re acknowledging that you know some people are getting fooled, and you know that some people are going to feel “discomfort with that” (violated, the term you’re looking for here is violated), that also means you’re aware of how some of those seeking these surgeries also intend to subsequently hide their true sex in any future sexual encounters, knowing full well that most people wouldn’t be OK with those encounters if they knew beforehand.

“People can choose their insurance company” is only technically true. Employers tend to offer a limited series of plans, probably from the same provider, and most people in the normal income range are going to pick one of the employer-provided plans.

If we say instead “people can choose their insurance plan“, this is maybe a little more true since often there are multiple coverage levels offered, but it’s still a fallacious argument; you’re not going to worry about having titty skittles and moob augmentation surgeries covered by your health insurance provider unless your teen memories include jerking off in your sister’s panties (an overgeneralization, but one with a lot of truth in it).

For the other 99%, it’s just adding dollars to their health insurance premium so that the office Kaitlyn Jenner doesn’t have to save up for his cosmetic surgeries. Most people aren’t going to want to do that, but most people are also too polite to say that they don’t want to do that.

Banned entirely I’m not sure about. But qualifying for one should require a lot more evaluation, like it used to.

Happy to be of service

I’m just pointing out that being able to identify “coded words” in random words sequences concerning a particular topic has no real implications.

In this case “radfem boypussy” is nonsensical, and “FEMBOY” also has no implications.

radFEM BOYpussy

“bucket of shit for morons to gurgle” and its variants seem like your go-to for when you want to complain about something, but can’t actually formalize any real objection to it.

In this case I suggest reading the actual text of the bill, you might find it informative.

It doesn’t ban these surgeries, it just bans paying for them with most insurance plans (i.e. other people’s money), and it makes the ones who give the treatments liable for the fallout when they turn out to have been a mistake (this 2nd part is based on undercover footage which shows that providers know that some of these patients are going to regret transitioning).

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/SB01029I.htm

Oh ye of little faith

A unanimous vote on this 🤔

Night!