Seriously? Another one?
-
-
New Yorker: "These interpretations of federal anti-discrimination law are new and surprising." THIS IS NOT TRUE. NOT AT ALL.
-
It would be great if people could read more than a story on
#HB2 before thinking they should write about transgender issues. -
For people who need the background, here's my thread regarding the NYT's Sunday story on these issues:https://twitter.com/chrisgeidner/status/734467314356244480 …
-
I'm not going through the full thread again, but the federal gov't has been moving on this for years. The courts as well.
-
That Sunday tweetstorm has links to 10 stories, from beginning more than four years ago, about this issue. Please, read before you write.
-
You're right but that would violate the very nature of Twitter. Conclusion jumping is what twitter's all about.
-
If you read the thread, I am discussing articles, in the New Yorker and New York Times.
-
I did. I was making fun of Twitter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
>Article states: "transgender males being sexually bullied in male bathrooms">USE Faculty, Administrative, Managerial Restrooms
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NewYorker@JeannieSuk Transgender women don't have a right to be pregnant. Women do. Is this not a salient point?Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@NewYorker And like the other, it leaves out the subject of reproduction. People with male organs have a right to impregnate.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.