I’m banned from Idaho, Kansas, Florida, and Texas.
I’m illegal in seventy-two countries.
I’ve hurt no one.
I’ve hurt no one.
That’s the problem. There’s a lot people who deserves being hurt. As long as we tolerate them, they won’t tolerate us
When this is over I propose that we make it so 3 time trump voters aren’t allowed to have licenses
How far to the extreme are they gonna take this “License only as you were born” shit?
Start getting gray hair? Thats not the hair color you were born with, immediate license revocation.
Amputation? Scars? You werent born with those, immediate license revocation.
Hair color was blond at birth, but now is brown? Oh you better believe thats a revocation.
By deliberate identification by humiliation, this is clearly a civil rights violation. The bastards want them evicted.
An identifying document should reflect the current physical identity of a person, else it is useless.
It is meant to identify a person, nothing more, nothing less.
As for where the line is drawn for when changing the gender on the document, I don’t know what would be appropriate. Demanding a that a person strips down naked to identify them is ridiculous.
So then perhaps gender labels should be left off of identifying documents, we could rely on iris scanning or DNA, stuff that doesn’t change and is unique.
Frankly, I am in no way qualified to define this, my main point is that an identifying document needs to identify a person as they are today, not how they were born.
Government should not have everyone’s dna
I can see the problem with that, yes, I just tried to figure out a quick and verifiable way to verify IDs if gender is out.
You’d have to start by trying to figure out a quick and verifiable definition of gender. The problem comes when it’s not as binary or final as you may think
Clickbait headlines should be outlawed.
There was one thing I didn’t already know. This is also a bathroom law that relies on citizens to enforce.
So they’re going to be reporting any cis women that look vaguely non-feminine.
Start reporting every politician you see go to the bathroom. You know children are not safe around them.
Religious leaders too.
It’s Kansas. Is there a difference anymore?
Yes this is a witch hunt with the possibility of a $1000 reward, so the zealots will be all in.
Seems like a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen. You know one of these toolbags is gonna point at a cis woman with a double mastectomy and baldness from chemo and be like “that’s a man!” Seems like she’d have a good case.
deleted by creator
Clickbait headlines to a paywalled article.
The headline is NOT clickbait, for further details either read the article, or my comment to mormon Linktank.
Regarding paywall, Use an ad-blocker, and it will randomly complain about that instead of putting up the paywall.
When the complaint about ad-blocker shows, it can be closed and you can read the full article. 😋I’m using ublock and hit the paywall. I’m not going to go searching for an alternative paywall bypass for the privilege of reading an article that I don’t know what’s in it.
The alternative is for someone who wants me to read it to copy past the article into a top level comment, not quote snippets in a reply to a specific person.
Unblock works, that’s the one I use.
It’s not clickbait when it’s true.
It’s clickbait because it doesn’t say the important part in the headline. Forcing you to click the article to know what the fuck they’re talking about. It’s a dick way to operate even if it doesn’t fall under the exact definition.
Yes that can be the case, but in this situation there are multiple reasons, and mentioning some would make the content of the article seem as less than it really has, and mentioning all would make an excessively long headline.
You also have to be realistic, and not call something clickbait that really isn’t.
I agree that 9 times out of 10,such a headline could be clickbait. but in this case there is actually a good reason for the headline.
Does clickbait have to be misleading? I have always considered anything phrased so as to compel you to read further by omitting the crux of the article to be clickbait, so this would absolutely fall under that. An article with a headline like “never do this while tanning!” that’s about the dangers of citric acid on your skin in the sunlight is a useful, true article with a clickbait title, as another example.
Thank you. Seems obvious.
While this is mostly about voter disenfranchising, I doubt a new driver’s license will be “believed” for any purpose including voting, if it doesn’t look like them.
Link w/o paywall:
Paywall?
But apparently that’s random, because on 2nd try it complained about my ad-blocker instead and I could continue to read the entire article?
