Remix clone Hacker News

What does that have to do with anything?

Less than one percent of Americans are trans, yet republicans have put forth hundreds of bills to make their lives difficult.

The parent is suggesting that the other side does already do the "imagine if..." thing.

▲

ziiiio 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Fifty percent of Americans are female, and most of these bills you refer to are intended to help them by preventing male incursion.

Yes, this might make it more difficult for that minority of males who demand to use female spaces. That's the whole point.

▲

yyuugg 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Even if you believe this, it's still nonsense.

Let's say you believe that trans women are men. And you believe you need to protect cis women. The number of trans women is so vanishingly small, that you've spent a huge amount of energy to prevent the 0.5% case. Legislating always has an opportunity cost, putting forward a bill means not putting forward other bills.

Women suffer domestic violence and sexual violence. 33% of women in the US report experiencing domestic violence. Protect women from that!

Because there are so many ways women suffer in this country, it's very difficult to take on good faith that anyone is protecting them by legislating against trans women. You could choose to solve any problem that affects women orders of magnitude more, but those problems see orders of magnitude fewer bills, if any at all.

No, the data shows this isn't about protecting women, it's about hurting trans people.

	▲	ziiiio 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		By this same logic, do you believe that no laws should be or should have been introduced that enable these males to access women's spaces and services? As there are only a vanishingly small number of such males, so spending a huge amount of legislative energy to give them what they want is a waste of time which could have been used for more worthy laws, like ones to prevent domestic violence. Your argument works both ways.