The man who wrote the anti-trans bathroom bill just lost to a trans woman

Hah!

Roem, 33, became the country’s only current openly transgender state legislator Tuesday night. And that she unseated the incumbent Marshall to represent the northern Virginia district — who earned the nickname “Bigot Bob” for his outspoken anti-LGBT policy and rhetoric, as well as his introduction of the notorious transgender bathroom bill — is no small feat.

This disgusting man wouldn't even debate her and intentionally misgendered her, showing zero respect. Reminds me of that scene in Oh Brother Where Art Thou when that KKK politician guy glances around nervously, yelling "IS YOU IS OR IS YOU AIN'T MY CONSTITUENCY". Well no, they is not your constituency, jerk face.

Story Link

Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

a reply to: Abysha

I'm so sorry that her gender is an issue to begin with.

What are her positions on taxes, healthcare, gun laws, free speech?

Voting for anyone based on color, gender, sexual preference, religion, is superficial and narrow-minded.

originally posted by: face23785
Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

The article isn't because she's a "first this or first that" (she's not the first trans woman in office by a long shot). The news-worthy aspect is because of the poetic justice the incumbent faced at the hands of a trans woman when he spent a large part of his career ruining the lives of trans people.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

I'm so sorry that her gender is an issue to begin with.

What are her positions on taxes, healthcare, gun laws, free speech?

Voting for anyone based on color, gender, sexual preference, religion, is superficial and narrow-minded.

That's what the article is for. She has a strong platform, well detailed. This thread is about the combination of the incumbent and her, specifically.

Are we not allowed to write threads that go beyond basic platforms? It's not about her politics. Why didn't you ask me about the incumbent's politics and if that's why he lost?

sweet victory!

feeling hopeful.

i know too many people who voted for trump simply because they thought "he'd take care of the gays".

My only hope is that people voted for her because of her platform and not because she is transgender. It'd be sad if she only won because she was running against Marshall.

a reply to: face23785

Roem is the first openly transgender state legislature, that is significant. Kind of like Hillary being the first women to win the presidential nomination or Obama being the first black presisent were significant milestones.

The fact she beat a transphobic bigot who did not have the balls to debate her and constantly belittled her makes this victory pretty awesome.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785
Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

The article isn't because she's a "first this or first that" (she's not the first trans woman in office by a long shot). The news-worthy aspect is because of the poetic justice the incumbent faced at the hands of a trans woman when he spent a large part of his career ruining the lives of trans people.

It's literally the 2nd sentence in the article. And in a number of articles about this, it's right in the headline. I understand and appreciate the poetic justice angle though. Ruining the lives is a stretch though. On a scale of 1 to 10 in oppression, not being able to use the bathroom you want is about a negative 4 compared to what people elsewhere face. Let's keep things in perspective.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
My only hope is that people voted for her because of her platform and not because she is transgender. It'd be sad if she only won because she was running against Marshall.

Was Marshall continually winning because he was a cis gender man? Probably. But people don't like to mention things like that until a woman wins and then it's like "oh, I hope she's good".

I expect better from some of you. Benefit of the doubt, you know? Look into her platform and find out but I really doubt you said this about any of the other people who just won elections.

Just another good story from a slew of good news from yesterday. It is looking like the beginning of the end for Trumpism and hateful politics in general. I hope this momentum holds for another year, but I'm hopeful since the liberal anger has already held for the last year.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

I'm so sorry that her gender is an issue to begin with.

What are her positions on taxes, healthcare, gun laws, free speech?

Voting for anyone based on color, gender, sexual preference, religion, is superficial and narrow-minded.

Why didn't you ask me about the incumbent's politics and if that's why he lost?

Sounds more like a single issue. The stupid bathroom laws.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785
Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

The article isn't because she's a "first this or first that" (she's not the first trans woman in office by a long shot). The news-worthy aspect is because of the poetic justice the incumbent faced at the hands of a trans woman when he spent a large part of his career ruining the lives of trans people.

It's literally the 2nd sentence in the article. And in a number of articles about this, it's right in the headline. I understand and appreciate the poetic justice angle though. Ruining the lives is a stretch though. On a scale of 1 to 10 in oppression, not being able to use the bathroom you want is about a negative 4 compared to what people elsewhere face. Let's keep things in perspective.

When you are going to a doctor for a urinary tract infection caused by holding it in because a legislator legislated you out of existence... then you can decide where it falls on the spectrum of ruining peoples' lives.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Just another good story from a slew of good news from yesterday. It is looking like the beginning of the end for Trumpism and hateful politics in general. I hope this momentum holds for another year, but I'm hopeful since the liberal anger has already held for the last year.

That's an awful lot of wishful thinking. Having lived in NC, there's more liberals there than you'd think for it being a "southern" state. And the 2 governor's races were no surprise. Celebrate while you can.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785
Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

The article isn't because she's a "first this or first that" (she's not the first trans woman in office by a long shot). The news-worthy aspect is because of the poetic justice the incumbent faced at the hands of a trans woman when he spent a large part of his career ruining the lives of trans people.

It's literally the 2nd sentence in the article. And in a number of articles about this, it's right in the headline. I understand and appreciate the poetic justice angle though. Ruining the lives is a stretch though. On a scale of 1 to 10 in oppression, not being able to use the bathroom you want is about a negative 4 compared to what people elsewhere face. Let's keep things in perspective.

When you are going to a doctor for a urinary tract infection caused by holding it in because a legislator legislated you out of existence... then you can decide where it falls on the spectrum of ruining peoples' lives.

Do they frequent a lot of places that only have bathrooms for the gender opposite the one they identify with?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Abysha

I'm so sorry that her gender is an issue to begin with.

What are her positions on taxes, healthcare, gun laws, free speech?

Voting for anyone based on color, gender, sexual preference, religion, is superficial and narrow-minded.

Why didn't you ask me about the incumbent's politics and if that's why he lost?

Sounds more like a single issue. The stupid bathroom laws.

So did he lose because his opponent is a trans woman or did he lose because he's a hateful, sniveling bigot, pandering to his crowd?

This thread is more about the poetry of his loss, not so much the politics of it.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: face23785
Funny story. If there wasn't a transgender person involved it would be a non-story though. You've only really reached equality when you stop making your "first this, first that" the story of the day. Congrats to the winner though.

The article isn't because she's a "first this or first that" (she's not the first trans woman in office by a long shot). The news-worthy aspect is because of the poetic justice the incumbent faced at the hands of a trans woman when he spent a large part of his career ruining the lives of trans people.

It's literally the 2nd sentence in the article. And in a number of articles about this, it's right in the headline. I understand and appreciate the poetic justice angle though. Ruining the lives is a stretch though. On a scale of 1 to 10 in oppression, not being able to use the bathroom you want is about a negative 4 compared to what people elsewhere face. Let's keep things in perspective.

When you are going to a doctor for a urinary tract infection caused by holding it in because a legislator legislated you out of existence... then you can decide where it falls on the spectrum of ruining peoples' lives.

Do they frequent a lot of places that only have bathrooms for the gender opposite the one they identify with?

How many women do you know that feel comfortable being forced into a men's room?

It's not an option.

a reply to: Abysha

I'm sure she'll be great, I just don't like the idea of people voting on emotion instead of platform. Voting on emotion instead of platform is what got us Trump. I just don't want to see it become a regular thing even if it works out sometimes.