It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?