Would it be possible to pass extremely vague laws using the Republican majority, that effectively outlaw transgenderism and being trans in public, without explicitly doing so, knowing the highest court is majority anti trans and won’t care?
Anon they have all three branches they can be explicit.
>>38045363>would it be possible to passno :c
>>38045400Oh i get it.
I hope so.
from god’s lips
>>38045363yes. Florida has an anti cabaret law they can use in that manner. It makes any troon in public a sex offender if a child sees them and they get clocked.
>>38045363Probably not. Bathroom laws are fake and unenforceable. How many people have you seen sued by them? The answer is 0
>>38048141>this law hasn't been enforced YET, so that means it's OK that it's on the books and we shouldn't put any effort into restoring civil rights for trans people. We should just trust the republican who has a gun pointed at our face not to pull the triggerAlright uncle tom
>>38048215the law hasnt been enforced because it's not possible. Their definition on biological male/female is not based on reality but on made up characteristiks. It's the same as making a law that someone with a M in their name cant use this toilet. You can make such a law but you cant enforce it.
>>38049580>you can't enforce is justly That doesn't mean you can't enforce it. You just have to enforce it *arbitrarily* which is actually better if you want to terrorise a minority because inconsistent standards means its harder for people to criticise you because there's no clear pattern.See: anti-black laws in the post-civil war South that targeted people for walking near train tracks or lollygagging
>>38048141>circa 1940>"no jews have been murdered what are you talking about, they only want us to leave the country and take our property"
