FfaerieOxide

I told no one to do any thing.

If a person walks up to you and says, “I wish I could buy some cocaine!” it’s not entrapment to tell them there’s a dude who sells it in the park.

Whatever goes on in that park is between the people doing it.

You can tell a person their wishes can come true and not be encouraging them to peruse them.

Can you really say that was advocating?

I didn’t Nathaniel Demerest anyone into wishing they could do things.
I just told a person how they could do a thing they’re already expressed a wish to do.

Not all of them.

Why do you want to other trans people?

There’s alot of other ways you could have divided bathroom use but you ignored race, occupation, sexual orientation, housing status, handedness, whether they support the Yanks or the Mets, if-or-not they wear flip flops, number 1 or number 2, time since their last covid test, attractiveness, their tact when sniffed, and dick size.

Could have segregated bathrooms by any the above categories but you chose to suggest a bathroom for (presumably cisgender) Man, a bathroom for (presumably cisgender) Women, and an “Other” bathroom occupied by people who are not just not men and not women (whose absence of a space “for” them is a salient if side point) but people who very much fit within the binary categories “Man” and “Woman” but you still want separate, with the odd, ends, and enbys, from the Cis People bathroom.

Think about why it is you want a “Cis People Bathroom”.
Don’t even think about the invasion of genital privacy or general propriety required to effect the border you wish to erect.

Think about why this is a thing you want.
Why you want people, who have genders—which are every bit as real as yours—, to have to expel the semi-solid remains of food and wastes and toxins filtered from their blood in a separate room from you.
What is it about these people that makes their shit stink more (or less) enough to warrant their doing so separately?

Surely it’s not as simple as “Their gender turned out differently than a 13-second-old genital exam told them that it should, for which they need be punished.”

Respect if that’s it. “Fuck Trans People.” Not the way I’d go with things, but it’s an ethos.

I don’t think that’s it, though.
You seem nice enough I doubt naked bigotry compels your actions.
You seem well-informed enough—further—to know just how expensive a “fuck you” a third for every second bathroom would be just to keep a percentage point the populace apart 'pon poop and piss.

So if it’s not naked bigotry, and it wouldn’t be very effective bigotry even if it was, what is it that makes you think trans people need to not be around people who aren’t trans during the 15/1440 minutes a day the average ass spends on a toilet?

Right click “new private window”.

The 11 year old girl the judge sided with is one of the “little girls being uncomfortable with it”.

You’ll have to include whatever point you think you’re making there too.

I’m not the one who made genocide the official party platform, nor am I someone who seems to think a person can vote for a party doing a genocide while remaining morally inculpable for doing so.

If “you’re caucusing with nazis” makes a person nazi harder, that person was always a fash.

just paints those people as irredeemably evil

How, when they can always leave the dinner table?

What are you doing right now?

A party openly embraces fascism, throws anti-queer pro-insurrection planks in its official platform and you’re back-and-forthing about if it’s “ok” an ‘I Like Ike’ button was found among great uncle gerald’s personal effects.

Why is that the side of the scale you feel needs weight?

Why do you want to find common ground with people who are actively engaging in genocide?
There is certain ground you shouldn’t want to be in common with.
Certain positions you just oppose.
You are carrying water for people who want good friends of mine executed and you should stop doing that.

a charity’s job is to do good.

A charity’s job is to get donations.

The only reality I need to acknowledge is that genocide is bad.

One party is currently enacting genocide and should be made to feel bad about that.

You can feel however you want about propping up the Non-Profit Industrial complex with money sourced from puppy kickers. Your “pragmatism” doesn’t make genocide ok, nor does it render a refusal to call it out as anything but harmful moral cowardice.

Harmful.
Refusing to shun evil does real world harm.
Legitimizing evil as not evil because “evil money spends” bolsters evil.
Reducing opposing genocide to “ideological purity” is flippant, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing it.

most Republicans are not pro-genocide, rather, extremists within their party are

There is no moderate wing of a party which caucuses with people who proffer genocide as a policy position.
10 people having dinner with 1 nazi is 11 nazis and a party that has members pushing genocide is a genocidal party.

Is it better to declare your politics and lose the donations that would allow you to do good?

Legitimizing genocide as a “political belief” by refusing to call out, “We should do a genocide!” as bad is itself doing a bad.

“I don’t want to alienate Republicans and Democrats. … I like having it where everyone”

So he’s a fascist. If you have 11 people trying not to alienate a fascist, you have 12 fascists.

Donaldson considers himself strictly apolitical

Refusing to take a side when one side has made the extermination of swaths of the population their stated policy goal is taking the side of oppression.