Hello. Welcome to this week's legislative horror show. 1/ 
No, that's not quite what Bostock said; it was limited to employment. But, also, SCOTUS, how could you muddy things like this? Entirely predictable. 2/
"legal recognition of" "truest selves"? Reality is government business; these feelings, however deeply felt, are not. 3/
No girls' sports. No single sex locker rooms. Why this drive to torment children? 4/
No female-only shelters. No female-only dorm rooms. 5/
No single sex restrooms, swimming pool changing rooms, gym locker rooms... 6/
@TheDemocrats This is monstrous. You are sterilizing children, stunting their physical and emotional development and rendering them medical patients for life. Why? 7/
You are intending to prohibit anything other than blind *medical* affirmation of confused children's ideas about stereotypical sex roles. Why? 8/
Yes, why track meaningful data which allows us to actuarially prepare for the retirement of our citizens, provide safety in inhospitable countries and create policy around crime and medicine. 9/
Activists have already taken over women's services; please do fund your own. But that's not what this means, is it? 10/
Interesting. # 6 above addresses "public accommodations." In contrast, prisons are considered "public facilities." This appears not explicitly seeking to sex-integrate "facilities" based on gender ID. Has word gotten out that mixed sex prisons result in rape and pregnancies? 11/
Utopia always just beyond reach. Right around the corner. 12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
