The intent of the people behind the law isn’t what I’m discussing. It is that this should never have been on the agenda, argue for inclusion and equal right but don’t argue to change a legal document that merely recorded the facts as they were at the time.
Well it’s what you should be discussing because laws are not inherently moral, especially if you find your reasoning for them after the fact. The goal is to hurt trans people. It’s plain as day and it should be scrutinized as such.
It’s like trump’s “Muslim bans.” He tried to ban Muslims, his admin just kept changing the wording and criteria to try to make it pass legal smell tests. The goal was plain as day though: ban Muslims. Should we not have assessed it as such?
I dont disagree with with their intention but it’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m merely saying that the document should not be altered after the fact, it should remain as it was then forever more as an official recording of the facts as they were then. That’s all. Don’t change names, genders, parents, or location. Leave it as it was unless there was a legitimate factual error like misspelling a name or address.
The trump ban is something unrelated that I’m not discussing.
Both of those are false assertions, I’m sorry I don’t fit into the box you’d like. Not everyone who doesn’t subscribe to every facet of social issue as you is a trump supporter.
I don’t disagree that it is their intention.
I’m not discussing their intention, which is why the parallel doesn’t work.
The intent of the people behind the law isn’t what I’m discussing. It is that this should never have been on the agenda, argue for inclusion and equal right but don’t argue to change a legal document that merely recorded the facts as they were at the time.
Well it’s what you should be discussing because laws are not inherently moral, especially if you find your reasoning for them after the fact. The goal is to hurt trans people. It’s plain as day and it should be scrutinized as such.
It’s like trump’s “Muslim bans.” He tried to ban Muslims, his admin just kept changing the wording and criteria to try to make it pass legal smell tests. The goal was plain as day though: ban Muslims. Should we not have assessed it as such?
I dont disagree with with their intention but it’s not what I’m arguing against. I’m merely saying that the document should not be altered after the fact, it should remain as it was then forever more as an official recording of the facts as they were then. That’s all. Don’t change names, genders, parents, or location. Leave it as it was unless there was a legitimate factual error like misspelling a name or address.
The trump ban is something unrelated that I’m not discussing.
Believe me I know lol
It’s a perfectly relevant parallel. You don’t like it because you probably agree with the Muslim ban.
Both of those are false assertions, I’m sorry I don’t fit into the box you’d like. Not everyone who doesn’t subscribe to every facet of social issue as you is a trump supporter.
I don’t disagree that it is their intention.
I’m not discussing their intention, which is why the parallel doesn’t work.