[lostgame]

I never said it was anything to do with safety. It's a statement against an oppressive move from a government increasingly uninterested in the people it governs.

However - here's where safety comes in. As a queer/trans woman, I don't particularly feel safe (at all, really) in the southern states (California excluded, I guess?) - Florida and Texas, especially.

People are actively, regularly violent towards LGTBQ+ people down there. And, of course - it's not the ban - it's the attitude behind it - and the people behind it who are dangerous, and are often violent people with guns.

I've rejected a handful of paid business travel opportunities because they were either in Texas or Florida. It's not worth it on the chance I run into some psychotic anti-gay Christian and their gun, demanding I get the hell out of their city...again. (Yes, this has already actually happened to me...)

[f154hfds]

You seem to be referring to a general cultural attitude in the south ("violent toward LGBTQ+") than the particular laws which perhaps are a legislative expression of the southern population's animus? In which case you treat the south on the same spectrum as say Afganistan where the cultural and legislative environment is so hostile you would refrain from even visiting?

[lostgame]

The laws are a direct result of these people existing and voting for them, and a symptom of the oppressive environment that awaits for LGTBQ+ folk who visit, or - worse - live, there.

And of course I would never visit Afghanistan, either!

[f154hfds]

> For a country that likes to jerk itself off about being the epitome of ‘freedom’, they sure do like to tell people what to do.

> The laws are a direct result of these people existing and voting for them.

I see these as contradictory statements. In reality independent legislatures are making laws along the lines of their constituency's prevailing ideology. Both sides of this cultural divide are increasingly unable or unwilling to even entertain each others' points of view in good faith debate.

[jmclnx]

I guess I will be flagged or down-voted, but I have to ask.

From your response, are you saying it is OK to vote for people who actively support discrimination against a segment of people ?

How is allowing people to live their life without State Sanctioned harassment a "point of view" ?

[f154hfds]

The state sanctions harassment all the time:

* It harasses me about taxes every year as I constantly mess things up...

* It should definitely harass you if you break the law!

These laws in question "harass" (restrict) one population by disabling harassment perpetrated by another population.

For the sex-education ban it "harasses" (restricts) sex education to prevent teachers from "harassing" elementary aged children about sexual identity in schools. An abortion ban "harasses" mothers by restricting them from "harassing" their babies.

We're talking about a culture that values the one group's rights over the others' rights. Who wins depends on the prevailing culture in our system of government but one group will necessarily win at the others' expense.