(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 10:36 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Emotions trump reality. Lies win over truth. Screwed up liberal asylum we live in.

I had almost no opinion of this mess, but I had to say something to this. The majority of ALL political subjects is emotional, including the conservative portion of this one. Don't act like this is a product of cold-blooded analysis.

I can completely understand, and do agree, that we don't want perverts going into bathrooms and flashing, assaulting, etc little girls. But there isn't evidence other than our own "common sense" (which ends up being hokum more than we care to admit). Trans women have been using the women's bathroom for years and I've personally never seen a case scroll by with there being an assault of some sort.

What has a higher chance of happening: A trans woman being assaulted in the men's bathroom or a trans woman assaulting someone in the women's?

Which would cause more anxiety for us "normals": A trans man in the men's bathroom or a trans man in the womens?

Its not JUST about assaults. Its an invasion of privacy.

A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  I had almost no opinion of this mess, but I had to say something to this. The majority of ALL political subjects is emotional, including the conservative portion of this one. Don't act like this is a product of cold-blooded analysis.

I can completely understand, and do agree, that we don't want perverts going into bathrooms and flashing, assaulting, etc little girls. But there isn't evidence other than our own "common sense" (which ends up being hokum more than we care to admit). Trans women have been using the women's bathroom for years and I've personally never seen a case scroll by with there being an assault of some sort.

What has a higher chance of happening: A trans woman being assaulted in the men's bathroom or a trans woman assaulting someone in the women's?

Which would cause more anxiety for us "normals": A trans man in the men's bathroom or a trans man in the womens?

Its not JUST about assaults. Its an invasion of privacy.

A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

(04-09-2016 04:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tom,

Can gays get married in Cuba?
Can they get married in North Carolina / Mississippi?

Does McCrory/NC GOP/Phil Bryant support marriage equality? No.
Does Castro support marriage equality? No.

Don't even talk to me about Mississippi. Its worse than Cuba. Mississippi just passed legislation protecting harassment of LGBT persons. And allowing for discrimination in HEALTH CARE.

That would be wrong if true (and would probably fail in a court). But I suspect you are just gullible and believe everything you hear. Got any links?

How about the text of the law

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documen...1523PS.pdf

I'll start with Section 3, Part 4. Very broadly written my friend. Allows for the denial of health care. And there's no provision ensuring that those needing medical care get it in Mississippi or that Insurance carriers ensure that LGBT persons in that state receive the same benefits IN MISSISSIPPI that are provided to straight persons. This bill enables far reaching discrimination in health care. And it goes well beyond simple sex reassignment surgery too. Someone has a problem with their psychological meds? Sorry, no medical care for you. Crisis counseling? Problems related to sex reassignment surgery? Nope. What is 'an emergency' under the law? Who knows.

A lot of medical care might be essential but not an immediate emergency. Chemo isn't handed out at the emergency room, but its necessary and essential, for example. So might proper medication for psychological issues. As well as counseling. There might be initially minor complications from sex reassignment surgery that might not initially be an emergency, but might require attention to prevent it from becoming one.

Then take a look at Section 7. This appears to give a license to harass and insult LGBT Mississippians who are conducting business with their government, including in state owned and operated hospitals.

---

And then look at Section 2. It isn't a protection of religion bill, but rather a bill that elevates 3 (and only 3) religious viewpoints. These are evangelical Christian viewpoints not shared by other religions. This establishes evangelical Christianity above other religious viewpoints.

---

And then look at Section 3, section ©. What legitimate state interest exists to allow for organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone?

---

Section 3, part 5. Is so broadly written that it allows for discrimination against any married LGBT person or any Transgendered person is just about every area of commerce. Refuse to rent an apartment or even a hotel room to a Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse to serve a dinner to a married Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse just about any service to a Transgendered person? Yep.

---

I'll just leave it there. But there's more, so much more. I didn't even go into the Romer v Evans argument. I'm sure Lambda Legal and the ACLU will do that in their lawsuits too.

I'd be very surprised if this bill is ever implemented. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. My guess is that it never goes into effect.

(04-09-2016 05:18 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its not JUST about assaults. Its an invasion of privacy.

A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

Former lady

(04-09-2016 05:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:18 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

Former lady

And the North Carolina bill uses the term 'legal gender'. If you're born in Tennessee, or 3 other states, you cannot get your 'legal gender' changed even AFTER surgery. So if this gentleman was born in Tennessee, even if he has a ***** will be required under NC law to use the ladies room if he is in any NC public building. North Carolina's bill doesn't prevent males from using the ladies room....IT MANDATES IT.

In Mississippi, its even more clear. While Mississippi does allow persons to change their 'legal gender', the language in HB 1523 (see link above) makes that change completely irrelevant as far as access to a restroom. So Mississippi's bill also mandates that men use the ladies room.

Both the NC and Mississippi bills are really, really, really dumb. They're both going to lose thousands of jobs (not an exaggeration) and millions upon millions of economic development (again not an exaggeration). And in the end, it will do precisely the opposite of what they claim to be doing (keeping men out of ladies rooms). And they're both going to be struck down.

(04-09-2016 05:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:18 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

Former lady

And the North Carolina bill uses the term 'legal gender'. If you're born in Tennessee, or 3 other states, you cannot get your 'legal gender' changed even AFTER surgery. So this gentleman, even if he has a ***** will be required under NC law to use the ladies room if he is in any NC public building. North Carolina's bill doesn't prevent males from using the ladies room....IT MANDATES IT.

In Mississippi, its even more clear. While Mississippi does allow persons to change their 'legal gender', the language in HB 1523 (see link above) makes that change completely irrelevant as far as access to a restroom. So Mississippi's bill also mandates that men use the ladies room.

I know what the law is requiring. The question is if women in that bathroom will feel more threatened by her in the bathroom in this situation?

(04-09-2016 05:40 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:18 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

Former lady

And the North Carolina bill uses the term 'legal gender'. If you're born in Tennessee, or 3 other states, you cannot get your 'legal gender' changed even AFTER surgery. So this gentleman, even if he has a ***** will be required under NC law to use the ladies room if he is in any NC public building. North Carolina's bill doesn't prevent males from using the ladies room....IT MANDATES IT.

In Mississippi, its even more clear. While Mississippi does allow persons to change their 'legal gender', the language in HB 1523 (see link above) makes that change completely irrelevant as far as access to a restroom. So Mississippi's bill also mandates that men use the ladies room.

I know what the law is requiring. The question is if women in that bathroom will feel more threatened by her in the bathroom in this situation?

I'm really concerned for the safety of someone complying with these laws. Lots of people in Mississippi and North Carolina have guns.

And then there's the Male to Female situation. Requiring a woman with a ****** to use the men's lockerroom? Sexual assualt is the fear there.

(04-09-2016 05:28 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:18 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:09 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

This law ain't just about trans people with a *****. It's whether they have one or not. So what do you do when this person has to use the women's bathroom?

What is Shawn's story?

Former lady

Use the Men's room locker room. By former lady what exactly do you mean?

(04-09-2016 05:04 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 10:36 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Emotions trump reality. Lies win over truth. Screwed up liberal asylum we live in.

I had almost no opinion of this mess, but I had to say something to this. The majority of ALL political subjects is emotional, including the conservative portion of this one. Don't act like this is a product of cold-blooded analysis.

I can completely understand, and do agree, that we don't want perverts going into bathrooms and flashing, assaulting, etc little girls. But there isn't evidence other than our own "common sense" (which ends up being hokum more than we care to admit). Trans women have been using the women's bathroom for years and I've personally never seen a case scroll by with there being an assault of some sort.

What has a higher chance of happening: A trans woman being assaulted in the men's bathroom or a trans woman assaulting someone in the women's?

Which would cause more anxiety for us "normals": A trans man in the men's bathroom or a trans man in the womens?

Its not JUST about assaults. Its an invasion of privacy.

A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

You gotta dick use the men's bathroom or locker room. Private companies have to deal with this also. Planet Fitness had an issue with this last year. You can't have a tranny with a dick getting naked and showering in the ladies locker room.

Language. You know that Tr_nny is a pejorative. But then again, after your language in Post 42 in this thread, it appears as if you're unable to avoid using insults to get your point across. Your attempt to demean transgendered persons (or trans persons for short) comes across loud and clear.

Is that because you really don't have much of an argument?

Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

And I would like to see the Shawn's of the world get the mental help they need, not quack docs giving them drugs and mutilating them. That's seriously messed up. What's wrong with us that we don't charge these frauds.

(04-09-2016 06:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

No it isn't. There are words that are designed to demean and degrade. There's no point in using them except to lower the discourse to the level of insults.

(04-09-2016 06:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  And I would like to see the Shawn's of the world get the mental help they need, not quack docs giving them drugs and mutilating them. That's seriously messed up. What's wrong with us that we don't charge these frauds.

There's not a credible medical authority on Planet Earth that agrees with your assessment.

The facts are that transgenderism is a thing, fighting it is dangerous, and that surgery is an appropriate response in some cases are all settled medicine.

No competent psychological practicioner would counsel someone with Trans issues to 'just ignore it' as a matter of course.

There ARE people for which gender reassignment surgery is not the right answer. But that is not a universal truth.

Ah, the 'ol "if they don't agree with my warped view, they aren't credible" routine.

And where did I say ignore it.

(04-09-2016 04:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:38 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-06-2016 10:36 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Emotions trump reality. Lies win over truth. Screwed up liberal asylum we live in.

I had almost no opinion of this mess, but I had to say something to this. The majority of ALL political subjects is emotional, including the conservative portion of this one. Don't act like this is a product of cold-blooded analysis.

I can completely understand, and do agree, that we don't want perverts going into bathrooms and flashing, assaulting, etc little girls. But there isn't evidence other than our own "common sense" (which ends up being hokum more than we care to admit). Trans women have been using the women's bathroom for years and I've personally never seen a case scroll by with there being an assault of some sort.

What has a higher chance of happening: A trans woman being assaulted in the men's bathroom or a trans woman assaulting someone in the women's?

Which would cause more anxiety for us "normals": A trans man in the men's bathroom or a trans man in the womens?

Its not JUST about assaults. Its an invasion of privacy.

A likely story if our GOP was big on privacy in the first place.

Again, what would people feel is a bigger invasion of privacy: A trans man in a women's bathroom or a trans man in the men's? Or the other ways around?

The vast majority of women don't want men in their bathroom, regardless of what they think they should be. I don't want men in the restroom with my wife and daughter.

(04-09-2016 05:25 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 04:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 02:25 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-08-2016 10:19 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  Tom,

Can gays get married in Cuba?
Can they get married in North Carolina / Mississippi?

Does McCrory/NC GOP/Phil Bryant support marriage equality? No.
Does Castro support marriage equality? No.

Don't even talk to me about Mississippi. Its worse than Cuba. Mississippi just passed legislation protecting harassment of LGBT persons. And allowing for discrimination in HEALTH CARE.

That would be wrong if true (and would probably fail in a court). But I suspect you are just gullible and believe everything you hear. Got any links?

How about the text of the law

http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documen...1523PS.pdf

I'll start with Section 3, Part 4. Very broadly written my friend. Allows for the denial of health care. And there's no provision ensuring that those needing medical care get it in Mississippi or that Insurance carriers ensure that LGBT persons in that state receive the same benefits IN MISSISSIPPI that are provided to straight persons. This bill enables far reaching discrimination in health care. And it goes well beyond simple sex reassignment surgery too. Someone has a problem with their psychological meds? Sorry, no medical care for you. Crisis counseling? Problems related to sex reassignment surgery? Nope. What is 'an emergency' under the law? Who knows.

A lot of medical care might be essential but not an immediate emergency. Chemo isn't handed out at the emergency room, but its necessary and essential, for example. So might proper medication for psychological issues. As well as counseling. There might be initially minor complications from sex reassignment surgery that might not initially be an emergency, but might require attention to prevent it from becoming one.
#4 refers back to Section 2 which is only about gay marriage and sex change. It is not as broad as you claim.


Then take a look at Section 7. This appears to give a license to harass and insult LGBT Mississippians who are conducting business with their government, including in state owned and operated hospitals.
You're gullible. This is just a statute of limitations. And it appears to relate to the religious being discriminated against. It gives them 2 years to assert their claim against the government.


---

And then look at Section 2. It isn't a protection of religion bill, but rather a bill that elevates 3 (and only 3) religious viewpoints. These are evangelical Christian viewpoints not shared by other religions. This establishes evangelical Christianity above other religious viewpoints.


I think you would find Muslims believe the same thing. And its only these viewpoints that the gay community is attacking and threatening the religious liberty of.
---

And then look at Section 3, section ©. What legitimate state interest exists to allow for organizations to refuse to SELL property to someone?

---

Section 3, part 5. Is so broadly written that it allows for discrimination against any married LGBT person or any Transgendered person is just about every area of commerce. Refuse to rent an apartment or even a hotel room to a Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse to serve a dinner to a married Gay couple (that could be recognizing them)? Yep. Refuse just about any service to a Transgendered person? Yep.

No its not. It is solely about providing services for a gay wedding.
---

I'll just leave it there. But there's more, so much more. I didn't even go into the Romer v Evans argument. I'm sure Lambda Legal and the ACLU will do that in their lawsuits too.

I'd be very surprised if this bill is ever implemented. It doesn't go into effect till July 1. My guess is that it never goes into effect.

None of what you claim is in there.

(04-09-2016 06:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:42 PM)Paul M Wrote:  And I would like to see the Shawn's of the world get the mental help they need, not quack docs giving them drugs and mutilating them. That's seriously messed up. What's wrong with us that we don't charge these frauds.

There's not a credible medical authority on Planet Earth that agrees with your assessment.

The facts are that transgenderism is a thing, fighting it is dangerous, and that surgery is an appropriate response in some cases are all settled medicine.

No competent psychological practicioner would counsel someone with Trans issues to 'just ignore it' as a matter of course.

There ARE people for which gender reassignment surgery is not the right answer. But that is not a universal truth.

Bulimia and Anorexia are things too. They have similar roots in that the person isn't satisfied with their body as it is.

(04-09-2016 06:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

No it isn't. There are words that are designed to demean and degrade. There's no point in using them except to lower the discourse to the level of insults.

Ummmm.... Tranny originated in Sydney, as a way to unite trans people and drag queens under an umbrella term. It was not "designed" to demean them.

(04-09-2016 05:03 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 03:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  1. Meanwhile, in Mississippi SB 1523 allows medical providers to refuse to serve LGBT persons.

Wrong. The law does not say that, and explicitly says the opposite. What the law says is that they can not be forced to CHOP OFF A DICK OR TRANSFORM A VA-GINA INTO A PE-NIS if it violates their religious beliefs. Sorry to be so blunt, but apparently blunt is what you need if you think the law says anything but that. If you believe the law says anyting but that, point it out in the law. Dont come on here with your LGBT talking points and try to talk dumb to people who can think and read for themselves.

Quote:There's no requirement that the person be provided that service in Mississippi or that Mississippi insurance companies be required to ensure that LGBT customers receive the same level of service as straight persons.

Actually, thats exactly what the law says. And also what the law says is that a surgeon doesnt have to perform transgender operations. Since a "straight" person isnt going to a surgeon to have his dick transformed into something resembling a va-gina, then what you have said is wrong. If a transgender breaks their arm they will receive the same care as a straight person, and even states so in the law. If they break their arm, and want the doctor to put their arm in a cast and chop off their pe-nis at the same time, the doctor doesnt have to do that. Clear??

Quote:The bill appears to protect those that harass LGBT persons in the provision of health care from any corrective action.

Link?

Quote:The bill does mention that someone can't be refused 'emergency services'. But 'emergency services' is undefined. Does it mean only care for immediate, life threatening medical care?

Thats what emergency services usually means. I know uninsured libturds would just show up to the ER for a sore throat, but emergency services mean life threatening. In other words, dont show up to the ER and claim you are going to die if your pe-nis isnt transformed into a va-gina.

Quote:Who knows, but Mississippi is not known for interpreting things in LGBT persons' favor.

Link

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Show me in this law where anyone can deny anyone medical care, sans transgender operations.

Quote:Seriously, it appears that if (when) a nurse or clerk or doctor decides to spew unwanted anti-Gay preaching at LGBT patients at Mississippi's government owned hospitals (or even hate speech, deliberate misgendering, etc.), that the hospital can't do anything to punish the offensive medical provider or even stop them from continuing to do so. Its open season on LGBT persons in Mississippi, especially in health care.

You simply dont want to hear the truth. it is a medical persons RESPONSIBILITY to point out a life style that is DANGEROUS to one's health. If cross dresser comes in with herpes of the mouth, and says its because he likes to go to bars and blow random dudes, it is the doctors responsibility to let them know that this is a health risk. (Because ,obviously, the guy hasnt figured it out yet.) Just like when some guy shows up complaining of breathing difficulties, and says he smokes 4 packs per day.

Quote:Expecting a Transgendered or Gay person to have go to court to get needed or essential medical treatment is really the same as a denial of care. Who is going to pay for the lawyer to get medical care?

Even if this was true, the issue you have is that you denying someone else's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT of freedom of religion. A right that is in the consitution is going to trump a right that is not directly spelled out in the constitution.

Bumping for Tom......

(04-09-2016 08:33 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:53 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-09-2016 06:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Everything is a pejorative to someone. They need to get over their faux outrage and until they do, **** em.

No it isn't. There are words that are designed to demean and degrade. There's no point in using them except to lower the discourse to the level of insults.

Ummmm.... Tranny originated in Sydney, as a way to unite trans people and drag queens under an umbrella term. It was not "designed" to demean them.

In the US, its consider a VERY strong pejorative. Period. And his use of the term in the sentence he used was VERY degrading. Contributed nothing to the discussion. Just an insult.

Even if you were some expert in 1970's Australian queer identity lingo, the context of how it was used gave ample evidence as to the intent of the use of the term. As an insult. And nothing else.

Futhermore, the amalgamation of drag queens and transgender persons is a sign of a basic lack of understanding of the two groups. Transgendered persons are not cross dressers or illusionists.