you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FediNetizenSuper-semi-bisexual (i.e. straight) 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is a good way to get involved. Start a local LGB alliance chapter, or maybe just a club for same-sex-attracted people.

[–]artetolife 35 insightful - 2 fun35 insightful - 1 fun36 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Sounds like a good way to get expelled.

[–]FediNetizenSuper-semi-bisexual (i.e. straight) 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

And getting expelled for starting a gay club would be excellent grounds for a discrimination lawsuit.

[–]Feather 17 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 1 fun18 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Not in the current climate.

"It's not a gay club because it won't allow gay transmen," would be interpreted similarly to, "It's not a gay club because it won't allow gay black or Jewish men."

In other words, in the current climate, people wouldn't interpret it as disallowing a gay club; they'd interpret as disallowing a Nazi club that happens to be run by a gay guy.

[–]FediNetizenSuper-semi-bisexual (i.e. straight) 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not talking about the court of public opinion, I'm talking about an actual court of law here.

A club that was only for same-sex-attracted people could attract pushback from the TQ+ crowd, but an expulsion on that basis would be ripe for a lawsuit, in the same way that an expulsion based on a clearly false rape accusation would be ripe for a lawsuit.

[–]BrokenEarth 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

court of law has been pretty consistent with preventing the exclusion of trans men and women.