use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
Seen a horribly oppressed transethnic otherkin blog their plight? Wept at how terrible it is for the suffering of multiple systems to go unheard every day? Been unable to even live with the thought of the identities of someone's headmates being cisdenied?
Then you've come to the right place!
Confused? Here's a moderately helpful dictionary of terms.
How to find good TiA material!
Before posting please check the known Satire/Troll Wiki
Remember to use Nitter for Twitter links!
Join the SocialJusticeinAction discord!
You gotta be fucking kidding me. Middle schoolers who protested trans athlete’s participation are banned from future competitions
submitted 21 days ago by P-38lightning from nypost.com
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Q-Continuum-kin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (3 children)
The big problem is that Title 9 keeps getting messed with. No one has changed the law but Obama, Trump, and Biden have kept putting out policies which say they will "interpret" Title 9 differently so schools freak out that they could be in violation of Title 9. The craziest part is that each interpretation is POLAR OPPOSITE of the other. The law was literally written to give protection based on "sex" and it says so in the law very clearly. No one ever had any confusion on what the law said until Obama came along and said they were going to interpret the law to mean the exact opposite of what it says. At this point we really need the supreme court to come in and say "you can't interpret the law to mean the exact opposite of what it says."
[–]Jiminy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (2 children)
Based on the wording of the law men should be outlawed from joining women's sports. Of course we have to get supreme court to agree with that
[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (1 child)
Yes but Title 9 explicitly frames it as male and female sex categories so even if you go with postmodern nonsense meanings for man and woman then SCOTUS should in theory uphold the protections.
[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - 20 days ago (0 children)
Yeah they probably anticipated this nonsense when they made the law so they defined the terms they were using
view the rest of the comments →
[–]Q-Continuum-kin 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun - (3 children)
[–]Jiminy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun - (2 children)
[–]Q-Continuum-kin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]Jiminy 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)