A different scene: Click to see a fake woman using the potty.
... while I assume tiassa and bells would have no problem with unisex restrooms, changing rooms and shelters, assuming they have private stalls and rooms, their angle is merely to say your evil.
Arbitrary disparagement from uneducated conservatives is hardly new, but one of your tells, ElectricFetus, is the perpetual willful dismissal of other people, their experiences and reasons, as mere
or random↗. Running around boasting your lack of good faith—(
"I get it, it is rather fun watching you all go at each other")—is probably not the best way to find the solutions you never have and don't actaully want.
Sometimes the solution is that perverts need to stop making excuses to harass women and girls.
No, really. Sometimes it really
is that freakin' obvious.
It's like the
bit I do↗ about the movie
Airplane! and how people just line up for the chance to show cruelty. We can always tell when it's done as poorly as Mrs.Lucysnow's appeal; they always present old issues, like the bathroom harassment campaign, as if nobody has ever heard of it before. They don't actually care what's going on, because their point is whatever pathetic excuse they can make in order to say stupid and cruel stuff yet again. They get a rush out of it.
But you already know this, since you have your own version of revisiting human rights; a general tell among your ilk, and we see it with Mrs.Lucysnow, or
Bowser↗, on these issues much like we see it from you about pretty much anything, these days, an apparent ignorance of history and humanity that indicts either their comprehension of the issue or faculties as an individual.
It's why people don't believe you're a liberal or Democrat or pretty much anything else you pretend to be. It's why people don't think of Mrs.Lucysnow as a feminist. A moment from literary pedagogy: The late Jack Cady used to try to explain to young writers a point about preaching and judgment, and it would take another encounter with the lesson, years later, and badly taught, to help me figure out what he meant, and I
still can't teach the point, but that's also to be expected since the first thing he told new students in his writing class was to never trust writing teachers. But he used an archetype at the time, talking about something else entirely, that described a feeble-minded but well-intended person, and Americans born in '38 knew more of these types than Generation X, who in turn had plenty of exposure but were far too self-absorbed to notice. He described a person who would, now and then, learn a new word or idea, and that would become their Word for the Day, as if it was some bauble that needed to be shown off in a look-how-smart-I-am appeal we might describe stylistically as post-Steinbeck, and the question becomes how to write that character without judgment when we hold his simlicity as something alien to ourselves and therefore inaccessible except through projection while our neurotic impulse tends toward disgust or revulsion, thus rendering empathy judgmental and condemning. The problem is that if there is a moral to the story, write a goddamn editorial; it also helps, interestingly, to consider Tim O'Brien on the telling of war stories, but in the end it was a paperback mystery writer vaguely explaining that he learned from a Hollywood script doctor to
give those problems to your characters, which in turn I should note I just saw Brust and White get away with in the most absurd of manners.
Still, I always wonder, when people show up some time later and want to give it another go, as Mrs.Lucysnow seems to do with her focus on Moralism as an excuse to sexually harass, or clearly failing to understand the dangers of playing in disgraced corners of second-wave feminism in search of conservative solace; or, you know, as plenty of others do in trying to explain the need for economic justice to stratify so that some get more or less justice than others.
