Lets piss in whatever bathroom we want to
Not what people are saying. They're just not wanting to force Trans people to live by cis rules for no reason at all,
Who said "for no reason at all"? It's just not a reason that the Trans people seem willing to accept, which goes back to TACs point; where's the compromise?
Honestly, we've fallen into this trap that somehow Gov'mint can solve everything. Sometimes it's not a "RULE" that's required, it's just DOING it and minding your own business. For all the times I've been hammered and pissed in the women's bathroom because the line was shorter, I think I've been called out once, maybe twice, and NEVER arrested. Why? Because I wasn't a dick. I didn't make it my personal Selma. Not everything has to be a Martin Luther King level civil rights escapade.
We've also fallen into this trap that we should always feel perfectly comfortable wherever we are. My step son came to his mom and said "mommy when I go [here; doesn't matter where, though it would break your heart if I told you], my chest gets tight, and I can't breathe, and my head hurts really bad. I can feel my heart beating really fast". And we're working with professionals to help him cope with that. But I told my wife, "maybe I should sit in on that discussion because that happens to me every time I do this, this and that." I rarely shit in public. I hate it. I sit there and I won't move my bowels if anyone is in the room, and I flush immediately after so no one smells it, etc. etc. I get all cramped up, it's a nightmare. Where's my bathroom protections?
Let's let anyone into our country and do whatever the hell they want
People aren't saying that.
And yet when the discussion reduces down to "just follow the rules", we can't seem to agree. So which is it?
Let's pay burger flippers $15 an hour..well, just because
"because" isn't their argument.
To some of us, who feel that things like "minimum wages" are arbitrary controls on a system that can work on it's own, it is essentially "because". The market says that that job is not a $15 dollar an hour job. Period. So to make it that, there's no real reason.
I'm not sure his post "goes against" that. Every side has a counter argument, and I think the point is, in too many cases, we've not left the discussion between the arguments, but rather made some arguments untenable as a matter of social policy. I really don't like airing my views here on some of the trans stuff because I fear personal reprisals. Not that I'm going to be beaten up, but certainly banned, or told by people I truly like and respect that I'm a "bigot". It's come to the point where treating people with respect face-to-face isn't enough. We can't even ask hard questions anymore.
As someone who works in psychiatry (I think, anyway) I'm sure you understand this. For all that that clown Milo says, I'm baffled at some of the stuff that he says that gets attention. One such thing is his comment that he's "aberrant". Why does it subject one to ridicule to ask questions about our genetic makeup? That's SCIENCE. He may not phrase it the right way, but doesn't it advance our understanding of the human condition to ask these questions? Wouldn't it further our knowledge base to understand whether some of these issues we deal with are a result of, say, a genetic mutation? And yet, given the way society perceives things, you don't think it would be a MASSIVE scandal if, say, the headline read "Scientist posits homosexuality as 'genetic mutation'"?