Trans

Virginia Voters Toss Homophobic Lawmaker in Favor of Transgender Heavy Metal Rocker

Danica Roem makes history by getting elected to the House of Delegates.

|

Danica Roem
Kyle Mazza/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Virginia voters shocked entrenched establishment conservatives and pop music enthusiasts last night by electing the lead singer of a heavy metal band to its state legislature. Danica Roem, 33, a Democrat, has defeated 13-term incumbent Robert Marshall to represent Prince William County in Virginia's House of Delegates.

Roem is the lead singer for Cab Ride Home, a band that describes its music this way: "Northern Virginia metal band Cab Ride Home represents one thing: partying. We're a five-piece group and all members are committed to ultimately touring full-time. Our sound is drunken thrash metal, our songs are about drinking and our shows are about raging. We've played 120 shows and even toured the U.K. 'Nuff said."

Looks like those dreams of a tour might have to be put on hold. Though given the reputations of lawmakers, she may not have to give up the drinking or raging.

Oh, also: Roem is transgender, having transitioned to living life openly as a woman between 2012 and 2015. Roem's identity ended up taking center stage in the coverage of the race, getting much more attention than her actual platform of "fixing Route 28." She takes a dim view of toll roads, which should be of concern to transportation privatization advocates.

Roem's victory marks her as the first openly transgender person elected to a state legislature. (Althea Garrison was elected to the state legislature of Massachusetts in 1993, but during the campaign voters apparently didn't know about her history.)

The other factor drawing attention to Roem's win is who she defeated. Marshall has a reputation as one of Virginia's more homophobic legislators. He pushed one of those "bathroom bills" for the stat, driven by a fabricated culture-war panic that sexual predators would take advantage of transgender accommodations to target and assault women or children in public restrooms or facilities.

Marshall's bill would have required people to use the restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities in schools and other government-owned buildings that matched the gender listed on their birth certificates. Apparently his first version of the legislation even insisted that people's "original" sex listed on their birth certificates, meaning that even if a transgender person had surgery and legally got his or her birth certificate changed, he or she would be legally obligated to use the other restroom. He ultimately softened the legislation to (like North Carolina's bathroom law) allow transgender people who have had their birth certificate changed use the appropriate facilities. The bill nevertheless died in committee and did not become law.

That's just one example of Marshall's harsh approach to LGBT issues. Marshall pushed Virginia's constitutional amendment that forbids same-sex marriage recognition. The Marshall-Newman Amendment not only keeps the state from recognizing same-sex marriages, but forbids any sort of legal status between two unmarried people that approximates marriage or assigns similar rights or benefits. The constitutional amendment has since been declared unconstituational and after the Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage recognition, is no longer in force.

Marshall has even supported legislation to keep private insurance companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners, and he seems to want courts to overrule private guardianship and will agreements between same-sex partners (analysis courtesy of Cato's Walter Olson).

Roem's win is widely seen from the perspective of the current culture wars over how transgender people are treated. But Marshall also represents an old-guard attitude toward LGBT people that a good chunk of the Republican Party is looking to leave behind. He has actually called himself Virginia's "chief homophobe," but these days your average Republican is about as likely to approve same-sex marriage recognition as oppose it.

So while Virginian Republicans took a pounding in yesterday's election, I suspect many of them will not be shedding tears at the loss of a dead-ender like Marshall.

Many media sites are focused on these culture war components, but I know Reason readers care about what really matters. So here's a YouTube video of Roem fronting Cab Ride Home. Enjoy!

This post has been updated to clarify that the constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage recognition in Virginia has since been struck down.

NEXT: Anti-black slurs at U.S. Air Force academy prep school written by black student

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Marshall’s bill would have required people to use the restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities in schools and other government-owned buildings that matched the gender listed on their birth certificates.

    So just to be clear on this, saying boys cannot use the girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms in school is now considered “old guard” and bigoted? That is really where we are with this. And even though this has never been an issue until about two years ago, it is now a civil rights issue such that anyone who objects to it is now a bigot no longer welcome in politics or polite society?

    As recently as three or four years ago, saying that your sex is determined by your birth and children in schools especially are not competent to decide they are of the other sex would have been totally uncontroversial. Yet today saying that gets people like Scott to call you a bigot and demand you be thrown out of public life.

    1. But the only reason they’re setting their hair on fire over this nonissue is to get people like you worked up enough to vote against your actual interests.

      1. vote against your actual interests.

        Oh look! Snotty condescension from a leftard! How original.

        -jcr

        1. He refers to condescendingly knowing what’s best for others as “pragmaticism.”

      2. No Tony. It is because it is a lie. And lying never helps and forcing people to lie really never helps. More importantly, Scott is supporting the idea that we can just make any view we like unacceptable in public by calling that view “intolerant”. Maybe Marshall was a bad candidate. I don’t know. But the fact that he objected to this doesn’t make him a bigot or some kind of degenerate who deserves to be kicked out of politics. And that is exactly what Shackford is claiming here. There is no room for disagreement on this issue according to Shackford. Yeah well, he can go to hell on that. There is room for disagreement.

        1. Man, it must be tough to be illiterate.

          1. Spoken by one who knows.

        2. Not being a bigot isn’t that difficult.

          1. Yet you consistently fail at it.

          2. How on earth would you know?

          3. Tell that to the left

            1. So clever. Almost as witty as “neener neener!”

              1. So you’re upset he used your topical argument before you could muster the effort?

                1. Topical. I love iPhone.

          4. Yeah, I’m sure you’re great at it. After all, you probably learned from the best: from Che Guevera. Oh, wait, he put gays in gulags.

            You need a better role model…

          5. Why is being a bigot bad?

            “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”

            I’m a bigot towards ISIS, communists, statists and anyone else who thinks they have a right to initiate force. Does that make me a bad person?

      3. Would you mind to telling John and people like him what their actual intetests are? I’m sure they would be happy to find out.

        1. Well it sure as fuck isn’t forcing people to use the bathrooms they don’t want to use.

          1. They’re not forced to use those bathrooms.
            Why society should play along with their delusions is beyond me anyhow. If I claim I’m a 2000 year old vampire cat, should Walmart be obliged to provide me with a litterbox? Civil rights for otherkin?

            1. They should have the right to supply you with a litterbox.

          2. So, they should be FORCED to buy insurance…but shouldn’t be forced to use a single-sex bathroom?

            Got it.

          3. But forcing others that don’t want to urinate with the opposite sex is totes cool. Just get it over with and say that bathroom segregation is just like Jim crow. Those that shit together stay civil together.

          4. Lol! You’re upset because the government is forcing people to do something they don’t want to do? Hypocrisy thy name is Tony!

        2. I am not telling anyone what their interests are. I am defending the right of people to hold an opinion and not be run out of politics for holding it.

          1. Well actually, because of that second part (“not be run out of politics for holding it”) you are telling people that voting according to their own opinions on acceptable behavior is not acceptable.

            In doing so, you go well beyond objecting to government action, and condemn private choices regarding associations.

            1. If saying a private choice is wrong amounts to condemning it, sure. But just because someone has a right to do something, doesn’t mean I also don’t have a right to object to it. You condemn people’s opinions and actions all of the time. I have the same right.

              1. Can I just point out the dichotomy of these two quotes?

                “I am defending the right of people to hold an opinion and not be run out of politics for holding it.”

                “But just because someone has a right to do something, doesn’t mean I also don’t have a right to object to it.”

                So seeing as I refuse to treat you like a special case, either we all have the right to object to other’s opinions, and take action based on that objection (including “running them out of politics”), or none of us have the right to object to other’s opinions, and are prohibited from taking action based on that objection.

                Either we all have to play nice or we all can be mean and nasty. No special cases.

                1. You aren’t playing that fairly. John has a point, and your trying to play devils advocate with unequally weighted arguments.

      4. Voting is against our actual interests.

    2. What is your point, John? What do you think should happen to transgender people?

      Suppose Bob, as a man, no longer wishes to participate in public society according to male social conventions. Suppose Bob decides to wear dresses and present himself as a woman. Suppose he’s even willing to take hormones and mutilate his body in order to prove the point. Bob’s biological sex is male, yes. That is determined by biology and genetics. But how Bob chooses to present himself in society should be his choice. No? All the same rules apply – Bob is still not allowed to sexually molest or assault anyone of any gender. So what do you think should happen to Bob? He should be locked up “for his own good”? He should be forced to undergo psychological treatment? He should be forced to accede to male social conventions against his will?

      All of your proposed solutions involve using force against Bob for no good reason. *IF* Transgender Bob did molest someone in the bathroom then yes throw the book at him. But those are the rules that apply to everyone, male or female.

      1. …according to male social conventions.

        What does this even mean? What are these ‘social conventions’ that people always bring up? What, like every man has a code that they are expected to live by ‘or else’?

        Whatever. Gender theory is about as anti-science as one can get and assumes a lot of things that are patently false.

        Non-discrimination laws were designed to protect people from discrimination based on immutable characteristics because those aren’t the fault of the individual. Life style choices should not fall under that rubric, but I’ll admit that life style choices also should not be prohibited if they cause no harm to others.

        Simple, right?

        1. I will ask one question though.

          If someone wants their limbs surgically removed because they feel they are a handicapped person in a healthy persons body, should they be allowed to have such an operation? Furthermore, should they be allowed to sue a doctor to perform that procedure because it is their civil right to identify as handicapped?

          1. Yes. No.

            1. Fair enough. In the first case, should they then be able to collect disability after their surgery on the public dime?

              1. And, since it’s a civil right to identify as handicapped how is it not allowable to sue someone to provide the underlying physical condition that enables the status? Or are we saying that people should simply be able to identify as handicapped, thus receiving the welfare benefits that entails, without actually being handicapped in any meaningful way?

                1. And, if they want to live as a handicapped person even though otherwise healthy, would anyone call that a mental disorder? Handi-dysphoria?

                2. I would draw the line at parking spaces.

        2. “What does this even mean?”

          Like, for instance, wearing pants or shorts instead of dresses or skirts. Or, for instance, addressing a man with “sir” or “mister” as opposed to addressing a woman with “ma’am” or “miss”. Those are social conventions. There is no innate biological requirement that men wear pants or women wear dresses.

          “Life style choices should not fall under that rubric, but I’ll admit that life style choices also should not be prohibited if they cause no harm to others.”

          I completely agree.

      2. I don’t care what happens to transgendered people. That is up to them and the people around them. If you want to play make believe with Bob, have fun. But I am not going to do so. And I am no more “intolerant” for doing that than you are for pretending with him and acting like anyone who doesn’t is wrong.

        1. I legally changed my name when I got married. Added my husband’s last name to my list of middle names.

          So if someone decided to address me by my full name (which even before marriage included multiple middle names), and left out the new middle name? Then yeah,they’re being a dick. If they insist on doing so even after being corrected “actually, my name is X now”? Then yeah, whatever their motivation, they obviously do care, they are being “intolerant” (for lack of a better word), and yeah, they are acting “wrong” (again, for lack of a better word).

          You are, of course, free to address me by any name you want. But you shouldn’t deceive yourself that it’s a neutral action to call me by a name that isn’t my legal name and isn’t my preferred name.

          1. Your name is not your sex. You changed your name because your name can be changed. Your sex cannot be. And no one is under any obligation to pretend you can. Sorry but calling you a she is not being intolerant anymore than refusing to say you are Napoleon or a player in the NBA is intolerant. You are just trying to claim that anyone not willing to agree with you and lie is being intolerant.

            1. So this is the part where you pretend you haven’t repeatedly and deliberately used someone’s old name in the past?

              1. This is the part where I explain to you for the second time that your name is different than your sex.

          2. Huh, I had no idea your family was Catholic Enigma. It explains much.

            1. Better than Catholic Enema.

            2. I think you’re trying to insult me here, but honestly whatever Catholic stereotype you’re trying to apply is one I’m no aware of.

              That said, no, not Catholic, or at least not in the last three generations.

              1. I am not, Catholics have extra names over the general populace on average since you receive an ‘extra’ name upon confirmation in plenty of areas.

                I suppose it’s possible that your parents were just pretentious instead of religious though, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference.

                Just as an interesting read, if you’re were interested (which I assume you’re not).

                Catholic Confirmation

                1. And the ‘explains much’ comment was because there are rather a lot of self-hating Catholics.

                  1. Ah, no. My parents just didn’t plan on having any more kids after me, so they had to “honor” every uncle and grandfather in one go.


                    1. Ah, no. My parents just didn’t plan on having any more kids after me, so they had to “honor” every uncle and grandfather in one go.

                      Fair enough, that makes more sense than choosing your own confirmation name in my book. For the record, I’m an ex-catholic of sorts.

        2. And I am no more “intolerant” for doing that than you are for pretending with him and acting like anyone who doesn’t is wrong.

          And here is the real rub. I fully support your liberty to associate with whomever you please, and if you wish to associate with only likeminded people who all agree that there is nothing at all intolerant with your views on transgendered people, then you ought to be free to do so. But you don’t get to dictate how I choose to respond to your views. If I think you’re an intolerant dick, then that is my right to form that judgment if I so choose. What you are really arguing for is the power to dictate how others respond to you. And sorry you can’t really do that.

      3. What is your point, John? What do you think should happen to transgender people?

        I’d say psychological help. No different than an anorexic.

        Suppose Bob, as a man, no longer wishes to participate in public society according to male social conventions. Suppose Bob decides to wear dresses and present himself as a woman. Suppose he’s even willing to take hormones and mutilate his body in order to prove the point. Bob’s biological sex is male, yes. That is determined by biology and genetics. But how Bob chooses to present himself in society should be his choice. No?

        Nobody cares. You’re trying to force us to PLAY ALONG with the delusion. I’m not doing that for him.

        1. How many psychiatric conditions recommend surgery as a treatment, one might ask.

        2. Forced psychological help? Because- what? because you have the authority to decide what is “right” for adults? You don?t have to call people their preferred names, even though it actually IS the polite thing to do. But it IS extremely wrong to impose psychogical help on adults only because they don?t want to live their lives as you see fit.

      4. “Transgender” people should get the mental health care they need.
        Pandering to someone’s delusions does them no favors.
        It is, in fact cruel to try to do so.
        Has it escaped your notice that these deluded individuals commit suicide at a far higher rate than normal people?
        The “party of science” needs to stop this pandering, to try to obtain votes. There are far too many low-infos being turned out by our “education system”, that have been propagandized into thinking this kind of thing is normal or natural. IT’S NOT!

    3. John, a few problems.
      1: They are legally male/female now.
      2: With this bill, it was effectively illegal for a transgender person to use a public restroom. They could not use their old gender, as it would be illegal (and probably get them arrested for being a man/woman going into the wrong restroom), and they could not use their new gender due to this law.
      3: It was explicitly done for a situation that never happens and wouldn’t have prevented if it did happen (after all, criminals aren’t exactly known for following laws).

      1. The fact that their sex is now legally changed is ridiculous enough…

        I actually have friends that are trans, and I think all this stuff is fucking ridiculous. I don’t give a fuck about sharing a bathroom with a chick who thinks shes a dude, but I can totally understand how some people might.

        ALSO for me the line is not bathrooms, but locker rooms and showering facilities in public spaces, like schools. Think about how fucking awkward it is to be a 15 year old kid again, and then imagine some naked person of the opposite biological sex being thrust into that already awkward as fuck situation. I bet if you did a poll of 15 year olds 90% of them would say they’d PREFER not to share facilities with someone of the opposite sex. So hell even if it is 50/50 is it fair or reasonable to wig out half the population to play into the whims of .5% of the population? It’s bullshit yo!

        It’s a total nothing burger bullshit wedge issue the crazy SJW commie left invented out of thin air just to have another reason to insult regular people with normal opinions. I’m not into it, despite all the gay and trans people I am friends with, and although it’s not come up with any of them I would calmly explain my opinion to their faces too because I think it is perfectly reasonable.

  2. Don’t worry, I am sure this won’t get out of control or anything. I am sure the ability to completely change society and force everyone to adopt an opinion or face exile from public life as being a “bigot” won’t get out of control or anything. And I am sure using the government to shove your bizarre view of sex and gender down the throats of anyone who objects will work out so well. I mean, hey let’s tell people their daughters must shower with boys and that if they object they are nothing but bigots on par with Bull Connor. Yeah, that will work out well. What a tolerant society you are helping to create Scott.

    1. And I am sure using the government to shove your bizarre view of sex and gender down the throats of anyone who objects will work out so well.

      Marshall has even supported legislation to keep private insurance companies from offering benefits to same-sex partners, and he seems to want courts to overrule private guardianship and will agreements between same-sex partners (analysis courtesy of Cato’s Walter Olson).

      1. And it didn’t work out well for him, did it?

        *swish*

      2. So what? We are talking about the transgender issue. Marshall’s view of gays has nothing to do with it. You want to slam Marshall for that, have fun. But it has nothing to do with my point.

        1. And I am sure using the government to shove your bizarre view of sex and gender down the throats of anyone who objects will work out so well.

          You are attacking their usage of government to force certain behavior. Stormy posted a quote saying the other side was also doing that exact same thing. Unless your only issue is that trans people are “bizarre” then this is a completely different argument.

          1. That doesn’t respond to the point. I was talking about the candidate that won. Saying “but Marshall is just as bad” doesn’t respond to my point. Who cares about Marshall? Whatever he is or is not doesn’t make this candidate or the idea that we must force schools to treat girls like boys if they feel like it any better.

            1. You’re only “talking about the candidate” as an excuse to complain about social acceptance of transgender folk, something that she didn’t make a focus of her campaign, and then assuming her views.

              1. The entire article is about how great it is to force everyone to accept transgenderism. And I disagree with that. It is terrible to force people to do that. I am responding to the article.

    2. By going so full on stupid with this stuff they’re beginning to piss off even tolerant people like me. I have trans friends, and have for years… But the showering with people of the opposite sex thing in middle/high school! Da fuck. And if you don’t agree you’re now literally Hitler or whatever. It’s too fucking much man. They’re really creating a massive backlash by pushing too far, beyond reason, with all this stuff. Maybe if they’d left it at bathrooms or something, but locker rooms etc is a whole extra level of awkwardness.

  3. “Marshall’s bill would have required people to use the restrooms and other sex-segregated facilities in schools and other government-owned buildings that matched the gender listed on their birth certificates.”

    Did that have anything to do with the federal government nationalizing public school bathroom policy? Why do ‘culture wars’ always seem to go in one direction and the aggressor is often excused even if it expands government, so long as they are ‘right thinking’?

    1. The speed at which people have embraced this nonsense should terrify you. Just a few years ago, even the biggest Prog would have thought this stuff absurd. Yet, today they all think anyone who objects is a bigot. The whole thing shows how quickly people will embrace something if it is couched in terms of “tolerance” and support of it necessary to show that you are not “intolerant”. At this point, I do not think there is anything that people won’t support if the leftist culture machine decides supporting it is necessary.

      1. So what really bothers you is how fast change happens. Most old people are like that. Why don’t you just stick to saying “back in my day…” like people did back in my day.

        1. Yes, Watching people I have known for decades and know for a fact felt one way literally overnight change their opinion 180 degrees because they don’t want to be seen as “intolerant” is disturbing. What other opinions will they change if they are told to do so?

          Also watching people tell themselves and everyone else such an absurd lie is disturbing. Could there be a bigger more humiliating lie to force someone to tell than saying a man is really a woman or vice versa? This is all very totalitarian stuff. And it shows that actual totalitarianism doesn’t come with a sign advertising what it is. It comes wrapped in “tolerance” and the common good.

          1. When do you think changes in public opinion are justified? If your issue is with government intervention into these things, than I would agree. But it does not seem to be that at all.

            1. The public can think whatever it likes. But understand that if it is changing its position out of some commitment to “tolerance” and will do so whenever it is told that doing so is necessary to be “tolerant”, that is a very dangerous thing. I would think Libertarians of all people would see that.

              And my issue most certainly is with government intervention on these things. Why is it okay for the government to adopt the position that transgenderism is real and must be accommodated? Who made that decision? Why must transgendered be accommodated and not the people who object to them? Why is one more important than the other? I don’t see any reason other than Scott likes the transgendered and doesn’t like the people who object to it. Good for him, but others disagree and have a right to do so without Scott declaring them no longer welcome in public life.

              1. Good for him, but others disagree and have a right to do so without Scott declaring them no longer welcome in public life.

                If Scott calls you a bigot, do you suddenly become a bigot? Can Scott not express his opinion if you don’t like it? Scott can call you a blight on society just like you call him a blight on society.

                1. No I don’t become a bigot. But Scott’s position clearly is that society should declare me one and make my position as unacceptable as claiming the races should be segregated. There is no agree to disagree or live and let live to Scott’s position. Is there any to yours?

                  1. Scott’s position clearly is that society should declare me one and make my position as unacceptable as claiming the races should be segregated.

                    So? Put your response out there instead of ranting like a five year old about what Scott called you.

                    1. I just did put my response out there. What do you think I am doing. Scott is wrong and the precedent he is supporting is going to end very badly. How much more clear can I make it.

                    2. I just did put my response out there. What do you think I am doing.

                      Bitching about how Scott shouldn’t be telling people his thoughts.

          2. Watching people I have known for decades and know for a fact felt one way literally overnight change their opinion 180 degrees because they don’t want to be seen as “intolerant” is disturbing.

            So how long should it take for someone to change their mind? Weeks, months, years, decades?

            1. It is not about time. It is about how they will change their minds to anything if they are told doing so is necessary to be “tolerant”. A society that will buy into anything as long as it is told that doing so is necessary to be tolerant. Yeah, Sparky what could possibly go wrong with that?

              1. A society that will buy into anything as long as it is told that doing so is necessary to be tolerant.

                And that is unquestionably what’s happening, eh John? There clearly hasn’t been a single shred of pushback on this.

                1. And that is unquestionably what’s happening, eh John?

                  Considering the speed at which this has happened and the complete 180 degree reversal in so many people’s opinion, the evidence says yes. Will the next leftist culture war target finally be too far and people will say enough? I don’t know. But considering that that has not happened yet, I see no reason to think that it will. You can say “oh sure this will never get out of hand” all you want. And maybe you are right. But I see no reason to think you are beyond wishful thinking.

              2. I don’t know, what could go wrong with a society that would buy into anything as long as it is told it is traditional and God likes it?

                1. Really bad things there Hail. That is why we have a separation of Church and State. Thanks for bringing another argument to bear in my favor.

            2. I don’t know how long changing their minds should take, but at a minimum,there should be enough time for some rational basis for the change to be brought forth.

              Has there been any emerging new science that revealed that all of humanity has had this whole biology thing WRONG for all of history? NO. This embrace of a psychological disorder (Gender Identity Disorder, to be specific) as now somehow “normal” has been based on nothing but… I don’t know, fashion? Pop culture? What? What changed since 2010 or so that what was thought completely obvious is now shunned as bigotry?

              If this idiot wants to pretend he’s a woman, I don’t really give a fuck (though my opinion of the people of Virginia is lower today.) But he does NOT have the right to insist we all play along, nor do his supporters have the right to declare those of us not taken in as persona non grata.

              1. The change happened long ago, when homosexuals – the other side of this “gender” coin – began to be allowed to teach our children.
                There has been an inexorable march towards these psychoses to be considered normal, with the effect that a recent survey of high-school seniors showed that only half consider themselves “predominantly heterosexual”.
                The real concern is that such thinking will result in distort the natural inclination to pair-bonding and the offspring it creates. And those that are produced will have a distorted idea of the gender roles that have evolved over the thousands of generations of human existence.
                This kind of thinking will destroy any civilization that embraces it.
                Clearly the goal of those who are opposed to Western civilization and anyone stupid enough not to see it.

                1. THIS. All of these individual things are really just parts of the bigger goal, which is to undermine traditional culture (western here, and eastern in Asia, both of which lean conservative in many respects), destroy the natural order between people/sexes, and ultimately destroy the family and the fabric of society so that the state can step in and become the arbiter of all things.

                  I used to not get this, and hence be more in favor of the left leaning culture war stuff. I still don’t have a problem with gays or whatever, but the way the prog machine pushes things and the reasons it does so is NOT out of any real sense of decency or fairness. To them it’s all just to undermine society so they can step in and take the power to declare 2 + 2 = 5.

                  John is totally correct in saying that it’s not WHAT people think but WHY they have come to speak it and the speed that is scary. I have been pro gay marriage since before Obama! LOL But I came there from real reasons, not because of power politics with the intent to manipulate and control peoples actions and thoughts.

      2. “Tempora mutantur, nos et metamur in ilis”

      3. You feeling a lizard-brain disgust reaction is not as big an imposition as forcing people to use bathrooms that don’t correspond to their gender identity. You are the one who needs to fix yourself, not them.

        1. Yes Tony forcing people to believe a lie and act like a woman is really a man is wrong. You don’t understand that because you are an idiot who will repeat anything the movement tells you to believe.

          1. You’re just not going to win this one John.

            1. He has already won it. You people just want to enable mentally ill transgender people.

        2. You feeling a lizard-brain disgust reaction is not as big an imposition as forcing people to use bathrooms that don’t correspond to their gender identity.

          It corresponds with their sex.

          You cannot make policies based on somebody’s feelings. Sorry.

          1. So you want the federal government to arrest people for going to the wrong bathroom? And you’d prefer it if people who present as women to be in your bathrooms, and for people who present as men to be in the ladies’?

          2. You should make as few policies as possible, preferably absolutely none regarding toilet use.

            1. I actually like the idea of bathrooms for everyone not matter what your sex.

              I bet the lefties will always support a man’s right to piss into a sink while women are taking dumps.

              1. You do know that every single person in the goddamn world shares bathrooms with the other sex, right? As in, the bathrooms we have at home?

                1. At the same time?

                  I guess, I came from a civilized house where we didn’t stand up and pee through our sister’s legs while she was sitting and peeing.

      4. Just a few years ago, even the biggest Prog would have thought this stuff absurd.

        The oldest non-discrimination law in the country that includes gender identity is dated 1979 (http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm), so I think it’s been going on longer then you think.

        1. Whoops, meant 1975.

          1. Non-discrimination laws are no different than the law that this legislator was proposing. You can’t say one is bad, while the other is good. Well, unless you’re a Democrat or a Republican than that makes sense somehow

            1. You can’t say one is bad, while the other is good.

              Well, I could. In fact, on the more conservative news sites I visit I regularly get told that non-discrimination law that covers religion is good and just and constitutional, while non-discrimination law that covers gay people is evil and of the devil and unconstitutional.

              That said, I didn’t actually say that. I was responding to John’s ridiculous assertion that progressive support for trans issues is a new development. You can think that such support is good or bad as you will (John obviously thinks it’s bad), but you shouldn’t blatantly lie about the history of it.

              1. Religious liberty is about stopping the government from violating your deeply held beliefs and it is enshrined in the Constitution. They aren’t asking that people be punished for blaspheming against their faith, like some in the transgender community have done with people using the wrong pronoun.

                That was a ridiculously bad comparison.

                1. See? You totally can say “one is bad, while the other is good”.

                  That said? Non-discrimination laws aren’t in the constitution. My hypothetical comic book shop could refuse service to Catholics, blacks, Irish, veterans, married folk, single folk, pregnant folk, cripples, Democrats, Republicans, and any other grouping of people you can possible think of, and the constitution would be like “I have no problem with this.”

                  1. Agreed. But, religious liberty has zero to do with non-discrimination laws. I don’t think you understand what the First Amendment states.

                    I agree you should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but I’m not clear that you agree. But, the government cannot violate your deeply held belief unless it has a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means possible.

                    1. But, religious liberty has zero to do with non-discrimination laws.

                      (A) You’re the one that brought it up dude, and (B) not according to all the folks currently talking about “religious liberty” in the public sphere.

                      I agree you should be able to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but I’m not clear that you agree.

                      My agreement or not is 100% irrelevant to what I’ve said so far. You’re the one that has turned a simple historical refutation of an idiotic claim into a debate about religious liberty.

                    2. You equated religious liberty with non-discrimination laws. Which was beyond idiotic.

                    3. Nope. Did not do. Beyond pointing out that many people talking about “religious liberty” today are whining about non-discrimination laws, I haven’t addressed the issue.

                2. Hey man, my comments are like art. They don’t make a lot of sense. I don’t get what I’m saying.

                  1. What have I said here that upsets you MJ? I’m just saying that non-discrimination laws are bad, but religious liberty has nothing to do with non-discrimination laws.

                    1. Escher said nothing about whether non-discrimination laws are good and nothing about religious liberty. You’re scatting like crazy.

                    2. That’s not entirely true. I said that non-discrimination laws were as bad the law that this legislator was getting dinged for.

                      But, maybe I got lost in the long thread.

                    3. It’s 100% true. Escher was just pointing out that there have been non-discrimination laws mentioning transgenders since the 70s, so seeking legal protections for them is not some new progressive phenomenon. That’s all. No comparison between laws or policies, no judgment that “one is bad, while the other is good,” just a statement of fact to challenge John’s assertion. This is very simple.

                    4. And I was remarking that whether recent or not, imposing non-discrimination laws was still bad. I’m sorry if that is not an acceptable opinion in the new identity politics focused ‘libertarianism’.

                    5. “there have been non-discrimination laws mentioning transgenders since the 70s”

                      I’m calling bullshit. The term “transgender” as it is used today and the concept behind it did not exist in the 70s.

        2. The T was only added to LGBT in 2014, right?

          1. You forgot the Q.

        3. What did gender identity mean in 1979, or 1975? The link you provide does not actually have the statute in question, which I would like to actually read. Nor does the link you provide actually contain a link or statute name for me to independently look up. It could just be the formatting, but I’m genuinely curious since I highly suspect that they did not mean the same thing back then.

          1. Well, Dog Day Afternoon came out in 75, and Sonny’s “girlfriend” having the operation was the ostensible motive for the robbery, so it wasn’t completely unheard of.

            And the book “the Boys in the Bank” predated the movie by a couple of years.

      5. I don’t have a problem with society’s opinion about the transgender or whatever. I have a problem with the government instituting social policy, which doesn’t seem to be an issue for some if it is the ‘right social policy’. The federal government instituting bathroom policy on local school districts was a pretty big expansion of state authority.

        I don’t really care about this legislator, but it would seem that his bill that expanded state authority wouldn’t have been considered if the other expansion of state authority never happened. It would seem that denouncing the response, while ignoring the impetus does a disservice to restraining state authority. But, I just have to accept that reducing government is not the objective for most.

        1. I agree. And it would be nice if we had an actual debate about this. But we are not having a debate. What we have is Scott and the rest calling anyone who objects bigots and declaring any position other than theirs morally illegitimate. And a bunch of self-proclaimed Libertarians can’t seem to understand why that might be a bad idea.

          1. “It’s only a debate if my opponents shut up!”

            1. Yes Hail, that is what Scott is doing here. I have to admit, I am pleasantly surprised by your support on this issue.

      6. You go ahead and be “terrified,” but telling others that they should be terrified of the same things you’re terrified about, without any evidence whatsoever that there’s really anything to be terrified about, is particularly sad. That goes for people who are terrified of Trump and and soft, tiki torch carrying “neo-nazis,” as well as people who are terrified of people who wish to identify as the opposite gender.

        It’s sad, but it’s okay that you’re afraid, John. And it’s okay that most of us aren’t as afraid as you are.

        1. What is sad is that you seem to not understand how tyranny works or how quickly societies can get out of control once they are infected with a fit of righteousness. But I guess if it wasn’t for people like you, there wouldn’t be much of a problem. So, your existence at least proves my point.

          1. They seem to think Idiocy was PRAISING what the culture became.

        2. I’m not afraid of trans people, I have friends that are. BUT it is nonsense the way the discussion is framed as “We’re holy, you’re Hitler!” and that’s the end of the convo. As someone who is in favor of reasonable accommodations I’m not opposed to giving some ground… But we’re talking about less than 1% of the population, perhaps far less than 1%, .1% to .5% are common ranges.

          At what point does the MAJORITY get to have it’s way where there’s a disagreement about a minor, but hot button, issue? I don’t see bathroom use as a major deal either way, but it pisses me off that it’s been turned into a bludgeon by the left and used to insult perfectly reasonable people. For me I’m okay with bathrooms, but I think mixing biological sexes in saaay public showers in school is a little beyond the pale. Is that entirely unreasonable? Am I Hitler? Do you think 14 year old kids aren’t having extra unease thrust on them by having to be naked in front of people of the opposite sex because of adult proggies? Why can’t we have the discussion like adults without name calling?

    1. We would not have known how mentally disturbed these trans people are if it were not for your article.

  4. The mixing on this album is pretty rough. You’re a metal band, bring the instrumentation up in the mix more.

    So far, I must say, out of Partying based Metal bands Party Cannon is still the tops.

    1. As metal singer I think one could argue that the gender change falls into the category of unfair performance enhancement.

      Do the hormones increase hi(er)s range?

  5. Many media sites are focused on these culture war components, but I know Reason readers care about what really matters.

    … Shackford doesn’t read the comments of his own articles, does he? Smart I suppose, but it makes him seem more then a little na?ve.

    1. Shackford cares more about us than any other writer here. Only Sir Ron Bailey is close.

      1. Shackford > Bailey

  6. None of these articles talk about Roem’s political positions. I know them being TG is the big story, but I don’t really care that much about that.

    Though, since I live on the west coast I guess I don’t care that much about their policy either.

    1. I believe the policy position is that a tranny won and is going to make it illegal to dislike trannys and if you get arrested for disliking trannys you’re going to be thrown in jail and turned into a tranny. Or something else.

      1. Hmm, I’m reading through it and I’m not feeling it. I’m fine with being pro-job growth, but it seems their major idea is to increase public transportation to the area to encourage tech growth. Not really certain about that one.

        1. I mean, yeah, she’s a Democrat, who “takes a dim view of toll roads, which should be of concern to transportation privatization advocates.”

          1. I’m just trying to comment on the politics of it rather than all this TG shit. I’m not surprised I disagree, just that I’m trying to bring it around to that.

            1. WHY WON’T YOU FOCUS ON HER IDENTITY! There is nothing more libertarian than viewing people as representatives of some amorphous group

              1. “Metal band” is not that amorphous a group.

                1. I got confused. I thought that the article was about how she was transgender. I guess I missed the part where it was all about how she was in a metal band

                  1. You’re still confused. It’s mostly about the guy she defeated.

                    1. Mmmm….hmmmmm….the whole first part of the article and the last quarter must have been cut out for you.

                    2. No, I just read them soberly.

  7. LEARN MY PRONOUNS

  8. We’re a five-piece group and all members are committed to ultimately touring full-time. Our sound is drunken thrash metal, our songs are about drinking and our shows are about raging.

    Wait, she’s a democrat? That actually gives me hope.

  9. Oh, also: Roem is transgender, having transitioned to living life openly as a woman between 2012 and 2015.

    If you identify as a woman, and you ‘transitioned’ to a woman, how long will the media call you “Transgender”?

    1. The real question is how long will feminists hate you for thinking you can just coopt their struggle?

      1. He grew up as a man. And can go back to being a man anytime he likes. I think the feminists have a legitimate point when they claim someone like this really isn’t a woman and really doesn’t understand the experience of being a woman. If this person can do that, than any white person can just dye their skin black and claim to be “black” in the same way someone born that way does.

        This person, whatever you want to call him, is not a woman in any meaningful way. They are a man who enjoys pretending to be a woman. Good for him. It is a free country and whatever works. But that doesn’t change the truth or relieve anyone of the duty to tell it.

        1. But that doesn’t change the truth or relieve anyone of the duty to tell it.

          Whatever you say, Mr Kant.

          1. Do you not believe in the concept of objective truth? If not, then I would be curious to hear how you square that with being a classical liberal or a libertarian.

            1. Do you not believe in the concept of objective truth?

              I’m sure my thoughts on what could be objective truth are not even close to yours.

              I would be curious to hear how you square that with being a classical liberal or a libertarian.

              Can someone please tell me how many times I have to say that I’m not?

              1. If you don’t think there is any such thing as objective truth, then why are you arguing with me? My truth is not your truth. Get over it.

                1. If you don’t think there is any such thing as objective truth, then why are you arguing with me?

                  Do you want to debate or do you want to preach? I can guess what the real answer is.

                  My truth is not your truth.

                  I never said it had to be.

                  1. If you don’t believe in objective truth, everyone is preaching you fucking half wit. If you are going to use words and concepts, try to understand what they mean Sparky.

                    1. If you don’t believe in objective truth, everyone is preaching you fucking half wit. If you are going to use words and concepts, try to understand what they mean Sparky.

                      It’s pretty funny when you go completely off the fucking rails.

                      “Why are you questioning me?”
                      “Do you want to debate or preach?”
                      “Everything is preaching you half-wit!”
                      “…”

            2. That’s easy. The fundamental question of what is good and what is true is difficult, if it is actually objective it is seemingly beyond our ability to comprehend directly.

              This places a great deal of uncertainly upon an individual about themselves, but due to the lessened amount of information, makes one even more uncertain about others. A relatively conservative position here then is to give maximum autonomy to others and yourself. We have to choose our own lives, and that may be very well all we have. Infringing upon others is denying them their right to search for truth themselves.

              How do you square objective truth with not telling others what to do? If we can ascertain an absolute truth then it would make perfect sense to enforce that in all others, as at that point they are deviating from truth, and thus incorrect.

          2. Stop being a Kant

            (See, it’s funny because of the German pronunciation of his name. I’ll see myself out now)

        2. If she had genital surgery, she can?t “go back to being a man.” And yes, she is a woman in a very meaningful way- she looks like a woman, presents herself as a woman, lives the life of a woman, speaks from her experience as a woman, even if it is just a few years, and yes, if she had the surgery, she can have sex in a “typically feminine” way. She can?t get pregnant, but since that is not the only meaningful way of being a woman, it isn? t really relevant.

          1. Yes he can. His sex is determined by his DNA not the existence of a dick. If a man gets hits dick clown off in an accident is he no longer a man?

            Moreover, if you are going to claim that someone’s gender is determined by their bodies and not their mind, you just contradicted the basic assumption behind transgenderism.

          2. “She” doesn’t look like a woman… I’ve seen some 100% passable trannies, and this one ain’t one of them! LOL

    2. About as long as it would take the media to give a white horse and a funny hat to somebody who identifies as Napoleon Bonaparte.

      In a sane world, anyway.

    3. There’s a lot of stuff about transgender politics that are weird. What you mentioned is one. That they are grouped in with Gays and Lesbians is another.

      1. They are all in the same realm of delusional thinking that goes against what nature has provided – male and female, that join together to produce offspring.
        Whether the delusion is one of believing that someone is not the sex they were born with or that they are physically attracted to someone of the same sex; they are still delusional about what nature has presented throughout virtually every species on the planet.
        The result of this delusion being accepted, and virtually endorsed, will be a diminishment of reproduction and, eventual extinction.
        You will notice that the push for this is almost exclusively in the Western world, which has been identified as the evil that walks the Earth by progressives – the main advocates of this transformation.

        1. Well a few things. Gays, I believe, have been proven to be a genetic anomaly that they can’t help. The have observably different brain behavior from straight people of their sex, and in fact show brain activity that is a mishmash between the 2 sexes. Which all makes sense. I don’t think it’s a choice or mental problem per se, they’re just born with a genetic abnormality like having a third nipple or whatever LOL. They’re found in other animals in nature, and there are plausible theories that homosexuals actually pop up on purpose to help the group survive even though they don’t reproduce themselves.

          Trans people I dunno. I don’t think any genetic info has been pinned to tranny behavior as yet, although I wouldn’t be surprised if they did. Personally I think most trans people are gays which just are a little off their rocker in most cases, or perhaps their mismash of abnormal DNA just takes them a step closer in brain functioning to the point where they in fact can’t help feeling the way they do. I dunno. I feel sorry for the bastards either way, but that still doesn’t mean society at large has to bend over backwards TOO much to be nice. Nobody should get a 100% free pass across the board.

    4. As long as it causes controversy, because controversy drives viewership, viewership drives ads, and ads are revenue.

      So basically, when someone can post an article about a trans person and there are no longer any responses like “He grew up as a man”, then the media will probably stop caring to keep reminding folks that a person is trans.

      1. It seems the controversy here is the media doesn’t like people who transition from man to woman or vice versa.

        They want to keep identifying you as an ‘other’. And to be clear, I’m singling out people who, by my best reading of their situation or identity, are a Woman(tm) or a Man(tm) and identify themselves as such. I’m not talking about gender fluid, Aero Gender (yes, there’s a new one on the books now) etc.

        If someone identifies as a Woman, out of respect, I’m going to call her ‘her’. I’m not going to wink at them and say, “well, but… Transgender, right?”

        It seems disrespectful while attempting to come off as enlightened.

        1. Aero Gender

          God damned bigots trying to act like wanting to fuck planes is new.

        2. I suppose the distinction you’re making that I’m not, and vice versa, is in the meta.

          You are explaining why some folks insist on “othering” trans folk, even going out of their way to make a point to do so.

          I am saying that so long as folks do so, and thus generate controversy, that the media will also.

          I suppose in a way I’m removing agency from “the media”, but eh. They’re big. They can take it.

  10. As long as she doesn’t vote to raise taxes or expand government in Virginia, its all good. But wait, she ran as a democrat, so silly me for expecting anything less.

    1. I doubt he is very friendly to any liberty beyond his right to use the women’s bathroom. But hey, you can pay higher taxes and have a bigger government and feel good you are doing it so Scott can get his pony.

      1. Yes. Libertarian site Reason going nuts for a statist Democrat simply because he REALLY thinks he is a girl is a reason why, literally, nobody takes this site seriously. I cannot even find Libertarians who don’t roll their eyes over this site.

        1. Principals over principles.

        2. Seriously. Maybe I’m just skewing my own memories, but I feel like the proggy social stuff wasn’t really pushed even just several years ago here? Like they would obviously say shit like gay marriage should be legal or whatever, but it wasn’t in the same teary eyed, cheer leading type way. It was because of the principle or whatever, not because right-think REQUIRED EVERYONE TO THINK XYZ or else they were a nazi bigot. Am I just trippin’ or what?

          I really need to find a more right-libertarian place to read stuff, because this site is just pissing me off more than anything else the last couple years. I find myself almost more interest with watching Fox news for the LOLz than reading here because their left leaning virtue signalling is about enough to make me sick half the time, EVEN THOUGH I USUALLY AGREE WITH THE POSITION! It’s just the way they say it all.

    2. Ooops- I meant xi, not she!

  11. Well, my spit take is that Virginia was probably going to elect a mentally ill person regardless so why not this particular mental illness?

    Kind of a brilliant move though, since its seems fairly obvious that the only reason they won is because people voted their wokeness. I doubt anyone in Virginia could tell you want his platform actually was.

    1. *I doubt anyone in Virginia could tell you what his platform actually was.

      1. Nobody gave an ass about platform yesterday- I could have run on a platform to legalize public masturbation and won, so long as I had a D after my name-that’s the thing about wave elections. The question is if there will be voters’ remorse once they start turning the Commonwealth into California East? My guess is no-people moving here from states like NY, MA, NJ, etc expect to have the government wipe their butts for them.

        1. And they never understand why the economic and quality of life is so much better in the states they hate and keep moving to. Bad luck I guess.

        2. I don’t need to be told that, it’s abundantly clear from who they ended up electing. I find it to be a ludicrous proposition that this individual would have won if they were a ‘normal’ individual with the same background and beliefs. A metal band person that sings exclusively about getting fucked up? No, I don’t think so.

          The trans status won things for them, I suspect, and only that. The (D) status was a foregone conclusion, obviously, and they will most definitely have ‘voters remorse’ once they realize what they actually ended up doing.

          Although, I will admit that it’s possible that this person might be good at the job. They’re clearly an outsider, so they are probably well positioned to do things that actually matter to their constituents. In that sense, it could be an accidental win. In my mind, a metal singer actually has a better chance of doing good things than a lawyer. Not a great chance, but a better one.

          1. Not just the emphasizing of the trans aspect, but also emphasizing anything they could to demonize their opponent. There’s a reason why every article I’ve seen states it as “a win of a transwoman over someone anti-LGBT” or why the guy from Virginia ran that horrific ad of the Gillespie voter running down minorities. They want it to be more than just praise of the firsts, but also fear of the other. To make people think that if they don’t vote for the right-thinking candidate, Nazis and the KKK will win.

    2. This is actually my district and I knew nothing about Roem. I just learned this morning about having a transgender state representative. From what I understand, the biggest issue of Roem’s campaign was alleviating traffic on Rt. 28 (which is a daily struggle for anyone in this area). I almost would have been willing to vote for this person on that issue, but of course being a Democrat means there’s plenty of other shit on the agenda I hate.

  12. Somewhat off topic:

    I keep hearing about how the election result in our fair Commonwealth was a referendum on the sitting president. Does that mean that the GOP gaining control of the vast majority of governorship’s and state legislatures was a continuous referendum on Barry? Who am I kidding. Leftists have no principles and, therefor, no consistency.

    1. Everytime a political party gets a “win”, it calls it a referendum on the other party’s [representatives/policies/ponies/whatever].

      Whether we’re talking 1994, 2000, 2006, 2008, 2010, or 2017, the story is always the same.

      Acting like this is a partisan habit is, well, partisan.

      1. Yeah, I was thinking this while listening to the news. I heard someone refer to the Seattle Mayoral race a referendum. Which is absurd, there was no chance of that going republican before or after Trump.

        1. Dude, we have top 2 elections in Seattle, so a Republican can’t even run! As disgusted as I was with it I actually decided to vote for the less crazy of the two Democrats, because I was genuinely worried the crazier of the two might win here… We do have our beloved Socialist party city council member after all. I laughed when I saw an open Socialist running when that happened a few years back, when she won my fucking jaw dropped. I won’t put anything past the idiot commies in this city now.

      2. Acting like this is a partisan habit is, well, partisan.

        And why I have ripped up my voter card-elections serve no purpose anymore other than to express partisanship. The vote I cast for Cliff Hyra yesterday was my last and I won’t waste my time anymore.

  13. Danica Roem makes history by getting elected to the House of Delegates.

    All the other men that like to dress like women did it on their own time.

  14. Oh lordy I don’t have the patience to participate in another trans-post.

    All I will say is I wish the hell we could have kept politics out of it. Politics really ruins everything it touches.

  15. How can you get your birth certificate changed? Aren’t you only born once?

    Did Obama’s birth certificate have a “last edited” date we don’t know about?

    1. He identifies as a Hawaiian, s–tlord.

    2. I believe all states will re-issue a birth certificate following an adoption or a correction of parentage. Most states will also re-issue a birth certificate for gender change following their own processes (whatever that may be), with different states having different standards.

      And none of that has anything to do with Obama.

  16. A heavy metal post with over 150 comments? This should be interesting!

    [skims comments]

    Never mind.

    1. I tried talking about metal. I went and listened to their album.

  17. How come so many people who claim to want a maximally free society can’t handle stuff like this without wetting their panties?

    1. Because lefties make personal stuff political and go after people who don’t think the way you do.

      Its pretty much why socialists have killed millions of people during the 20th Century.

      1. First, you’re obviously an idiot. Second, here you guys are, vomiting your stupid opinions as much as you like. Nobody’s coming for you. What are you bitching about?

        The very reason trans people don’t have it so good in society is because of people like you. All they want is exactly the same privileges and rights you enjoy. And the only roadblock to that is closed-minded idiots who want to impose on them their inability to handle anything remotely new or out of the ordinary.

        When theocrats come after you because of who you are, your life becomes political.

        1. Tony, you are the biggest moron lefty that visits this website. Most websites would have banned you by now for the troll that you are. I for one like to know what my lefty enemy thinks and does.

          I could care less if someone is gay, blue, has a 5th leg, whatever.

          Once you lefties start making non-issues into political issues, then I have something to say to counter your nonsense.

          That is that trans people have mental issues and they will never…repeat… never force me to accept that men are women and women are men. We used to call the transvestites or cross-dressers.

        2. “Nobody’s coming for you.”

          That’s only because I use a pseudonym here. If I posted what I think about transgenderism here under my own name, I would probably lose my job. At the least, I would be subjected to some sort of “training” about it as a condition of remaining employed. Under some circumstances, expressing our opinions about this in the workplace could result in a civil suit or even criminal prosecution. Yes, as a libertarian, I believe my employer has the right to kick me to the curb anytime they want to, but don’t try to tell me we enjoy freedom of expression about transgenderism.

          “When theocrats come after you because of who you are, your life becomes political.”

          Likewise when totalitarians with the power to punish you come after you because you don’t agree with their theories and philosophy.

  18. Virginia Voters Toss Homophobic Lawmaker in Favor of Transgender Heavy Metal Rocker

    “Virginia Democrats sweep election, including some gender-war/culture-war fallout” is a little more accurate.

    (I mean, his bathroom bill thing was inane stupidity, and I got nothin’ against transgender metalheads winning an election – even if they’re on the Left.

    But this wasn’t really a referendum on Gender Politics or Trans Personhood or anything else like that; it was VA Republicans losing all around, for reasons I don’t know because I don’t care about VA politics.)

  19. Is it wrong to disdain a transgender with stubble?

    1. I prefer them that way actually, at least then you know it’s really a chick with a dick. The 100% passable ones are the ones you gotta worry about! LOL

  20. Treating homosexuality and “transgenderism” as normal will result in the end of any society that does so.
    It goes against what nature intended, that male and female join together to produce offspring, that will continue the evolutionary movement and populate that culture.
    It seems to be mostly advanced by progressives, in Western societies.
    Does that give no one a clue?

  21. I don’t give a good flying fuck if this person transitioned to a fucking cat, this candidate is a fucking big government, statist type, you know, the type libertarians are supposed to fight, well at least most libertarians, “Reason” seems to be giving this horrible candidate a pass because the candidate is “transgendered”. Its not a big deal to me which minority becomes the first of anything, if their philosophy sucks, they suck. I don’t care if their man, woman, trans, black, white or polka dot spotted.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.