Hey, there! Log in / Register

City Hall raises a trans flag

Flag in support of transgender rights at Boston City Hall

John Keith shows us the new flag flying in front of City Hall - in support of rights for transgender residents. Mayor Walsh and other city officials raised the flag yesterday.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Do you like how UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

...and anyone who disagrees with the trans movement and all that it stands for WILL BE MADE TO CARE[sub]TM.

/smh

up
Voting closed 0

It must be so hard to be you

up
Voting closed 0

Ad hominem responses such as yours are, in my experience, common among progressives.

What else ya got?

up
Voting closed 0

Okay, how about we back off the ad hominem and just talk about how the view you have espoused is archaic and hateful?

up
Voting closed 0

But aren't you guys basically proving his point for him?

up
Voting closed 0

I was clearly attacking the position the poster was making. And you've got four people and counting who don't know what an ad hominem is, apparently.

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

up
Voting closed 0

I have no idea what the hell I'm supposed to say to somebody who gets caps-lock mad for a small flag going up.

up
Voting closed 0

That his AM radio hasn't already told him is a DIRTY LIBRUL PLOT TO STEAL HIS LIBURTY AND FREEDUMB!

up
Voting closed 0

Please realize it's "a thing" on the interwebs, this phrase which I capitalized.

(Also, please realize I blew it in not using the [sub] tag properly.)

...mad for a small flag going up.

You do realize that the 'small flag' actually represents something, and that not everyone is on board with that something?

up
Voting closed 0

Ad hominem responses such as yours are, in my experience, common among progressives.

Your post was an ad hominem post, sunshine. To quote Shakespeare, "Thou hast railed on thyself."

up
Voting closed 0

An "ad hominem" is an attempt to refute someone's argument by directly denigrating their character or personal attributes. The post you replied to, as sarcasm-filled as it was, and as much as it invited readers to infer things about you (but did not, itself, imply them), did neither of these things.

up
Voting closed 0

So Im a little slow this AM. Could you explain the hair across your ass thats developed over a colorful piece of nylon?

Im sure youre being inconvenienced and oppressed in some way I just need a little help in seeing it for myself.

up
Voting closed 0

I would've thought better of you, anon. Usually anything that even vaguely hints at promoting social equality for marginalized groups will have a screeching chorus of detractors within twenty minutes. Might have something to do with the time it was posted... maybe the "they're being intolerant of my intolerance!" brigade only keeps bankers' hours?

up
Voting closed 0

Sure. Fine. Whatever.

What other types of people do you "disagree with"? People with brown eyes? Disabled folks? People who are lactose intolerant? Screw having empathy and screw those who don't fit into your human monolith, right?

up
Voting closed 0

What are you implying by that? Are you implying some 'racist', 'homophobic' blue eyed (non 'person of color') individual wrote the post you don't like? How do you know the poster who made the post you were responding to doesn't have brown eyes, which are, after-all, by far the most common eye color, including among Caucasians / whites.

'Progressives' are not what they claim to be in this country. They 'celebrate' diversity, yet would really like everyone to look homogeneous. You claim to be very tolerant, but in reality most 'progressives' are the opposite of tolerant, and simply rigidly adhere to the party line.

What is this obsession hardcore 'progressives' have with gay issues, especially transgendered (which really isn't connected to homosexuality or bisexuality)? We have so many very serious issues in this city, state, country, world to discuss and deal with, and VERY, VERY few people, even among the so-called LGB community, have transgendered issues on their radar screen. Yet hardcore 'progressives' and leftists are obsessing over it, and beating people over the head with it. I suppose it's much easier to promote BS emotional issues that VERY few people obsess over than deal with much more difficult, mundane real world issues.

up
Voting closed 0

We have so many very serious issues in this city, state, country, world to discuss and deal with, (snip) I suppose it's much easier to promote BS emotional issues that VERY few people obsess over than deal with much more difficult, mundane real world issues.

Yet we have politicians on other states passing bathroom bills because knowing whether Jonny has a penis in the mens room, or Jenny has a vagina in the women's room. Because, you know, that's the most important issue to them today. Outpacing things like Jobs, Education, Welfare, and Poverty. But Penis and Vaginas in proper rooms is more important than any other social issue today.

So why don't you take your comment, fold it in four corners and smoke it.

up
Voting closed 0

Because there are pedophiles(Chad Sevearance is a convicted sex offender) writing laws to allow anyone to whatever bathroom they please based on subjective "feelings" or "identity" while disregarding others concerns about privacy. This bathroom bill outpaced "jobs, education, welfare..." because the Governor saw common sense being turned upside by the demands of an extremely small segment of society(0.3%).

Surely people can see how this whole transgender bathroom movement can be problematic. Target does even care if "identify" as transgender or not, just use whatever bathroom you please!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrWuRpliVI

up
Voting closed 0

Did one of my crazy aunt's chain letters come to life?

up
Voting closed 0

Just a reminder: more Republican congressmen have been convicted of sexual malfeasance in bathrooms than trans people.

up
Voting closed 0

Was this written in Esperanto?

up
Voting closed 0

Because we there are pedophiles(the author of the original NC Bathroom mandate) writing laws to allow anyone to whatever bathroom they please based on subjective "feelings" or "identity" while disregarding others concerns about privacy

but but but but but "for the children".

Spare us. Your concerned about your child, go into the bathroom WITH your child. Yet we expect the law to do what we used to call "parenting". *shakes head*

Do you think pedophiles really care about a sign on the door or some law? They don't. They will 'attack' someone in a bathroom whether there's a law or sign or not. It will not stop them. So why alienate a group of people in the process when it's going to be an unenforceable law unless we have "penis checkers" at all doors of every bathroom. It's a stupid law.

Statistically speaking, your child (or woman) is more likely to be attacked at the workplace, at home, at school, in a park... BY SOMEONE THEY ALREADY KNOW. Its almost UNHEARD of it being done in a bathroom.

Now statistically speaking, you're more likely to be approached for oral sex by a republican politician in a bathroom THAN ANYONE ELSE.

Funny how you claim "feelings", yet we're passing bathroom laws based on "feelings" and not fact. Funny how that works. Maybe we should base laws on fact and statistics and not 'feelings'.

PS - Maybe instead of passing bathroom bills, we should ban sex offenders from bathrooms. I mean that's really the issue here from what these politicians are saying. But we haven't heard a peep yet about this because frankly, this more more about alienating transfolk than actually passing a law that makes sense.

up
Voting closed 0

And that's the problem. Using your assumption that pedophiles and sex offenders don't care about "the sign on the door," now they can go into any bathroom with impunity knowing they'll face no resistance or scrutiny because they are now permitted to use bathroom of the opposite sex. How will a mother with their child know whether a man in the bathroom is a pedophile or not? Again, we're talking about a group of people (according to google) that is 0.3% of the population...

You seem to contradict yourself without knowing. Writing laws based on facts would result is sex-segregated bathrooms, not what is currently being debated in which anyone can use the bathroom of the gender or sex they "identify" with; that is based on feelings.

The left seeks to prohibit “discrimination” based on “gender identity” and “gender expression” in all contexts, including those areas that were created for the sole purpose of recognizing and accommodating objective, immutable sex differences. The prohibition of discrimination based on sex and that based on “gender identity” and “gender expression” with regard to facilities in which private activities take place are wholly incompatible. The former permits society in some contexts to accommodate sex differences. The latter forbids society in any context from accommodating real, objective, immutable differences between men and women.

up
Voting closed 0

You legitimately think that somebody who is willing to commit a sex crime (sex crimes are illegal btw) would draw the line on their willingness to break the law at going into the incorrect bathroom? How can you not see how illogical that is?

up
Voting closed 0

Nope, never said any of that and thanks for clarifying that a crime is illegal, I had no idea!

up
Voting closed 0

You seem to contradict yourself without knowing. Writing laws based on facts would result is sex-segregated bathrooms

Please show us some of these supposed facts that support your comments here and maybe we would be persuaded.

Not hate-based or faith-based facts or SCARY TRANS PEOPLE OMGOMGOMG FACTS!!!!!!!

You know. ACTUAL FACTS.

up
Voting closed 0

Keep spewing your hate and trying to rationalize your stance on the issue.

Using your assumption that pedophiles and sex offenders don't care about "the sign on the door," now they can go into any bathroom with impunity knowing they'll face no resistance or scrutiny because they are now permitted to use bathroom of the opposite sex.

I'm not assuming anything. Statistics speak for themselves. No "assumption" on anything. No law is going to prevent a sex offender or pedophile from attacking. Hello, even restraining orders do not keep people away from their victims. What do you think a bathroom law will do. Nothing.

And as it stands right now, there's absolutely nothing stopping sex offenders from walking into the rest room of their choice. Law or no Law, it will not stop them. You're stupid to think otherwise.

This is nothing more than a 'feelings' based law, and not based on real statistics.

How will a mother with their child know whether a man in the bathroom is a pedophile or not?

And how would a mother with her child know someone is a trans person or not? They wouldn't unless they become the penis police and ask.

Writing laws based on facts would result is sex-segregated bathrooms, not what is currently being debated in which anyone can use the bathroom of the gender or sex they "identify" with; that is based on feelings.

No, this is an attack on trans people. As I keep saying, trans folk have been using the bathroom of their choice for decades without incident, but NOW it's a big deal because some 'big bad sex offender' might come in and attack someone?

It has never been an issue, nor will it be an issue.So stop trying to make it one.

The left seeks to prohibit “discrimination” based on “gender identity”

Right, and the RIGHT Wing keeps trying to pass these laws. So who's the bigger bad boy here? The right OR the left? By your words, its BOTH of them. Yet you won't see it that way, it's always an attack on the left for you, isn't it.

But go ahead, keep talking and trying to justify your hatred against people. Go back to whatever rock you came out of under and stop trying to justify your hatred against people because YOU feel that this is 'feelings' based.

I pray to God everyday for you and for others like you that you will meet someone one of these laws will affect and you'll soon realize how silly it really is.

up
Voting closed 0

No hatred at all here. In reading through my posts, its quite a conclusion to assume I am "hateful." How were any of my comments hateful? Because they are of the dissenting opinion? I am not allowed to think, for example, Target's new bathroom policies are wrong? Did I use any derogatory terms or phrases? Nope and nope. Seems like you are the one harboring hatred towards someone with a differing opinion. This is all too common a tool of the Left, call people bigots, racists, hateful and any other "phob" when in actuality it does nothing but discourage civil discourse. How about we respectively disagree?

I utterly despise Trump and would never vote for him, but is anyone actually surprised by his rise? The reasons are complicated but its safe to assume people are sick of being beaten over the head by the 'non-stop politically correct do as the Left says' agenda.

EDIT: Case in point, as vile and uncalled for as Trumps rhetoric is, I have to see conservative/republicans riot or shut down a Bernie or Hilary rally, or riot in general for that matter. Google "May Day riots" that occurred in Seattle two days ago. Nice bunch of tolerant folks, they are!

up
Voting closed 0

How about we respectively disagree?

  1. I think the word you're looking for is "respectfully".
  2. Your entire discourse here has been generously larded with false equivalences, and never more than in this most recent post, where you equate those who want to legislate bigotry that has a real, tangible effect on people's lives (you try living your life unable to use a bathroom anywhere outside your home) with those who are calling out such actions as the bigotry that they are. In your distorted view of reality, I expect that a child who says, "Hey, you're a bully" is just as bad as a child who bullies another.

You may think of yourself as a nice reasonable person taking the middle ground, but there really isn't a middle ground where human rights are concerned, not the way you imagine it.

up
Voting closed 0

Just to chime in (yikes), I've not issue with any of the LGBTQ folks. Hey, everyone poops! And, I certainly understand how vulnerable a transwoman being forced to go into a mens room would be. It could be a recipe for disaster.

My issue with the law is the once again rush to pass "feel good" laws without thinking of any consequences. It's a rush with emotion with people being labeled haters, etc just for having a difference of opinion and many times not even being given the time to explain their perspective.

Like I've said in an earlier post, if you're a dad and you send your 5 or 6 yr old daughter to the woman's room and immediately see a sketchy man follow her in there. You would be alarmed, I am sure. And, with this law there's nothing to stop this sketchy guy from going in there. Whereas now, a red flag would go up as soon as you see a man enter a ladies room.

That being said, as much as I want to make sure that little girl is safe from a predator using this law as a way continue whatever he does, we do need to protect that (trans) woman from harm as well.

What about woman only areas in gyms? I always preferred a woman only gym. I don't think you can allow something like that anylonger, no?

If I am wrong, then fine but there's no need for hate from closed minded people.

up
Voting closed 0

My issue with the law is the once again rush to pass "feel good" laws

Rush? The law has been languishing in the legislature for over a year now. Do you really consider that "rushing"?

up
Voting closed 0

Yes, I do.

Once SJW's get their hands on something, the end justifies the means.

Like I said, all parties need to be treated fairly and with respect.

Sometimes laws rushed to pass have unintended consequences.
.

up
Voting closed 0

Once SJW's get their hands on something, the end justifies the means.

What does this even mean?

Like I said, all parties need to be treated fairly and with respect.

Oh, by all means...only, it seems to me that you're being "treated fairly and with respect" right now, and transpeople are not. But no rush on that -- the transfolk can wait, and you? You're all set.

Sometimes laws rushed to pass have unintended consequences.

Indeed, I think we're seeing some results of that in various Southern states right now. But you're drawing a false equivalence between laws that grant civil rights and laws that abridge them. In this and other discussions, you've hauled out imaginary scenarios that don't even rise to the level of anecdote in support of your wish to delay extending rights to a class of people. I hope you'll understand why I find it unreasonable for your imaginary fears to prevail over the very real, very practical, day-to-day civil rights that are denied to others. Let's not rush? Let's take away the same right for you, and see how much delay YOU can abide.

up
Voting closed 0

I have nothing to say but am responding b/c I've always wanted to know what happens to this column once it gets so thin no words will fit ..

up
Voting closed 0

We'll agree to disagree.

up
Voting closed 0

Work over a weekend with a transperson at a time when the permitted restroom is locked.

That sort of pointless cruelty - can't go pee or you might lose your job if someone "reported" you using one restroom or another - when you are working through A FUCKING WEEKEND is what got my attention to transgender issues.

Myself and my coworker stood guard while the woman we were working with used the women's room. What she happened to be peeing with was very far from our list of "things to give a shit about".

up
Voting closed 0

I think the question is; why was the restroom locked? no?

I've worked with trans. Hell, I used to manage a womans clothing shop back in the late 70's and would meet a customer (male) late at night at the store so he could shop in private. I was happy to oblige.

You needed two people to guard a bathroom door? What were you expecting?

up
Voting closed 0

You've just heard a real-life example of what happens when you get the law you want, Patricia. Now own it. Stop, for once, fingerpointing and moving the goalposts to pretend that this is not the outcome of what you're endorsing.

up
Voting closed 0

Why doesn't dad just walk into the bathroom with her if he is worried some "sketchy guy" might follow him in? Isn't unisex bathrooms better for families? Mom and sons, dads and daughters entering the restroom of their choice together, with no one quizzing them on why they are there.

Do people really send in 5 year olds alone?

up
Voting closed 0

Don't know about your dad but my dad would've never gone in a womans restroom. I do remember going into a mens room with my father when I was about 4 or 5 and I did see things I remember to this day that obviously stayed with me.

up
Voting closed 0

I came across this today: https://digboston.com/more-boos-for-baker/

FTA:

Meanwhile, the argument against the Massachusetts bathroom bill appears to be that a man could legally put on a dress and enter the women’s room, and then sexual assaults would happen. However, state law already defines gender identity (hint: It’s not by asking, “Are you wearing a dress?”). The statute reads, “‘Gender identity’ shall mean a person’s gender-related identity … Gender-related identity may be shown by providing evidence including, but not limited to, medical history, care or treatment of the gender-related identity, consistent and uniform assertion of the gender-related identity.”

Words from the author, a real, live trans person. As the argument goes, no law is going to prevent someone from doing what you're insinuating, nor would it legalize the behavior you are concerned that it will (but really, "think of the children"; but don't think of the trans, in effect).

All that your concern is doing is preventing people equal rights. It's really not, in turn, protecting children. Or, it's giving you the do-good'er type feeling since you think you're making the kids safe while making folks like the author hold their call to nature for longer until they can find a single occupant restroom or gender neutral bathroom. If you talk to a trans person, I think you'll find their biggest concern in the bathroom is......using the restroom, as intended.

And if you get pissed that we're pissed that you're holding it up, I don't know what to tell you other than suck it up. I mean, I remember the last time you brought it up and you said you didn't want people with penises coming into the restroom to be near your daughter. Which is dangerously close to/sounds a lot like "I think all trans people are pedophiles." And, if you were a trans person, you'd probably be offended by that, too.

up
Voting closed 0

You seem to know more about this bill than I. Are there any unintended consequences?

And to be honest, I really don't care what anyone else's gender is, probably even less than you. The scenarios I presented are not far fetched.

And I am not personally doing anything that you seem to think I have the ability to. What am I holding up? I didn't realize I was in an official capacity.

People can ask questions, voice their opinions and concerns without being accused of all kinds of things, or we should be able to. Its what adults do.

Like another poster said on another thread, someones gender, etc is personal an really is no ones business but their own.

up
Voting closed 0

You seem to know more about this bill than I. Are there any unintended consequences?

Do you even know what "unintended consequences" means? What "consequences" means? It's what happens as a result of something else happening, and there can't be any consequences because people like you won't let the law move forward until they've got an ironclad guarantee that nothing that they don't like, or might not like, or might find frightening, will happen as a result of the bill passing.

In other words, as I said elsewhere...YOU, Patricia, get to keep your comfort and your complacency, and other people are denied access to public facilities, because YOU, Patricia, judge that your mental comfort is worth more than other people's civil rights. That's what you're doing. Think about that for a few.

up
Voting closed 0

Writing laws based on facts would result is sex-segregated bathrooms, not what is currently being debated in which anyone can use the bathroom of the gender or sex they "identify" with; that is based on feelings.

Care to share the "source" of your "facts" with us?

Or, perhaps ANY facts whatsoever? You have yet to share a single goddamn fact in this discussion.

up
Voting closed 0

...I could have been a sociology major, who devoted his life solely to studying how progressive rhetoric in the US is co-opted by the right wing. It's just a fascinating thing to watch. A cause spends years building support in radical leftist circles, before reaching a tipping point where suddenly it's thrust into national consciousness, and then bam! Within a few weeks, some blathering fool on AM talk radio or redstate makes a quip that they think is an impact turn, (c.f. "your intolerance of my bigotry is the REAL intolerance", "the liberals SAY they want diversity, but what they're actually creating is IDEOLOGICAL HOMOGENEITY") but is actually a really facile tu quoque that ignores all hint of context. Since no one who listens to talk radio knows anything about formal argumentation, the audience has a big laugh at what they think is a clever takedown of the cause-of-the-week. And they're not wrong in that instinct: impact turns are great! If you can successfully deploy one, you simultaneously turn the other party's own words against them AND undermine any future credibility they might have. They're also extraordinarily rare and risky to pull off, because 99 times out of 100 you're just making a stupid false equivalence that makes everyone in the room roll their eyes at you. (And the skills that give you the ability and opportunity to make the distinction between those two things will also instantly disqualify you from being on AM talk radio, so now we have a participation bias.)

Anyway, once you enough people who think they've cleverly co-opted a newly minted leftist phrase, it inevitably gets picked up by every talking head on Fox News, and then within a few months or even years, we get people parroting it on comments section. Now we're at least three layers away from anyone who has the faintest idea what they're talking about, but everyone who makes the same quip really, honestly thinks they're making cutting and incisive commentary about whatever insane and bigoted thing they're championing this time around.

As far as I know (and my communications degree is ten years old, which is prehistoric in the age of the Intertubes), there's no real term for this. It's sort of a logical fallacy, it's sort of a meme, and it's sort of a rhetorical strategy. I've never seen it deployed in a leftist context, though that could definitely be a sampling error. It would be a hell of a Ph.D thesis, is all I know.

up
Voting closed 0

What are you implying by that? Are you implying some 'racist', 'homophobic' blue eyed (non 'person of color') individual wrote the post you don't like? How do you know the poster who made the post you were responding to doesn't have brown eyes, which are, after-all, by far the most common eye color, including among Caucasians / whites.

Excellent strawman. Good job attacking it as well. I was just listing things that people are born with and can't change. But sure, it was about race. Yep.

'Progressives' are not what they claim to be in this country. They 'celebrate' diversity, yet would really like everyone to look homogeneous. You claim to be very tolerant, but in reality most 'progressives' are the opposite of tolerant, and simply rigidly adhere to the party line.

Um...okay? I take it you don't know what the word "monolith" means, and think *I* was the one saying I wanted no one to differ from the norm. But the rest of your word salad is unnecessary: I just ate lunch.

What is this obsession hardcore 'progressives' have with gay issues, especially transgendered (which really isn't connected to homosexuality or bisexuality)? We have so many very serious issues in this city, state, country, world to discuss and deal with, and VERY, VERY few people, even among the so-called LGB community, have transgendered issues on their radar screen. Yet hardcore 'progressives' and leftists are obsessing over it, and beating people over the head with it.

You're right, leftists are making these things an issue by...opposing discriminatory laws conservatives are pushing through at the state level. This is basically the grown-up version of, "stop hitting yourself!"

I suppose it's much easier to promote BS emotional issues that VERY few people obsess over than deal with much more difficult, mundane real world issues.

Remember that time you referred to gender identity as a "BS emotional issue"? I just figured I'd quote it for posterity. I'd like my kids' kids to one day be able to one day look back and see that behind every human decency battle, there was an unfeeling, non-empathetic opposition trying to paint the other side as mentally ill.

up
Voting closed 0

You can take the side of trying to make life a little easier on people who, for one reason or another, don't otherwise fit in...

... or you can take the side of trying to make life a little harder on them.

up
Voting closed 0

What is this obsession hardcore 'progressives' have with gay issues, especially transgendered (which really isn't connected to homosexuality or bisexuality)?

  1. You're apparently not up on current events, so I'll clue you in: recently, there's been a backlash attacking the fundamental human rights of LGBT people, including but not limited to the right to equal access to public accommodations. These efforts have been promoted by legislators who really should be policing their own behavior rather than that of others, and are supported by ignorant throwbacks like you.
  2. It is not an "obsession" to be concerned with people being deprived of human rights. On the contrary, when you not only are unconcerned about the abridgment of human rights, but engage in a spit-spraying tirade out of sheer anger at others' concern...that's mental illness for you.

Short version with little words for the Hannity listeners like you: if you mess with people, some of them are gonna mess back, and some of their friends are gonna mess back, and you've got no cause to whine when they do.

up
Voting closed 0

For this to be raised?

up
Voting closed 0

That flagpole is usually used for short-term display of flags depending on which county's prime minister happens to be visiting Boston at the time, which particular immigrant community is having a festival on City Hall Plaza or celebrating their independence day and the like. On those rare days when City Hall just can't find a flag to run up that pole, it puts up the Boston city flag. So don't fret, no oxen were gored in the use of that pole.

up
Voting closed 0

No one knows that that flag is, it could be an African nation.. They should write "TRANS" on it so people know.

up
Voting closed 0

That might cause more confusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Transvaal

up
Voting closed 0

Or perhaps here, which is tinged with irony given that...

up
Voting closed 0

It does look like a beach towel purchased at Marshall's by your Mom in 1988 and kept in a box at your aunt's cottage in Centerville as a back up in case extra cousins show up.

up
Voting closed 0

I hadn't noticed the color scheme until just this minute. Yeah, this is ISO standard 90's color scheme, AKA Solo Jazz.

up
Voting closed 0

Looks to me like someone at city hall is announcing they just had a baby.

up
Voting closed 0

Wait?

They have a different flag than the rainbow flag?

Was there a LGB vs. LGBT civil war or something we all missed?

up
Voting closed 0

If by "missed" you mean "not paying attention to any issues that affect the LGBT community," then yeah.

Here's a primer on how the push for non-discrimination rights has continuously left out the trans community whenever convenient: http://prospect.org/article/45-years-after-stonewall-lgbt-movement-has-t...

There is a lot of transphobia among gay and lesbian people. Sexuality and gender identification are really not one in the same thing, but have been lumped together because they do have some overlap in communities and in issues of discrimination. Just because a person identifies as LGB doesn't mean they care at all about trans people. On the other side, someone who is trans might not identify as LGB. Although the communities overlap and work together frequently, they are not always united.

The trans pride flag doesn't exist because of a specific split in the LGB and T communities, but because transgender issues are also their own thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_flags

up
Voting closed 0

and move on? The flag was raised in support of SB 735/ HB 1577 which hadn't moved since October 2015. Obviously this is response to the madness surrounding North Carolina and the massive social media backlash it has received. I'm proud that my hometown has raised this flag and once again, chose to be on the right side of history.

...on the design. Yeah, it could use some work- it might be better suited to have the trans symbol on it. See: The Bears

but the segregation of a subset culture is a different argument, for a different day.

up
Voting closed 0

Nothing like a call for human rights to bring the bigots out of the woodwork.

up
Voting closed 0

And we will keep flying this flag until everyone is equal in #MA. #TransBillMA

Congrats to everyone in MA! First state in the nation to achieve total equality for all citizens. I mean, that has to be the case right? That's when Marty said he'd take the flag down, and it's obviously down. Either that or there's a serious Polish campaign contributor who wanted his flag up there....

up
Voting closed 0