>

But I see  both sides. 
Trans people want to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as. If they have not had gender reassignment surgery, then I also understand why woman would not want to have someone with a penis in the bathroom with them. Now I personally think it's silly because no one's looking at genitals in restrooms. But and I mean this is the nicest way possible, but why are the concerns of cis people discounted? Trans people don't want to use the restroom of their birth gender, because that makes them uncomfortable. But if cis people are uncomfortable with someone who still has the opposite genitalia in their bathroom they shouldn't be listened to as well?
Tldr: the Republican-appointed judges in the majority said the Republican policy didn't violate federal law. >


Tldr: the Republican-appointed judges in the majority blatantly ignored federal law and said the Republican policy didn't violate federal law. >

Blatantly violated federal anti discrimination laws. When are people going to realize Republicans don't care whether a law is legal on a federal level or not? The absolutely vile cruelty is the point. They want members of the LGBTQ+ community dead. >

*Christian Taliban appeals tribuneral >

I think any state that issues trans bathroom bans should be legally required to have an alternative bathroom trans people can use. Single stalls, teachers restrooms. I think that is a happy medium and both sides can feel comfortable. And before anyone says well that's not right, the bathroom issue is a distractive talking point. My idea addresses it, and makes it stop being one. >

It completely ignores what trans people want, misunderstands why the issue is an issue in the first place, and has no thought towards safety for trans people, practicality for anyone, and is seemingly meant more as a way to let cis people stop thinking about the issue than to actually solve anything.