• wheezy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    I think they’re being a “technically Andy” and saying that different states have different laws for everyone.

    The original post is clearly talking about laws that apply specifically to those assigned female at birth. So the comment your replying to is just purposely ignoring that. It happens all the time to liberals that are more concerned with being “correct” than actually just.

    Now, trans men’s rights DEFINITELY vary state to state. But I highly doubt that’s what they were talking about.

    The only other possible thing I could think of would be how divorce and child support is handled state by state (which is just another thing pushed by the right wing politicians). Maybe some obscure differences between access to TRT? But, again, it’s just a comment that is giving no context to the original post and then just ignoring the fact that there is no law towards men, and their rights to their bodies, that is anywhere near what abortion laws control. (Again, excluding trans men. But if the comment you replied to cared about that they would have mentioned it.)

    Clearly the original post isn’t debating about how it’s unfair that in Kentucky the passengers in cars can drink alcohol but in other states they can’t. It’s not a law about gender/sex. The top comment in this thread is just critizing the original post in bad faith for no real reason but being “technically correct”. And for some reason it’s being up voted without mentioning literally any law comparable on the level of anti abortion laws.

    I’m welcome to be proven wrong. But, seriously, there is a reason they didn’t mention a specific law targeting men in certain states.