Imagine, you're sitting in a coffee shop enjoying a latte and a guy comes up and says "did you hear about tampon tim?" No one can imagine that. It's fucking weirdo abnormal behavior.
I'd love that opportunity to grab him by the ear and explain why it's so beneficial for our society to actually cater to the needs of humans.
That's most narratives from most of these goofballs that get their conversation-starters from the likes of Faux, hate radio, Breitbart (does that still exist?) for several decades now, and I'm all too happy that many people of prominence are now acknowledging just how weird that truly is.
Well he is going to help stem the red wave so I don’t know how this is actually an insult…
From the article:
And finally, as Walz reminds us—anyone who thinks that period jokes are appropriate or funny is just plain, well, weird.
Nah. Period jokes can be funny. The problem here isn't a joke. It's the anger they're trying to stir up about the Boogeyman of transgender students.
Menstruation jokes aren't funny, period.
I almost got whooshed by this one.
It really depends on how they flow.
Eating yoghurt is like eating a out a woman in her period - you never know when the klumbs will appear.
Been a long time since i heard this one, still gross af
It's fucking disgusting, and I hate myself for remembering it.
I should have used vile to describe it
Like what the fuck does tampon availability have to do with trans kids? These people are deranged.
He made tampons available in all bathrooms (boy's and girl's) to accommodate trans kids. You are right, these people are deranged - and weird as hell.
Because they also may or may not have been available in the boys room. I think that was initially the intention but, well, some teenage boys are going to be dumbasses with menstrual products.
EDIT:
As for the latest round of name calling, it seems the aspect of the Minnesota law that has conservatives most agitated is its language: the law states that pads and tampons must be available to “all menstruating students” and “in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12.” A failed attempt to amend the bill to only name “female restrooms,” did not keep it from passing as is with bipartisan support.
some teenage boys are going to be dumbasses with menstrual products.
And?
The tampons were available in the boy's rooms as well.
? Someone in the middle of transitioning could still require period products.
Or could grab them for their female friend, sister, etc.
Adult Repubs probably would never touch one out of terror, so they couldn't have thought of this.
I never understood why men would be embarrassed to go to the store and buy tampons/douches/random female products.
It means you have a woman who trusts you, which seems like something a straight guy wouldn't mind signaling.
I never understood why men would be embarrassed to go to the store and buy tampons/douches/random female products.
I've never understood this one either, and I am a dude. Done this for a couple of girlfriends over the years and most recently my wife.
The weak men (typically the fratbro types) think this is something that would emasculate a man.
Sooooo stupid.
I can't remember the number of times I've bought hygiene products for family, friends or partners over the years.
None of these trips were in any way embarrassing.
None of the employees involved ever batted an eye, no comments, no weird looks, no high fives.
Just the normal retail vibe, they just wanna go home at the end of their shift and not deal with other people's bullshit.
Didn't matter whether I was 10 or 30, didn't matter whether it was cough syrup or hygiene products, they don't give a shit what you're buying and for whom.
Some of the female cashiers may have secretly thought you were awesome though. I would have.
Exactly. It's also a great way to normalize the female body in a non sexual way. So of course they hate it
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district"
They got all pissy because the law didn't explicitly say "girls bathrooms" and didn't use any pronouns.
Ok if Harris and Walz win I am going to memeify a picture of Tim heroically stopping the 'Red Tide' with a massive sanitary product. I'm sure others are planning the same.
"Hey guys we're polling really poorly with women after we stripped them of their rights in several states. How can we smear this guy to gain back ground?"
"Let's highlight how he made schools provide menstrual products to children that need them. That's a bad thing. Women won't like that."
"Brilliant! It's curtains for this guy's career."
We're definitely not going to outlaw abortion, though.
Eh, it'll work well with the TERF-y types, and the general right wing transphobes.
"Democrats are polling real bad with the fascists."
Damn, can't win 'em all.
Yeah, but only because they had to really stretch to manufacture outrage.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
district"
That doesn't scream "pro-trans". It certainly allows for it, but the wording is so neutral that you really have to be thinking to explicitly hate on trans to think this is explicitly out to support trans people.
The Terfs seem to mostly concerned about biological men in the woman's room, I don't think they will even care that tampons are in the men's room as long as they are in the women's room as well.
Eh, that's fair. They tend to have some small upset about trans men insofar as trans men make trans women more socially acceptable but you're right - the primary target of TERF anger is trans women being in women's spaces because they believe trans women are men, all men are predators, that the purpose of women's spaces is to keep women safe from predatory men, and that trans women being a thing essentially allows predatory men to put on a costume to gain access to victims in vulnerable positions.
More weirdness. You'd think they would be mindful of how they come off at this point...
They must want high school students who have a uterus to free bleed all over the place.
They want them to get pregnant and drop out
I think their long-term goal is to just quietly do away with the whole "women being allowed to get an education" thing
Yes. Them first. Then the lower classes as a whole
"free bleed"
The nightmare I will now have. Just casual dried blood randomly throughout the places people are
All over the place.
Look man. I can handle some blood. Heck maybe even a small dride pool of blood. But I can't handle the idea of it everywhere like some Prototype inspired world
They know. It's just that this is all they have left to try. They've alienated all the decent folk.
Their entire brand is being brash and unwashed hatred. They just haven't quite figured out they are the minority and the swing/independent voters who prevously supported them were hoping they'd do more than talk. Now that they are starting a new offensive on their war on women Im waiting hopefully that it'll just give Dems a safe majority in both houses so they can finally enact legislation.
Texas eliminated taxes on menstrual products. Utah provides them for free in schools.
Is that really all these unimaginative and pathetic bullies have to throw at Waltz?
Wow.. that’s the best they can come up?
I feel like they were trying to have a response to Diaper Don and this was their best.
The other ones I've seen going around are that he doesn't own any major stocks or investments outside pensions and that he got arrested for DUI and speeding...30 years ago. They're really trying hard and failing.
I'm a Pro Life Republican trying to Save The Children and it's SOCIALISM to use MY Tax Dollars giving Girls TAMPONS! MY Tax Dollars should ONLY be used for Billionaire's YACHTS and Millionaire's ABORTIONS! NOT Poor Girl's TAMPONS!
Tampon Tim is meant to be an insult?
Right?
One time I had some friends over, one of the gals suddenly got very anxious, and privately asked if I had tampons in the house. Luckily an ex had left a box, and seeing the relief was incredible. If helping others in that way gets him the nickname Tampon Tim, I'm celebrating that shit.
The ones who think it's a pejorative are the ones that refuse to buy feminine products for their partners because they're so "manly".
Weirdass fucking rightists fantasizing over the creepiest weirdass shit.
Just makes them sound like they have the IQ of a six year old. Which might be true.
IQ is stable throughout your life though
Accidentally complimenting your opponent when you really wanted to burn and bury him.
LOL, is that supposed to be some kind of sick burn?
This is the "logical" conclusion of purity culture.
It's not ironic. This is politics at this point... You can feel however you want about it (I've personally lost all faith in humanity), but ultimately this is the current META
::: spoiler Time Magazine - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Time Magazine:
Fyi, the reason it's noteworthy is he put them in boys toilets and boys don't menstruate. Which is weird
Imagine boys picking up tampons for their girlfriends or just good friends because they couldn’t.
Yes, that would be very, very unusual
Why would that be unusual at all?
To be fair, only if you live in reality.
It’s clear you don’t have any women in your life, in any reality.
Lol
What a sad defense, "lol". It's painfully obvious how naive you are. Weird
Weird
yep. they are dumber than a bag of hammers and odder than a three dollar bill. weird is just the start.
You think I need to "defend" anything from Lemmy randos?
Lol
Yet you keep trying.
💋
Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.
If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.
Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.
This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.
But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It's fantastic.
Work has a selection of "unisex" bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.
So I'm personally benefitting from this brand of "wokeness", even if I'm not trans.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It’s fantastic.
That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.
There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).
Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.
My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
Problem is, women hate it when men use their toilets
Bro have you ever been in a ladies room? Consistently more nasty then the men's, nobody's trying to be in there. You just need a Boogeyman
Even if that's the case, women are super sexist about men in this way. They just hate the idea if sharing toilets with men
No, they don't. You're just spouting that with no data or evidence. Most women I've heard speak about this care more about trans people's safety and comfort than what kind of genitalia is one stall over.
So, your carefully curated echo chamber agrees with you? How about that.
My friends, family, and co-workers do echo lots of common sense, compassionate viewpoints that I agree with. They also tell me when I'm acting like an idiot, or spouting shit that I have no idea about. I sincerely hope that you have some people like that in your life, too.
I inhabit reality. That's kind of the default settings
If you're upset by tampons in men's restrooms, reality must be a struggle for you. I'm sorry to hear that you think there is a default human experience.
No???
Source: I'm a women
To him, that probably invalidates your opinion.
Damn, probably
Wow your post history is weird.
Cis this cis that, election fraud, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber! ( and it goes on )
Pointing out people are crazy? Guilty
Have you gone to a public event. Women’s toilets have long lines and men’s have short to no lines. Makes me think men wouldn’t like women sharing their toilets either.
Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
I'm pretty sure that's already the case. So now that that problem is solved we can move on to figuring out the difficult challenge of making bathrooms unisex. Do we have the time and budget to remove the sign from the door and go about our day?
This guy also doesn't support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don't need them, so we shouldn't provide them at all.
I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.
When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn't have to get them breakfast before school and I didn't have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.
So even if you don't need them they're a really nice thing to have, IMHO.
Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.
I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.
It also gets rid of useless administration and enforcement costs.
How about we socialise the stigma out. Teach kids not to bully
I'll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn't matter.
You want poor tax payers to fund free food for rich people?
The kids don't have the money. Moreover, if anyone's taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.
Couldn't disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.
Free Ubers for all children?
I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.
I am astounded that is a controversial take.
And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.
Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I'm actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.
This is how society works.
The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family's children should have access to food. A rich family's children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it's super easy, I'm surprised this is a controversial take.
But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don't want to be paying to help as a "functionally poor person". /s But hey, you said it first.
Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It's based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful
My children don't need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?
If you are in favour of free healthcare, let's give everyone free cars?
I disagree with keeping anything basic and essential from children. Hungry is hungry. Moreover, having money certainly doesn't mean any individual has basic humanity and their children may suffer from that. If we assume the needs, or lack thereof, of individuals based on a perception, we will miss those who legitimately have a need. This is incredibly simple. Or do you believe that a child who is hungry and yet has rich parents who can pay for all their needs is at fault?
I am also in favor of free healthcare. All of this can be paid for by taxes levied at individuals who have more than enough to spare. After all, if you're not in favor of the poor paying for the wealthy, let's flip that script. Bernie outlined it years ago, and despite common perception, the U.S. has rather low tax rates compared to many other countries. We could easily supply a solution to the needs of the many through a taxation of the wealthy. Functional ;) or not.
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. I am a supporter of it (used it twice last week).
I think focusing on the lowest common denominator always is not the best.
Tell you what, here is my system. Free lunches for all, but I you have to apply, that's it. I will but apply because it's not needed.
I think presuming the state should step in and overrule parents on the assumption that they will be bad actors is awful and not a what the state is for.
Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Why not? Their parents are payin' for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.
It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can't manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.
Who uses money in 2024?
This will not end bullying, but it will waste money
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Yes.
McDonald's workers paying for rich kids to eat?
If they're in a tax bracket and financial situation that has them paying that tax, yes.
This is where you and I will disagree. I don't want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.
Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people
It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.
Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?
Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.
The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.
Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let's say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?
Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.
We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn't fill out the right paperwork or weren't considered quite poor enough. It's a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.
If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.
That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,
Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.
None of which can ever be a "right" imo. I don't think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).
housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it's not the states job to pay for my house, I've got that covered.
I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can't afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.
free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won't benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.
And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don't want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.
I understand your position as a neoliberal but that's just one way of looking at the world.
The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.
Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.
I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there's stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I'd rather be hungry than bullied.
so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.
-childless taxpayer
Let's better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don't need poorer people's taxes wasted buying my kids food.
I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.
Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.
If women know you always have a tampon or pad you will meet so many more women.
Oh, so not only do you not want people who need them to have access to menstrual supplies, you also seem to think bigotry against trans people is an acceptable reason why.
I think we will disagree on what constitutes "bigotry against trans people"
I don't doubt that.
Actually, he didn't explicitly do so.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms
regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school
distric"
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable phrasing.
There is no particularly pro-trans wording or explicitly declaring mens rooms to also have it, the phrasing is supremely neutral.
Fair enough
Back at my school, we use to have fight club in the bathroom. If we had tampons it would have saved a bunch of TP to stop bloody noses. We weren't so forward thinking back in the 90s sadly.
some boys do.
No. Those are not boys
How about people that are born with both sets of sexual organs? Should those people not have access to the products that they need regardless of which bathroom they go in to?
They are intersex. That's a complicated biological situation unique to the individual. I suppose ideally we would change all bathrooms to accommodate 1.7% of the population? If so, I can propose some larger groups who may want representation in public facilities
So you agree that it is a problem, just not as big of a problem as others? If you look on the bright side that's still a win, even if you can think of bigger ones. Are you actively campaigning for the other changes you can think of?
Should I be campaigning for anything?
I'm one of them. your opinion is irrelevant.
You don't get to decide whose opinion are valid, regardless of your identity characteristics
I'm not deleting your comment just so you see how many people disagree with you and keep reading the replies. It's 2024, not the nineteenth century, and transphobia and misoginia only makes you and everyone else worse off.
Am I supposed to take this as a kindness or some kind of threat? I couldn't give a rats fart what any of the loonies on this site think anything I say
I came here thinking it may me a more sane alter to Reddit, holy shit I was wrong.
This is like 2016 tumbler, but you all think then world is like this
Grumpy much? This little corner of the internet is what you make it...
As long as you are an identity obsessed leftist
"Identity obsessed" says the guy that seems to care what health products go in which bathrooms based on identity?
Not their identity, their sex.
It's not weird if you have non-binary kids using the boys restroom.
Here's the Republican logic:
Trans kids shouldn't exist.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed puberty blockers.
Trans kids shouldn't have access to basic health products necessary for human dignity.
Republicans want to do everything they can to marginalize trans kids, make life difficult for trans kids and, ultimately, make it even more likely that trans kids will try to kill themselves than they already do, and that rate is damned high enough as it is.
Let me put it to you another way maybe you can understand...
Are you going to tell Buck Angel he's not allowed to have tampons in the men's room? 'Cause I have news for you...
Non binary is a fad that we will not hear about in 15 years
I'm not a republican.
There will be a different name for it, but non-binary people have been around as long as there have been people.
Imagine, you're sitting in a coffee shop enjoying a latte and a guy comes up and says "did you hear about tampon tim?" No one can imagine that. It's fucking weirdo abnormal behavior.
I'd love that opportunity to grab him by the ear and explain why it's so beneficial for our society to actually cater to the needs of humans.
That's most narratives from most of these goofballs that get their conversation-starters from the likes of Faux, hate radio, Breitbart (does that still exist?) for several decades now, and I'm all too happy that many people of prominence are now acknowledging just how weird that truly is.
Well he is going to help stem the red wave so I don’t know how this is actually an insult…
From the article:
Nah. Period jokes can be funny. The problem here isn't a joke. It's the anger they're trying to stir up about the Boogeyman of transgender students.
Menstruation jokes aren't funny, period.
I almost got whooshed by this one.
It really depends on how they flow.
Eating yoghurt is like eating a out a woman in her period - you never know when the klumbs will appear.
Been a long time since i heard this one, still gross af
It's fucking disgusting, and I hate myself for remembering it.
I should have used vile to describe it
Like what the fuck does tampon availability have to do with trans kids? These people are deranged.
He made tampons available in all bathrooms (boy's and girl's) to accommodate trans kids. You are right, these people are deranged - and weird as hell.
Because they also may or may not have been available in the boys room. I think that was initially the intention but, well, some teenage boys are going to be dumbasses with menstrual products.
EDIT:
And?
The tampons were available in the boy's rooms as well.
? Someone in the middle of transitioning could still require period products.
Or could grab them for their female friend, sister, etc.
Adult Repubs probably would never touch one out of terror, so they couldn't have thought of this.
I never understood why men would be embarrassed to go to the store and buy tampons/douches/random female products.
It means you have a woman who trusts you, which seems like something a straight guy wouldn't mind signaling.
I've never understood this one either, and I am a dude. Done this for a couple of girlfriends over the years and most recently my wife.
The weak men (typically the fratbro types) think this is something that would emasculate a man.
Sooooo stupid.
I can't remember the number of times I've bought hygiene products for family, friends or partners over the years.
None of these trips were in any way embarrassing.
None of the employees involved ever batted an eye, no comments, no weird looks, no high fives.
Just the normal retail vibe, they just wanna go home at the end of their shift and not deal with other people's bullshit.
Didn't matter whether I was 10 or 30, didn't matter whether it was cough syrup or hygiene products, they don't give a shit what you're buying and for whom.
Some of the female cashiers may have secretly thought you were awesome though. I would have.
Exactly. It's also a great way to normalize the female body in a non sexual way. So of course they hate it
That's their point. They don't want that.
Or even "the women's room is out-of-order, it's an emergency, use the men's room".
And republicans hate that because it means not torturing trans kids
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district"
They got all pissy because the law didn't explicitly say "girls bathrooms" and didn't use any pronouns.
Period jokes can be bloody hell
Personally I prefer comma jokes. Maybe a good hyphen pun.
The colon is also a great source of humor.
Meh. Semi.
And the parties misogyny views for all woman that aren't barefooted babymakers at home waiting on their "man".
Any joke focused around a kernel of hate will fall flat with normal people. Humor is one of the places that intention is really easy to discern.
Jokes made in shared struggle or out of affection FEEL different from those crafted to hurt.
Ok if Harris and Walz win I am going to memeify a picture of Tim heroically stopping the 'Red Tide' with a massive sanitary product. I'm sure others are planning the same.
Some remind me of this in 3 months.
"Hey guys we're polling really poorly with women after we stripped them of their rights in several states. How can we smear this guy to gain back ground?"
"Let's highlight how he made schools provide menstrual products to children that need them. That's a bad thing. Women won't like that."
"Brilliant! It's curtains for this guy's career."
We're definitely not going to outlaw abortion, though.
Eh, it'll work well with the TERF-y types, and the general right wing transphobes.
"Democrats are polling real bad with the fascists."
Damn, can't win 'em all.
Yeah, but only because they had to really stretch to manufacture outrage.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school district"
That doesn't scream "pro-trans". It certainly allows for it, but the wording is so neutral that you really have to be thinking to explicitly hate on trans to think this is explicitly out to support trans people.
The Terfs seem to mostly concerned about biological men in the woman's room, I don't think they will even care that tampons are in the men's room as long as they are in the women's room as well.
Eh, that's fair. They tend to have some small upset about trans men insofar as trans men make trans women more socially acceptable but you're right - the primary target of TERF anger is trans women being in women's spaces because they believe trans women are men, all men are predators, that the purpose of women's spaces is to keep women safe from predatory men, and that trans women being a thing essentially allows predatory men to put on a costume to gain access to victims in vulnerable positions.
More weirdness. You'd think they would be mindful of how they come off at this point...
They must want high school students who have a uterus to free bleed all over the place.
They want them to get pregnant and drop out
I think their long-term goal is to just quietly do away with the whole "women being allowed to get an education" thing
Yes. Them first. Then the lower classes as a whole
"free bleed"
The nightmare I will now have. Just casual dried blood randomly throughout the places people are
All over the place.
Look man. I can handle some blood. Heck maybe even a small dride pool of blood. But I can't handle the idea of it everywhere like some Prototype inspired world
They know. It's just that this is all they have left to try. They've alienated all the decent folk.
Their entire brand is being brash and unwashed hatred. They just haven't quite figured out they are the minority and the swing/independent voters who prevously supported them were hoping they'd do more than talk. Now that they are starting a new offensive on their war on women Im waiting hopefully that it'll just give Dems a safe majority in both houses so they can finally enact legislation.
Texas eliminated taxes on menstrual products. Utah provides them for free in schools.
Is that really all these unimaginative and pathetic bullies have to throw at Waltz?
Wow.. that’s the best they can come up?
I feel like they were trying to have a response to Diaper Don and this was their best.
The other ones I've seen going around are that he doesn't own any major stocks or investments outside pensions and that he got arrested for DUI and speeding...30 years ago. They're really trying hard and failing.
I'm a Pro Life Republican trying to Save The Children and it's SOCIALISM to use MY Tax Dollars giving Girls TAMPONS! MY Tax Dollars should ONLY be used for Billionaire's YACHTS and Millionaire's ABORTIONS! NOT Poor Girl's TAMPONS!
Tampon Tim is meant to be an insult?
Right?
One time I had some friends over, one of the gals suddenly got very anxious, and privately asked if I had tampons in the house. Luckily an ex had left a box, and seeing the relief was incredible. If helping others in that way gets him the nickname Tampon Tim, I'm celebrating that shit.
The ones who think it's a pejorative are the ones that refuse to buy feminine products for their partners because they're so "manly".
Weirdass fucking rightists fantasizing over the creepiest weirdass shit.
Just makes them sound like they have the IQ of a six year old. Which might be true.
IQ is stable throughout your life though
Accidentally complimenting your opponent when you really wanted to burn and bury him.
LOL, is that supposed to be some kind of sick burn?
This is the "logical" conclusion of purity culture.
It's not ironic. This is politics at this point... You can feel however you want about it (I've personally lost all faith in humanity), but ultimately this is the current META
::: spoiler Time Magazine - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Time Magazine:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://time.com/7008786/tampon-tim-insult-irony-essay/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Fyi, the reason it's noteworthy is he put them in boys toilets and boys don't menstruate. Which is weird
Imagine boys picking up tampons for their girlfriends or just good friends because they couldn’t.
Yes, that would be very, very unusual
Why would that be unusual at all?
To be fair, only if you live in reality.
It’s clear you don’t have any women in your life, in any reality.
Lol
What a sad defense, "lol". It's painfully obvious how naive you are. Weird
yep. they are dumber than a bag of hammers and odder than a three dollar bill. weird is just the start.
You think I need to "defend" anything from Lemmy randos?
Lol
Yet you keep trying.
💋
Transmasc students who use boys toilets still menstruate unless on some serious hormone therapy.
Really this country should gave gone to unisex toilets generations ago
The reality of this is that it would end up like divisions in sports and other competitive activities and we'd have a women's restroom and a unisex restroom. Because some women want to avoid the opposite sex and society will broadly respect that because they are women.
If schools did switch to all unisex toilets, then we'd just be a complaint and a lawsuit away from official Title IX policy being that girls toilets are mandatory regardless of whether or not there are unisex toilets but boys toilets are not if unisex toilets are available and to do otherwise is sex discrimination because of some arbitrary excuse containing the word "historic" to explain why discrimination is not discrimination so long as it benefits girls.
Instead of stalls put proper walls and doors on the toilets like you have at home. Boom. Unisex toilets with no issues.
This is seriously the way. Once you’ve been to a country that does this (Sweden in my case) and experienced it yourself, the “normal” way (USA in my case) only looks more stupid than it did before.
But I’m sure it would cost more than zero additional dollars to do, so it would get rejected while still on the drawing board. Some human comfort, dignity, and privacy is NOT going to boost our earnings this quarter.
In fact, one of my favorite theaters around here is all unisex bathrooms. You shut a door and you have a dedicated toilet and sink. It's fantastic.
Work has a selection of "unisex" bathrooms and I use them all the time, much preferred over the mens room.
So I'm personally benefitting from this brand of "wokeness", even if I'm not trans.
That dramatically reduces capacity though. Which is fine if you don't need that capacity, and/or aren't trying to retrofit existing facilities without spending a fortune.
There's a pizza place nearish me that has two single occupancy unisex restrooms, for example. But before they moved to unisex they had two single occupancy gendered restrooms, so they were just changing signage rather than having to do any kind of construction to make it happen. As opposed to say a local theater that has 6 toilets, 4 urinals and 4 sinks in one restroom and not remotely enough space to have 6 separate rooms with a toilet and sink each in the same space - but they expected to need higher throughput in a smaller footprint (less so now, but they were pretty busy pre-COVID).
Other than capacity, space, and expense retrofitting issues. Single occupancy toilets take up more room which means being able to handle less people in the same space and space is not an unlimited resource in most building designs. Especially if you are talking about doing it to an existing building.
My comment about Title IX (a law that says that any educational program receiving federal funding may not discriminate with respect to sex) is specifically in reference to them taking exactly that stance with sports - if a girl wants to play a sport that has a boys team but not a girls then a school is required to let her try out for the boys team (and cannot consider her sex and gender as far as whether she makes the team) under Title IX policy, but if a boy wants to play a sport that has a girls team but not a boys team, he's SOL under current Title IX policy. To do otherwise is sex discrimination. Equity.
That is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of people. Making all toilets wheelchair accessible would probably help more.
Problem is, women hate it when men use their toilets
Bro have you ever been in a ladies room? Consistently more nasty then the men's, nobody's trying to be in there. You just need a Boogeyman
Even if that's the case, women are super sexist about men in this way. They just hate the idea if sharing toilets with men
No, they don't. You're just spouting that with no data or evidence. Most women I've heard speak about this care more about trans people's safety and comfort than what kind of genitalia is one stall over.
So, your carefully curated echo chamber agrees with you? How about that.
My friends, family, and co-workers do echo lots of common sense, compassionate viewpoints that I agree with. They also tell me when I'm acting like an idiot, or spouting shit that I have no idea about. I sincerely hope that you have some people like that in your life, too.
I inhabit reality. That's kind of the default settings
If you're upset by tampons in men's restrooms, reality must be a struggle for you. I'm sorry to hear that you think there is a default human experience.
No???
Source: I'm a women
To him, that probably invalidates your opinion.
Damn, probably
Wow your post history is weird.
Cis this cis that, election fraud, echo chamber, echo chamber, echo chamber! ( and it goes on )
Pointing out people are crazy? Guilty
Have you gone to a public event. Women’s toilets have long lines and men’s have short to no lines. Makes me think men wouldn’t like women sharing their toilets either.
I'm pretty sure that's already the case. So now that that problem is solved we can move on to figuring out the difficult challenge of making bathrooms unisex. Do we have the time and budget to remove the sign from the door and go about our day?
This guy also doesn't support free lunches for kids in school. Says the majority don't need them, so we shouldn't provide them at all.
I gotta say, you sure have some terrible takes, my friend.
When my kids were in elementary school so many of the students were on free or reduced price lunch they just decided to give every kid a free breakfast and lunch. And even though I could afford the lunches it was great because I didn't have to get them breakfast before school and I didn't have to make sure their lunch money account was topped up.
So even if you don't need them they're a really nice thing to have, IMHO.
Been researching me. Dishonestly representing my opinions. Poor.
I am totally in favour of free school lunches for those in need.
Do you support buying rich peoples kids lunch with tax money?
Yes, I support providing free school lunches to both rich and poor students. It removes the stigma of receiving free or reduced cost lunches.
It also gets rid of useless administration and enforcement costs.
How about we socialise the stigma out. Teach kids not to bully
I'll assume I misread, it happens. However, kids are kids. Let them eat. How much their parents make doesn't matter.
You want poor tax payers to fund free food for rich people?
The kids don't have the money. Moreover, if anyone's taxes go towards a service, they should be able to benefit from that service. Not benefit more, just benefit period.
Couldn't disagree more. I provide for my kids. Kids dot have cars, but I drive mine around in my car because they are my kids.
Free Ubers for all children?
I do not want to see poor people working to provide free services for rich people.
I am astounded that is a controversial take.
And I am speaking as a functionally rich person.
Everything we use is due to taxes. Honestly, as a functionally rich person you should be aware of that. I'm actually of the opinion that anyone in need should be able to utilize services that my tax dollars help fund.
This is how society works.
The fundamental difference is who is taxed more. A poor family's children should have access to food. A rich family's children should have access to food. Your children should have access to food my taxes help pay for, it's super easy, I'm surprised this is a controversial take.
But nah, you right. If your kiddos ever need an ambulance, fuck em. Swipe that credit card, I don't want to be paying to help as a "functionally poor person". /s But hey, you said it first.
Ok, so we disagree on the point of taking money from poor people and giving it to rich people, which I find odd. It's based on need. Using state resources to proved services for which there is no need is wasteful
My children don't need your resources when it comes to their daily needs. Yes, I am in favour of socialized healthcare (and schools, police, etc), why even bring that up?
If you are in favour of free healthcare, let's give everyone free cars?
I disagree with keeping anything basic and essential from children. Hungry is hungry. Moreover, having money certainly doesn't mean any individual has basic humanity and their children may suffer from that. If we assume the needs, or lack thereof, of individuals based on a perception, we will miss those who legitimately have a need. This is incredibly simple. Or do you believe that a child who is hungry and yet has rich parents who can pay for all their needs is at fault?
I am also in favor of free healthcare. All of this can be paid for by taxes levied at individuals who have more than enough to spare. After all, if you're not in favor of the poor paying for the wealthy, let's flip that script. Bernie outlined it years ago, and despite common perception, the U.S. has rather low tax rates compared to many other countries. We could easily supply a solution to the needs of the many through a taxation of the wealthy. Functional ;) or not.
I'm in the UK. We have the NHS. I am a supporter of it (used it twice last week).
I think focusing on the lowest common denominator always is not the best.
Tell you what, here is my system. Free lunches for all, but I you have to apply, that's it. I will but apply because it's not needed.
I think presuming the state should step in and overrule parents on the assumption that they will be bad actors is awful and not a what the state is for.
Surprisingly, children are children, regardless of being rich and poor, and they all get hungry.
Why not? Their parents are payin' for it, and it saves a whole mess of useless bureaucrats between hungry kids and food.
It works like uniforms. If everyone gets the same lunch, kids can't manufacture conflict out of it. Stealing lunch money has always been a thing.
Who uses money in 2024?
This will not end bullying, but it will waste money
Yes.
McDonald's workers paying for rich kids to eat?
If they're in a tax bracket and financial situation that has them paying that tax, yes.
This is where you and I will disagree. I don't want poor people paying for shit I can get myself without issue. That seems very unfair.
Save that money for a useful social program that helps poorer people
It costs money to operate registers, take payments, etc as well.
Means testing is terrible and why waste time and money rather than cooking the kids some food and having them focus on learning?
Not every aspect of society should be about running some type of business. The whole thing is a distraction from what school ought to be about.
The same goes for medicine, btw. The means testing and insurance gating there is even worse. Take the cash registers and insurance middlemen out of it and suddenly doctors can worry about the patient care instead of payments.
Perhaps. But what if it worked out vastly cheaper to target free lunches. Let's say a billion was freed up for some important social program to help poor people. Would you agree with me if that were the case?
Means testing also makes it easier for the rich to target programs for removal because not everyone qualifies for them.
We all need food, water, and sometimes medical care in order to survive. We all deserve even more, such as vision care, dental, and mental health support, and educational and training programs. Housing should even be a right. We have means tested versions of programs for some of these things, and people of meager means often slip through the cracks because they didn't fill out the right paperwork or weren't considered quite poor enough. It's a shitty system and it starts with people coming from your viewpoint.
If a rich kid actually wants to go to for instance a free city college, who cares? Most people that have the means to go elsewhere would, and ultimately the goal of these institutions is the good societal impact that you want. If rich people are going to free colleges or eating free meals or taking public transit, it means the quality is there, which is great for everyone.
That was quite a far ranging number of issues. So,
Education, food, housing and healthcare are all different issues.
None of which can ever be a "right" imo. I don't think an exhaustible resource can ever be a right, what happens when it runs out (i could tell you about how my father in law died during COVID. Healthcare definitely ran out then).
housing is definitely not the business of the state in most cases, other than opting to be a moral landlord (as is the case with UK council houses). We should definitely have safety nets, and the housing market should be policed to be fair, but it's not the states job to pay for my house, I've got that covered.
I believe healthcare free at the point of need is the gold standard. But if I had to pay for GP appointments, that would be fine. Those who can't afford it should get it fee. Our prescriptions never cost more than £7.50, which is actually amazing. We could run that number on a curve, if I had to pay 15, that would be fine. Whatever the system is, it has to work and the NHS is really struggling at the moment.
free sub degree education for all is a no brainer for the whole country. If you want to do a degree is some obscure philosophy that won't benefit society, feel free, but pay yourself. Getting a degree that provides skills the country needs, a system of grants is a good idea imo.
And, as you know, food for those in need, sure. I don't want to see people destitute and hungry, but giving that food to millionaires is crazy in principle. Even if it worked out cost effective to do so (which I would be open to examining) I have a fundamental objection to that in principle.
I understand your position as a neoliberal but that's just one way of looking at the world.
The problem with means testing is it erodes the programs and gets the rich to push to have the programs completely dissolved.
Here in the states, nearly everything is means tested and it makes all of our public programs shitty and leaves them constantly on the chopping block for Republicans.
Btw, reading our conversation back, I appreciate your tone and lack of condensation and insults
yeah, I do.
I was a kid on free and reduced lunch. there's stigma around being poor enough to need it, and I was bullied for it. my home life was sufficiently dysfunctional that it could be the only food I ate that day, and there were still times I'd rather be hungry than bullied.
so in the interest of removing something kids can be bullied over, sure. tax the rich more, and let a relatively tiny bit of our taxes buy every child at least one meal a day.
-childless taxpayer
Let's better use taxes to provide the service you clearly needed rather than just lunch. I can afford to buy my kids lunch. I don't need poorer people's taxes wasted buying my kids food.
I was also bullied at school. The removal of only one factor would have made no difference. I was bullied because they wanted to bully me.
Who actually gives a shit? Not the least because transboys do exist, but also because having people reduce the stigma around feminine hygiene products is a net benefit to everyone.
If women know you always have a tampon or pad you will meet so many more women.
Oh, so not only do you not want people who need them to have access to menstrual supplies, you also seem to think bigotry against trans people is an acceptable reason why.
I think we will disagree on what constitutes "bigotry against trans people"
I don't doubt that.
Actually, he didn't explicitly do so.
"The products must be available to all menstruating students in restrooms regularly used by students in grades 4 to 12 according to a plan developed by the school distric"
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable phrasing.
There is no particularly pro-trans wording or explicitly declaring mens rooms to also have it, the phrasing is supremely neutral.
Fair enough
Back at my school, we use to have fight club in the bathroom. If we had tampons it would have saved a bunch of TP to stop bloody noses. We weren't so forward thinking back in the 90s sadly.
some boys do.
No. Those are not boys
How about people that are born with both sets of sexual organs? Should those people not have access to the products that they need regardless of which bathroom they go in to?
They are intersex. That's a complicated biological situation unique to the individual. I suppose ideally we would change all bathrooms to accommodate 1.7% of the population? If so, I can propose some larger groups who may want representation in public facilities
So you agree that it is a problem, just not as big of a problem as others? If you look on the bright side that's still a win, even if you can think of bigger ones. Are you actively campaigning for the other changes you can think of?
Should I be campaigning for anything?
I'm one of them. your opinion is irrelevant.
You don't get to decide whose opinion are valid, regardless of your identity characteristics
I'm not deleting your comment just so you see how many people disagree with you and keep reading the replies. It's 2024, not the nineteenth century, and transphobia and misoginia only makes you and everyone else worse off.
Am I supposed to take this as a kindness or some kind of threat? I couldn't give a rats fart what any of the loonies on this site think anything I say
I came here thinking it may me a more sane alter to Reddit, holy shit I was wrong.
This is like 2016 tumbler, but you all think then world is like this
Grumpy much? This little corner of the internet is what you make it...
As long as you are an identity obsessed leftist
"Identity obsessed" says the guy that seems to care what health products go in which bathrooms based on identity?
Not their identity, their sex.
It's not weird if you have non-binary kids using the boys restroom.
Here's the Republican logic:
Trans kids shouldn't exist.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed to transition.
Trans kids shouldn't be allowed puberty blockers.
Trans kids shouldn't have access to basic health products necessary for human dignity.
Republicans want to do everything they can to marginalize trans kids, make life difficult for trans kids and, ultimately, make it even more likely that trans kids will try to kill themselves than they already do, and that rate is damned high enough as it is.
Let me put it to you another way maybe you can understand...
Are you going to tell Buck Angel he's not allowed to have tampons in the men's room? 'Cause I have news for you...
Non binary is a fad that we will not hear about in 15 years
I'm not a republican.
There will be a different name for it, but non-binary people have been around as long as there have been people.
One of the more famous examples:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/pioneering-androgyny-classic-hollywood-star-marlene-dietrich-180963842/
Perhaps,.there are still goths out there