Let's look at those one at a time.
1. This is an area that needs to catch up with society. I can understand why a male officer would be asked to search a suspect that is not biologically female and had not transitioned. That makes sense. The same would go for suspects that are not biologically male and that have not transitioned being searched by female officers.
2. The drag show for children was a pretty harmless event. It was held in a bar apparently and the sign (a neon fixture, not a portable sign) is part of the bar's decor. I'd agree that it would probably have been sensible for the bar's owners or management to cover it up or even switch it off but they didn't and I doubt the kids would have been bothered by it. The actual show itself was pretty harmless and more centred on the kids having fun which they clearly did. This is cherry picked. It's one out of many drag events where kids were involved and there were no problems. It was also held in Texas a very religiously conservative state...
3. The library didn't hire a performer in that costume. They hired a carnival arts company called Mandinga Arts who advertise themselves saying “guaranteed fun for family audiences” They stopped the performance as soon as they realised the costume was inappropriate. So you can't blame the library for that one. In fact since that event Mandinga Arts have stated they have used the character at mixed audience events, but realized it was “undoubtedly inappropriate for a children’s event.” They have retired the costume. So the carnival arts company messed up hugely, were stopped performing by the library as soon as they started. Cherry picked again.
4. Apparently a group of naked cyclists appeared during a pride event. They weren't arrested because Seattle has no nudity laws and it's legal to be nude anywhere in the city. Take that one up with Seattle but if I'd have been there when I was younger I'd probably have been too busy laughing to be outraged. They weren't being sexual, just being naked. Inappropriate? Yes probably for a public place but Seattle's laws...
5. Meh so what? As long as they do a good job championing women's rights for the UN who actually cares?
6. LMAO are you really complaining about a few rainbows on police cars? You do realise it's intended to help forge trust between the LGBT community and the police? How can that even be a bad thing. Police cars in Scotland have Gaelic on them OMG GAELIC shock horror gasp.
7. Again so what. Beauty contests are an anachronism that should disappear anyway. You really are reaching hard for things to whine about aren't you?
8. See 7.
9. So what? As long as they deserved the award good for them.
10. We covered this in the thread you made. It needs the supervising bodies to catch up with the 2020s and ensure that there's a level playing field. Boxing is also an anachronism...
11. I'll let AP news deal with this one:
Source
"CLAIM: A proposed California bill would allow school mental health professionals to remove minors from the custody of their parents or guardians who don’t consent to the child receiving gender-affirming surgeries.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The legislation, AB 665, would amend an existing law that allows minors 12 and older to receive mental health counseling or therapy without parental consent. Currently, the law applies only to youth covered by private health insurance. It contains no language that would allow school mental health professionals to remove children from the custody of their parents or guardians. The bill does not authorize any gender-affirming surgeries without parental consent.
THE FACTS: A social media post is misrepresenting a California bill that aims to expand access to mental health services on an outpatient basis for youth between the ages of 12 and 17. Opponents of the bill claim that, if passed, it would allow mental health professionals to remove a minor from their parents’ custody or “provide ‘gender affirming’ surgery to children without parental consent.”
“If the bill becomes law; children who wish to seek ‘gender affirming’ surgery who have parents that will not permit such mutilations, will be able to be removed from the custody of their parents,” reads the post on Instagram sharing the false claim."
12. I'll let AFP Fact Check deal with this one:
Source
"Since Bill C-16, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act, became a law in 2017, several online media have spread the idea that Canadians could be jailed or fined simply for using an incorrect gender pronoun. While the aim of the law is to add "gender identity and gender expression" to the list of illegal grounds for discrimination, Bill C-16 cannot force anyone to use a specific pronoun. No Canadian has been jailed or fined for using the wrong gender pronoun.
One article published online shortly after Bill C-16 was approved by the Senate on June 14, 2017, claimed that it was now illegal to use the wrong gender pronoun in Canada. The article continues to circulate on social media, and was shared more than 10,000 times through multiple Facebook posts as of June 22, 2018.
Bill C-16 is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act and to the Criminal Code that includes "gender identity and gender expressions" in matters of discrimination. A word scan of the document shows no specific mention of gender pronouns in the bill."
13. You can't count. Or did the hate filled spittle you sprayed all over your monitor trick you into misnumbering?
14. You don't check your sources for credibility. This is called cherry picking lol
