I’m not sure how you got there. My comment was about “the world’s most powerful government” forcing its officials to use public restrooms.
That part is untrue. They (mostly) have private, single occupancy restrooms and there would be no reason for McBride to go into a public, multi occupancy room for either sex. Especially since she has been offered access to other elected officials private restrooms in private offices
I didn’t read the article because frankly I assumed all the pertinent information about this story was right there in the headline. So when I read your comment and you name dropped McBride, I took that to mean she was in fact the victim and you were saying that she shouldn’t have been in the women’s restroom to begin with. That’s how I got there. I wasn’t right, but that’s how I got there.
The article is somewhat about McBride in that Lauren Boebert made a scene suggesting that “a man” (McBride) was in the public women’s restroom. Then later retracted her statement saying it was a case of mistaken identity.
But the problem with the whole story is that A) McBride has indicated she would comply with House rules and not use a public, women’s restroom and B) McBride has no reason to use those public restrooms because C) most Members use private, single occupancy restrooms and D) members with personal restrooms in their private offices have offered to let McBride use them.
To tie all this together, Boebert created a farcical situation to get attention. It’s classic rage bait. She can win points with bigots because she’s defending the sanctity of women’s restrooms. Plus progressives get mad at her for being bigoted, which makes bigots happy with her.
The only response to this garbage is to not engage
I’m not sure how you got there. My comment was about “the world’s most powerful government” forcing its officials to use public restrooms.
That part is untrue. They (mostly) have private, single occupancy restrooms and there would be no reason for McBride to go into a public, multi occupancy room for either sex. Especially since she has been offered access to other elected officials private restrooms in private offices
I didn’t read the article because frankly I assumed all the pertinent information about this story was right there in the headline. So when I read your comment and you name dropped McBride, I took that to mean she was in fact the victim and you were saying that she shouldn’t have been in the women’s restroom to begin with. That’s how I got there. I wasn’t right, but that’s how I got there.
Sure, I get it.
The article is somewhat about McBride in that Lauren Boebert made a scene suggesting that “a man” (McBride) was in the public women’s restroom. Then later retracted her statement saying it was a case of mistaken identity.
But the problem with the whole story is that A) McBride has indicated she would comply with House rules and not use a public, women’s restroom and B) McBride has no reason to use those public restrooms because C) most Members use private, single occupancy restrooms and D) members with personal restrooms in their private offices have offered to let McBride use them.
To tie all this together, Boebert created a farcical situation to get attention. It’s classic rage bait. She can win points with bigots because she’s defending the sanctity of women’s restrooms. Plus progressives get mad at her for being bigoted, which makes bigots happy with her.
The only response to this garbage is to not engage
Thanks, well put and apologies.