• Beaver @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    14 days ago

    Music to my ear and I wonder how much it costed them to comb through all of that.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      Fun fact, costed is a word but has a slightly different meaning than the way you have used it.

      Costed means to get the details on the cost of something complex. Like “I costed the three projects and the last one is cheapest”

      You tried to use it as the past tense of cost, but the past tense of cost is also just cost.

        • addie@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          Yeah; as a native and fairly well-educated speaker, I’m fucked if I can form the past participles of some of our verbs

          If I swim across a river, is it now the swimmed river? Swum river? Swam river?

          If I sneak into a room, have I sneaked? Snuck? Both sound wrong.

          Didn’t find anything ambiguous about ‘costed’, it works for me.

          • Censored@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            If you swim across a river, it is now a river you’ve swum. If you sneak into a room, you have snuck in.

            Those are correct but they look and sound wrong.

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          I am Canadian, and I was taught Cost as past tense in school and university. I’ve never seen it written Costed for past tense in any government publication either.

  • Chozo@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    So not only was it hateful, but it was wasteful, too. Good job, Utah.

        • danc4498@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          First thing that comes to mind is republicans want government to be wasteful and useless. So they do shit like this, then blame government and regulations, then push for smaller government and ignore their own role in fucking things up.

          Also, they’re giving jobs to bigots, which they love.

          I’m sure there’s many other reasons.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    13 days ago

    This is outrageous. They’re not even going to attempt to investigate my report about an alien beaming into the bathroom and touching my peepee? Just for that, I’m filing 10 more complaints.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    only five were investigated

    Can one sue Utah for gross neglience now? I mean, they got thousands of complaints from concerned citizens, and they only cared for investigating five of them? Or do they profile those complaints into “we are not investigating certain types of people”, e.g. politicians that have been reported?

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I suppose decades of misandric conditioning would create the opinion that all men, trans or not, are sexual predators and closet perverts. This needs to change.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    14 days ago

    I’m struck by the fact that as a trans woman I look more cis than some women I know who’ve given birth. I’m actually worried about a cis friend of mine if we ever get bathroom laws here.

    • dumples@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Based on that numbers it will be mostly cis woman who get harassed. There have been plenty of cases of it already. There was a few big ones in my state when people complaining that their daughters lost in sport

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      I’ve been trying to explain to my less enlightened family for years that requiring a trans man to use the women’s bathroom only makes it easier for men to just walk in since having a beard and a dad bod no longer means you have to use the men’s room.

      These laws just don’t make any sense and can only make whatever they are afraid of (men hearing their wives and daughters tinkle, apparently) worse.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        That’s what has always stumped me. They do realize that trans men look like… men. Right? Like, they want some dude to just stroll into the women’s bathroom? Like, legally want that dude to be forced to stroll into that women’s bathroom?!?

        The dude doesn’t want to be in there. Women don’t want the dude to be in there. Why do these politicians want the dude to be in there?!

        • interrobang@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          and the trans person gets assaulted in the bathroom they are ‘supposed’ to use! Its just an excuse to banish us from public, there is no right answer.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      I’ve been saying that for a while. Not only does this open up many trans women to additional harassment, it also opens it up to any cis woman someone decides looks too masculine to be a “real” woman.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        Let’s cut to the chase.

        This bill, and many like it, are created with a clear purpose: to subjugate women. Harming the LGBTQ2+ community is almost secondary, since they can do that just fine already.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Just curious; why did you put a 2 in LGBTQ+? I’ve just never seen that before and wonder what it means? Does it capture the IA?

          • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            13 days ago

            2 is for 2-spirit; I’ve seen both 2 and 2S, but either way it refers to Indigenous 3rd-gender folks.

              • shinratdr@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                13 days ago

                No problem. It’s a more common term in Canada, so I’ve been seeing it since I was in high school which was like 15 years ago. In my head the “long” LGBT string has always been 2SLGBTQIA+ but I realize the “2S” part isn’t as well known.

                • Crikeste@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  13 days ago

                  Ahhh, that makes sense. I’m from America and have seen it evolve from LGB > LGBT > LGBTQ > LGBTQI+. I’m unsure of how well your natives are represented in Canada, but the way we treat them here speaks as to why I’ve never heard the term. They are practically 2nd class citizens according to our government.