This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Houston, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HoustonWikipedia:WikiProject HoustonTemplate:WikiProject HoustonHouston articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles
This article is not written from a neutral point of view
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The article is clearly written with LGBT bias, siding with the proposition that was defeated by Houston voters 61%-39%. The parties opposing the proposition are classified as being "anti-LBGT" (hence "discriminators"), whereas the parties in favor are "many prominent leaders, conpanies(sic) and celebrities". These prominent leaders are conveniently linked to a progressive website.
The reaction quote is only from the defeated side.
The opposition to Prop. 1 was based, not on discrimination, but on the defense of women's rights, in this case to use public restrooms without having to have men present. The rights of the "T" in LGBT, namely transgender, are one thing, but this goes beyond transgender to men who just think they should be a woman, or women who think they would prefer to be a man. The article should address the actual debate about the proposition, not only the side that lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.243.175 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I suggest you go to conservapedia. Anti-Prop 1 is anti-LGBT. This bill has nothing to do with "men in women's bathrooms." It has to do with banning employment discrimination for LGBT people. The people who oppose gay rights used the bathroom lie in order toe defeat it. AHC300 (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, User:72.71.243.175, but with great respect, what is the specific problem you have identified? Perhaps you have academic sources suggesting that being transgender is a 'lifestyle choice'? Do you have independent, reliable sources stating that opposition to basic anti-discrimination laws is an important part of the "defence of women's rights"? Can you explain why those organisations and leaders in favour should not be mentioned? Governor Abbott's strong opposition is mentioned. Should the be removed? With regards to the debate surrounding the vote, please feel free to outline any additional content you feel would be of assistance. AusLondonder (talk) 04:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
