Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!edsel!bentley!hoxna!houxm!ihnp4!drutx!druxt!timothy
From: timothy@druxt.UUCP (MorrisseyTJ)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: re: anti-porn ordinance
Message-ID: <1155@druxt.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 14:08:53 EST
Article-I.D.: druxt.1155
Posted: Wed Jan  2 14:08:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 04:25:14 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 20

I am sure that religious moralists did not sponsor this bill.  However,
I am not sure that it was sponsored by feminists, either.

Has anyone noticed that the bill referred, often, to transsexuals?

It is my understanding that groups that would be called "Falwellite"
(sp?) would prefer to see transsexuals burn in hell, and from her
writings, Gloria Steinham (sp? again) considers transsexuals to be
people who have had their bodies "mutilated" as their "misguideed"
solution to sex role oppression.

I think that men and transsexuals were covered in this ordinance to:

1) be "fair" and protect the other "poor exploited souls"

	or maybe

2) to give this ordinance the appearance of being (add your favorite
"nice" adjective here) and more palatable to the widest number of
people.