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.