MN: Transgender Minnesota lawmaker introduces bill removing anti-pedophile language from state’s Human Rights Act

Source: 4/26/23

A transgender state lawmaker in Minnesota introduced a measure that would remove language from the state’s Human Rights Act that currently declares pedophiles are not included in protections based on “sexual orientation.”

The proposed language has shocked and bewildered Republicans, but the bill’s author says nothing in the text would weaken pedophilia laws. The “Take Pride Act” (HF 1655) was introduced earlier this year by state Rep. Leigh Finke, a member of the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party and the first transgender legislator in Minnesota House history.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I don’t think just introducing something like this is the best approach. Regardless of the potential soundness of the reasoning it would be better to bring up the subject for discussion across party lines in smaller groups before introducing the measure. Starting with the most controversial category of attraction that also happens to be recognized as a mental disorder given specific circumstances verified over time is probably not the best approach either. There are groups of people who have primary or exclusive attractions to individuals in the midst of puberty. This isn’t recognized as a mental disorder and depending on what range of development is being talked about blurs into the normal range of attraction for large parts of the global population. Perhaps starting with something in that range to get everyone to acknowledge it is part of reality, would be a better choice. It would be much easier for people to recognize teenagers find each other attractive at least some of the time and thus individuals older than that can also find them attractive. Anyone doing anything about the attraction is a different irrelevant subject. Good luck making the introduced measure less controversial and getting it passed. The lawmaker probably screwed up going about it the way they did.

They’re all wrong; pedophilia is absolutely, and quite obviously, a sexual orientation. Ask someone with a PhD. in Human Sexuality if it’s a sexual orientation and they will say that it is. That is considered to be irrefutable by anyone in the field but even anyone with a lick of sense and knowledge will also recognize this fact. Saying that it’s not is a deeply silly and desperate political move.

Language implicating the relative relational dispositions among humans and machine databases…he-she means. No doubt the bills author has and agenda in drawing a distinction between paedophiles and transgender persons. This is what flabbergasted the conservative evangelical who believe no distinction necessary ( see Smith V Doe). Clearly the bills author comprehends the fact the God fearing lump all sins together generally, but still hold special venom for the child offender. Thus he-she moves through the proper process channels like anyone attempting to do the best for their people….humans.