It is concerning that the proponent of this bill has failed to address a direct-to-the-point concern whether religious schools that do not adhere to LGBT ideology are compelled to accept students that do not conform to his/her biological s3x. She has to understand that the example given is whether one's religious belief will be paramount against SOGIE or will it be considered discrimination under SOGIE and will incriminate the schools for not adhering. Instead of addressing the point, she simply hide on the narrative of protecting the dignity and feeling of a person just to appear virtuous and obtain moral high ground. She offers people to dress based on one's gender identity in order for the society to recognized his (or her) identity he (or she) chose but failed to address the concern of genuine vulnerable groups (women and children) by possible sexual predators, which by the way one of the reasons why parents want to send their daughters to an all-girls (biologically) exclusive school so their children can avoid that kind of circumstance. Her excuse is that the schools had already implemented their own protocols on uniform based on their s3x but that is because the SOGIE bill is not yet passed (facepalm). The main concern that the interviewer raised in the first place, which I am amazed she failed to recognize, is if the bill became a law, what will happen to the protocols of schools that are based on its religious beliefs that are against this SOGIE bill? Will exclusive schools be forced by fiat to accept students with gender identity or are the schools still allowed to implement its own religious beliefs?
In the case of transgenders, she suggests gender affirming surgery in order to have a legal basis on what gender the person is. This is where the popular LGBT narrative that 'a transwoman is a woman' began to emerge. Science, specifically Biology, does not agree that gender affirming surgery and/or any hormonal treatment can transform one s3x to another. The scientific/medical concensus regarding gender affirming surgery is if you are one of the rarest people with medical condition known as g3nital ambiguity (i.e. hermaphrodite) or you are medically classified as intersex. People who self-identify as transgender with distinct biological s3x are not under this concensus due to its complicated issues like personality disorders, mental issues like body dysmorphia, and other psychological conditions.
I don't want to read her message wrong but the part where one will be stigmatised by dressing up is somehow encouraging people to play as a victim in order for the bill to have a justification to be passed. It means to say that if the bill, in the guise of LGBT protection, was perfected, refined, ammended and became a law, all hell breaks loose to those who accussed of making fun of the way he/she dressed and felt stigmatised before. I am having a nostalgia of the MeToo movement were women were encouraged to play as victims of sexual harrassment without the presumption of innocence for men.
I won't dissect the other two videos due to her lack of understanding on the topics raised and I feel that she is not prepared to address the concerns of common people and the events unfolding in the Western world. It might be impossible for her to understand why people are so against to this bill due to her ideological biases against religion and conservative views. On my say about this bill, it clearly shows how aggressive they want to promote LGBT activism and demoralized the society to its confusing ideology with the facade of false compassion to minorities for moral high ground. We are lucky that the Western societies have press freedom to show to the world the impact of LGBT ideologies in the most free, most tolerant, diverse societies.
ganyan po gumana ang mind tricks na ginagamit nila, pag kinontra, kayo po automatically ang masama, and sarado utak, etc etc magaling po talaga magmanipulate mga yan, paawa effect, drama, VICTIM card 
