this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
340 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19244 readers
2421 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) confirmed her proposed resolution to ban transgender individuals from using bathrooms that don’t align with their biological sex at the U.S. Capitol is aimed at Rep.-elect Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender member of Congress.

Mace also plans broader legislation for similar bans on federal property and in federally funded schools.

McBride responded by calling for respect and kindness among lawmakers.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stated Republicans are working on a resolution to address the unprecedented situation while ensuring dignity and respect for all members.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge 110 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Mace is a Republican, so I can understand why she might assume all members of congress as sex predators. Think about the people she surrounds herself with. She must be terrified, poor thing.

Doesn't excuse bigotry at all. The bill is hatred on paper.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 11 points 1 month ago

She must be terrified, poor thing.

I have no doubt that's literally true.

[–] grue 90 points 1 month ago (1 children)

McBride is wrong. What's needed is not "respect and kindness," but instead contempt and ridicule for fascist bigots. Failing to properly ostracize them is part of how we got into this mess.

[–] [email protected] 51 points 1 month ago (10 children)

Yup, tolerant of the intolerant doesn't seem to be working.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 68 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That makes it illegal, right? You can't pass a law specifically designed to target individuals.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago

Makes it a hate crime.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago

That is my understanding, yes. However, I am not a lawyer, and even if I was, do laws/the Constitution even matter anymore?

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It can be because of certain individuals, but it must apply equally to all.

You didn't usually see it applied to a real person, but there are countless examples of it being applied to large corporations. For example, Florida can (and has) passed laws that apply to (e.g.) all amusement parks that operate their own emergency services. It was pretty clear that it would only affect Disney World. But at least in theory, it would apply to any others that opened up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It has been made clear that any attempt to tailor a law so that it would predominantly affect a specific person or specific group, as it would in this case because even if it applies to all trans-folk, it would specifically primarily impact this one individual and has been said to be for that purpose (particularly damning).

Not that precedent means anything, so any attempt to litigate that winds up in front of the Supreme Court could go either way. I would hope that even they would see the pettiness here and follow precedent.

I'm not sure of the specifics of the Florida/Disney cases. I do know that it probably could've at least been argued that the law was too narrowly tailored, but I'm not a lawyer or a multi-billion dollar company and maybe there are reasons.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 month ago (1 children)

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) stated Republicans are working on a resolution to address the unprecedented situation while ensuring dignity and respect for all members.

From a guy whose idea of dignity includes convincing his kid to monitor his whacking off habits.

[–] homesweethomeMrL 16 points 1 month ago

tfw we still report what they say as if it ever mattered.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 1 month ago (2 children)

just get rid of seperate bathrooms. floor to ceiling stall doors and everyone uses the same stuff.

[–] simplejack 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The GOP won’t do that. The point is to sow division.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

yeah its just stuff like this is so stupid I want to take it out of the debate in favor of things that government should actually be doing. like. I dunno. healthcare.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago

That is the whole point: to keep your mind occupied with stuff like this, so they don't notice how the ruling class is raping the planet and stealing the fruits of your labour. Culture war so you forget the class war. We must still fight this battle, but it is important to remember what they are trying to cover up with this, and attack them for it, as well.

[–] simplejack 5 points 1 month ago

Why do that when you can fight about the one person in congress with a different pee pee hole?

[–] Pacattack57 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Even better make every bathroom a “family” bathroom. Only 1 person at a time. Mandatory changing table and tampon dispenser by the sink

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChonkyOwlbear 48 points 1 month ago (1 children)

In any other job, this would be a slam dunk sexual harassment suit, right?

[–] anon6789 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

From my understanding, 14th amendment protections are still being battled over in the courts. Many have sided in favor or sexual orientation or gender being something that should be considered in equal protection of the laws, but some have not, so this will probably be coming to the Supreme Court, especially if the majority in charge of everything see it as an advantageous time to do so.

Agenda 47, the immediate plans for implementing Project 2025, has eliminating gender affirming care as a key priority. More money was spent on anti-trans campaigning than on many other topics combined this election cycle.

In theory, the laws of individual states protecting LGBT people would still apply, but other parts of Agenda 47 call for economically hammering states that try to go against expanded executive power, sounding similar to how the national drinking age was raised by withholding funding for highways.

I think there is a time bomb on these protections right now, and I would be hesitant to count on them for very long. I feel like writing all this makes me sound alarmist, but that is how I feel based on what they've been saying and running on these last 8+ years. My best friends are gay, but also public educators. They're Republican leaning centrists, and don't seem to be concerned, so I may be off base, but I tend to trust people when they come out in the open as bad people without shame.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

One thing to remember about Republicans is that logical dissonance comes with the territory. They're not worried because they're "one of the good ones." Or because they're one issue voters who ignore everything else the Republicans say that they're going to do. I've seen many Republicans who live in Massachusetts and enjoy the benefits provided by the liberal politics of the state while at the same time complaining about those same politics. People complaining about Obama care despite having been on Romney care for years, that sort of thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Nightwingdragon 32 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Mark my words, this will pass, even if only to set the stage for what trans people will have to deal with for the next four years.

Part of me expects regular motions to have her expelled entirely. And there's a non-zero chance that they'll just drop the threshhold needed to expel a member to simple majority because fuck what the Constitution says, they have control now.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Saying it'll just be the next 4 years is very optimistic of you.

[–] simplejack 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Someone should propose a house rule that bans sex offenders from the bathrooms. Looking at you Matt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] D1G17AL 27 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Republican women are some of the most self-hating people in existence.

[–] Shou 10 points 1 month ago

Oh don't worry. They have enough hate for everyone.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] simplejack 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

To all the people saying to put in gender neutral bathrooms, remember, the point is to sow division. The GOP doesn’t actually want solutions that make this issue go away.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] enbyecho 25 points 1 month ago

This is going to get complicated. The only way to be sure that, for example, Nancy Mace is actually the "she" "she" says "she" is is to check. And if we do that, to be fair, we gotta check everyone which means were going to discover that so many allegedly "male" members (heh) of congress do not, in fact, have any balls. WHAT THEN NANCY?? WHAT THEN???

[–] jaggedrobotpubes 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Bold move for a woman with that bone structure to be shitting on trans people.

[–] ATDA 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago

"I don't care or understand, really, just whatever gets me the apple off of your desk."

"Humans are so strange."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ackron 14 points 1 month ago

I'm going to need to see the long form genetic tests that prove that Mace is a biological woman as well, then. It's only fair, right?

[–] finitebanjo 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Hang on, doesn't that mean the law can be challenged even if it passes? You can't discriminate against individuals or specific US businesses with legislature.

It's called a Bill of Attainder.

[–] T00l_shed 6 points 1 month ago

They never cared about trivial things like "legality"

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

Sounds like rep Nancy Mace needs a few thousand volunteers to send her some urine samples

[–] ATDA 9 points 1 month ago

They be fucking their Lolita express deliveries in those bathrooms, no legit politicians allowed!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Proposal: replace all bathrooms with gender neutral bathrooms

[–] Viking_Hippie 14 points 1 month ago

Alternative proposal: replace the offices of all Republicans with gender neutral bathrooms.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 9 points 1 month ago

The cruelty is the point.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer 7 points 1 month ago

After some fear-mongering and a knee-jerk reaction from Speaker Johnson we can boast that no dicks will go anywhere near Nancy Mace. Mission Accomplished!!!

[–] CharlesDarwin 5 points 1 month ago

This is a great use of time. I'm sure it'll lower the price of eggs, which I'm told are more expensive than Faberge eggs thanks to Biden.

[–] Sam_Bass 5 points 1 month ago

Given their spoken intent to enact the provisions in project 2025, this follows along those lines and is only the tip of the iceberg. Given also that they have expressed a desire to return to the world of some 70 years past, what Johnson is likely alluding to is a return to separate facilities for trans akin to separate facilities for "coloreds" that existed back then.

load more comments
view more: next ›