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.
Bold move for a woman with that bone structure to be shitting on trans people.
What ARE Ryuk’s pronouns?
Damn. Just, damn.
“I don’t care or understand, really, just whatever gets me the apple off of your desk.”
“Humans are so strange.”
They be fucking their Lolita express deliveries in those bathrooms, no legit politicians allowed!
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!!!
Someone should propose a house rule that bans sex offenders from the bathrooms. Looking at you Matt.
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.
Saying it’ll just be the next 4 years is very optimistic of you.
In any other job, this would be a slam dunk sexual harassment suit, right?
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.
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.
It’s just frustrating in the same way as when you see someone doing any risky behavior. I don’t want them to be hurt, and maybe they’ll be fine, but I worry because I care about them.
Recent events have really shown me I must be more left than most people I know, because the amount of people recently that I’ve thought were liberal are talking anti-immigrant and anti-minority group things much more than I would have thought.
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.
She must be terrified, poor thing.
I have no doubt that’s literally true.
She’s going to really hate it when masc presenting folks start using the women’s room.
The goal is to make it illegal for trans folks to exist at all. Next, they’ll come for the entire LGBTQ+ community. Then probably the atheists.
Then probably the atheists.
atheists are 10000% on the list. get ready to apply (and pay) for your photo ID membership card at a state-approved church, and mandatory volunteer service to “spread the good news” (root out heathens)
btw, if you currently go to a progressive or liberal church that accepts gays, get ready to have your tax exempt status erased
edit: on thinking about this more, i think it’s more likely they’ll just declare evangelism (or whatthefuckever) to be the “official” religion of the united states, and force every church to adopt whatever new doctrine they want, acknowledging that trump is the head of the church, otherwise have all church leadership replaced by people who will capitulate
They’re coming for immigrants first, because they’re a target with few legal protections and it will cause economic chaos to deport them. Hitler rose to power during the depression, Trump is creating those conditions.
Next they’ll go after everyone left of Trump. To solidify authoritarianism.
Us trans folk and other minorities are scapegoats along the way. The scapegoats that they will make suffer so that people are scared to organize.
And yes, I’m scared shitless. But I think we’re a means to an end, not the goal itself.
But that’s the general agenda. This specific politician is likely operating more out of raw disgust and hatred than Machiavellianism.
They are already talking about putting people on antidepressants and ADHD meds into work camps. Madness.
My only hope is that they’re getting too excited and giddy about finally realizing the fruits of decades of preparation, and just go way too far, way too fast, to the point where anyone outside the ~30% or so who actually want fascism (not just temporarily convinced that they do) is abruptly hit with the reality of their decision and wake the fuck up.
They can (and will) silence as much dissent as possible, but if they’re able to make the response so overwhelming that the ~70% or so can, for once, unite against these cancerous fucks…
Not gonna hold my breath but…
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.
Yup, tolerant of the intolerant doesn’t seem to be working.
Agreed, but the politics of anger only go one way eventually.
I disagree
Oh yeah? Let’s fight about it!
(not really, just saying. Eventually you get tired of it and everythings just kind of angry.)
Tim Walz calling Republicans weird was proof that’s not true. The base LOVED it. I’d argue disbanding civility politics is exactly what Democrats need to do. How can you win with understanding when you’re being fought with violence and propaganda? Just call them disgusting monsters and then stand your ground.
Oh, there’s plenty of room for anger currently. Sure. And I’d prefer we direct it to the corporate news media myself, but the point is that it’s only going to go so far before it has to change to not-angry. And be what it really is.
If you’re saying you’ve got a movement whose entire purpose is to kill nazis, I’m onboard, right - but after we kill most of the big nazis and the rest have scurried off under their rocks, then what? Kill nazi sympathizers? Okay - I might peace out at that moment, but once that’s done then what? Start a record company?
I’m just saying - anger is a useful device but it’s no be-all and end-all as the few remaining halfway-human members of the republiQan party are surely considering now that they’ve won everything with lies and nazis again.
At some point you have to run the boring meetings and pass the cost-cutting measures and deny someone their dream pony because it won’t fit in this year’s omnibus bill.
I would not advise threatening your opponents lives, but certainly calling them what they are and threatening them with jail time for their out and about treason is warranted in this environment. People rightfully have internalized the reality that powerful people are above the law and liberals especially yearn for exceptions to that as just more evidence that people on the left are ripe for a tone change.
To the point of actually getting things done after, I believe it’s possible to walk and chew bubblegum at the same time. Rhetoric and policy should be connected in a serious government leadership.
Rhetoric and policy should be connected in a serious government leadership.
Yeah but unserious just won everything. Is serious angry?
To a better world, free of bigots who feel that they have a right to exist in the sunlight with the rest of us?
I agree.
Frank Zappa said “Anger is fuel” so yeah use it if you got it. Just saying that movements of anger have to at some point become peaceful or they just end up being the new dictators, upended by the new-new movement of anger.
It’s not like a new story, it’s just new in our highly mediated world.
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?
Republican women are some of the most self-hating people in existence.
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???
just get rid of seperate bathrooms. floor to ceiling stall doors and everyone uses the same stuff.
Even better make every bathroom a “family” bathroom. Only 1 person at a time. Mandatory changing table and tampon dispenser by the sink
that would do. each typical bathroom could accomodate several. Likely as many as the stalls and sinks in it which is usually like 3-5 and since you have men/womens you would end up with half a dozen to a dozen bathrooms in the same footprint. Might have to put a small hall because of the depth of the bathrooms but it just needs to be wide enough for wheelchairs and for the doors to open.
The GOP won’t do that. The point is to sow division.
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.
Why do that when you can fight about the one person in congress with a different pee pee hole?
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.
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.
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.
A boogeyman and a boogeyman net for 99.95
That makes it illegal, right? You can’t pass a law specifically designed to target individuals.
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.
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.
Do you have a source on that?
So I didn’t have a source, just recollection. I went to look for a source specifically as it pertains to transfolk and bathrooms.
I don’t know that it’s an easy read, but I thought I’d link to something on congress.gov instead of a website whose bona fides I don’t know.
Although legislation may not alter the substantive meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted by the courts, Congress may define prohibited discrimination in various contexts, such as in employment and in federally funded education programs. The meaning of sex discrimination in those contexts has also been addressed by federal courts, including in claims brought by transgender individuals. Congress possesses substantial authority to alter the scope of prohibited conduct under civil rights statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Likewise, Congress has authority to provide exceptions to the application of those laws, such as the religious exception under Title IX
Harvard Law Review has this to say:
As novel iterations of laws targeting queer identity make their way through state legislatures, an alternative constitutional avenue for challenging them would be to identify and apply the factors that allowed the Romer Court to infer animus and flip the presumption of rationality to strike down a class-based law without applying a heightened form of scrutiny.
I’ll be honest, I’m not familiar enough with laws to fully comprehend what I’m reading here.
Also, I was specifically thinking about Bills of Attainder, which punishes an individual or group without judicial process. One might argue this person is being punished for being trans, but I couldn’t find anything specifically invoking the protection against these in the case of transfolk and bathrooms.
Makes it a hate crime.
That is my understanding, yes. However, I am not a lawyer, and even if I was, do laws/the Constitution even matter anymore?
