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.
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.
Republican women are some of the most self-hating people in existence.
Oh don’t worry. They have enough hate for everyone.
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.
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?
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!!!
They be fucking their Lolita express deliveries in those bathrooms, no legit politicians allowed!
Bold move for a woman with that bone structure to be shitting on trans people.
What ARE Ryuk’s pronouns?
“I don’t care or understand, really, just whatever gets me the apple off of your desk.”
“Humans are so strange.”
Damn. Just, damn.
Someone should propose a house rule that bans sex offenders from the bathrooms. Looking at you Matt.
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.
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.
Why do that when you can fight about the one person in congress with a different pee pee hole?
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???
That makes it illegal, right? You can’t pass a law specifically designed to target individuals.
Makes it a hate crime.
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.
That is my understanding, yes. However, I am not a lawyer, and even if I was, do laws/the Constitution even matter anymore?
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
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
tfw we still report what they say as if it ever mattered.
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.
