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.

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 hours 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.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

  • Ackron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 hours 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?

  • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours 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!!!

  • ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

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

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      13 hours ago

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

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        17 hours ago

        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.

        • UpperBroccoli@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          17 hours 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.

        • Jesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          15 hours ago

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

  • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

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

    • MorrisonMotel6@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      19 hours ago

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

    • Nollij
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      17 hours ago

      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.

      • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 hours ago

        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.

        • Nollij
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          Do you have a source on that?

          • MagicShel@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            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.

  • enbyecho@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    17 hours 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???

  • Jesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    22 hours ago

    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.

        • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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.

            • Lasherz12@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              16 hours ago

              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.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 hours ago

                Rhetoric and policy should be connected in a serious government leadership.

                Yeah but unserious just won everything. Is serious angry?

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Oh yeah? Let’s fight about it!

            (not really, just saying. Eventually you get tired of it and everythings just kind of angry.)

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          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.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            17 hours ago

            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.

  • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    21 hours ago

    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.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    ·
    23 hours ago

    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.

    • treefrog@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      She’s going to really hate it when masc presenting folks start using the women’s room.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        23 hours ago

        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.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          18 hours ago

          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…

        • treefrog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          29
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          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.

        • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          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