Summary

Rep. Nancy Mace, once supportive of LGBTQ rights, has shifted toward anti-transgender rhetoric, including sponsoring a Capitol bathroom ban targeting transgender women, such as Rep.-elect Sarah McBride.

Mace has cited personal safety concerns and her experience as a rape survivor to justify the ban, which critics argue is rooted in discrimination.

Protesters against the legislation led Mace to use a slur in response, sparking further controversy.

Previously, Mace supported LGBTQ rights and socially transitioning minors, but her recent actions reflect a sharp pivot amidst rising anti-LGBTQ sentiment in politics.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
71 points

Mace has cited personal safety concerns and her experience as a rape survivor to justify the ban, which critics argue is rooted in discrimination.

I’m going to go out on a limb here.

Nobody whose aim is to go into a public restroom to be an attacker or sex pest is going to be deterred by a restroom ban against trans women. Let alone that such bans wouldn’t even be a speed bump for people born into the matching gender to go into those restrooms and attack or pester.

If you use just one brain cell to consider this bullshit for even a Planck time moment, it’s obviously purposefully oppressive.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

I will add as a trans person that we are already at significantly higher risk of violence against us just from existing. Why would anyone want to increase that risk even higher.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

There’s one major flaw in your logic. Well more specifically, you’re flaw is logic. The people that have been swayed into supporting anti-lgbt crap fundamentally cannot be swayed using logic. To them, there is some dark soulless creature whose only insurmountable obstacle to their pedophilic rape fantasy is their adherence to custom and standards of using the bathroom in line with their gender assigned at birth.

“But I covered that with the bit about predators attacking someone of the same gender in the bathroom they are unquestionably allowed in. Surely this will slip past their dense cognitive dissonance?” Oh you sweet summer child. How you’ve been duped to think anyone other than your fully red- blooded manly man attacking a young defenseless girl is possible. Young boys surely have the means and mentality to fight off an attacker. No no. It is only young girls needing protection from the big bad man. And how DARE you accuse them of being anti-lgbt for believing this way!

See the trick about these fucking imbecilic cretins is a complete dissociation from reality. The arguments I laid out above are almost verbatim what I got from a Facebook “friend”. And he absolutely takes offense to being accused of being abti-lgbt. Sure he thinks trans-men are women and trans-women are men. But that’s because he wouldn’t date a trans-woman which means they can’t be women. He either goes radio silent or quickly changes the subject when pressed for whether he would date a trans-man.

You can’t bring logic to these fights. Fuck if I know what anyone could actually bring to convince them, but it sure as hell ain’t logic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You can’t bring logic to these fights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty

Soap, ballot, jury, cartridge. There’s only one of these that hasn’t yet been employed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Correction, there has been a very high-profile case of the fourth box being employed just this month. =3

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

I heard a comedian make this bit, and he acted the pedo “oh trust me, we were gonna go wherever we wanted”.

Further, how many sex offenders did their deed while wearing some Mrs. Doubtfire slapped together disguise? I’m sure effectively zero.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 9.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 213K

    Comments