Republican Congresswoman bring forward Bill to ban transwomen from female facilities in Congress

[Hoardasurass]

The quoted comments from the congresswoman are brilliant

First trans member lawmaker blasts GOP after bill blocks bathroom use https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14098953/nancy-mace-trans-lawmaker-bathroom-capitol-hill-sarah-mcbride.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

@Snowypeaks

What bigotry is Mace displaying by sponsoring a bill to ensure that single sex women's toilets in the Capitol are for women and girls only?

She did it for political reasons only. Spare me the "ensuring the women's toilets are for women and girls only" as if Nancy Mace was keeping out a ten-foot tall predatory beast. This was little more than a publicity stunt. There is no proof that McBride even planned to use the women's facilities. As I said earlier, McBride has attended orientation at Congress this week, so it's more than likely Mace saw an opportunity to display some Republican bigotry and make a point. (And impress Trump at the same time.)

She did it for political reasons only

Well, it’s effective, isn’t it? She’s recognised that women DO want single sex private spaces. I expect her to be very successful

He's posted selfies of himself invading women's toilets, which is a pretty strong indicator that he intended to exhibit the same predatory behavior in his new workplace.

@NotBadConsidering

How is taking the action to preserve single sex spaces in her workplace “bigoted”? How is agreeing with her on that a sign someone is acting like someone who has had a lobotomy?

Because they are so firmly set in their partisan way of thinking, they are unable to to consider any other options or ideas. In this case, automatically agreeing with NM because she is supposedly attempting to preserve single-sex spaces, without ever considering her motives. Is achieving a goal worth it no matter how you get there?

@zibzibara

He's posted selfies of himself invading women's toilets, which is a pretty strong indicator that he intended to exhibit the same predatory behavior in his new workplace.

It isn't proof, though, is it?

The same applies to women who are anti-abortion. They sell all our rights down the line just to be "good" women. Traitors, all of them. In the end they'll be disgarded like the rest of us. The approval they gain of men by pushing other women under a bus is conditional, but they refuse to see it.

Mace has made the women's spaces women only.

If it doesn't affect Mc Bride then great.

What's the problem?

It doesn't need to be. His past behaviour is a sufficient sign that preventative measures should be taken against him in case he decides to wilfully disregard women's boundaries again in the future.

Why does agreeing with Mace on single sex spaces mean someone is unable to consider whether they agree with her on other things? Why does that make anyone “partisan” or akin to having had a lobotomy?

People don’t automatically agree with Mace. They agree with her on single sex spaces. Are you unable to tell the difference?

Can you explain how you expect single sex spaces to be achieved in a “pure” way? Or what is an acceptable way for that to be achieved? And who do you think will do this and be of pure enough motives, in your eyes?

I asked you what bigotry Mace was displaying. You declined to answer and pivoted to calling her sponsorship of the bill a publicity stunt and saying she did it for political reasons.
I conclude that you cannot point to any bigotry.

Ensuring women's toilets are for women only keeps out all male people, not just McBride and "ten-foot tall predatory beasts".

Her "publicity stunt" bill to ensure that women's single sex toilets in the Capitol are for the use of women only was passed and has achieved just that - single sex toilets for women.
What is your problem with single sex toilets for women, exactly?

@NotBadConsidering

Why does agreeing with Mace on single sex spaces mean someone is unable to consider whether they agree with her on other things? Why does that make anyone “partisan” or akin to having had a lobotomy?

People don’t automatically agree with Mace. They agree with her on single sex spaces. Are you unable to tell the difference?

Can you explain how you expect single sex spaces to be achieved in a “pure” way? Or what is an acceptable way for that to be achieved? And who do you think will do this and be of pure enough motives, in your eyes?

Words/phrases that were in the post you responded to: "in this case" (ie. agreeing "in this case", not all cases), "partisan" (heavily in favour of a particular cause - may find it difficult to work with other sides).

Words/phrases not in the post you responded to: "pure", "pure enough motives" - my eyes couldn't roll harder. Come on. Mace did this for herself. She even had a tweet with a video of herself striding down a hallway of Congress saying "the women's bathrooms are for women only" or something.

@Snowypeaks

Ensuring women's toilets are for women only keeps out all male people, not just McBride and "ten-foot tall predatory beasts".

There are others? Who knew?

Maybe you missed the "ten-foot tall predatory beast" picture of McBride that was conjured up by Mace so effectively. That's bigotry. No, those aren't her words, but the very presence of McBride seemed so very threatening so this motion was necessary. For one person = bigotry. For pageantry and politics = bigotry.

So you can’t answer the questions.

Why is agreeing with Mace on single sex spaces “partisan”?

What has she done that displays bigotry?

You said:

Is achieving a goal worth it no matter how you get there?

That suggests there is a right and a wrong way to achieve a goal. In this case, the goal is single sex spaces. You think Mace is doing it the “wrong” way. What is the “right” way, in your eyes? What could she, or anyone else do that would be acceptable in achieving this goal? Who do you think will do it the way you deem acceptable?

The proof that he was going to use the female toilets was posted by himself just a couple of days ago.

I don't care if it was a publicity stunt. The more publicity the better, it is already allowing people across the country to do the same in their areas so that's a brilliant publicity stunt to pull.

Her message is very well received.

There are generated pics of her in warrior guarding women’s toilets 😀https://x.com/nancymace/status/1859400999892373624?s=46&t=QsLZWw4AAriTG0o1SOp6SQ

Essentially, the TRAs overreached - toilets, sports, language, infiltration of government and health. This is the push back. Mace is seizing the moment. Of course it’s for political gain, but she’s still brave

What's wrong with saying women's bathrooms are for women?

She even had a tweet with a video of herself striding down a hallway of Congress saying "the women's bathrooms are for women only" or something.

OMG!! She was WALKING in a video, shamelessly promoting the action she is taking. WOW! This is…something bad apparently?

Best to nip it in the bud early before more men think they're entitled to invade women's spaces.

If they aren't here words why have you put them in quote marks?

Maybe it’s not allowed to say it whilst walking?

Maybe it's the striding. Women aren't supposed to stride?

Was she striding in strides, so doubly unwomanly?

I guess it's the combination of wilfully STRIDING while simultaneously declaring her intention to protect women and girls.

That does sound pretty fucking terrible.

Man takes picture of himself in a woman’s toilet staking his claim to be in there. Powerful.

Woman strides down corridor stating her intention to keep men out of women’s spaces. Bigotry.

Makes sense.

It is all the proof needed that this is a person who enjoys transgressing female people’s boundaries. It has established the pattern of behaviour.