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

Then perhaps I am disagreeing with you, not Mary Harrington, and you put her argument badly.

In any case it's pretty uncontroversial on this board to say that women don't need to justify single sex spaces by highlighting the risk of SA. NM is a SA survivor and cited keeping out predators as her reasons for bringing forward her bill. That's partly why the safety aspect of SS facilities has been front and centre in the discussion so far.

Example : I have my son's girlfriend here now and she is a lovely young women.

But a quick look at her insta shows a variety of pics of her and her friends in loo mirrors on nights out when they were dressed up for Halloween, or creating weird montages, or acting like they're super models on a shoot, or 'artsy' type shots of each other.

They are having fun, being stupid, creative, bonding etc.

But this in no way means men should be allowed in the loos to take pictures.

So arguing girls don't do this is wrong and redundant.

Young women are not taking selfies in toilets as "trophy" pictures. The point of the pics is not, "Ooh, look at me/us in the ladies'! I am/We are totally women and this proves it!"

I referenced her point only.
It was then extrapolated Cathy Newman style into something neither I nor MH says.

I was making the point because the thread was focusing on dangers of men and I wanted to reassert the point just wanting them out should be enough.

Not an original point, but one worth remembering and one Mary explores in an interesting way.

I know I've agreed with that point many times on this thread. See previous posts.

But still people are insisting young women don't even do it. When they do.

To keep insisting something that isn't true is isn't helpful.

Instead we should say men shouldn't be in women's spaces regardless of how women use them. It's just a No.

@MalagaNights
Fair enough.

Holy hyperbole, Batman.

'Erin' Reed chimes in.

https://x.com/TheOnlyGuru/status/1859990767022068035/

Screenshot of his quite entertaining story.

From Erin:

"The decision to comply does not just affect..."

Yes, we've been saying for years that complying with this shit doesn't just affect the individual in question. The lack of self-awareness would be baffling, except that Erin is fully aware of the goal.

We now have an Employment Tribunal case in England (issued by me), asking for single-sex facilities at work. That is because my employer's trans staff policy insists women's showers need to be shared between women and men who say they are women. For more info, please search for Faye Russell-Caldicott at CrowdJustice.com

Good luck with this Faye. Unbelievable that women are having to go to the courts to deal with this shit.

In this case there are mixed sex / gender neutral spaces so all the women like AOC and the other women who like to centre penis can hang out with transpeople there and still ensure that the many women who need single sex spaces can participate in public life. Acknowledging this would be truly inclusive.

The extent to which these women want to force other unconsenting women to be traumatised and / or be in a state of undress around male bodies is really quite disturbing. They really don't understand consent, do they. Why do they think they get to decide for other women|?

Go hang out with your male transsexual friends in the gender neutral toilets, no-one's stopping you.

Kat Highsmith had a Substack post on Tim McBride (content note: Kat uses terms some don't like): https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/first-troon-in-congress-the-saga

Also I'm very glad to see Nancy Mace call attention to males in women's prisons, especially in California. It's in so many places yet it gets brushed over like it's not happening.

By bringing this bill, she does speak against Trump, by speaking against every male that wants to go into women's changing rooms and toilets. She's fought for an enforceable rule against all males, including Trump, doing that in the House of Congress and in doing so has contributed towards normalising the fight for women's spaces and sports all over the US. This normalisation is what I think you dislike so much.

If her being anti-abortion means anything, it means that she has more reason to defend female spaces from males and more to lose if those spaces are invaded because she cannot abort a pregnancy forced on her by a rapist. It's a lot easier to be cavalier about the risk of pregnancy (whether that pregnancy is caused by rape or not) when you are willing to abort and living in a jurisdiction that lets you act on that choice than if you are anti-abortion or living in Texas/Malta/Poland/El Salvador/etc.

Jeez, it's grim that women should even have to think like that.

It was the Supreme Court who scuttled Roe versus Wade, not the Republican Party. HTH.

Does it actually say anywhere in the Speaker's new rules that McBride will be referred to and addressed as Mr? Or that McBride will be forced to comply with the male dress code?

I'm dismayed that Congress even has separate dress codes for the sexes because they are regressive nonsense.

Um. No. They scuttled it quite deliberately. It was in their platform and they deliberately appointed Supreme Court justices who would rule that way and engineered the lawsuits to get it in front of the Court. Trump even took credit for it.

And it's certainly on Republicans when they used that decision to pass state level bans.

A short video compilation of the type of abuse Nancy Mace has received since advocating for single-sex spaces for women (links below for video on TwiX and TikTok):

https://x.com/marycatedelvey/status/1860384194351812937

https://www.tiktok.com/@marycate.mf.delvey/video/7440534793307049262

It must have been a pretty shaky ruling to begin with if a later court could overturn it. It's not like the Fourteenth Amendment has changed since 1973.

The Dems, during their presidencies, could have tried to secure abortion against the most stacked of Supreme Court benches with a constitutional amendment or at least some kind of federal law or executive order, yet they didn't. Remember how Obama campaigned on abortion protections and then didn't do anything to protect abortion for eight years?

It is absolutely typical Dem behaviour to hold abortion protections out as a carrot to lure female voters and then do nothing to actually protect abortion so that they can repeat the false promise next election cycle. It's basically blackmailing women into voting for them. And women have been hurt by having their rights used as carrots in this way.

Another way to view this is that the Dems have no intention of keeping their promises and the GOP at least try to. Under that circumstance, I'd probably vote for the party most likely to attempt to keep their promises because at least I'd know what I was getting, even if I didn't like it.

They did not have the votes to do so. you are aware that you need not only majorities in both houses, but effectively a 60 vote majority in the Senate to overcome the filibuster? And again if it's so easy to implement legislatively, it would have been equally easy to overturn it when the GOP got back into power. The Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for only a brief window between the 2008 election and the death of Ted Kennedy. Obama used his legislative muscle to pass the Affordable Care Act. At that time, there wasn't a prospect of a conservative court majority. Trump did that, by appointing 3 justices, two of them under dubious circumstances. All of them lied and said they regarded Roe as settled jurisprudence.

if is essentially impossible to pass a constitutional amendment at the present time as you need the votes of 3/4 of the states as well as both houses of Congress. Neither side can muster that majority.

And if you were familiar with the history you'd know that the decision to overturn Roe was inherently political. The right never believed that the ruling was correctly decided. It eventually became a litmus test for all Republican justices. The originalists on the court never believed in the right to privacy inferred from the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not explicitly stated.

the Republican Party isn't ashamed to take credit for overturning Roe, except when it has to face consequences.

meanwhile, at state level, Democrats actually have fought to enshrine abortion protections. The only state where they lost is Florida, because DeSantis made sure the proposition required a 60% majority. "the Democrats" as a whole have not failed to protect women's rights. This includes both states where Democrats held a legislative majority and passed it via statute or in some cases state constitutional amendments, and states like Ohio and Kansas where the Democrats helped voters enshrine protections through propositions and referendums.

Re Nancy Mace's political view on abortion, she has said: The vast majority of people want some sort of gestational limits, ... not at nine months, but somewhere in the middle. They want exceptions for rape and incest. They want women to have access to birth control. These are all very common-sense positions that we can take and still be pro-life." [she] has voiced support for gestational limits of 15 to 20 week

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Mace#Political_positions

Giving the right to legislate on reproductive rights back to states (by getting rid of Roe vs Wade) is consistent with Republican policy generally.

Again, if you read the history of it, "states' rights" has always been a conservative smokescreen on multiple issues. It's also contradicted by the many Republicans who quite openly called for bans. The point of "return it to the states" was to ban it.

I'll also note that "states' rights" and "local control" fly right out the window when places try to do things the GOP doesn't like.

It's not just abortion. The GOP objected to mandating pregnancy coverage in the Affordable Care Act. They reject maternity leave. They reject increasing subsidies for child care. (And, as someone who lives in the USA, there is a fairly effective tax subsidy for stay-at-home parents because married couples are jointly taxed.) They rejected the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act. They reject increasing postpartum Medicaid coverage. I could go on and on.