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

I believe the Republicans recognise the legal and biological categories "man" and "woman", so a win for them in my opinion.

I'm not sure I believe this, it's too neat, but Sarah McBride's former name couldn't be more appropriate. Assuming I've been told correctly and with some consideration for MN's feelings, check out the IATA code for Mozes Kilangin airport.

Both of those things are true I think @lcakethereforeIam

We can add Mozes Kilangin also known as Timika airport to the list with Malaga.

Not american, but basic american civics would tell you why.

House, Senate, White House, and the SCOTUS all need to be in concert for that to happen.

Mmm, no. I used to be horrified about the idea of children receiving medical care for gender, then I found out 99% of kids (teenagers, usually 13 and up) having any kind of surgery was actually boys having chest reductions/mastectomies due to gynecomastia and young women having breast reductions for pain. That's who is actually hurt by this push against gender affirming medical intervention.

I think Mace has been very brave and admirably forthright - especially against the inane, hostile and narrative leading questions she has faced from much of the media.

Obama enjoyed a majority in both houses including a filibuster proof supermajority in the Senate at the beginning of his presidency.

2008-2010 america still saw many democratic senators with anti-abortion views. I am fairly certain he didn't have the votes.

How does trying to prevent women and girls from having mastectomies under the name of gender affirming care stop young men from having their gynaecomastia from being removed, or women having breast reductions for pain? That makes zero sense.

And what does that have to do with the post of mine you responded to? That Democrats, by supporting girls having their breasts removed are doing a good thing because it also means men can get unnecessary breast tissue removed 😵‍💫?

So lack of federal protection for abortion access isn’t the Republicans’ fault then, is it? It’s the fault of everyone, Republicans AND Democrats.

So in the columns of the different parties we can add anti-abortion to the Democrats’ column. So who hates women more now the tallies are in?

What makes it even worse is that Obama campaigned on signing the pro-choice Freedom of Choice Act.

In July 2008, for example, when a questioner at a Planned Parenthood gathering asked what he would do about "anti-choice legislation at the state level," Obama said: “The first thing I’d do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

The first thing!! Happy days for women! But suddenly it wasn’t a priority anymore.

Even though he said he would sign it his first day in office, he did not. When asked about it again several months later this is what he said:

"Now, the Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority," Obama concluded. "I believe that women should have the right to choose, but I think that the most important thing we can do to tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that's where I'm going to focus."

When asked about it a year later he fumbled around the question again and said it wasn’t a priority. It’s much more important to tamp down anger, ladies!

Why would they when they have it as a cudgel to beat republicans with and a carrot to lead democrats?

So the Democrats couldn't do it then but could miraculously do it if Kamala Harris had become President? Pull the other one it's got bells on it.

The Democrats talk a good game on abortion rights but don't deliver and personally I believe never have any intention of doing so and will cast the blame for failing to everywhere else but at themselves.

When they ban gender affirming care for under-18s, they mean ALL gender affirming care, including girls who need breast reductions and boys who need mastectomies due to gynecomastia. That's what gets banned. Any surgical intervention, trans or not, is made illegal.

And most gender affirming surgical care for the 13-18 demographic is being done on non-trans teenagers. I looked up stats for the Alberta specifically when researching and found out it was very close to less than 1% of surgeries were being done on trans teens.

The same is true for puberty blockers, most usage is for girls experiencing precocious puberty, and that becomes banned.

These blanket bans end up impacting a whole group of people who need access to this medical treatment for reasons that are not transition related.

An over simplification of a complex political situation in order to justify supporting republicans, who are enshrining child marriage and want women to lose the right to vote.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

When they ban gender affirming care for under-18s, they mean ALL gender affirming care, including girls who need breast reductions and boys who need mastectomies due to gynecomastia. That's what gets banned. Any surgical intervention, trans or not, is made illegal.

This is nonsense. “Gender affirming care” is care, in this case, relating to an underlying diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Neither males with gynaecomastia nor women or girls needing a breast reduction for pain are “gender affirming care”. They are completely different diagnoses.

And most gender affirming surgical care for the 13-18 demographic is being done on non-trans teenagers. I looked up stats for the Alberta specifically when researching and found out it was very close to less than 1% of surgeries were being done on trans teens.

Ok, in reality, only 1% of surgeries you call “gender affirming” are actually gender affirming. If they’re being done for other reasons than for teenagers who identify as trans, they’re not “gender affirming” by very definition. I don’t think your research was very good if this is conclusion.

The same is true for puberty blockers, most usage is for girls experiencing precocious puberty, and that becomes banned.

It doesn’t become banned though, does it? Have precocious puberty and need puberty blockers for 2 years? Here you go.

Think you’re the opposite sex and want to stop puberty forever before going onto wrong sex hormones? The answer is no.

Why do you think the drugs or surgeries are going to be banned in their entirety, rather than potentially banned for indications that are specifically unnecessary?

It’s like saying because we’ve banned lobotomies no one can get brain surgery for anything else. Doom mongering nonsense.

Who says I support Republicans? What I do believe is the idea that Democrats are good and supportive of women’s rights is nonsense. It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face to support a party whose definition of woman includes men, and who don’t believe anything can be exclusively for women.

Governments are famous for overreaching, and I do not doubt at all they will not consider the negative impacts of their legislation.

And yes, surgery to remove breast tissue on boys is considered gender affirming, as it is removing feminizing breast tissue so their bodies feel more in line with their gender.

Here is another article discussing the low rates of surgical intervention and how it is mostly cis children having surgery:
https://www.them.us/story/gender-affirming-surgery-vast-majority-cis-kids-study

And yes, surgery to remove breast tissue on boys is considered gender affirming, as it is removing feminizing breast tissue so their bodies feel more in line with their gender

No it’s not. Not outside of TRA circles it’s not. You’re trying to apply the slippery-slope fallacy here.

You can feel however you like, it does not make you correct.

Governments are famous for overreaching, and I do not doubt at all they will not consider the negative impacts of their legislation.

Yes, the Obama and Biden administrations have demonstrated this well, by not considering the full implications of their alterations to Title IX legislation.

But it’s easy to solve. Just say “patients with precocious puberty will still need puberty blockers” and the imaginary problem you’re conjuring will disappear.

And yes, surgery to remove breast tissue on boys is considered gender affirming, as it is removing feminizing breast tissue so their bodies feel more in line with their gender.

No it isn’t. It really isn’t. I have seen many boys with this condition who have gone for surgery and never once has it been called “gender affirming”. You’re imagining things.

Here is another article discussing the low rates of surgical intervention and how it is mostly cis children having surgery

Again, if they’re not trans-identifying, it’s not “gender affirming.” HTH.

Governments are famous for overreaching, and I do not doubt at all they will not consider the negative impacts of their legislations

can you please give other examples of governmental overreach?

Do you have an example - outside of TRA propaganda - of how boys having surgery for gynaecomastia is referred to medically as “gender-affirming”? A paeds surgery plastics and reconstructive paper perhaps?

I agree with @PinkChesnut. Nancy Mace hasn’t done this with women in mind; she has publicity in mind. She is a hardline MAGA (to put it mildly) that saw an opportunity to put runs on the board and took it. Given that Russia’s Deputy Chairman of the Security Council, Dimitry Medvedev, said today that it’s WW3 if any foreign power fires missiles into its territory, Mace’s Twitter feed with at least 30 tweets about toilets seems … inane.

And the conservative feminists here will be distracted by it for a while and call her “brave”.

Neither political party cares about women. But reclaiming women’s language, sport, private spaces is a win, irrespective of how it was gained