Politics

10176 readers

221 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

GOP senator introduces bill to legally erase transgender people (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a bill this week to legally erase transgender people, entitled the “Defining Male and Female Act of 2024.” He claimed that the bill will stop what he called the Biden administration’s attempt to “replace biological sex with dangerous radical gender ideology.”

The bill is a long list of terms and definitions, where words like “father” and “girl” are defined with the words “male” and “female.” Those two words are then defined as “an individual who naturally has, had, will have, or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes [sperm or eggs for male or female, respectively] for fertilization.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 8 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

Sometimes I'm surprised that acts like these don't incite violence against the responsible politician.

For someone who had their existance threatened it could be possible to frame it as an advanced form of self defense. Of course not everyone would see it that way, but I'm thinking it would be likely that at least some people come to that conclusion.

[–] luciferofastora 1 points 4 hours ago

The only way to make "I assassinated a politician whose ideology I resent" legally defendable would be massive popular support. "Some people" isn't enough if you risk serving as scapegoat to have your entire community labeled as terrorists. The dilemma of violent action is that you need enough people behind you to become a credible threat before you start threatening.

load more comments (1 replies)