1mo ago

GOP senator introduces bill to legally erase transgender people

www.lgbtqnation.com Attention Required! | Cloudflare

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.”

politics @lemmy.world

www.lgbtqnation.com /2024/11/gop-senator-introduces-bill-to-legally-erase-transgender-people/

324 140

News @lemmy.world

GOP senator introduces bill to legally erase transgender people

www.lgbtqnation.com /2024/11/gop-senator-introduces-bill-to-legally-erase-transgender-people/

116 8

16 comments

they are so obsessed with finding out what's in your pants, they will make a law to force you to tell them. But what else can you expect from the party represented by rapists and child abusers...
- Genital Obsessed Party

Marshall’s bill is unlikely to pass as Democrats still control the Senate. But introducing the bill now could be a sign that he plans to introduce it next session when Republicans will control the chamber.
- So nice of him to throw up a "assholes here" flag ahead of the asshole convention.

this is how lack of education and science brings down a country. you are a pathetic meat sack Roger.

Of course that definition makes no scientifical sense. Tf do they mean "supposed to"? We aren't supposed to do jack shit. And how do you tell which one an intersex person is supposed to be lmao? Because they have female genetalia, they should carry eggs, but what if they're XY? Does that mean they're supposed to carry sperm?
- They're clearly "supposed to" do both. They are both male and female. It's a sort of super power. /s

Reminds me of Utah 'defining' Pluto as a planet when it 'passes over' their state. Utterly silly.
What concerns me, though, is whether they would try to use this as a stepping stone toward defining legal identification of trans people's correct gender as fraud. It seems unlikely to have an impact in states where trans folks actually have legal protections, but I could see it being used against us in states where we don't.
- Step 1: make drag illegal
  Step 2: make trans people legally not exist
  Consequence: you can legally throw trans people in prison for "drag" just for presenting as their gender

Can the legislature just decide to define basket balls as all round objects inflated with air? Does that make soccer a basketball sport?
Like I honestly don't even know what the goal of this bill is other than showing off being a bigot to tge other bigots...
- I think the goal is to make trans people suffer in fear, for the simple reason that their existence confuses Republicans and makes them feel funny.
  
  I'm not sure this particular bill is what trans people are worried about.

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.
- I doubt a court would. Your gender or sex is not considered existence.
  IANAL, but I'd also guess linking gender to existence or threat. May harm the trans community more than help. As the separation of born sex vs gender is not legally clear. So such a claim may cause more issues with the right to change than it protects. At least without some serious changes in the law as stands.
- 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.

The use of the word 'radical' by these Republicans is grimly interesting and perverse, since I associate this mammalian definition of gender with a subset of radical feminism (the RF in TERF). They presented the idea as liberating (in the sense that since your gender has already been singly defined by your reproductive role, everything else - e.g. your name / job / hobbies / how you present yourself - was irrelevant, and no-one should be able to use any of those to question your gender). I very much doubt that these measures by US politicians will ultimately be liberating for anyone though, since trans people are just the first on a list. (It's not like no-one warned the 'gender critical' gang about who they were cosying up to)

16 comments