I've read several articles. A member was censured because they said lawmakers will have blood on their hands for supporting a bill? I really feel like I'm missing something. Is that enough to silence a lawmaker? Montana House votes to censure transgender lawmaker Montana House Republicans on Wednesday voted to censure Democratic Rep. Zooey Zephyr. All 68 House Republicans voted to censure Zephyr, while the body’s 32 Democrats voted against it. Zephyr, one of the state’s first openly transgender lawmakers, will be barred from the House floor, anteroom and gallery for the remainder of the session. She has the option to participate remotely, but only by voting. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-...-house-votes-to-censure-transgender-lawmaker/
They didn't pull a Tennessee and kick them out entirely, though I wouldn't rule that out at some point. All dissent must be silenced, what is good for the party is good for the state.
Fascist sentiment is abroad in the land. Haven't you heard? Would what has happened in Montana be any different from the GOP nominating a known traitor for president?
Another colossal miscalculation. Instead of looking in the mirror and saying “why are people so angry”, they said “let’s simply punish them some more”. It’s a miscalculation because America’s views on transgender are far more complicated than most republicans seem to realize. While many people have concerns around the hot button points (bathrooms, sports etc), a solid majority of Americas support the rights of transgender people more generally. But in the current world, nuance is basically the enemy of the right. So of course it’s lost.
They and other republican state legislatures are giving us a taste of what the future will be like under absolute Republican control. Some may say that's fine, but they would be un-American for saying so.
They basically did. She's no longer allowed to speak or even go into the gallery. She can vote remotely.
Is this the same "absolute Republican control" that some here predicted scotus would give us in 2020?...Ya know, just before we had basically full democratic control? This country ebbs and flows. It always have and likely always will. This elected official should not be treated badly because of their "transgendered" lifestyle. But I dont see the politics played here as being one that will lead to "absolute Republican control ".
Man you are ready to "what aboutism" and excuse just about anything the Red Tyrants do. And ignoring what that the now extremely politicized SCOTUS has been doing the last few years really kills the credibility of even your weak "what aboutism".
I am shocked that they did not vote that she had to wear a pink star and live in a fenced off part of the community. Though, would not put that past them for "next steps".
Starting to believe being liberal isn’t a life choice but a medical condition. I’d be willing to bet many trans people are just bored with their original, natural self.
The national assault on transgenders will be the leading culture war issue in the 2024 GOP primaries.
Yea, they love that word for that connotation. I actually view this as an American application of Maoist Down to the Countryside ethos (think I am remembering the name correctly), since she represents one of the few urban districts. The American Right share much in common with Maoist doctrine these days
Again, that minimizes the seriousness of the psychological condition (and yes it’s a DSM recognized disorder). Are there kids who want to play around with it and end up away from it as they age? Absolutely. But among those that are serious about it, the number that regret it is really really low. It’s a real need for most of those with the true condition. How common is transgender treatment regret, detransitioning?
I’ve seen the transition from a mental dsm to a more general medical diagnosis. That doesn’t mean many of these people aren’t bored and probably some actually do have mental disorder. This stuff is in its infancy and I don’t believe there are that many people who suffer from gender dysphoria.
Tell me you missed the point without saying you missed the point. My point is that the voters fix stuff. We dont let either party have absolute control and all the people that were here claiming that the SCOTUS you speak of would protect Trump did no such thing. Nor did the voters when they handed the keys to the dems in 2020. It's hyperbolic political rhetoric. "Absolute control" is a fear mongering term, that isnt reality. No "what aboutism" was even hinted at in my statement... Unless you were looking for it where it didnt exist.
The problem is that when a group gerrymanders themselves into permanent control there are no checks on them, short of their own people finally booting them out. Add to that the widespread attempts outside the rule of law in 2020, and yes, we are facing the legitimate possibility of one party rule if we aren’t incredibly vigilant.
