Republican's bill to ban trans lawmaker from Capitol women's rooms prompts firestorm

[Michie]

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday that would ban biological men from women's rooms in the U.S. House of Representatives, prompting backlash from the first transgender-identifying member of Congress, who described the move as "far right-wing extremism."

"Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces. Period. Full stop. End of story," Mace tweeted Monday, along with a copy of the short, two-page bill. Mace has represented South Carolina's 1st Congressional District since 2020.

Continued below.

Republican's bill to ban trans lawmaker from Capitol women's rooms prompts firestorm

Rep Nancy Mace, R-S C , introduced a resolution Monday that would ban biological men from women s rooms in the U S House of Representatives, prompting backlash from the first transgender-identifying

www.christianpost.com

 

[chevyontheriver]

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday that would ban biological men from women's rooms in the U.S. House of Representatives, prompting backlash from the first transgender-identifying member of Congress, who described the move as "far right-wing extremism."

"Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces. Period. Full stop. End of story," Mace tweeted Monday, along with a copy of the short, two-page bill. Mace has represented South Carolina's 1st Congressional District since 2020.

Continued below.

Republican's bill to ban trans lawmaker from Capitol women's rooms prompts firestorm

Rep Nancy Mace, R-S C , introduced a resolution Monday that would ban biological men from women s rooms in the U S House of Representatives, prompting backlash from the first transgender-identifying

www.christianpost.com

How far right wing extremist for a woman to want a space to use the toilet without men around. But let the wokists have their hysterical say. They are digging the grave for their movement. The tide, I think, has turned.

 

[RileyG]

How far right wing extremist for a woman to want a space to use the toilet without men around. But let the wokists have their hysterical say. They are digging the grave for their movement. The tide, I think, has turned.

Men don’t belong in women’s restrooms.

The fact we are debating this in 2024 blows my mind.

Oh well.

 

[Arcangl86]

This law is clearly being targeted at one newly elected representative. Even if you don't think trans people should be able to use the bathroom that identifies with their identity, that should be enough to make this unacceptable.

 

[chevyontheriver]

This law is clearly being targeted at one newly elected representative. Even if you don't think trans people should be able to use the bathroom that identifies with their identity, that should be enough to make this unacceptable.

Do you think the ‘Trans’ community is going to settle for just one person in the House of Representatives? I bet they’re going for a majority. Best to address it right away. They might need to have both ‘women’s bathrooms’ and ‘genetically female bathrooms’ but obviously there needs to be a fix.

 

[dogs4thewin]

This law is clearly being targeted at one newly elected representative. Even if you don't think trans people should be able to use the bathroom that identifies with their identity, that should be enough to make this unacceptable.

So are you suggesting that the law should have been put in place without a point? In other words, before it was an issue there was no law. What would have happened if there had been say five trans people elected would you then say it was targeted at one person they did not like or was it put in place because there was a reason that is to say that there were trans people in the house making the law a "needed" addition.

 

[Arcangl86]

Do you think the ‘Trans’ community is going to settle for just one person in the House of Representatives? I bet they’re going for a majority. Best to address it right away. They might need to have both ‘women’s bathrooms’ and ‘genetically female bathrooms’ but obviously there needs to be a fix.

Yes, the trans community, which makes up a whopping .5% of the US population, has the electoral power to elect a majority of trans lawmakers into the House. And if you want a fix? Simply make better bathrooms with substantial stalls that actually provide privacy. That seems like a better and more permanent fix to me.

So are you suggesting that the law should have been put in place without a point? In other words, before it was an issue there was no law.

It's not like Representative-Elect McBride is the first trans person ever to regularly be in the Capitol. From my understanding there are several trans staffers. She is the first elected official to be trans, but the "issue" as you put it existed before.

What would have happened if there had been say five trans people elected would you then say it was targeted at one person they did not like

Obviously I wouldn't be able to say it was targeted at one person. However, let's say they were all elected to the House, then I would still be able to say this was targeted at one particular group. The reason I say that is that this law only applies to the Capitol and the House Office buildings, not the Senate office buildings. And while the enforceable portions of the bill apply to anybody, the rationale is specifically targeted at trans women.

or was it put in place because there was a reason that is to say that there were trans people in the house making the law a "needed" addition.

There have been trans people in the house before this election, and this bill doesn't apply equally to congress, which makes it clearer that it's designed to inconvenience one person specifically.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, the trans community, which makes up a whopping .5% of the US population, has the electoral power to elect a majority of trans lawmakers into the House.

I was only suggesting it as their goal. You have confirmed their capacity to achieve that intent.

And if you want a fix? Simply make better bathrooms with substantial stalls that actually provide privacy. That seems like a better and more permanent fix to me.

I think it is equally about being accosted in the space between the stall and the restroom door.

It's not like Representative-Elect McBride is the first trans person ever to regularly be in the Capitol. From my understanding there are several trans staffers. She is the first elected official to be trans, but the "issue" as you put it existed before.

Then it's not actually about this one person.

Obviously I wouldn't be able to say it was targeted at one person. However, let's say they were all elected to the House, then I would still be able to say this was targeted at one particular group.

A group, however large or small, of biological men who want to use the women's restrooms.

The reason I say that is that this law only applies to the Capitol and the House Office buildings, not the Senate office buildings. And while the enforceable portions of the bill apply to anybody, the rationale is specifically targeted at trans women.

But you would admit that it also applies to ALL biological men who want to use the women's restrooms?

There have been trans people in the house before this election, and this bill doesn't apply equally to congress, which makes it clearer that it's designed to inconvenience one person specifically.

Is it designed to inconvenience one person specifically or designed to protect a much larger group of people?

 

[Arcangl86]

I was only suggesting it as their goal. You have confirmed their capacity to achieve that intent.

No I did not. I was mocking your claim that they would attempt something like that because they don't have the political power t do so.

I think it is equally about being accosted in the space between the stall and the restroom door.

You can be accosted anywhere.

Then it's not actually about this one person.

No of course not. It's a complete coincidence that this only became an issue when she was elected and will only affect House staff.

A group, however large or small, of biological men who want to use the women's restrooms.

Why is it that people never talk about transwomen using the men's bathroom?

But you would admit that it also applies to ALL biological men who want to use the women's restrooms?

Actually it doesn't. It only applies to Members and employees of the House of Representatives. Within that subset it does apply to everybody, in the same way that a tax on wearing yarmulkes applies to everybody.

Is it designed to inconvenience one person specifically or designed to protect a much larger group of people?

It doe a horrible job of protecting because it only applies to a small subset of the people who are present on Capitol HIll on a daily basis. Part of that is because it's only a House Resolution, not a law, but if it was really about protecting people, wouldn't they try to make it as inclusive as possible

 

[chevyontheriver]

No I did not. I was mocking your claim that they would attempt something like that because they don't have the political power t do so.

Mocked by an archangel or something. I'm honored.

Why is it that people never talk about transwomen using the men's bathroom?

Biological women in the men's restroom? Because there is an already long tradition of putting up with supposed men and their 'glory holes' cut into the stalls for sodomy purposes.

Actually it doesn't. It only applies to Members and employees of the House of Representatives. Within that subset it does apply to everybody, in the same way that a tax on wearing yarmulkes applies to everybody.

The House does not make rules for the Senate and the Senate does not make rules for the House. I suppose they could pass a complementary arrangement that would apply to the Senate only and then to the whole building. Would you be promoting that? I suspect you will be hearing about such rules for the Senate soon enough.

It doe a horrible job of protecting because it only applies to a small subset of the people who are present on Capitol HIll on a daily basis. Part of that is because it's only a House Resolution, not a law, but if it was really about protecting people, wouldn't they try to make it as inclusive as possible

(?)

Sounds like the solution is something for the whole Capital building, or maybe for the whole of the Federal government. THAT would be more inclusive.

 

[ozso]

This law is clearly being targeted at one newly elected representative. Even if you don't think trans people should be able to use the bathroom that identifies with their identity, that should be enough to make this unacceptable.

The fact that such a big deal is being made by the left over this person is what put them in the spotlight. The only reason I know this person exists, as compared to most others in congress, is because of all the FIRST TRANS PERSON IN CONGRESS! hoopla. I don't even know their name or what state/district they represent, I just know THEY'RE TRANS!!!