this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
976 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19490 readers
3433 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Representative Sarah McBride, the first out trans congresswoman, criticized Donald Trump’s executive order defining gender as strictly male or female.

McBride points out that biologically all embryos develop as female until the SRY gene activates weeks after conception.

The order, which ties gender to reproductive cells at conception, unintentionally categorizes all humans as female from conception based on biological facts.

McBride’s remarks highlight scientific flaws in the policy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The truth is, they don't care how poorly written it is, they're just trying to flood the zone with stuff, and they win no matter the outcome. If it's not challenged, they have policy, if it is challenged, it occupies time and resources and most importantly, if it's challenged unsuccessfully, they have legal precident.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

it is challenged, it occupies time and resources

It also takes up their time and resources to which I say: good. Slow it all down

They'd rather be able to steam roll through it all. Make them waste time defending everything so they can't sue as much about things they do care about or move on to putting other things in effect

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago

This is where I'm at too. Even rubber stamping shit takes a non zero amount of time. We should be bouncing back anything that has so much as a misplaced comma, let alone shit like this.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They have more time and resources as many of the challenges are spun off and subcontracted to their cronies. And they don't especially care if things grind to a halt, that's also a win for them, they can play victim to the public with it and scream about how they really want to get on with running a government.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Many of the orgs fighting them also aren't governmental like the ACLU, the EFF, and other groups. Plus even localities like cities are even filing lawsuits against his EOs

Biden had tons of his stuff blocked in courts and got all the blame for the courts blocking it. The public isn't really good at paying attention to why something happened only that it didn't

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah, Biden got blamed because his orders failed in courts that were stacked by Trump, pointing to it like it was a sign of his incompetence.

Dems will be blamed for Trump's agenda being stalled causing any and all problems for people stemming from his policies that do go through.

They're great at twisting everything against the Dems (and, honestly, the Dems suck at pushing back in any effectual manner)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No it doesn't slow them down. They will do the fucking thing anyway. Why do you think they'd stop just because they used the wrong wording?

Who the fuck is going to stop them?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It has slowed them before. Make them have to keep rewriting it to survive challenges

Make them deal with the companies who don't trust the next admin won't just go the opposite way. Apple for instance is keeping TikTok delisted from the App Store despite trump trying to extend it

Make them have to deal with federal worker strikes

Make them have to deal with local & state officals who won't comply with invalid orders

There is a fight. Don't let them get away without one

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It has slowed them before. Make them have to keep rewriting it to survive challenges

How is it not already abundantly clear that this is not "before." There is no precedent for what is currently happening

Who "makes" them exactly? This is fascism now. The person with the biggest army gets what they want, and everyone else better shut the fuck up or die.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This isn't fascism yet, even though you're fast-tracked to it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago

No, it is. It is at the very least, Ur-fascism as described by Umberto Eco, and has been for at least a decade.

If electing Trump to a second term, and handing the entire federal government over to Republicans isn't fascism yet, I have to wonder what one's definition of the word is...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It also takes up their time and resources

It's YOUR TIME AND RESOURCES! They do it on public employee time and with tax money. They are weaponizing the state against the people. There isn't an upside to this.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

So stand down and never fight? Absolutely not

There is a fight, don't let them go without one

Progress will happen at the local and state level. The goal at the federal level is damage control

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

And every challenge is a chance to kick it up all the way to the Supreme Court where it can be enshrined as constitutional precedent.