this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2025
950 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19490 readers
4883 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] 207 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Anyone who thinks this shit is funny is in for a rude awakening.

They do not fucking care. They will use this the exact same way that they would have used it if it was worded correctly.

You don't get out on technicalities in fascism; if the autocrat in charge wants to do the thing, he will do it. All of these things will be used as cudgels against perceived political enemies, and marginalized US citizens.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

They do not fucking care. They will use this the exact same way that they would have used it if it was worded correctly.

The reason why this is good news is that the more bizarrely worded the order, the easier it is to get it throw out in court, America even now runs on the WORD of the law, not the intent.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

America even now runs on the WORD of the law, not the intent.

Yeah except not really. Have you paid attention to recent SCOTUS decisions? They aren't even bothering to make cogent arguments in some cases, and hearing others that never should have standing in the first place.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 day ago (4 children)

I want people to try to be less pesimistic, the point is that technicalities like this will waste time. Every one of these exectuive orders is going to be challanged in court, and while the GOP controls the higher courts, these cases will start in the lower ones. With any luck, the lower courts will stay the order until things can get resolved. Every appeal, every challange takes time to process and judges are under no obligation to resolve things quickly.

The goal currently isnt to try and overturn the order, thats just pissing into the wind. The goal is to waste their time for 2 years and hope the house flips, if it does, we can send 47 back to his golf course for the rest of his term because he wont be able to accomplish anything.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

we can send 47 back to his golf course for the rest of his term because he wont be able to accomplish anything.

I mean I was kinda hoping agent 47 would be incredibly busy this term. I can imagine a level set inside the inauguration with the dinner and all that.

[–] chad 4 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

The goal is to waste their time for 2 years and hope the house flips, if it does, we can send 47 back to his golf course for the rest of his term because he wont be able to accomplish anything.

And then we'll have Couch Fucker McGoo as president.

(not intending to kink shame)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

I'm into weird TF porn, so now I'm thinking about being turned into a woman/couch hybrid, it's kinda hot ngl.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Nobody likes Vance. He'd be a completely ineffectual president. Which is preferable in my opinion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

25th Amendment

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'm, not sure about that. vance is probably a lot more likely to be worn as a sock puppet. drumpf will at least give them a hard time everytime he doesn't want to do something.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Yeah, I'd rather have a puppet Vance than a party completely kowtowed by a rapist felon.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 13 hours ago

Man, I'm tired of people calling realism "pessimism." It's kind of a huge problem actually when you think about it.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 day ago

The Senate flipping is also a very real possibility in 2026. There are 22 Republican seats up for grabs and only 13 Democratic ones.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

This. In much the same way an elder god doesn't give a damn about conservation of energy or the square cubed law, a dictator with effectively un-checked power doesn't care about wording of executive orders or LAWS. Be careful.
Cthulu has woken from eons (4 years) of slumber (not being president) to ravage the planet, while looking like a moldy cheese puff.

Edit: thankfully he's not nearly as powerful as this metaphor implies, but the point stands. The law won't stop him, I don't trust the Dems to stop him, the only thing that will is worker's might.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

He doesn't have fucking unchecked power, he has a slim majority in congress, a full diaper, and a constitutional deadline before he stops having any power. Don't give him an inch, make them fight for every grain of sand.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 21 hours ago

With this Supreme Court and federal judge stack? Who decides constitutional issues? Who’s going to challenge the Supreme Court legally? The majority GOP senate? Or the majority GOP house of representatives? He has all three branches of government. Who can challenge all three legally? Anyone with a chance (vast wealth) were sitting behind him at the inauguration. In the sense of “checks and balances,” he literally has unchecked power.

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

They will use this the exact same way that they would have used it if it was worded correctly.

The "de-fund the police" (but really adjust teaming to include psyche pros to ensure proper handling of at-risk people who do not warrant a response escalation) movement may show them how that's done.