Transgender

342 readers

279 users here now

Overview:

The Lemmy place to discuss the news and experiences of transgender people.

Rules:

Keep discussions civil.
Arguments against transgender rights will be removed.
No bigotry is allowed - including transphobia, homophobia, speciesism, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, castism, or xenophobia.

Related:

[email protected]

founded 7 months ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

353

"The Crime Is Being Trans": Montana House Passes Indecent Exposure Bill Applying Only To Trans People (www.erininthemorning.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] rc__buggy 63 points 2 days ago (3 children)

US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Relevant bit:

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems like a slam dunk, but someone is going to have to be charged with the "crime" before it can be challenged, I believe.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Pretty sure the law can be challenged in court before someone is charged with a crime.

[–] rc__buggy 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yup, "facial challenge" apparently. Good. Maybe the ACLU is still good for something

[–] explodicle 7 points 2 days ago

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Don't bet on it. 8-10ish years ago Pennsylvania passed a no-child-genital-mutilation bill that says you can't do surgery on a child's genitals without a valid medical reason. Seems like a fairly reasonable thing, except they literally put an asterisk in the bill on 'child' and the footnote says for the purposes the bill 'child' means only female children. Apparently it's fine since nobody has challenged it.

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

Who ever heard of inequality in america, seems this passage was walked on pretty quickly after being put to paper.

[–] rc__buggy 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

OK, just give up I guess

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

I didnt say give up but holding up a sign saying we said we wouldnt do this isnt accomplishing much. The constitution hasnt amounted to much.

[–] rc__buggy 1 points 1 day ago

Hard disagree.