this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
343 points (99.1% liked)

Leopards Ate My Face

6647 readers
216 users here now

Rules:

  1. The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
  2. Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
  3. If the reason your post is on-topic isn't in the article or self-explanatory, you must use a second (high-quality) source to explain why your post fits the criteria.
  4. Articles should be high-quality sources. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
  5. For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
  6. Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
  7. This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
  8. All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.

Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).

Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More farmers FOFA.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

after an impassioned speech from a trans representative that we also recently elected. Things aren’t always black and white.

First, I applaud that the legislature rejected the anti-trans legislation, but did you listen to the speech yourself? If not, I recommend it. Its less than 10 minutes.

The tact the representative took wasn't a impassioned speech defending the rights of trans folks on moral grounds (which is a very valid argument in my opinion anyway). It was a brass tacks presentation how people that weren't trans could get caught up in the legislation and be negatively affected. I don't believe the legislature rejected the bill because it would protect trans folks, they did it because it would hurt non-trans folks. As in, it was written too vaguely and wasn't targeting *only * trans folks. I think it was smart of the legislator that gave that speech because they presented an argument they new their ultraconservative colleagues would agree with. I don't fault them for making those points in that way. They were successful in getting the bill defeated. In my mind, that's worth it, however if a new bill is introduced with tighter language I believe the Montana legislature would absolutely pass an anti-trans only bill.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Wait. Now, reading the article is not enough? I need to listen to a 10min speech? /s