this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
343 points (99.1% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6647 readers
216 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- 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.
- 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.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- 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.
- 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Wait. Now, reading the article is not enough? I need to listen to a 10min speech? /s