Republicans are redefining the word ‘equal’ in an Iowa anti-trans bill

[Tommy Tainant]

Republicans are redefining the word âequalâ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to ‘pink triangles’

www.theguardian.com

The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”
It gets worse.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target.

 

[Auld Phart]

Republicans are redefining the word âequalâ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to ‘pink triangles’

www.theguardian.com

The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”
It gets worse.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target.

This nonsense has to stop. Republicans are the new Nazi party and the US is looking at a bleak future.

the bill you are whining about:

Iowa Legislature - BillBook

Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

www.legis.iowa.gov

 

[martybegan]

Republicans are redefining the word âequalâ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to ‘pink triangles’

www.theguardian.com

The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”
It gets worse.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target.

This nonsense has to stop. Republicans are the new Nazi party and the US is looking at a bleak future.

A man pretending to be a woman is not a woman, and a woman pretending to be a man is not a man.

 

[JoeMoma]

Men and Woman are different. Transwomen (biological men) should not get to invade the spaces of women just because their feelings will be hurt if they are not allowed to do so.

 

[Curried Goats]

You made a thread the other day about NY changing the definition of rape and you praised it.
Disingenuous faggot.

Jesus you people are stupid. Do you not define forceful penetration of the vagina with fingers as rape? They didn't change the definition of rape you moron, they changed to the statute so it incorporated a broader definition of rape.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

the bill you are whining about:

Iowa Legislature - BillBook

Information pertaining to the Iowa Legislature as well as the Executive and Judicial branch in as much as they relate to the legislative branch

www.legis.iowa.gov

So what does "equal" mean to you bozo?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Jesus you people are stupid. Do you not define forceful penetration of the vagina with fingers as rape? They didn't change the definition of rape you moron, they changed to the statute so it incorporated a broader definition of rape.

It really isnt complicated is it ? He knows this. He is just deflecting from this right wing nuttiness. They are in favour of seperate but equal. They fucking love it.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

A man pretending to be a woman is not a woman, and a woman pretending to be a man is not a man.

What has that got to do with equality ?

 

[TNHarley]

It really isnt complicated is it ? He knows this. He is just deflecting from this right wing nuttiness. They are in favour of seperate but equal. They fucking love it.

I wasnt deflecting from anything. I was calling out your bullshit. Thats why you ignored it.

 

[DGS49]

It's not clear (to me) what the bill is trying to accomplish. It is not unreasonable to expect that "equal" could be very different things in different contexts. Furthermore, the whole world is puzzling over this perverse development, wondering how to deal with people who insist that their "essence" is different from their biological, genetic, and hormonal self, and demanding to be treated as though those factors were the opposite of reality.

In the absence of legislation, BOYS would be treated as BOYS and GIRLS treated as GIRLS, regardless of how they dress, talk, or mutilate themselves. Is that what the LGBYQTIA+* community wants?

Somebody clarify for me, what is wrong with this legislation?

______________________________
* This formulation is preposterous. To collect this essentially disparate group as though they were a cohesive entity is absurd. If that's they you want to go, you might as well say, "Sexually Fucked Up."

 

[Curried Goats]

IE they changed the definition, you dilapidated bag of dumbfuck.
Good grief.

No, they changed the statute. As I asked and as you, do you not define forceful penetration of the vagina with fingers to be rape?

 

[Curried Goats]

It really isnt complicated is it ? He knows this. He is just deflecting from this right wing nuttiness. They are in favour of seperate but equal. They fucking love it.

To coward to say it though so fuck em.

 

[martybegan]

What has that got to do with equality ?

Everything.

What does equity have to do with equality?

 

[Oddball]

It really isnt complicated is it ? He knows this. He is just deflecting from this right wing nuttiness. They are in favour of seperate but equal. They fucking love it.

I'm certain that minor little girls are perfect happy with their "separate but equal" bathrooms, keeping them separated from degenerate pedos, Mr Disney.

 

[Blaster]

Republicans are redefining the word âequalâ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to ‘pink triangles’

www.theguardian.com

The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”
It gets worse.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target.

This nonsense has to stop. Republicans are the new Nazi party and the US is looking at a bleak future.

Good for Iowa. I wish my state would do the same.

 

[TNHarley]

No, they changed the statute. As I asked and as you, do you not define forceful penetration of the vagina with fingers to be rape?

Lol omg. Which is changing the definition of the term in that state. Goddamn, you are tiresome.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Everything.

What does equity have to do with equality?

So nothing then.

 

[Mac-7]

Republicans are redefining the word âequalâ in an Iowa anti-trans bill | Erin Reed

The bill would require transgender people to be identified on birth certificates, a measure some compare to ‘pink triangles’

www.theguardian.com

The bill states that when it comes to transgender people, “The term ‘equal’ does not mean ‘same’ or ‘identical’,” which raises the question: what does “equal” even mean? The bill does not define the word, only declares that “equal” no longer means “same” or “identical” within the state of Iowa for transgender people. When the sponsor was asked directly what the word “equal” means in this bill, the representative Heather Hora answered: “Equal would mean … um … I would assume that equal would mean … I don’t know exactly in this context.”
It gets worse.
The bill’s sponsor is not content with redefining the word equal, however; the bill goes on to proclaim that “separate” is “not inherently unequal”. One opponent to the bill pointed to the cruel history of the doctrine of “separate but equal” and the attempt to revive that history with a new, Republican-condoned target.

This nonsense has to stop. Republicans are the new Nazi party and the US is looking at a bleak future.

Do the laws of Iowa apply to the United Kingdom?

 

[Curried Goats]

Lol omg. Which is changing the definition of the term in that state. Goddamn, you are tiresome.

Again, is forceful penetration of the vagina by fingers a new definition of rape to you? Go ahead and admit that and I'll accept your argument. Otherwise what has changed isn't the definition of rape, but the statute.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Arent all men created equal in the US ?
Or will the new reich ditch that nonsense ?