this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
346 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2074 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) introduced a resolution to ban transgender women from using female bathrooms in the Capitol, citing “women’s rights” and opposing the “radical left.”

The move comes ahead of Rep.-elect Sarah McBride (D-Del.), the first openly transgender member of Congress, taking office.

McBride criticized the measure as a divisive distraction from real issues like housing and healthcare costs.

LGBTQ advocates condemned the resolution as discriminatory, aligning it with broader Republican anti-trans policies emphasized in their platform and political ads.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (2 children)

This is how you end up with genderless bathrooms.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 29 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

honestly, that would be awesome. completely private stalls. a common area to wash hands or whatever.

[–] salvaria@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 days ago

I was at a bar that did this. Each toilet in its own little room (no stalls with gaps along the floor and doors). Besides a little initial confusion to make sure I wasn't walking into the wrong restroom, it was perfectly fine.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No no. I think it was the Stockholm airport, for example. Each private stall had a loo and sink and like 1/2 gaps at the bottom; perhaps in case of flooding. It was the private spa of airport bathrooms.

My family there says it's less about protecting people of different attributes from our own : they just can't be arsed to delineate when it makes no difference and costs more to maintain.

Mix the bathrooms, ensure individual privacy, and everybody still poops.

[–] Incandemon@lemmy.ca -1 points 3 days ago

So long as I've got regular access to a god damned urinal I'm okay with this. Putem in the stalls, put em nearby, fuck it put em in the hall way just don't take them away from me.

I get that sitting is probably better for you, but I don't always want to take the time sit and pee, and I'm tall enough that peeing into a toilet causes serious splash back problems pretty much no matter what.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 20 points 3 days ago

That seems like the more reasonable answer