Originally published at: Author of Missouri's anti-LGBT school bill isn't sure what her bill means | Boing Boing
…
10 Likes
I have the suspicion that Rep. Kelley would also be into amending marriage procedures such that a person being someone’s wife implies something about a chattel transfer agreement between her father and her husband; but not necessarily anything further.
30 Likes
Hey now, we all know that only queer people have gender identities or sexual orientations, only non-white people have race, and only women possess a sex. So her bill isn’t confusing at all!
(/sssssss)
36 Likes
… So can I turn my gender identity in for a refund or exchange? I think it’s defective. /silly
19 Likes
Ha this is pure gold.
11 Likes
Of course. Just like with pronouns. Only trans and woke people have pronouns, not real Americans like us… er, um, we’uns, er umm… me and you, ummm, fuck it.
38 Likes
I once saw a photo of an anti-trans demonstration where one demonstrator held a placard reading “I don’t have a gender”.
20 Likes
I’ve seen quite a few statements (and signs) along those lines. It’s long been acknowledged in cultural theory that being a cis-het white male gets treated like a sort of default, without race/gender/sexual orientation, etc., but the idiots are acting like it’s literally true.
19 Likes
In this case the idiot was a woman.*
*The idiot presented as a woman and, given the context, I would assume that she was assigned female at birth and identified as a woman.
9 Likes
Yeah, you don’t have to be a cis-het white male to internalize the cultural bullshit. (The thing about cultural bullshit is that it’s really hard to escape entirely, in fact.) She no doubt sees herself as diverging - in just that one way - from the default (i.e. that, unlike men, she possesses a sex, but as a cis-het person, not a gender identity or sexual orientation, for example).
11 Likes
Rep. Phil Christofanelli
Lady, I’ve been hearing your testimony. You said that you didn’t want teachers’ personal beliefs entering the classroom, but it seems a lot like your personal beliefs you would like to enter all Missouri classrooms.
23 Likes
Isn’t this the point where he should have highlighted that her testimony could be cited when the law is reviewed for unconstitutionality as an establishment of religion, which she just confirmed?
25 Likes
I think that he should first point out that scientists/researchers have determined that having trans and gay teachers in the classroom is not detrimental. He can then ask her why she wants to ban them. She is then forced to say “because bible” and he can then challenge her goal as being 100% religiously motivated.
9 Likes
[quote=“John_Abbott1, post:13, topic:243618”]
and he can then challenge her goal as being 100% religiously bigotry motivated.
[/quote]
10 Likes
I appreciate your edit, but must reject it as well. Bigotry is Constitutional; establishment of religion within government is not.
14 Likes
IANAL, but wouldn’t bigotry by the government also be illegal, although possibly less of a slam dunk (equal protection under the law)?
2 Likes
I should say, it’s not inherently unconstitutional. There might be some narrow cases where bigotry fails to violate “equal protection under the law.”
I’m not saying it’s right, but that’s why we need things like the Equal Rights Amendment.
9 Likes
I think maybe the best way to make that distinction is to say that holding bigoted world views is not illegal, but enacting forms of bigotry that impacts others is? 
Especially in the case where someone is directly contradicting equal protection for others…
13 Likes
… just gimme a minute
12 Likes
Us liberals are always so eager to carve out some safe space for bigotry somewhere
Meanwhile the bad guys are ready to subordinate everything to the zeroth amendment, the one that says “your existence might confuse my children”
8 Likes
