this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2025
92 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6308 readers
31 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I hate to be the one to piss in the punch bowl here, but the only reason that they did this is because it in fact didn't require any spine at all.
Whether or not trans women play women's sports is an issue that has no effect at all on the fortunes of corporations and billionaires, so none of the soft money the Democrats receive has been contingent on them ensuring that trans women were banned, so they were free to oppose it, and did. And that's it.
They didn't even push back against the reactionary talking points from the looks of it. The primary argument mentioned is "states' rights."
It's the same thing they've been doing with immigration, conceding every single point, until they eventually are running on "bipartisan legislation to address the issues!" That consists of all the Republican talking points from eight years ago.
The article just quotes a single person. Basing off a single person's quote is going to not be representative of how Dems have been talking about it in general. For instance, when a similar bill was in the house earlier, house minority leader Hakeem Jefferies spoke against it on very different grounds than "state rights"
https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lfpl3s35v22s
Or other people on the senate bill today
https://apnews.com/article/transgender-athletes-congress-dfd81b15ebc09409f1bf6c8642f130f3