this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2025
337 points (99.4% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6213 readers
195 users here now
Rules:
- If you don't already have some understanding of what this is, try reading this post. Off-topic posts will be removed.
- Please use a high-quality source to explain why your post fits if you think it might not be common knowledge and isn't explained within the post itself.
- Links to articles should be high-quality sources – for example, not the Daily Mail, the New York Post, Newsweek, etc. 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.
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a comment removed, you're encouraged to appeal it.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the comments.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out [email protected] (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
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
Yes that's correct. It's also the place where Republicans recently rejected some anti-trans laws, which they could have easily passed, after an impassioned speech from a trans representative that we also recently elected. Things aren't always black and white.
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
In Missouri we have the opposite issue. Our government officials are all batshit insane but we vote liberal on ballot initiatives. None of it makes much sense.
I wonder if this is an indoctrination issue. Kind of like how many people were against Obama care, but the loved the ACA. This could be, "You don't vote for the abortion-legalizing Dems!" but you give them a ballot measure they have to read and assess and they give a reasonable response.
You say that. And they'll do that. But then these people will look you in the eye and legalize abortion while calling you a baby killer
Ohio is the same. Congress attempted to block us from legalizing abortion then changed the language on our legalization of pot to move the tax money from DEI to cops? Sure why not reelect them