Pelosi Bans ‘Gender’ Terms Mother, Daughter, Father, Son in House Rules

submitted by VioletRemi from breitbart.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]fuckupaddams 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I'm sorry but what exactly does this do to help the American people. What difference does the white house using gender neutral language really make??

[–]VioletRemi[S] 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It helps TRA and MRA, I suppose.

It is not laws so far. However, if they will use such words everywhere - they will come into laws too, at least if Congres will be democratic as well. That sounds pretty bad.

Some USA states have already shitty laws. Like if man raped woman, was put in prison 10 years for this, and from his rape he have a kid - because republican states are not allowing abortions in such cases, so she was forced to bear a kid from rape, then rapist can ask for a DNA test and go in court for "parental rights", and then mother will be forced for 1-3 days in a week to give a kid to a rapist.

And when abortion laws will be changed about "parents" not about "mothers", this means rapist from prison can now apply for woman to make abortion or to refuse abortion to her if he want it?

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

What difference does the white house using gender neutral language really make??

These rules are for the US House of Representatives (which along with the Senate is known as the US Congress), not the White House, HQ and residence of the US president. Congress is the legislative branch, presidency/the WH is the executive branch.

These rules definitely will make a difference coz it's Congress that writes/rewrites & passes US federal laws. Moreover, what happens at the federal level often trickles down & sets the tone for what happens in state and local legislatures.

Without being able to use the words mother or father, it will be much more difficult to discuss and properly draft laws pertaining to sex-specific issues like workplace provisions for pregnancy, maternity & discrimination based on pregnancy & maternity as well as the distinctions between maternity leave & parental leave; abortion; surrogacy; child custody & family law; insurance coverage for medical conditions related to pregnancy & childbirth as well as male and female infertility, and of course for birth control prescriptions (which usually pertain to women only for the purpose of preventing becoming mothers); and what information should be on birth certificates & other government-issued documents and collected/kept track of in/by government registries, data bases, health departments, planning agencies and the US Census.

I wonder if under the new House rules AOC would be considered out of order and subject to censure for making the following remarks on the House floor in July 2020 about the verbal sex-based harassment she received from Rep. Ted Yoho (emphasis added):

I do not need Representative Yoho to apologize to me. Clearly he does not want to. Clearly when given the opportunity he will not and I will not stay up late at night waiting for an apology from a man who has no remorse over calling women and using abusive language towards women, but what I do have issue with is using women, our wives and daughters, as shields and excuses for poor behavior. Mr. Yoho mentioned that he has a wife and two daughters. I am two years younger than Mr. Yoho’s youngest daughter. I am someone’s daughter too. My father, thankfully, is not alive to see how Mr. Yoho treated his daughter. My mother got to see Mr. Yoho’s disrespect on the floor of this House towards me on television and I am here because I have to show my parents that I am their daughter and that they did not raise me to accept abuse from men.

Now what I am here to say is that this harm that Mr. Yoho levied, it tried to levy against me, was not just an incident directed at me, but when you do that to any woman, what Mr. Yoho did was give permission to other men to do that to his daughters. In using that language in front of the press, he gave permission to use that language against his wife, his daughters, women in his community, and I am here to stand up to say that is not acceptable...

And so what I believe is that having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man...

Seems to me that if AOC had been made to change daughter, father, mother and wife to the sex obscurant terms child, parent and spouse instead, her remarks would have lost a lot of their power, pointedness and sting.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Now that I've read the source material in full and with care, I think that my characterization of the implications of these new rules might be in error, or at least over-stated, as apparently the language changes pertain to specific clauses in the House Code of Official Conduct, which can be seen here:

https://ethics.house.gov/publications/code-official-conduct#:~:text=Rule%20XXIII%20%2D%20Code%20Of%20Official%20Conduct&text=A%20Member%2C%20Delegate%2C%20Resident%20Commissioner,reflect%20creditably%20on%20the%20House.

On the other hand, there is worrying phrasing at the start of this bill, which suggests that these changes in the Code of Ethics are just the foot it the door to sweeping changes in other, broader contexts. The very first line of the bill says:

Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, and for other purposes.

Not to sound paranoid, but given everything that's been going on in recent years, I do suspect that this is the first step in the larger, longer-range agenda of making it impossible to identify, discuss and legislatively prohibit sexism and sex discrimination by making it verboten to acknowledge and specify sex.

[–]forwardback 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I second your concern. When the Dems said they supported the gender movement, I believed them. By rules and practices, legislation, or executive orders, we're going to see the changing of language and the loss of most (everything?) for which women fought so hard.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Republicans tried to please MRA and to remove all women rights, but always were failing and only partially limiting women. Now Democrats came and "look how Dad is doing this" and showing how to do it?

Looks like this parody is not a parody, but a statement of a fact: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg

[–]Silverhatband 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So, Dems: "Hold my beer..."?

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

[–]Silverhatband 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Political persons within federal agencies and departments can create administration changes that will carry profound repercussions legally. This is a fact Not to be taken lightly! Especially, as the new House rules establishes the Office of Diversity and Inclusion; better believe political interests will be stacked in agency positions. This may be even more detrimental than Supreme Court stacking. Civics. The more you know...