Equality Act H.R. 5 Overview

submitted by WildApples from self.GenderCritical

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thank you so much for your thorough reading and excellent interpretation! I have waded through so many explanations of the Equality Act and ended up confused, but yours was absolutely clear. Wonderful work!

I think I might disagree with you on one point: I think that every Congressperson voting for this knows exactly what it is. I say that because I watched the 2019 Equality Act House Judiciary hearings during which the Democrats acted like a bunch of sadistic, smarmy, clowns.

Jerry Nadler, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, that twerp Katie Hill - fucking bunch of misogynistic, rape-enabling, pieces of utter shit.

Those hearings were almost two years ago and in that two years the Democrats in Congress have had every opportunity to learn about Gender Joe Biden's "#1 Legislative Priority," the Equality Act.

I'm guessing some Congresspeople might be uneasy, but Iron Maiden Pelosi is keeping them in line. What Pelosi thinks she's doing is beyond me, because I live in two states - a Blue and a Red, and I can tell you right now that even in the Blue state, once the true ramifications of the Equality Act are revealed, all fucking hell is going to break lose on the Democrats.

However, it might be too late, because if the Equality Act is law how hard will it be to reverse it?

Also, would you know what happens to the Equal Rights Amendment if the Equality Act becomes law? Since gender identity would then be part of the legal definition of sex, does the Equal Rights Amendment then mean nothing or what?

Excellent work - I am going to pass this along. Thanks again!

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

Jerry Nadler, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, that twerp Katie Hill - fucking bunch of misogynistic, rape-enabling, pieces of utter shit.

Hear ye, hear ye! I'm still reeling from Ted Lieu trying to tell Candace Owens what it's like to be a Black woman in America.

[–]WildApples[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thank you so much for your thorough reading and excellent interpretation! I have waded through so many explanations of the Equality Act and ended up confused, but yours was absolutely clear. Wonderful work!

Thanks! That means a lot. It took a lot of time to write, so I am glad it was useful.

I will have to defer to your judgment about the Democrats since I did not see the hearing. It is a shame about Pelosi. I remember seeing her a decade ago cheering on the Lily Ledbetter Act. I would have never guessed at that time that she would become one of the biggest threats to women's rights just a few years later.

I live in two states - a Blue and a Red, and I can tell you right now that even in the Blue state, once the true ramifications of the Equality Act are revealed, all fucking hell is going to break lose on the Democrats.

That is what makes me think they are not envisioning the complete destruction of single-sex spaces with this bill. It would be political suicide. They can get away with keeping women's spaces and letting men in under the guise of gender rights, but to completely eliminate women's spaces would create a gargantuan backlash. I would not be surprised if before the end of the bill-making process exceptions are added to enumerate when single-sex spaces are acceptable (with guaranteed rights of access by the gender crowd).

This really has me thinking that, if we can overcome this, we really need some explicit statutory protections for women's spaces. I think protections for women have often come down to historical practice and a sense by judges that it is common sense to give women's safe spaces. But as cultural norms rapidly change to be less sympathetic to the plight of women and gender ideologues ascend to power, I am not sure history and common sense pragmatism will be enough to protect women's spaces in the future.

However, it might be too late, because if the Equality Act is law how hard will it be to reverse it?

I certainly wouldn't bet on it. Congress is too dysfunctional and polarized to legislate properly as it is, and if enough Americans get behind the gender movement to get this to pass, I do not think there would be the political will to repeal it. Plus, the media is already so beholden to gender ideology that I cannot imagine that they will provide the coverage that could create momentum for a repeal. We need to nip this in the bud.

Also, would you know what happens to the Equal Rights Amendment if the Equality Act becomes law? Since gender identity would then be part of the legal definition of sex, does the Equal Rights Amendment then mean nothing or what?

That is an interesting question. It would depend on the courts. If TWAW becomes established in our jurisprudence, then I suspect it would affect the definition of the ERA.

[–]BEB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What an end-run around women's rights. I was active in 2nd Wave feminism decades ago and I would never in a billion years have guessed that the way men would end women's rights was by pretending to be us. A more OPPRESSED version of us.

I actually think that the opposite is going to happen, by which I mean that as Americans learn about what the gender movement is asking for, and especially if Lefty women scream bloody murder, politicians will be forced to back off. However, if the damage is already done...

The Equality Act is now in the Senate, so do you know when it will be voted on, as in, are there any rules as to how fast? How many votes need to pass?

It's been decades since I took Civics, but I keep reading that the Dems need 60 votes, but doesn't that depend on if the GOP filibusters - so what if the GOP doesn't filibuster?

I read somewhere just today (Ovarit?) that the Democrats are railroading the Equality Act through, so no changes and it will pass or fail as is. That, of course, could be speculation on someone else's part.

One of the things I just don't get is that there are many women from their mid-50s up who will not stand for this shit. Our life expectancy is 80 or so (or was) so we have plenty of time to cause a tremendous amount of trouble for the gender lobby.

When I tell friends my age about this, they immediately get the danger and start spreading the information around to other women who will be enraged. So do the Democrats/ gender lobby just think all of us hoary older feminists are going to die off soon enough to not thwart their sinister plans?

And, I saw some kind of survey or study, probably about six months ago, that found that the majority of radical feminists were under 40, with many in their early 20s. That could be because women my age and older don't (or didn't) call ourselves radical feminists. But there seem to be a lot of young rad fems, so the gender lobby is going to be waiting a long time for all of us to die off.

Anyway, thanks again! You really helped me with your clear, yet concise, explanation. I am sending it around.