Mother and father, daughter, son, are illegal now

submitted by Elvira95Viva la figa from self.LGBDropTheT

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

I don't believe it. Is there any proof for this?

I'm dubious; all of the sources are right-wing ones-- nothing from the likes of reputable, mainstream news outlets such as CNN, etc. That's never a good sign. Especially since this story wouldn't be an opinion piece or analysis; it'd be just-the-facts reporting on the actions of House. If anyone finds confirmation of this actually happening in C-SPAN's Congressional coverage, please let us know!

[–]VioletRemiCat, homosexual one 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117hresPIH-hres5.pdf

https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/pelosi-and-mcgovern-unveil-details-rules-package-117th-congress

https://i.imgur.com/ClFtd3S.png

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you! :) (Or maybe that oughtta be more like, "thanks, I hate it", huh?)

Do you (or anyone else here) happen to know what rule XXIII is? That's what the striking of these familial terms (mother/father, daughter/son, etc.) and insertion of "gender-inclusive" ones applies to. Specifically clause 8(c)(3). Is it the same as the Senate's Standing Rule 23, SR Rule XXIII: Privilege of the Floor? And if so... what is that? (And why is it a Senate rule, rather than a House one?)

Also, I notice that all of the terms being replaced ARE familial ones-- not man/woman, or boy/girl. (At least not yet...) Which, the way things are going on the trans/genderist front these days, is a major relief: thank heaven for small favors... So I don't wanna tempt fate by asking this, but: does anyone know why? How come Pelosi isn't making all sex-based terms "gender-inclusive"? Is that just an oversight? Is this simply testing the waters, or working her way up to the most radical changes? Or an attempt to placate the genderists without going the whole hog?

And, come to think of it, if this is meant as appeasement... seems like a miscalculation, doesn't it? And not only because you're dealing with people who are the very definition of give-them-an-inch-and-they'll-take-a-mile. There's also the fact that "transwomen" and "transmen" don't WANT gender-neutral language! Refer to them as a "parent" and they'll REEEEE up a storm! No-- THEIR goal is that everyone be forced to call them "mother" and "father" (or "daughter"/"son", "aunt"/"uncle", etc.), respectively. The LAST thing they're interested in is de-gendering society! Indeed, what they're seeking is the opposite: making "gender identity" so central as to be inescapable.

Does this mean that I'm right about why Democrats (and liberals/progressives generally) are supporting the "trans" cause-- that they're misreading it as a rebellion AGAINST "gender roles"? So that, once they realize they got it backwards... they'll withdraw that support?

[–]SedateApe 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"nothing from the likes of reputable, mainstream news outlets such as CNN, etc."

I know about 72/73 million people that often laugh at these kinds of comment about this particular "news" source. And several others

[–]PenseePansyBio-Sex or Bust 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

To be clear, I'm not saying that mainstream news sources like this are immune to errors, or bias. I KNOW they aren't. Not only because I can cite some specific instances of both, but due to the fact that... they are, after all, composed of humans. Which tells you right there that the capacity for these things is built-in.

What I am saying is that they're useful; they provide things that non-mainstream, overtly-of-a-political-persuasion sources cannot. For one thing, they do original reporting; the others typically piggyback on that. Productively, in many cases (their op-eds/analysis can be a valuable contribution)... but they still need someone to dig up the material in the first place. Also, while the mainstream certainly CAN be biased, the others flat-out ARE-- inescapably so; it's their fucking mission statement, fer chrissakes. That just goes with the territory. It's not so much "bad" or "good" as an inherent limitation.

So basically, for news, I take the survey approach-- looking across a range of outlets. Who's reporting this? Everybody? Or only the self-declared partisans? It's kind of a parts-of-the-elephant situation. The partisans concentrate on a certain part (say, the trunk); the mainstream are generalists. You put 'em together to get a sense of the whole animal. Usually obsessing on the trunk is too limiting, especially given their propensity to treat EVERYTHING as the trunk (like there is nothing else)... but sometimes? It picks up what the generalists miss.

[–]SedateApe 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

WOW.

And I mean WOW!

So it was just fine that CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, print media, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Google, and so many others...just but the Hunter Biden story?

Or not question the limited access to Biden during his campaign? Or the softball questions they were handed to ask Biden during his all to infrequent and all too limited news conferences?

How about calling the US economy as being bad, before the election, when it was actually recovering better then all the BIASED media outlets feared..much better then they FEARED! Or just forgetting to mention how much better then expected the economy got for wages, hours worked, exports, lack unemployment, brown unemployment, women's unemployed, teen employment....before the Wuhan Virus struck?

Nothing at all about how US farmers were finally getting a fair market price for produces shipped to China after the tariffs were out in place and agricultural shipments halted! Nay. We see how much farmers were subsidized during the trade negotiations and nothing about how much better off they are now.

You mean this kind of research, and poles, and surveys, and balance?

WOW. Followed by another WOW.

[–]LeaveAmsgAfterBeep 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Seems like fake “news” to me