Transgender candidates in Ohio could be disqualified from ballot for failing to disclose 'deadnames'

submitted by [deleted] from foxnews.com

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

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

For the folks who don't want to deal with ads or Fox attempting to hook them into signing up for spam, here.

To my considerable surprise, I'm actually with the TRAs on this one. The law does exist, for good reason, and should be followed. BUT, if they were not properly informed of the law's existence in the course of registering themselves as candidates, then they shouldn't be punished by being denied their status as valid candidates; the burden (IMO) is on the government to provide the necessary (and up-to-date) material that they require.

(If, on the other hand, they fail to disclose in accordance with the law's requirements after being informed of it, then yes, they absolutely should be denied their candidate status.)

Aside from that, though, it's the same old "we're being genocided" hyperbole and faux suffering that I've come to expect out these people.

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

Is it new or a old law?

I mean I am assuming its not new and basically boils down to stop someone from hiding under a new name to avoid shit from their past coming to light and if that is the case why the fuck should they be able to sidestep it?

Granted I am also assuming they have to certify they have followed the rules to be qualified as valid candidates, they did not? Yeah cry me a river, build me a bridge and get the fuck over it.

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Says the law was put into place in 1995, so it's been around awhile.

And I'm not saying that they shouldn't be held to it. I'm saying that if someone didn't do their job and make these candidates aware of the law to begin with--and do remember that we're talking about the government, fucking up their own regulations is practically a job requirement--then the candidates shouldn't be punished for it by having their candidacy invalidated.

In fact, the article even quotes one of the candidates in question, who said that they would have complied with the law (albeit unhappily) if they'd known it existed.

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah if there hasn't been any notification they need to provide their previous legal name for the ballot, then the solution is not to simply remove them from the ballot, it's to ask them for their legal name to fulfill the legal requirement.

Now if upon request of their previous legal names they rhee and scream genocide and fail to provide it, then you remove them from the ballot for failure to comply with the rules, but not before.

I can see why someone might have overlooked some law like this in the initial process.