Transgender lawmaker silenced by Montana House Speaker

[Badger]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

Oh ffs, Tim. Just once drop the whole both sides are equally as bad shtick. She didn't insult her colleagues personally or as a group. She argued with the outcome of their vote would be. It was absolutely an attack on a policy position. The speaker is just being a bigot and lined up with the other assholes who are deliberately misgendering her.

[Badger]

Several things going on here.
1. lawmakers are effectively co-workers, and such sharp words about coworkers would generally be punished in some way in most workplaces. There's a reason members of Congress are not allowed to do this sort of thing to their colleagues - it can be destructive to the doing of business if it is permitted without limit. This is not something that is universally held against one side or faction or a universal shield for the other.
2. lawmakers, since they represent constituents, have to balance this, where there is conflicts, with acting on behalf of their constituents, however they see that as being done best. This is, after all, representative democracy.
3. there is a huge clash here between the youngs overall and olds overall on this, though I would argue young conservatives are likely, if anything, generally more hardline on this than their older counterparts. In any case, Zooey Zephyr certainly has a very interesting life backstory.

I personally think Marjorie Taylor Greene is a bigot, demagogue, and a trashy woman overall. But if I was elected to Congress, I would not be allowed to use such words about her on the House floor, and the same would be true in reverse. I would be forced to use weasel words. Perhaps I could put that in a Tweet, but I could certainly not use that in a speech from a podium on the House floor.

Believe it or not, absolute freedom to say whatever you want about any of your colleagues as a member of a legislative body, on the floor of said legislative body, is a right that does not exist. And if it did, then all sense of cohesion and unity in the body could go to die.

When people are trying to erase your very existence from the law, as Republicans are trying to do with the trans community right now, all expectations of decorum from the group under attack should be cast aside.

Whatever good she'll be able to do for the trans community if her complete refusal to accept decorum standards, as defined by the majority of the legislative body she is in, will leave Rs forever keeping her from speaking on the floor, leaving her unable to provide her unique perspective. I guess at least she's a vote against anti-trans bills still.

Half a loaf is better than none. She should have apologized, then slammed MT Rs for their handling of this on Twitter.

I officially change my response from oh ffs, to just stfu.

[Badger]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

You are playing semantics and it's indeed childish. If you are actually a doctor you aren't showing the intelligence of once.

As I've already said:

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

Your ugly vicious bigotry is not missed. Kindly go back to conservachord and stay there.

[Badger]

There is no scenario in which purely elective treatments that a patient will still very easily live without obtaining could be considered life saving care. Not being able to get, or delaying when someone is able to get puberty blockers/hormones/top or bottom surgeries isn't going to kill anyone. If someone were to commit suicide for those reasons, it's not the lack of medical care that killed them.

You are completely putting your own spin on what I said because none of this is what I said. I've very clearly stated my point but you have ignored it just for the sake for arguing. No one ever said that the lack of hormones or surgery alone was going to kill anyone and you know that I didn't say that. My point is that being able to have access to care that can improve a person's well being can be life saving from a mental health standpoint. And I even stated that not all transgender people are suicidal. You are using a strawman argument at this point. Depression and anxiety can't directly kill you either, but that doesn't mean care can't save lives.

The bottom line is that transgender people being allowed care does nothing to harm you so your indignation is pointless.

None of those things fall under the category of "life saving care" no matter how much you want to pretend it does.

You are playing semantics and it's indeed childish. If you are actually a doctor you aren't showing the intelligence of once.

As I've already said:

I'm simply stating a fact. Sorry the truth bothers you.

And as I've said, you are playing semantics. You have no facts, no truth and no point other than being a right-wing troll. End of debate.

Says the person who is basing what is and isn't life saving care on feelings, rather than what it actually means.

Give it a rest at vain attempts to sound expert on the subject. Your views of what does and doesn't constitute life affirming care doesn't come from the American Medical association, but Opus Dei. But go ahead and find a reliable citation if I'm wrong.

[Badger]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

Thank you for this additional information. Could you provide links to any source for it? I'm not questioning your assertions here, but would like to delve deeper.

Based on what you're saying, I guess I'd want to know more about the allegations of Reed supposedly doxing zephyr's colleagues. I mean, if it's outing them for having mistresses while standing Foursquare for so-called family values, like the house speaker and other legislators in tennessee, then good on her for doing so. Otherwise that's concerning. But even if she did do so, that really doesn't give the house Speaker the right to silence Zephyr from saying passing a bill which could drive trans people and kids to Suicide will leave blood on their hands. Is that any different than if someone made the same claim in a debate about significantly loosening gun control restrictions? One might disagree with the proposition, but it's zero basis to silence debate or demand an apology for such a statement before permitting the legislator to speak on the house floor again.

And then just other legislators misgendering Zephyr because they can I submit isn't just icing on the cake or a background footnote, but frankly gets the heart of what's really going on here.

[Badger]

Some context.

Zephyr actually had quite good relations with colleagues and was even bragging about them on a reddit AMA. What ruined them is that Zooey is in a relationship with Erin Reed, and while not Carabello levels of unhinged online activism, Reed has built a career and large online following on alarmist language which has been called out by people like Chase Strangio.

More relevantly, Zephyr isn't "a randoms state rep." Reed single-boosts her girlfriend to her 150,000 followers, with the result that multiple Montana legislators feel that Zephyr's girlfriend has been running a mass national level doxing campaign against them and their families. They feel they have bent over backwards, treating Reed like a spouse during visits to the State House and in return Reed has behaved - like some sort of Gen Z troll activist despite being close to 40.

Whether you think the language re this bill was justified, the behavior of the couple is not what would be considered appropriate for mid-30 something politicians, and there is a much stronger case for expulsion here than for anything in Tennessee because the behavior directly threatens the safety of the body and other members.

Thank you for this additional information. Could you provide links to any source for it? I'm not questioning your assertions here, but would like to delve deeper.

Based on what you're saying, I guess I'd want to know more about the allegations of Reed supposedly doxing zephyr's colleagues. I mean, if it's outing them for having mistresses while standing Foursquare for so-called family values, like the house speaker and other legislators in tennessee, then good on her for doing so. Otherwise that's concerning. But even if she did do so, that really doesn't give the house Speaker the right to silence Zephyr from saying passing a bill which could drive trans people and kids to Suicide will leave blood on their hands. Is that any different than if someone made the same claim in a debate about significantly loosening gun control restrictions? One might disagree with the proposition, but it's zero basis to silence debate or demand an apology for such a statement before permitting the legislator to speak on the house floor again.

And then just other legislators misgendering Zephyr because they can I submit isn't just icing on the cake or a background footnote, but frankly gets the heart of what's really going on here.

I should clarify, "doxing" is shorthand for posting videos of them to followers, and providing their emails, numbers, offices. Which if you are in a small state are often direct lines. Whether you feel this is harassment or just very aggressive lobbying I think there is a feeling that Reed simultaneously wanting to be invited to state house events and treated as a spouse, to testify as an expert witness, and then to run a national lobbying/activist campaign, is a contradiction, and taking advantage of people's hospitality.

This in no way is meant to engage on moral equivalency re policy. Merely to explain why if your priors are not to buy these policies as beyond debate or particularly outrageous, then Zephyr's refusal to separate out her official and personal roles or even accept why others are upset about it, is causing what would otherwise be an inexplicable reaction.

I don't agree but I understand why they are doing this. I do not even begin to grasp what set off the Tennessee Republicans.

Thank you for the clarification. If we're talking about Reed aggressively campaigning for people to call their legislators, I say God bless her. Whether we're talking about Montana or california, that is anything but commendable.

She is hardly the first legislators significant other or spouse to be actively involved in lobbying or otherwise raising public awareness. And yet other state legislatures don't retaliate with cutting off a representative Mike over a harsh attack on a policy position - not the other members of the legislature personally .

I'm sorry, but I don't see that ruffling the feathers of the literal good old boy Network as such grounds for this type of retaliation. If any legislators, Democrat or republican, can't treat a fellow legislator and their significant other with civility while acknowledging they may be on opposite sides of a political or social issue, sometimes vehemently opposed, then they shouldn't be in office.

[Badger]

Again, strangely similar to what people said to MLK.

And the idea that the Civil Rights Movement had massive support to begin with is laughable.

(Wikimedia Commons)
You were saying?

This was in 1964 after the culmination of Decades of aggressive civil rights campaigning. You are proving GoTfan's point.