60
GOP senator introduces bill to legally erase transgender people
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
60 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
188 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sometimes I'm surprised that acts like these don't incite violence against the responsible politician.
For someone who had their existance threatened it could be possible to frame it as an advanced form of self defense. Of course not everyone would see it that way, but I'm thinking it would be likely that at least some people come to that conclusion.
The only way to make "I assassinated a politician whose ideology I resent" legally defendable would be massive popular support. "Some people" isn't enough if you risk serving as scapegoat to have your entire community labeled as terrorists. The dilemma of violent action is that you need enough people behind you to become a credible threat before you start threatening.
I doubt a court would. Your gender or sex is not considered existence.
IANAL, but I'd also guess linking gender to existence or threat. May harm the trans community more than help. As the separation of born sex vs gender is not legally clear. So such a claim may cause more issues with the right to change than it protects. At least without some serious changes in the law as stands.