>
It’s amazing how these red states spend their time on this shit instead of actually improving the lives of their citizens. >

The whole point is to drive out "liberal" voters & make the area "inhospitable" for everyone but Evangelical Christian Nationalists... It's kinda like "gerrymandering" except on a national level. Josh Hawley has been very open that this is the plan & that Republicans want to cause a "realignment" of voters in these states. >

Could you help me out with a link here ?  I would really like to read this.  Not dissing you, my Google fu is not working today, I am being genuine >

Thanks ! >

If that state shifts any further right it’s going to fall into the Atlantic Ocean! >

Yes but not at the cost of equality. >

Because Republicans understand that the purpose of government is to bully the queer kids in school. >

Missouri is governed with scientific ignorance coupled with religious bigotry, misogyny and homophobia. >

You can mad lib quite a few states into that sentence and it would still be correct. >

Yep. >

Still reeling from covid, rampant inflation, unaffordable housing making home ownership effectively impossible for a generation, school shootings, climate change, violent extremists —- but yeah something something transgender issues are the defining political debate of our time. 
Fuck the fuck off, republicans. >

And they distract you with a woman’s arms. >

That's not a shift to the right.  That's a shift to American citizens being attacked by a state government.  The Federal government needs to weigh in on this hard.  So that the republicans think twice about continued attacks against American citizens. >

It is not a shift, either .
Fed republicans are pretty on board with this and control congress .  Not sure where you think the cavalry is coming from ?
Mcarthy just sold out ss and the nation’s economy and all the ammendments except 2 to whomever would vote for home as speaker add acknowledged trump as the dear leader . >

dems control the senate and the presidency.  The senate could open up investigations (based on 14th amendment protectiions) into republican states that are attacking citizens.  DOJ could start criminal proceedings against states attacking citizens based on 14th amendment protections. >

14th amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.  Its time that amendment was challenged again vis a vis these continued attacks on American citizens by state governments. >

You know that it is not even remotely possible to challenge every single law like this via the Supreme Court , and even it it were the current sitting court is just about as fascist  and would likely  hold uphold the right of states to make such laws?
People who copy ammendments from wiki are not particularly useful to have a conversation with and people who don’t read what they are replying to even less so, so I am done with this particular conversation , thank you and have a good rest of your day >

It is entirely possible to challenge the laws from republican (or democrat) states that single out Americans for special treatment. as in the curtailment of personal freedoms.  
The 14th amendment is pretty clear.  All one needs to do is paste it into the box and it makes a great point all by itself.
I note that it took the winds out of your sail.  You have a nice day also. >

Ah, the real reason for the dress codes rules. It was to distract everyone from this. >

“And we made sure your girls chess club only allowed biological girls.” What AMAZING “public service”. MO has no other issues so they have to go after this Chicken Little bullshit? >

All those things require time and money and being a competent legislature, much easier to bash the gays and trans kids to virtue signal to their ass-backwards supporters >

My time spent working in Missouri was pretty bad. I am so glad to be out of that state.  From the year that I stayed there I was pretty disappointed with how the state was run and how the leadership acted. >

MO is on a downward slide back to the 19th century. >

Keep the paste eaters in a constant state of hatred and rage, and they won't even notice the Fascism until it is their turn to be the "Others". >

tackling the big issues, not like anyone is concerned about inconsequential things like healthcare or cost of living >

You know, the important stuff. >

Rural Missouri has meth, liquor, and god. Anything else throws of the balance. >

Once they inevitably lose the culture war against people who are trans, who do you think the far right will target next? >

You mean once they are done with women, people of color, poor people, immigrants, educated people, people who believe in climate change…. You are pretty much left only with white male republicans.  And their side pieces.  Which is the way the lord intended it . >

They are still fighting those losing battles, just the current focus is on trans-rights. But eventually anti-trans will just become background noise that is expected GOP behavior like all those other groups. >

Sounds like Missouri is trying to go back in time somehow. >

Typical right wing nuts doing nothing to help the working class >

I think if politicians or any authority want to object or ban trans people from sports, they should be required to apply exactly the same towards steroids and other banned performance enhancing drugs. >

Aren’t they already banned? >

Circle the wagons .... welcome to the 18th c. >

Except that hasn't happened. I also notice that Republicans only freak out when a trans woman does well, they don't give a fuck if they lose or if a trans man loses in men's sport. Bet you'd care if you got your wish of people playing with the gender they were born with and a trans man ended up winning in women's sport though. >

Republicans love to freak tf out about things that don’t exist. They’ve been doing it for years. They create some imaginary woke/leftist boogeyman and act like it’s a huge problem, when in reality it is nowhere to be seen. >

Isn’t education something that should be decided locally? Why are these big government “conservatives” (bureaucrats) trying to meddle in local school curricula? >

Missouri is a state.
Most states have some kind of overall standards, such as they are, and accreditation.
How local do you think your school curricula should be?  Just your block? >

The educational gag laws are helping women to keep access to single sex spaces ? >

As you clearly have a PhD in anatomy and physiology or an MD.
Do tell me what criteria do you use to determine if that child is a boy?
Do we cut it off at 13 pg/ml estrogen ?  How big does a clitoris ahve to be or small does a penis have to be (start out as the same genital ridge and have the same neural circuitry ) before you make a decision?
What if you have a sort of uterus but also undescended testicles?
What if you are XY but have androgen insensitivity? What if you are XX but have PCOS and have high levels of androgens?
That one possibly trans kid in Missouri sure is the thing we need to focus on and devote legislative time and money to.  I mean , if water or air was contaminated that would be a non starter but if someone possibly male was on a sportsball team with primary or secondary school girls, that would surely let loose the end times. >

Fucking thank you. I'm trans, and it's really, really frustrating when a bunch of people start talking out of their asses about how it's a fucking travesty to have a trans person compete in women's sports on every fucking thread about trans athletes. And you know how little of a shit they'd give about women's anything unless the headline happens to have the word "transgender" in it. >

You should only be able to play sports based on your biological sex at birth. Hard stop. Not trying to make a larger point. >

Genital sex or chromosome sex?  Hormone levels ?  What is your definition of biological sex? >

Article: 

For example, state Sen. Denny Hoskins, a Warrensburg Republican, filed a bill that would cut state funding from middle schools, high schools and colleges that allow transgender student athletes to compete in womens’ sports.

This is not a surprise since biologically male atheletes have a serious advantage over female athletes.  Hoskins is trying to preserve fair competition for girls sports. >

Deny Hoskins DGAF about women’s sports.
Notice that the whole thread focuses on the former and not the latter.
It is a tactic and an agenda.
Transphobia is not the only agenda, but while everyone is arguing about the 1 transgender athlete that this applies to in Missouri,  you all let the censorship in the curriculum slide by.
It is very funny how all the other people who also DGAF about women sports are now pretending their care about womens middle school lacrosse parity .
Or it would be funny if it were a movie and not actual real life