Home / "family values" / Republicans fit discrimination against transgender, non-binary Americans into busy Be Evil schedule

Republicans fit discrimination against transgender, non-binary Americans into busy Be Evil schedule


The title of HR 2796 gives a hint of how horrible the text will be: The Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017.

It begins with a repurposing of the man/woman marriage tradition/science argle that moderate Ha ha ha Republicans used during their last fight to stop same sex couples from marrying:


(a) Findings.–Congress finds the following:
(1) Over the past half century, Congress has passed numerous civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of “sex”, a designation long understood to be grounded in objective biology up to the present day. There is no evidence that Congress or the American people ever understood the word sex or gender in civil rights laws to include subjective self-identification.

There’s a lot of waffling about Executive Overreach, but the main purposes of the bill are to:

  1. Eradicate protections transgender and non-binary people received during the Obama administration.
  2. Make it clear that discrimination against these Americans is OK with Republicans.
  3. Allow Republicans to define gender as Boys are Boys and Girls are Girls, so there!
  4. Warn normal people that the Republican Party is full of perverts who are always thinking about their naughty bits.

(9) The Obama administration’s actions are an affront to the rule of law, the separation of powers, the will of the people, language, history, safety, privacy, and biological realities.

Whereas vicious Republican wankbags are an affront to everything.

This bill prohibits the word “sex” or “gender” from being interpreted to mean “gender identity,” and requires “man” or “woman” to be interpreted to refer exclusively to a person’s genetic sex, for purposes determining the meaning of federal civil rights laws or related federal administrative agency regulations or guidance.

It isn’t possible to tell what Pete Olson (R-Texas) – the bill’s author – means by genetic sex. Coming up with a definition that is central to his point exceeded the mental capacity of a person who recently claimed that Bill Clinton confessed to the murder of Vince Foster. Quelle surprise.

At any rate, I assume the basic idea is to permit and encourage atrocious behavior towards anyone who doesn’t fit into whatever weird definition of Gender Appropriate happens to be au courant at any particular moment.

Provided the intended victim doesn’t look like they could fight back.

I never like to guess whether a bill will make it to the twit with the tiny mitts. Olson introduced the bill in early June and and it has picked up five co-sponsors. Not a mad rush, but my concern is that if the Break Health Care in America bill doesn’t make it through Senate, the Republicans will start looking around for something they can send to the bigly Desk Resolutely in the Ovaly Office toute de suite.

Also, these people are mean and hateful. Making it easier to persecute people is something they want to do, and would make them look good to the mean, hateful people who voted for them.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Lurking Canadian

    Surely not even McConnel would try to pass this shit under reconciliation.

    • Deborah Bender

      It’s probably not one of his priorities.

      • cpinva

        but i wouldn’t put it past him, just to piss off the Democrats. yes, he’s that much of a tortured, flaming asshole.

    • sharculese

      You can only use reconciliation once a year and only for budget related things, so I don’t believe he could even if he wanted to.

      • gwen

        Right. This is not budget related. It would (at present) require 60 votes in the Senate to pass.

        It’s going nowhere.

        The most pressing immediate legislative threat to the wellbeing of transgender people in this country is “Trumpcare.”

  • The modern GOP: Fighting hard to get the government out of the boardroom and into the bedroom!
    Because nothing says “freedom” like having the government dictate under force of law what you can do with your genitals, and with whom you can do it.

    • JMP

      But conservatives support freedom! At least they constantly say they do, regardless of their authoritarian policies and opposition to actual civil liberties, saying they’re pro-freedom automatically makes it so.

      • rm_rm_rm

        freedom = no restraints on owners/bosses/patriarchs

      • Origami Isopod

        Albion’s Seed really opened my eyes on this: Their concept of “freedom” is that of the white Christian patriarch to do as he pleases, including with his “chattel.” Gawd didn’t give anyone else the right to freedom.

    • N__B

      I am not a grammar Nazi but this is a situation where the may/can difference matters.

  • JMP

    Trump’s already doing his part to normalize hate crimes against Muslims and Latinos, so now the Congressional bigots of the GOP are stepping up to normalize hate crimes against other marginalized groups, because this is what these hate-filled small-minded fascists love to do.

    • kaydenpat

      Weren’t we told that Ivanka was a huge ally of the LGBT and would influence Daddy to do the right thing? So I guess we don’t have to worry about this silly law going anywhere then. /s

  • keta

    That Olson is quite the fart smeller smart feller. Here he is commenting on a version of the senate health care bill:

    I have some concerns because, one thing, they still guarantee coverage for ten essential conditions and one of those conditions – this is care for all, includes you and me – it’s prenatal care…I think we all have what we call an X chromosome. You, me, JP, Tom and Chuck have those, which means we can’t have a baby. Why do we have to pay for that coverage that we can’t use?

    The quality of representation sent off to Washington continues to stupefy.

    • David Evans

      In the Republican party he must score a point for being able to spell “chromosome”

    • Deborah Bender

      My dear, it’s your undersized Y chromosome that makes you incapable of having a baby. Poor you.

    • Ah yes, I remember how the “Hey I don’t wanna pay for no girl stuff” takes got progressively worse.

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      If the X chromosome means he can’t have a baby, it’s a shame noone told his mother, who I suspect has 2 of them.

      • DocAmazing

        That just means that she can’t have a baby, she has to have two or more!

    • What really stupefies me is that you’d have no difficulty at all finding Republican women agreeing with him.

      • cpinva

        “What really stupefies me is that you’d have no difficulty at all finding Republican women agreeing with him.”

        in fairness, if you had been psychologically abused from birth, you’d probably be screwed up too.

        • twbb

          They have agency.

          • Thirtyish

            Yes, they do. But the insidious thing about psychological abuse (and part of why I personally consider it the worst form of abuse) is that it robs its victims of the realization that they are full people with agency.

            • twbb

              I think characterizing growing up Republican as “abuse” trivializes abuse. If you’re giving them a pass on that, then logically you have to give everyone a pass, because we’re all products of our upbringing.

              • Thirtyish

                It’s not really a partisan thing so much as how girls and women in conservative/authoritarian families tend to be brought up. They are explicitly and implicitly told that they are less than and lacking in full agency. That counts as abuse from where I’m standing.

                • Origami Isopod

                  Yes and no. I hesitate to call it abuse if there are not indicators of abuse by any reasonable legal definition. I’d call it socialization.

                  Also, these women reap benefits from it. They’re submissive authoritarians who are willing to be oppressed on the axis of gender so long as they’re privileged on the axis of race. I can have some sympathy for the younger ones and/or the ones who have been severely abused by any measure. However, a lot of them have more wherewithal than you think; they simply choose not to use it in service to a devil’s bargain.

              • DocAmazing

                I’m starting a group called Adult Children of Parents.

                • petesh

                  Can orphans apply? Widows?

                • Thirtyish

                  They fuck you up, your mom and dad.

    • cpinva

      forget it keta, it’s TX.

  • Paul Thomas

    As a logical matter, this doesn’t make any sense– it would ironically SUPPORT the idea that anti-trans discrimination is unlawful. Under this bill, discrimination against trans women reads as “discrimination against biological males who act like biological females.” That’s clearly sex discrimination, and has been recognized as such since the Price Waterhouse case in the late 80s.

    As for part B, it seems obviously unconstitutional under the “animus” line of cases. There’s not even a hint of a basis for it.

    I realize, of course, that logic does not apply with these people.

    • DocAmazing

      Over the past half-century, Congress has passed numerous civil rights laws prohbiting discrimination on the basis of “sex”

      …and Republicans have opposed every one. Remember the good old days when the ERA was still a possibility?

      • Harry Rumbold

        Phyllis Schlafly defeated the ERA by saying boys could go into girls bathrooms. Some things never change.

  • MariedeGournay

    Someone needs to put forth an amendment establishing the lawful distinction between turtles and humans.

    • Right, like McConnell would ever bring it to the floor.

  • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

    “Objective biology” LOL. (Lousy Orwellian Logism)

    My (ca. 2012, now already out of date) medicine textbook points out how “gender” has bases in genetics (SrcY Gene aka testis-determining factor which can be present/ absent in anyone), chromosomes (XX, XY, and several common variants), gene expression, physiologic exposure to hormones in utero, and, you know, psychology (you know that whole personal autonomy, fulfillment business). Plus just the whole “don’t be an asshole” thing.

    None of these bases, not one, is strictly binary – you can be an XX with testes, and XY with female genitalia, etc. There is literally no biological basis whatsoever for binary gender.

    So biologically, this literally all comes down to people’s disgust reactions.

    Which is another point for Shakes (head nod) in the whole argument against Kevin Drum as to why disgust is a terrible basis for ethics, policy, law, etc….

    • DAS

      As they say over at Eschaton, I owe you a fizzy beverage.

    • Murc

      Which is another point for Shakes (head nod) in the whole argument
      against Kevin Drum as to why disgust is a terrible basis for ethics,
      policy, law, etc….

      Wait, is that the argument?

      My understanding is that the argument against him was as to whether or not disgust of the specific type he outlined is some sort of innate reaction you’d be “crazy” not to have. Drum himself strongly repudiated the notion that one should make policy based on it even if you accept his premise, which you clearly should not.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        That’s an important distinction. Thanks for bringing it up.

    • carolannie

      Exactly. Biology is messy. And Republicans are proud to not know anything about science. I wonder what kind of zombie argument they will come up with? “I am not a scientist but it seems to me that if I can eyeball an androgynous child I can easily tell just from the vibes it gives off whether it is male or female”

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        Dollars to donuts it’ll involved “evolutionary psychology” and the good people at the Museum of Biblical Geology.

        • gwen

          Dollars to donuts, if pressed hard enough, they’ll trot out some wackadoo T.E.R.F. to whine about how men are stealing womynhood from the real womyns.

      • Chet Murthy

        Wait wait wait, you’re too late, they do that already today! (ISTR some girl trying to participate in a sports event, who was turned away b/c her haircut was too butch, or something like that?)

      • drdick52

        Reality in general is messy, which is why Republicans reject it.

    • Sentient AI from the Future

      All the stuff you mention has been known for literally decades. F’rinstance, I first heard of the guevedoces (which have a fascinating history, all descendants of one person) in an undergrad biology class in 02 or so.

      • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

        Yes, as a very smart doctor said, “if you want to know what we were doing 10 years ago, read a medical textbook.”

      • drdick52

        I have been teaching this in my gender classes for over 25 years now.

      • rm_rm_rm

        To be fair, you are from the future.

    • drdick52

      I should have read down before commenting, as I made the same point, though in much less detail. The boy could not pass freshman biology.

    • gwen

      Your godless biology textbook probably also talks about “evolution” and asserts that the Earth is more than 6000 years old. #FakeNews

  • DAS

    Um “genetic sex”?.. not everyone with a Y chromosome is male. Even if we ignore transgender individuals, the SRY locus isn’t always expressed. Also, what if being transgender is genetic? Then wouldn’t the sex you identify with be your genetic sex?

    • Dr. Ronnie James, DO

      As you no doubt know, there is no biological basis for binary gender. None.

    • Yes, it is possible to imagine a definition that writes intersex people out of existence. However, I think the fact that he doesn’t define an essential term in the bill – which is unusual to say the least- indicates he doesn’t know how to define this thing that he has insisted has very a definite meaning.

    • Veleda_k

      Add to this the fact that the number of people who actually know their chromosomal sex is very small.

      • Sentient AI From The Future

        Somehow I doubt that a bill funding widespread access to genetic counselors will be forthcoming.
        ETA: clarity

        • petesh

          Or particularly useful. In 2014 there were only 2,400 genetic counseling jobs, and the projection was for 3,100 by 2024, according to Dept of Labor stats.

    • Sentient AI From The Future

      I sort of alluded to this with my comment about guevedoces (go on, google it! Its a pretty neat/interesting phenomenon!)

      And as much as looking for genetic loci is useful in principle, even back in 02 my undergrad prof was pretty clear that Lavey’s (Simon, not Anton iirc) search for genetic bases for homosexuality were eye-rollingly fruitless, and would probably remain so.

      There’s about a hundred graduate theses still yet to be written about “genetic propensity” and its similarity to phrenology.

  • Daglock

    Someone should let him know that the binary expresses Marxist dualism.

  • Thirtyish

    The Civil Rights Uniformity Act of 2017. Leave it to today’s GOP to look at the totalitarian undertones of that word choice and presumably be like, “Yeah, that’s a good title.”

    • Sentient AI From The Future

      “CRUA” – at this point, you can tell whether the shitstains want people to either like it or be ignorant of it based solely on if its abbreviation is an already existing word or not.

      • Thirtyish

        Oh, I think said shitstains have made it abundantly clear that they couldn’t give less of a fuck what people think of their policy proposals.

      • petesh

        Civil Rights Uniformity Effective Legislation makes a good acronym.

  • carolannie

    I like their definition of gender to mean a person’s genetic sex, which is what exactly? Science waffles about that : http://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2015/02/24/sex-biology-redefined-genes-dont-indicate-binary-sexes/ is just one recent article among many that would make Republican purists blanch at the many “genders” out there in human beings. Even if you use just XX XY, there is a lot of flexibility there: XXY, XO, XYY, XYYY (and I suppose the latter 2 would mean supermale to RWNJ). We won’t even go into androgyny.

    • Isn’t Trump supposedly XXY? I think it was in a doc released on Dr Oz

      • busker type

        wait… what?

        • It was talked about all over Twitter last Sept. A med report had XXY listed. I will look on Google tomorrow..don’t know if true, don’t know about the can’t have kids thing if true.

          • Snopes says it is false. There is a yxx notation on a selective service doc from ’68 but they say it means something else.

            p.s. I am allowed to correct errors because I am not GOP

            • busker type

              you should double down ya pansy!

              • Fine, Trump has the lizard chromosome. He’s part lizard! I have my best people working on this.

      • PohranicniStraze

        Very unlikely, or he would have been extremely unlikely to have children.

    • Steve LaBonne

      Don’t you start with that heathen sciencey stuff. Everything you need to know is in the Bahble. Gawd only created two sexes, remember? That settles it.

    • Origami Isopod

      These are people who think that a woman’s body has a way of shutting down rape-caused pregnancies.

    • Olson: “A person’s gender is his or her genetic sex.”
      “What does that mean?”
      O: “Their sex. The genetic one.”
      “Yes but how do I determine that.”
      O: “By the genetic sex of the gender. Correct. The sex genetic gender. Correct. Gender genetic sexomatic ….”

    • gwen

      It adds a thin veneer of scientific “authority” to their stupid bigotry.

      Dividing the world neatly into two genders is the modern-day parallel to the old pseudoscientific racism that sought to divide the world into four races (white, black, yellow, red).

      • Origami Isopod

        Sadly we have more than a few people on “our side” doing that shit too (e.g. TERFs).

  • MikeG

    Pete Olson (R-Texas)

    Texas politicians — making African cannibal-dictators look like models of probity and good government, since 1845.

    • PohranicniStraze

      Damn straight. Good thing we have a New Yorker in the oval office instead of someone like LBJ.

    • woodrowfan

      well, since January 1969 at any rate

      • Warren Terra

        Barbara Jordan would like a word.

  • Murc

    There is no evidence that Congress or the American people ever
    understood the word sex or gender in civil rights laws to include
    subjective self-identification.

    Even if this is true, which is highly dubious, so what?

    I could give a flying fuck what they “understood.” I care what they actually wrote into law. Their understanding of what they were doing might be relevant in some corner cases when it comes to interpreting it but for the most part isn’t relevant.

    The ur-example of this, at least in my mind, is the Eighth Amendment. It does not actually define cruel and unusual punishment, it merely prohibits it. I don’t care what the people who ratified it two hundred years ago understood to be cruel and unusual, I care what WE understand to be cruel and unusual.

    This bill prohibits the word “sex” or “gender” from being interpreted to
    mean “gender identity,” and requires “man” or “woman” to be interpreted
    to refer exclusively to a person’s genetic sex,

    This is maddening, because genetic sex is not exclusively binary.

    It’s strongly so; most people do in fact fall into what we’d understand as being genetically male or genetically female. But there are in fact a whole bunch of intersex categories that aren’t either, or aren’t both, depending on how you come at it. And that’s just biological sense; gender of course is 100% a social construct. “Gender” always means “gender identity.” This is like prohibiting the word “hot” from meaning “hot.”

    I suspect the Republican response to that is “those abominations of nature are just shit out of luck, then. In a more civilized time, we’d be allowed to throw them into a bog.”

    • Paul Thomas

      “I could give a flying fuck what they “understood.” I care what they
      actually wrote into law. Their understanding of what they were doing
      might be relevant in some corner cases when it comes to interpreting it
      but for the most part isn’t relevant.”

      This is a fundamental problem with “originalism”– it utterly defeats the idea (a legal fiction, to be sure) that a person reading the constitution and statutes ought to be able to know what they mean. When you interpret words as having bizarre meanings they haven’t had for 50, 100, or 200 years, you’ve given up the game.

      Far better to reject the premise. The law means what a reasonable person today would understand it to mean, period.

      • Murc

        To be perhaps more fair than the viewpoint warrants, there’s always a potential for linguistic and societal drift to occur in ways that are… problematic. I suspect that in the world my grandchildren live in, the 4th Amendment will be a dead letter, because most people won’t at all think that grotesque privacy violations are unreasonable; indeed, YOU’RE the unreasonable one if you don’t think all your correspondence being monitored is something that shouldn’t happen.

        But that’s a problem with us, not the law.

        • Sentient AI From The Future

          Its still not clear to me how “originalism!” (cf. “The aristocrats!”) Is not an explicit and well defined running joke.

        • Paul Thomas

          No paper right is ever meaningful if it’s dead in the minds of the people who ostensibly hold it. That’s just an occupational hazard in the world of civil rights provisions.

          What’s pernicious about originalism is that it is invariably used to undermine LIVE rights.

      • JMP

        Look, if the founding fathers had intended later generations to read rights other than those specifically listed into the Constitution, then they would have written something like “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” in it!

        • Murc

          I don’t think that’s how the 9th Amendment works?

          My understanding is that it basically functions to tell people “you shall not ever interpret this document as ‘anything not allowed is forbidden.’ It is the other way around; ‘anything not forbidden is allowed.'”

          That is, you can’t make a legal argument that someone doesn’t have a certain right or privilege because it isn’t in the constitution… but also, rights not listed in the constitution do not enjoy the same level of protection as those that are, and may be revoked, forbidden, or modified by ordinary statute.

          • Thlayli

            … and when such revocation or modification is challenged, the burden of proof is on the government to justify the modification, not on the people to justify the right.

            • Murc

              My understanding, which may be faulty, is that for the vast majority of cases that bar is so low it doesn’t need to be jumped over by the state so much as stepped over.

        • Drew

          But but ink blot!

      • rm_rm_rm

        One thing literary theory is good for is making it absolutely clear that “originalist” reading is not merely unwise, but IMPOSSIBLE.

      • Just_Dropping_By

        Except that it’s not “originalism” to interpret statutes consistent with legislative intent unless you think Earl Warren was an originalist.

        “Every statute must be interpreted in the light of reason and common understanding to reach the results intended by the legislature.”

        Rathbun v. United States, 355 U.S. 107, 109 (1957) (Warren, C.J.)

    • randykhan

      The federal agency that is the source of my livelihood currently has a commissioner who insists that, despite the specific wording of a certain provision of the Communications Act and a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals affirming that an interpretation that hews exactly to the specific wording is fine, the provision can’t mean what it says because he was “in the room” when it was drafted and nobody thought it meant that. (He was a Congressional staffer at the time.) He just *knows* it means what he wants it to mean.

      This, of course, is worse, because it’s actual science that this bill gets wrong, but it’s the same kind of thinking.

      • Murc

        the provision can’t mean what it says because he was “in the room” when it was drafted and nobody thought it meant that.

        The thing is, it doesn’t matter what the people in the room thought. It only matters what the courts think.

        If he just wants to bitch that the courts got it wrong, fine. That’s every Americans god-given right. But you do have to make a stronger case than “the guys writing it didn’t think it meant that.” Legislative intent is only relevant if the plain language is ambiguous.

        • randykhan

          Totally. It’s even more ridiculous because he wasn’t one of the top staffers, let alone, you know, one of the people who actually voted on the bill.

    • DocAmazing

      As I understand it, religion is a protected class, and religion includes subjective self-identification, especially among Evangelicals. A clever lawyer can point out that a born-again person does not conform to the matrilineal religion of his or her birth; therefore that person cannot object to practices that his or her freely-chosen and self-identified religion might prohibit. We might see a lot more gay wedding cakes being baked.

    • Just_Dropping_By

      Even if this is true, which is highly dubious, so what?

      Because a couple million court cases — including probably hundreds, if not thousands, of U.S. Supreme Court decisions — say that the courts’ primary goal in interpreting statutes is to effectuate the intent of the legislature as expressed in the statute? Now, yes, courts look first to the plain language of the statute before considering legislative history, but the plain language is still to be given its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” There’s no way to detach statutory interpretation from historical context without basically declaring that courts get to rewrite laws as they deem fit.

  • cpinva

    “The fact remains Hillary Clinton broke the law, violated national security, and was excused away by Jim Comey and the Obama Justice Department”

    this guy is a complete tool. he can’t even get his lies right. HRC did not break the law, she didn’t violate national security, and it wasn’t “excused away” by anyone, because none of it happened. she apparently violated an agency policy. for those who don’t know, agency policies are not laws. they aren’t passed by a legislative body, and they don’t appear in the Federal Code. according to everyone who has investigated this incident, no intentional violations of national security were made by HRC. all of this would easily explain why then FBI Director Comey, and AG Lynch chose to not pursue a criminal case against HRC, there was no there, there. an interesting tidbit: the official State Dept. email servers were all hacked, HRC’s private email server wasn’t. maybe the other agency heads should have followed her example.

    this bozo’s constituents must have an average IQ of 4, because they elected someone to Congress, with an IQ of 5. “He’s smarter than us, he’s smarter than us! Yay!” that he would then author a bill as stupid as this surprises me not at all, the real surprise would be if he didn’t.

    • twbb

      ” he can’t even get his lies right. HRC did not break the law, she didn’t violate national security, and it wasn’t “excused away” by anyone, because none of it happened”

      I think he got the lies right.

      • randykhan

        I do believe those are, in fact, the right lies.

  • busker type

    “the twit with the tiny mitts”

    [slow clap]

  • Spot Letton

    No more of this politically correct “treating all people with dignity” bullshit.

  • drdick52

    The gentleman from Texas obviously flunked freshman biology. Even accepting the insane notion that sex and gender are the same thing, I guess he has never heard of intersex people.

    • Erik Loomis


      You are too kind

    • rm_rm_rm


      You are too kind. He may have a piece of paper, but he is the opposite of an educated man.

  • mombrava

    I always enjoy watching conservatives try to define what they mean by things like “genetic sex” or any of the other supposedly commonsensical shibboleths they trot out to try to justify oppressing people they wish didn’t exist.

  • kaydenpat

    MAGA by embracing bigotry against a minority. What a great way to address the economic anxiety of Trump voters.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Could someone help me interpret “genetic sex” in the case of someone born with one X chromosome, one Y chromosome, two ovaries, a vagina, and no uterus? (complete Androgen Insensitivity syndrome)?

  • D. C. Sessions

    Could someone help me interpret “genetic sex” in the case of someone born with one X chromosome, one Y chromosome, two ovaries, a vagina, and no uterus? (complete Androgen Insensitivity syndrome)?

    • Sentient AI From The Future

      Can we organize a bulk buy of undergrad level biology textbooks and just mail those to him?
      Not that he’d read them because EVOLUTION OH MY STARS

    • drdick52

      Actually, a person with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome has two testes (internal), a vagina, and no uterus. I have a friend who has that. There is also the extreme form of congenital adrenal hyperplasia where females have masculinized genitalia.

      • D. C. Sessions

        Considering the audience I doubt we’re going to get agreement with either term because they’d be too busy pretending that CAIS is “fake news.”

  • (((advocatethis)))

    I endorse every characterization of Republican office holders and those who vote for them contained in this post.

  • jpgray

    Be it on sex or on text, strict constructionism is a very convenient doctrine. On complex issues, thinking, learning, and investigating all become very clear, direct and efficient once you’ve decided to do as little of all those as possible, right?

  • gwen

    One way to interpret this bill — which I suspect will likely die in committee — is that Olson is feeling necessary to suck up to the Dan Patrick-led wackadoo wing of the Texas GOP.

    Perhaps Olson has statewide ambitions, e.g. challenging Ted Cruz in next year’s primary? Or perhaps he’s trying to earn chits by appeasing wackadoo donors and constituents.

    Keep in mind that Texas is basically going to spend the next month convulsing over the bathroom-related fantasies of a small minority of bigots. And especially in the Houston area, a substantial part of the GOP base has been galvanized by the “transgender issue” ever since the City of Houston tried to enact the Equal Rights Ordinance several years ago.

    To be sure, transphobic right-wingers are a national phenomenon, but I would not overlook the local angle here.

    Also, there are a whopping five sponsors for this bill. One of this is Brian Babin, also from the Houston area. The others are Steve King and Trent Franks, who pretty are pretty well-established as hatemongering twits; Vicky Hartzler, who is apparently trying to milk trans-bigotry for all its worth (she was pushing an effort to strip troops of medical care for gender issues); and Some Random Asshole from BFE Louisiana.

  • gwen

    Also, have no fear, Caitlyn Jenner assures us that Trump is really just a big puppy dog deep down inside.

    And why would you not trust a Kardashian’s judgment?

    • reattmore

      Ms. Jenner is not a Kardshian. Sh was once married to a Kardashian’s ex-wife.

      • gwen

        She’s in the Kardashisphere.

  • VMink

    The Party of Small Government, everyone.

It is main inner container footer text