Sen. Ted Cruz has introduced a bill that would limit the use of preferred names by trans people.
The irony, critics point out? The senator, whose legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz, uses a preferred name himself: Ted.
How could this possibly be ruled as Constitutional? Let alone any remaining shadow of ‘party of small government’ irony, that shipped sailed into the West a long, long time ago.
The article's title presents this in a misleading way. The bill in question wouldn't prevent people from using their preferred names and pronouns. What it would do is prohibit the government from spending federal funds to implement or enforce any rules or recommendations encouraging its employees and contractors to respect those names and pronouns.
So in other words this is an attempt at protecting hate-speech, not at restricting free-speech. Shitty, but probably not unconstitutional.
I'll have you know that Ted Cruz is not a genderless insectoid in a human meat suit, and therefore is offended by being called "it." Ted Cruz's preferred pronoun is "Z'fTckli'"
The allegedly human male senator, who itself has chosen to be addressed by the preferred name “Ted”, but looking at the Senate records its name is actually, legally, Rafael Edward Cruz. Would the, allegedly human senator, them self care to explain?
It’s not as a joke, I’m serious. The implication is that he’s a trans-man and should have to prove otherwise to every individual he meets if he wants to use his preferred pronouns. Let Cruz eat his own dog food.
Better to keep referring to he/him by he/his preferred pronouns, but just hammer in the point that he/him is using pronouns you keep saying both every time.
He/him being reminded of it every time is much worse, and doesn’t invalidate trans peoples pronouns.
Step 2: Boost it with stories about how bad the people on the wrong side are: won’t someone think of the children?
Step 3: Watch the outrage donations roll on in
It’s a playbook as old as time.
*Some people might call it divisive because one side is like “let’s all become crabs and live in the ocean” vs the other side that’s like “no let’s continue using our opposable thumbs”. But who am I to label whether one side is right and the other wrong?
Look, I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own bathtub, but other people have to use the ocean and I don’t want you putting any funny ideas in my kid’s head about being a crab. His chitinous exoskeleton and claw are just a phase.
Crabs are the most perfect form in evolution. You will soon join is once you mold and reveal your exoskeleton, then you will know the perfection that are crabs.
Step 3 is missing the part “and ignore actual issues that affect us all but solutions would make rich people less rich so it’s better to distract them”
I think it is due to it not really being any loss for them if they fail to get something like that passed. It serves the purpose of the cheap “pops” of “sticking it to them libs”, and if it passes then that is just a bonus. The whole point is like so many really stupid laws that “look/feel” like something was done but actually just wasted time or makes things just more annoying. So they are “seen” to be “fighting” the other team. Where as if they were to actually push something that requires real functional effort or could lead to massive loss of seats. They would then be seen as big losers and seen as the ego trippers that they really are. It is honestly shit that should just lead to them being put against a wall for all the intentional fucking around they are doing.
Hey Texas, Collin Allred is going up against Rafael Cruz. You don’t have to vote for the status quo, you could shake it up and put someone in there who isn’t a complete shit-bag.
Add comment