Republicans fit discrimination against transgender, non-binary Americans into busy Be Evil schedule
By 
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:
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE.
(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:
- Eradicate protections transgender and non-binary people received during the Obama administration.
- Make it clear that discrimination against these Americans is OK with Republicans.
- Allow Republicans to define gender as Boys are Boys and Girls are Girls, so there!
- 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.
