When this is over I propose that we make it so 3 time trump voters aren’t allowed to have licenses
this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
152 points (90.4% liked)
News
36270 readers
2556 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
By deliberate identification by humiliation, this is clearly a civil rights violation. The bastards want them evicted.
How far to the extreme are they gonna take this "License only as you were born" shit?
Start getting gray hair? Thats not the hair color you were born with, immediate license revocation.
Amputation? Scars? You werent born with those, immediate license revocation.
Hair color was blond at birth, but now is brown? Oh you better believe thats a revocation.
All cause a bunch of sexually repressed bigots cant handle being attracted certain people.
I’m banned from Idaho, Kansas, Florida, and Texas.
I’m illegal in seventy-two countries.
I’ve hurt no one.
I've hurt no one.
That's the problem. There's a lot people who deserves being hurt. As long as we tolerate them, they won't tolerate us
An identifying document should reflect the current physical identity of a person, else it is useless.
It is meant to identify a person, nothing more, nothing less.
As for where the line is drawn for when changing the gender on the document, I don't know what would be appropriate. Demanding a that a person strips down naked to identify them is ridiculous.
So then perhaps gender labels should be left off of identifying documents, we could rely on iris scanning or DNA, stuff that doesn't change and is unique.
Frankly, I am in no way qualified to define this, my main point is that an identifying document needs to identify a person as they are today, not how they were born.
Government should not have everyone's dna
I can see the problem with that, yes, I just tried to figure out a quick and verifiable way to verify IDs if gender is out.
You’d have to start by trying to figure out a quick and verifiable definition of gender. The problem comes when it’s not as binary or final as you may think
Clickbait headlines should be outlawed.
There was one thing I didn't already know. This is also a bathroom law that relies on citizens to enforce.
So they're going to be reporting any cis women that look vaguely non-feminine.
Start reporting every politician you see go to the bathroom. You know children are not safe around them.
Religious leaders too.
It's Kansas. Is there a difference anymore?
Yes this is a witch hunt with the possibility of a $1000 reward, so the zealots will be all in.
Seems like a bunch of lawsuits waiting to happen. You know one of these toolbags is gonna point at a cis woman with a double mastectomy and baldness from chemo and be like "that's a man!" Seems like she'd have a good case.
Clickbait headlines to a paywalled article.
The headline is NOT clickbait, for further details either read the article, or my comment to mormon Linktank.
Use an ad-blocker, and it will randomly complain about that instead of putting up the paywall.
The complaint about ad-blocker can be closed and you can read the full article. 😋
I'm using ublock and hit the paywall. I'm not going to go searching for an alternative paywall bypass for the privilege of reading an article that I don't know what's in it.
The alternative is for someone who wants me to read it to copy past the article into a top level comment, not quote snippets in a reply to a specific person.
Ublock works, that's the one I use.
IDK why this is downvoted? I just tried again, and it still works.
Firefox with ublock origin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
So how exactly is this clickbait? It's not clickbait when it's true.
There are mentioned several items in the article that makes the law worse. Than "just" requiring the gender at birth to be stated on your drivers license.
For starters it has immediate effect with no grace period, making it impossible to get a new license in time.
Second it also invalidates birth certificates, which will make it impossible to get a new drivers license, until you have the birth certificate too.
Third, isn't this little tidbit nice?:
drivers will be “subject to additional penalties” if they are caught operating a vehicle with their current ID.
Finally, and this is decidedly a witch-hunt:
And IDs make up just one part of the law, which poses sweeping restrictions on trans Kansans’ access to public spaces. As of Thursday, any “multiple-occupancy private space” must be segregated by gender assigned at birth, including restrooms, hospital rooms, dormitories, locker rooms, and more. The law will be enforced by bounty-hunter lawsuits: Anyone who believes they were in a bathroom with someone who was given a different gender at birth can sue for damages of at least $1,000
These things considered,
How the fuck is that headline clickbait?
Does clickbait have to be misleading? I have always considered anything phrased so as to compel you to read further by omitting the crux of the article to be clickbait, so this would absolutely fall under that. An article with a headline like “never do this while tanning!” that’s about the dangers of citric acid on your skin in the sunlight is a useful, true article with a clickbait title, as another example.
Thank you. Seems obvious.
It's clickbait because it doesn't say the important part in the headline. Forcing you to click the article to know what the fuck they're talking about. It's a dick way to operate even if it doesn't fall under the exact definition.
Yes that can be the case, but in this situation there are multiple reasons why it's worse, and mentioning some would make the content of the article seem as less than it really has, and mentioning all would make an excessively long headline.
You also have to be realistic, and not call something clickbait that really isn't.
I agree that 9 times out of 10,such a headline is likely to be clickbait. but in this case there is actually a good reason for the headline.
However It should have said THESE details and not just "this detail". That mistake is probably mostly what makes it look like a run of the mill clickbait headline. Stupid mistake?
Paywall?
But apparently that's random, because on 2nd try it complained about my ad-blocker instead and I could continue to read the entire article?