295
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Utah’s Republican-controlled House voted Friday to pass a sweeping proposal to keep transgender people out of restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity in taxpayer-funded buildings, sending the measure to the state’s majority GOP Senate for consideration just three days after the start of the session.

House Bill 257 aims to prohibit individuals from using gender-designated facilities that differ from their sex assigned at birth in government buildings, correctional facilities and domestic violence shelters unless they have undergone a transition-related surgery and legally amended the sex on their birth certificate.

The proposal would require new government buildings to include single-occupant restrooms and changing rooms while existing ones must be studied to assess “the feasibility of retrofitting or remodeling” facilities to improve privacy.

...

The bill, if passed, would make Utah the third state to adopt explicit restrictions on transgender bathroom use in buildings other than schools. A Florida law passed last year prevents transgender people from using facilities consistent with their gender identity in all government-owned buildings, and a North Dakota law restricts bathroom use in correctional facilities.

(page 2) 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Utah’s Republican-controlled House voted Friday to pass a sweeping proposal to keep transgender people out of restrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity in taxpayer-funded buildings, sending the measure to the state’s majority GOP Senate for consideration just three days after the start of the session.

The proposal would require new government buildings to include single-occupant restrooms and changing rooms while existing ones must be studied to assess “the feasibility of retrofitting or remodeling” facilities to improve privacy.

Utah Republican Rep. Kera Birkeland, the bill’s primary sponsor in the House, argued this week that the measure is necessary to increase privacy and protect women and children from “bad actors.”

“We still have deep concerns that the proposed legislation will place transgender Utahns at risk in public bathrooms,” Equality Utah, a statewide LGBTQ advocacy group, wrote Friday in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Four states — Kansas, Montana, North Dakota and Tennessee — have similar laws on the books, which LGBTQ rights groups have argued broadly allow discrimination against transgender people.

In a statement following Friday’s vote, Utah Democratic Party Chair Diane Lewis called the passage of House Bill 257 “a shameful, discriminatory attack on a community that is already extremely marginalized and vulnerable.”


The original article contains 579 words, the summary contains 205 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] Maeve@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago

When you’re too weak and scared to do the hard, dirty shadow work, rely on othering.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 months ago

will governor cox remain consistent and veto this one too?

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

In the years that have passed since bathroom bills started surfacing, what has the DNC done to counteract and protect the rights of trans individuals?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

Democrats don't like admitting that they consider the filibuster more important than human rights in all cases.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

They use the filibuster as a shield to prevent progress, another one of their rotating villains when they don't have an actual one to blame

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2024
295 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3277 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS