196

Especially from a Texan newspaper

His pronouns are actually dumbfuck/coward

If nobody can use preferred pronounce, just start calling all CIS males "she/her." They would prefer to be "he/him" so obviously we can't call them that.

"Rafael" is also a preferred name. So we better just start referring to the piece of shit descriptively.

So he just wants to stop the federal government from enforcing pronouns or aliases in government settings…?

When does the government actually FORCE or ENFORCE pronoun usage though, using government money?

Am I taking crazy pills or is he just making shit up?

*Just wanted to say I appreciate all the people replying, the implications of his bill may be more severe than I initially read into it.

He needed something not so ethnic sounding. Ted is pretty fucking white.

He wanted to hold a TED talk so badly but was too incompetent, so he decided on holding Ted talks instead

Haaave you met Ted?

Is Ted not commonly used as short for Edward?

Ted can be short for Edward.

Probably because no one would take Eddie Cruz or Raph Cruz seriously.

It's a little too... European for a Texan regressive.

As a Rafael thank you

There are too many letters in "Rafael" for the average Texan to read. Ted is much easier for them

Conservative media has been boiling the frog on culture wars since Nixon, and by design.

No one who listens to right wing drivel realizes the absurdity because their version of politics is like football to them: a game to win with the only real consequence being their ability to shove it in people's faces, or shoved in back in theirs.

Conservative media is designed to be that so it is trivially easy to hide actual unfavorable news from their viewers, like $14 billion disappearing over night into Isreal or their god king standing trial on actual, provable charges.

Well a lot of misinformed people think his existence is a good thing but in reality he's harmful to (amongst other things) the vaginal health of women so yeah, calling him a douche is fitting.

Kind of true. This is what the bill says:

"No Federal funds may be used for the purpose of implementing, administering, or enforcing any rule…requiring an employee or contractor of any Federal agency or Department to use—(1) another person's preferred pronouns if they are incompatible with such person's sex; or (2) a name other than a person's legal name when referring to such person."

I interpret this to be an attempt to remove any training materials, HR efforts, or resolution conflict mediators from mentioning anything about gender pronouns. The creation of any training documents or resolving any interpersonal conflict where a person calls someone by a name other than their preferred name would be strictly off limits since that time would be paid for by the government. It doesn't matter if there's a concrete rule requiring others to respect preferred pronouns or not. If someone is upset about another person disrespecting preferred pronouns, this bill is broadly worded enough that nothing can be done about it. It creates a loophole for a bad actor to harrass someone with impunity.

This "protects" a harrasser's right to free speech in the same way it protects Nazis from gathering to protest and promote racism. Protecting free speech sounds good on paper until you delve deeper into the implications. Namely, removing limitations on hate speech in order to further suppress others. This bill is not hypocritical, as at first thought, but it is still just what you'd expect from the GOP.