Current Events > Wyoming governor calls trans athlete ban bill 'draconian' and then passes it

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/21/1164917836/wyoming-governor-calls-trans-athlete-ban-bill-draconian-and-then-allows-it-to-pa

Gov. Mark Gordon allowed the bill to become law without his signature Friday, saying he supports and agrees with the overall goal of fairness in competitive female sports. But he also said in a decision letter that the ban "is overly draconian, is discriminatory without attention to individual circumstances or mitigating factors, and pays little attention to fundamental principles of equality."

The law, which takes effect July 1, will prohibit "students of the male sex from competing on a team designated for students of the female sex." It's among dozens of Republican proposals pushing back against transgender rights in statehouses across the U.S., including measures to ban gender-affirming care for minors, restrict drag shows, and prevent transgender people from using restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities associated with their gender identities.

is overly draconian, is discriminatory without attention to individual circumstances or mitigating factors, and pays little attention to fundamental principles of equality.

That is a pretty good summary of the republican platform.

I think this is called having your cake and eating it too.

He's aware it's awful and that's precisely why he passed it

Was it a situation where it had a veto-proof majority backing it or was he just like "I want it to pass but don't want my name on it"?

"Allow to pass without signature" appears to be a thing I was unaware of until this moment.

Another thing I'm not an expert on, but the bill appears to be literally sex discriminatory, and as such wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

Doom_Art posted...

Was it a situation where it had a veto-proof majority backing it or was he just like "I want it to pass but don't want my name on it"?

First sentence of the article:

Wyoming has become the 19th state to ban transgender athletes from playing on girls or women's sports teams after the Republican governor opted not to veto the legislation.

I would imagine a governor properly against a bill would use his veto power to force that majority override if for no other reason than protest.

As it stands, Gordon couldn't even be bothered to do that.

So whether he wants us to believe he's against it is irrelevant, because he certainly didn't do his duty as governor.

Seems like he would have preferred if it didnt come to this, a law to be signed.

CyricZ posted...

I would imagine a governor properly against a bill would use his veto power to force that majority override if for no other reason than protest.

As it stands, Gordon couldn't even be bothered to do that.

So whether he wants us to believe he's against it is irrelevant, because he certainly didn't do his duty as governor.

Counter to that, which I don't agree with but, is that he was in the minority of what the elected officials ruled, and he didn't want to step in the way of "Democracy at work".

CyricZ posted...

"Allow to pass without signature" appears to be a thing I was unaware of until this moment.

Another thing I'm not an expert on, but the bill appears to be literally sex discriminatory, and as such wouldn't it be unconstitutional?

All of these bans should be considered unconstitutional. However, the entire purpose at this juncture is to get as many of these bills passed and slip in stuff to open the doors for anti gay laws as well and once those get appealed to the SCOTUS it will enshrine bigotry and discrimination as the law. And keep in mind that much like anti abortion laws, there are many, many anti gay laws on the books still that will go into effect the moment the SCOTUS rules that those sorts of laws aren't discrimination or at least that the constitution never intended it to protect those groups.

Basically, Trans people are fucked and LGB people and the rest of minorities are next.

bigblu89 posted...

Counter to that, which I don't agree with but, is that he was in the minority of what the elected officials ruled, and he didn't want to step in the way of "Democracy at work".

I'm sure he can tell himself that. Of course, it's literally his job to be the check on that branch of government. Getting out of the way for the purpose of allowing the wheels to turn means you're completely useless.

remandramdoll posted...

All of these bans should be considered unconstitutional. However, the entire purpose at this juncture is to get as many of these bills passed and slip in stuff to open the doors for anti gay laws as well and once those get appealed to the SCOTUS it will enshrine bigotry and discrimination as the law. And keep in mind that much like anti abortion laws, there are many, many anti gay laws on the books still that will go into effect the moment the SCOTUS rules that those sorts of laws aren't discrimination or at least that the constitution never intended it to protect those groups.

Basically, Trans people are fucked and LGB people and the rest of minorities are next.

As much as I hate what's going on, this is probably true. Modern day Republicans still hate most of the stuff the founding fathers hated hundreds of years ago.

CyricZ posted...

I'm sure he can tell himself that. Of course, it's literally his job to be the check on that branch of government. Getting out of the way for the purpose of allowing the wheels to turn means you're completely useless.

100%

CyricZ posted...

I'm sure he can tell himself that. Of course, it's literally his job to be the check on that branch of government. Getting out of the way for the purpose of allowing the wheels to turn means you're completely useless.

Pro tip, he was lying and does support it but wants to seem like he's not awful for when his reelection comes up and he wants to appeal to moderates.

famfam posted...

As much as I hate what's going on, this is probably true. Modern day Republicans still hate most of the stuff the founding fathers hated hundreds of years ago.

Thing is, a big ruling not long ago had one of them cite that "it was never intended this way" excuses for his ruling. I think it was that one that said we can't take guns from people who have committed acts of domestic violence.

CyricZ posted...

I'm sure he can tell himself that. Of course, it's literally his job to be the check on that branch of government. Getting out of the way for the purpose of allowing the wheels to turn means you're completely useless.

It passed the legislature 49-10, the veto would have been performative and nothing more.

realnifty1 posted...

It passed the legislature 49-10, the veto would have been performative and nothing more.

A veto would have been a clear message to the voters that you are against it.

If he is not vetoing it, he's not against it, no matter what he says in a letter.

These "performative actions" fucking matter when you're a politician elected by the people.

The reason he chose no action is as someone already pointed out, plausible deniability come the next election: centrism bullshit.

realnifty1 posted...

It passed the legislature 49-10, the veto would have been performative and nothing more.

It isn't football. It's not like he only gets two vetoes a term or anything. If he's against this bill he should have done it.

The NCAA and NAIA need to grow some fucking balls and not allow any state with a law like this to be allows to host events, including home games. And it would be nice for the feds to enforce Title IX and bitch slap these shithole states.

CyricZ posted...

A veto would have been a clear message to the voters that you are against it.

If he is not vetoing it, he's not against it, no matter what he says in a letter.

These "performative actions" fucking matter when you're a politician elected by the people.

The reason he chose no action is as someone already pointed out, plausible deniability come the next election: centrism bullshit.

he understands that it matters, and made the best decision for himself. he wants to keep being elected

That wasn't him criticizing it, that was praise in his mind

realnifty1 posted...

It passed the legislature 49-10, the veto would have been performative and nothing more.

Sounds like a better option than just passing it through like you're happy with it.

Theres probably like 5 transgendered people in Wyoming total. This is so pointless and stupid and overall ignorant

MaxEffingBemis posted...

Theres probably like 5 transgendered people in Wyoming total. This is so pointless and stupid and overall ignorant

google tells me wyoming's population is about 578 000.

another site tells me that wyoming has 241 trans people per 100 000.

that would come out to about 1400 trans people in wyoming. that's a fair bit more than 5!

averagejoel posted...

google tells me wyoming's population is about 578 000.

another site tells me that wyoming has 241 trans people per 100 000.

that would come out to about 1400 trans people in wyoming. that's a fair bit more than 5!

And of those 1400, how many are athletes effected by this?

KarsaToblakai posted...

And of those 1400, how many are athletes effected by this?

One is too many

gmanthebest posted...

One is too many

I agree

averagejoel posted...

google tells me wyoming's population is about 578 000.

And they get two senators? What fucking horse shit lol

averagejoel posted...

google tells me wyoming's population is about 578 000.

another site tells me that wyoming has 241 trans people per 100 000.

that would come out to about 1400 trans people in wyoming. that's a fair bit more than 5!

I mean I guess so. Im going off of only 1% of the population in America is trans line of thinking so Im just exaggerating here.

MaxEffingBemis posted...

I mean I guess so. Im going off of only 1% of the population in America is trans line of thinking so Im just exaggerating here.

You're still essentially right - this hits so few actual trans athletes and is just an excuse for discrimination.