this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2026
153 points (96.4% liked)

politics

31806 readers
3520 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A coalition of advocacy groups are preparing to mount a legal challenge against a Washington state ballot initiative that bans transgender girls’ participation in girls’ school sports, which voters approved in last week’s midterm election and will go into effect next month.

The challenge is poised to set off a protracted legal battle over the rights of trans youth in Washington, which has functioned as a safe haven for thousands of trans people fleeing states that have enacted anti-trans laws in recent years.

If enforced, the ballot measure, Initiative 638, would be “the most extreme” trans sports ban of its kind, according to its opponents. The initiative’s official text says it would require all girls participating in school sports to “verify biological sex”, which could include confirming their “reproductive anatomy”.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At some point in America, we all decided that gay people were OK. That's the mainstream, that's the norm. Bigots had to find a new target because they need an enemy and they need that enemy to be widely despised and feared.

At the same time, queer advocates and allies are pushing radical ideas like recognizing trans people as human. This aggravates people because trans people today occupy the space gay people had in in the 90s. They're widely despised and loathed and are only represented in pop culture as a punchline. People would rather not think about them and they're willing to legislate their comfort.

Speaking as a reformed bigot, I had a hard time with trans acceptance. Trans acceptance is not just changing how you think and feel about trans people, you have to challenge what you think you know about gender; you have to think of yourself and all humanity differently.

But people like me can come around. And I believe that one day relatively soon, trans acceptance will be normal and mainstream.

[–] DisguisedJoker@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago

May I ask what changed your mind?

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (4 children)

How the hell did THAT pass??

[–] CobraCommander@quokk.au 34 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Transphobia? A lot of Dems are transphobic, just look how many were happy to throw trans people to the wolves these last few months. The midterms were about rejecting the Republicans other policies that hurt the average voter.

[–] CardboardDecoy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

In Truth WA is a very small, singular concentration of a huge number of mega progessives and then surrounded by a soup of the most conservative, religious, 'abortion is murder' billboard having, Jesus wasteland conservatives.

And yeah, even in the mega progressive areas we have a disgusting number of Cybertrucks. If nothing else it's a great example of how the battle never stops.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago

If you look at the breakdown by county, Seattle and Tacoma were of course largely against it. But the rural areas voted "For," and unfortunately Spokane and Olympia sided with the rural voters.

I'm confident it will be struck down in court, because it's very problematic from a legal/constitutional standpoint. It'll just take some good attorneys, so consider donating to any civil sector orgs that are gearing up to fight it in court.

[–] alapakala@quokk.au 3 points 1 day ago

The amount of flak I got for talking about this; Colorado, Arizona, and South Carolini’s anti🏳️‍⚧️ legislation should be grounds to make instance defederations.

[–] CrimeIsLegalNow@ani.social 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

For those who don't know their history and think the PNW is just Seattle and Portland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_black_exclusion_laws

(Note that Oregon Territory included both the modern states of Oregon and Washington.)

[–] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Good point. The Northwest Territorial Imperative was a thing, and those idiots are still up there.