Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The number of bills directly targeting and undermining the existing legal rights of transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. has been escalating, with sharp increases since 2021 and with each consecutive year. Kansas dealt the most radical blow yet on Feb. 26, 2026, as a law that immediately invalidates state-issued driver’s licenses, identification cards and birth certificates for holders whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth took effect overnight.

Kansas revoked transgender people’s IDs overnight – researchers anticipate cascading health and social consequences https://share.google/iZcWPti9phrCZqYiz

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

The number of bills directly targeting and undermining the existing legal rights of transgender and nonbinary people in the U.S. has been escalating, with sharp increases since 2021 and with each consecutive year. Kansas dealt the most radical blow yet on Feb. 26, 2026, as a law that immediately invalidates state-issued driver’s licenses, identification cards and birth certificates for holders whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth took effect overnight.

Kansas revoked transgender people’s IDs overnight – researchers anticipate cascading health and social consequences https://share.google/iZcWPti9phrCZqYiz

America is healing.  

Posted

About time, I'm not sure why under the last two fools in the white this was even allowed in the first place.  America needs a real righteous person to lead, haven't seen one yet  

Posted
10 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I’m going to take heat on this but I disagree with doing this. I agree with not issuing new ones but the toothpaste is out of the tube. 

☝️says the catholic 

Posted
Quote

Kansas revoked transgender people’s IDs overnight

How is this a good thing?

Posted
23 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

I’m going to take heat on this but I disagree with doing this. I agree with not issuing new ones but the toothpaste is out of the tube. 

You're incurring costs to make things right (and the inconvenience of it all) for individuals impacted, so yeah kind of feels like discrimination to me.   Should have thought through the efforts to make it right for those who for whatever reason would have to go and adjust it back. 

  • Like 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

You're incurring costs to make things right (and the inconvenience of it all) for individuals impacted, so yeah kind of feels like discrimination to me.   Should have thought through the efforts to make it right for those who for whatever reason would have to go and adjust it back. 

Says a failed politician who is now posting online about strangers penlses that he's looking up on the Internet for his jollies. 

Focking loser. :banana:

Posted

Revoking people's IDs overnight seems unnecessarily harsh.  :thumbsdown: 

Posted

Why is there even a need on a driver's license to know F or M?

Also, this seems overly abrupt, and mean. 

Are they checking IDs when  people use the girls or boys bathroom?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Why is there even a need on a driver's license to know F or M?

Also, this seems overly abrupt, and mean. 

Are they checking IDs when  people use the girls or boys bathroom?

Agree. The anti-trans nonsense has gone way too far. If the point was to protect kids, they’ve missed it by a mile.

Posted
31 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Revoking people's IDs overnight seems unnecessarily harsh.  :thumbsdown: 

I don't think it was over night.  That's hyperbolic.  When was the law passed?  The deadline was known and I'm sure it was published.  Those impacted had plenty of time to get the correct I.D..  I mean, there has to be a deadline.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't think it was over night.  That's hyperbolic.  When was the law passed?  The deadline was known and I'm sure it was published.  Those impacted had plenty of time to get the correct I.D..  I mean, there has to be a deadline.  

[Quote]Kansas dealt the most radical blow yet on Feb. 26, 2026, as a law that immediately invalidates state-issued driver’s licenses, identification cards and birth certificates for holders whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth took effect overnight.[/quote]

https://theconversation.com/kansas-revoked-transgender-peoples-ids-overnight-researchers-anticipate-cascading-health-and-social-consequences-277052

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

[Quote]Kansas dealt the most radical blow yet on Feb. 26, 2026, as a law that immediately invalidates state-issued driver’s licenses, identification cards and birth certificates for holders whose gender marker does not match their sex assigned at birth took effect overnight.[/quote]

https://theconversation.com/kansas-revoked-transgender-peoples-ids-overnight-researchers-anticipate-cascading-health-and-social-consequences-277052

 

So the legislature overrode a veto.  When was the law passed and sent to the governor?  How likely was he to veto it and what was the consensus that it would be overridden?  How much was this bill publicized?  Your link is highly biased and missing answers to those questions.  I am not familiar with your politics so I'm withholding judgment until I know more but rarely if ever does something like this crop up overnight.  The legislative process simply doesn't work that fast unless it's impeaching Trump.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Strike said:

So the legislature overrode a veto.  When was the law passed and sent to the governor?  How likely was he to veto it and what was the consensus that it would be overridden?  How much was this bill publicized?  Your link is highly biased and missing answers to those questions.  I am not familiar with your politics so I'm withholding judgment until I know more but rarely if ever does something like this crop up overnight.  The legislative process simply doesn't work that fast unless it's impeaching Trump.

Laws like this need to have a transition period. Nobody can 100% predict whether a veto will be overridden. Nobody can keep on top of every single piece of legislation passed in their state.

If letters were sent out telling people they needed new IDs, they should have been given a reasonable amount of time from the date of the letters being sent before invalidating the old IDs.

And that’s not getting into the politics of this law in any way.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Strike said:

So the legislature overrode a veto.  When was the law passed and sent to the governor?  How likely was he to veto it and what was the consensus that it would be overridden?  How much was this bill publicized?  Your link is highly biased and missing answers to those questions.  I am not familiar with your politics so I'm withholding judgment until I know more but rarely if ever does something like this crop up overnight.  The legislative process simply doesn't work that fast unless it's impeaching Trump.

I just googled and that was the first link I found.  The governor is female, Democrat, working against a very conservative, Republican legislature.

I'm not familiar enough with the situation to answer your questions, just have heard bits and pieces.  Also my politics is on the other side of the river where statewide offices are all held by Republicans working with the very conservative legislature, so we're not the same :banana:

Posted
2 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Laws like this need to have a transition period. Nobody can 100% predict whether a veto will be overridden. Nobody can keep on top of every single piece of legislation passed in their state.

If letters were sent out telling people they needed new IDs, they should have been given a reasonable amount of time from the date of the letters being sent before invalidating the old IDs.

And that’s not getting into the politics of this law in any way.

Or so one would think.

Posted
2 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

I just googled and that was the first link I found.  The governor is female, Democrat, working against a very conservative, Republican legislature.

I'm not familiar enough with the situation to answer your questions, just have heard bits and pieces.  Also my politics is on the other side of the river where statewide offices are all held by Republicans working with the very conservative legislature, so we're not the same :banana:

I'd also be curious to know why the timeframe was so short.  I know in some states a law goes in to effect unless it's vetoed.  It doesn't need a Governor signature.  So did the Governor purposely wait until the last minute to veto it?  If so, this chaos is on her and not the people who may have passed it with an effective date in the bill.

Posted
2 minutes ago, frank said:

So how would you know if anyone’s ID was valid without checking their birth certificate? :dunno:
 

My understanding is that if your gender does not match the gender with which your license was first obtained, it's basically thrown out and no longer valid for any purposes you might otherwise use your ID for (driving, voting, etc.) :dunno:

Posted
Just now, frank said:

So how would you know if anyone’s ID was valid without checking their birth certificate? :dunno:
 

Well if you're a cop and pull some ugly ass chick over with a beard their I.D. might be invalid.  Oh, and from what I skimmed from CMH's link anyone can sue someone with an invalid I.D. civilly for like $1000 so if your coworker is using an invalid I.D. you can make an easy grand.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Strike said:

Well if you're a cop and pull some ugly ass chick over with a beard their I.D. might be invalid.  Oh, and from what I skimmed from CMH's link anyone can sue someone with an invalid I.D. civilly for like $1000 so if your coworker is using an invalid I.D. you can make an easy grand.

Turning in your coworker for only a grand - what an absolute arsehole.

Posted

Kansas governor comes across as a typical unintelligent democrat.  In reading this article, a claim she makes is that...

“Under this bill: if your grandfather is in a nursing home in a shared room, as a granddaughter, you would not be able to visit him,” Kelly said. “If your wife is in a shared hospital room, as a husband, you would not be able to visit her,”

Maybe someone on her staff should let her know that the Bill says "Public Buildings" and notes what a "Public Building" is: "Public building" means a building owned or leased by a governmental entity. "Public building" does not include a building owned by a governmental entity that is leased to a private entity, whether for profit or not for profit, if the lease agreement for such building between the governmental entity and the private entity was in force and effect on the effective date of this act.

Nursing homes are vastly privately owned as are hospitals.  Also, for the very few nursing homes and/or hospitals, that are not privately owned, the bathroom in shared rooms, MUST BE designated as a "Men's" room or "Women's" room for this bill to apply.  I've literally been in a total of ZERO hospitals and/or nursing homes, where the patients bathrooms are assigned genders.

I mean, is there any real reason to put any faith in what she says on this bill from here on out?  It's literally her first complaint (in the article), and her stance is proven to be either wrong or a lie, on literally the first page of the bill

More evididence of either her incompetence or lying (again, from the linked article):

“I believe the Legislature should stay out of the business of telling Kansans how to go to the bathroom and instead stay focused on how to make life more affordable for Kansans,” Kelly said in her veto statement.

Um, that's what the Legislature is doing.  It's staying "out of the business of telling Kansans how to go to the bathroom".  It's righting a wrong and going back to the original principles that men go to mens rooms, and women go to womens rooms.  Apparently (since she's calling this out), prior to this bill, the legislature WAS "telling Kansans how to go to the bathroom", because it allowed for men to use womens restrooms and vice versa.

 

The rest of this dumb broads claims aren't worth addressing, so I stopped reading.  Here's what I think, I think the best case scenario for this piece of trash governor is that she's actually in favor of the bill, but needs to purport the image that she does not.  So, she gaslights to pander to her base.


The republican's could've had an easy W, if they just said "as of Jan 1, 2027".  They could've scored a bigger W, by saying that "anyone who is not up for renewal in 2026, fees are waived, for anyone getting their new ID on or before Dec 31, 2026".  This is why all politicians suck, just demcorats are worse.

Posted
12 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

It also strikes me as unconstitutional, a violation of the 14th Amendment. 

That seems like a pretty loose application of the 14th amendment.  Do you have a right to make the government issue you an ID with a gender that you feel like you are, in your pursuit of happiness? 

The 14th was written to protect (then recently) freed slaves, and has already been stretched well beyond that.  But I can't see this court stretching it this far.

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That seems like a pretty loose application of the 14th amendment.  Do you have a right to make the government issue you an ID with a gender that you feel like you are, in your pursuit of happiness? 

The 14th was written to protect (then recently) freed slaves, and has already been stretched well beyond that.  But I can't see this court stretching it this far.

 

The point is equal rights, equal treatment under the law. If you and I have a right to obtain an ID then a trans person should have the same right. IMO. 

Posted

There were some further shenanigans on this bill from the legislature.

Bills are supposed to take time to go through so the public can weigh in. But the legislators did a maneuver where they changed the text of the bill at the last moment to force it through without time for the public to know about it.

In addition, all the other bills for the year were set to go into effect on July 1. But for this bill they specifically made it go into effect immediately.

This wasn’t a mistake or an accident. They did this intentionally.

Finally, the state has already begun to screw this up, invalidating licenses of people who never changed the gender marker on their licenses to begin with.

More info here:

https://www.assignedmedia.org/breaking-news/kansas-revokes-license-no-gender-change

Kansas Republicans, do better!

Posted
15 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

The point is equal rights, equal treatment under the law. If you and I have a right to obtain an ID then a trans person should have the same right. IMO. 

They can get an I.D..  Just stop it.

  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

The point is equal rights, equal treatment under the law. If you and I have a right to obtain an ID then a trans person should have the same right. IMO. 

They have equal rights -- they can get an ID in their sex assigned at birth just like everyone else.

Also, government IDs serve a purpose to the community at large.  They do not exist to make you feel good.  If you identify as a cat or a tree, you cannot put that on your license.

This is independent of my thoughts on the law, which IMO has issues swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction.  I just don't think it is a constitutional right.

Posted
17 hours ago, dogcows said:

Turning in your coworker for only a grand - what an absolute arsehole.

I disliked some of my coworkers.  A grand is not much but I might have been tempted to turn them in for a grand. Of course the short term satisfaction would have been overcome by the long-term awkwardness as presumably they would know who turned them in.  Imagine daily interaction with someone you narced on.  

 

In my case it would all be moot as none of my coworkers were trannies.  AZZholes, yes, but trannies, no.

  • Thanks 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...