News and Events => Opinions & Editorials => Topic started by: Jessica_Rose on November 20, 2025, 08:18:23 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder.
Post by: Jessica_Rose on November 20, 2025, 08:18:23 AM
Post by: Jessica_Rose on November 20, 2025, 08:18:23 AM
Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/11/legislative-hate-is-not-speech-it-is-complicity-in/
Dr. Christy Pérez (20 Nov 2025)
... Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) in 2025 is no longer just a memorial for lives lost; it is an acknowledgment of the strength of our numbers and the urgency of our resistance in an era where lawmaking has become one of the central weapons used against us.
The anti-trans bills, the speeches, the slander, and the hearings are not idle talk but accelerants poured onto a house that has been burning for years. Legislative hate is not speech; it is complicity in murder. By now, it is no secret that Congress has become a theater of cruelty where mockery and legislative warfare merge into a single show. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has become one of its most visible performers, not because she is uniquely hateful but because she is uniquely willing to say aloud what others keep coded.
During a House Oversight hearing in February, Mace repeatedly used a well-known anti-trans slur. When challenged by a Democratic colleague, she laughed and replied, "I don't really care."
These are not slips of the tongue. They are deliberate political choices. When a sitting member of Congress turns trans people into a punchline, the impact does not stay within the hearing room or auditorium; it ripples into streets and schools and workplaces. Trans people already navigate fear, harassment, and isolation in these spaces, and now, the people there who wish us harm can hear her clearly.
When lawmakers use their platform to spread falsehoods about trans people, to mock our existence, to propose legislation that strips away our healthcare, our documentation, our participation in public life, they are not participating in legitimate debate. They are weaponizing public office.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/11/legislative-hate-is-not-speech-it-is-complicity-in/
Dr. Christy Pérez (20 Nov 2025)
... Transgender Day of Remembrance (TDOR) in 2025 is no longer just a memorial for lives lost; it is an acknowledgment of the strength of our numbers and the urgency of our resistance in an era where lawmaking has become one of the central weapons used against us.
The anti-trans bills, the speeches, the slander, and the hearings are not idle talk but accelerants poured onto a house that has been burning for years. Legislative hate is not speech; it is complicity in murder. By now, it is no secret that Congress has become a theater of cruelty where mockery and legislative warfare merge into a single show. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) has become one of its most visible performers, not because she is uniquely hateful but because she is uniquely willing to say aloud what others keep coded.
During a House Oversight hearing in February, Mace repeatedly used a well-known anti-trans slur. When challenged by a Democratic colleague, she laughed and replied, "I don't really care."
These are not slips of the tongue. They are deliberate political choices. When a sitting member of Congress turns trans people into a punchline, the impact does not stay within the hearing room or auditorium; it ripples into streets and schools and workplaces. Trans people already navigate fear, harassment, and isolation in these spaces, and now, the people there who wish us harm can hear her clearly.
When lawmakers use their platform to spread falsehoods about trans people, to mock our existence, to propose legislation that strips away our healthcare, our documentation, our participation in public life, they are not participating in legitimate debate. They are weaponizing public office.
Title: Re: Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder.
Post by: Lori Dee on November 20, 2025, 10:11:55 AM
Post by: Lori Dee on November 20, 2025, 10:11:55 AM
Any elected representative who verbally abuses any group should be immediately removed from office. There is no place for bigotry in government service. It is past time to hold these people accountable.
Title: Re: Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder.
Post by: Susan on November 20, 2025, 11:16:21 AM
Post by: Susan on November 20, 2025, 11:16:21 AM
A few years ago, I wrote a definition of hate speech that I believed then—and know now—should disqualify it from free speech protections:
Hate speech is any form of expression that attacks, demeans, or discriminates against an individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. It is often used to harm, intimidate, harass, or marginalize vulnerable people, and it has devastating effects on individuals and communities.
The distinction matters: hate speech is fundamentally different from free speech because it targets people based on innate characteristics and causes demonstrable harm.
Free speech ends where deliberate harm begins.
When a speaker's words are intended to—or even unintentionally do—cause harm to others based on who they are, that speech cannot be considered free.
Evidence shows that increased hate speech leads directly to more hate crimes, normalizes discrimination, creates environments where violence becomes more likely, and inflicts deep emotional and psychological damage on those targeted.
Dr. Christy Pérez's article on legislative hate and Transgender Day of Remembrance 2025 demonstrates exactly why this reframing is urgent. When Rep. Nancy Mace repeatedly uses anti-trans slurs during official House hearings and dismisses the harm with "I don't really care," we are not witnessing debate—we are witnessing hate speech weaponized and amplified through government power and media reach. This isn't political theater. This is state-sanctioned targeting.
And when hate speech is repeated, codified, and enforced through legislative action, the harm multiplies exponentially.
The words spoken inside Congress do not stay there. They ripple outward into homes, workplaces, streets, and schools where trans people are already navigating fear and isolation. When those who wish us harm hear elected officials mock us, lie about us, or dehumanize us, they hear permission.
The anti-trans bills aren't policy disagreements. The slurs aren't slips. The mockery isn't free expression. These are deliberate acts of discrimination that create conditions in which violence becomes more likely, embed stigma into law, and perpetuate cycles of intolerance. As Pérez writes: "Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder." She's right.
We need accountability that matches the harm.
Hate speech should never be protected under free speech laws or human rights legislation, because it perpetuates the very harms those laws exist to prevent. And when it comes from those entrusted with public power, removal from office should be the minimum consequence, not a radical idea.
As responsible members of society, we must stand against hate speech wherever we encounter it—including and especially inside our legislatures—and promote a culture rooted in respect, diversity, and inclusivity. Our survival cannot be treated as political sport.
Hate speech is any form of expression that attacks, demeans, or discriminates against an individual or group based on their race, ethnicity, religion, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation, or other characteristics. It is often used to harm, intimidate, harass, or marginalize vulnerable people, and it has devastating effects on individuals and communities.
The distinction matters: hate speech is fundamentally different from free speech because it targets people based on innate characteristics and causes demonstrable harm.
Free speech ends where deliberate harm begins.
When a speaker's words are intended to—or even unintentionally do—cause harm to others based on who they are, that speech cannot be considered free.
Evidence shows that increased hate speech leads directly to more hate crimes, normalizes discrimination, creates environments where violence becomes more likely, and inflicts deep emotional and psychological damage on those targeted.
Dr. Christy Pérez's article on legislative hate and Transgender Day of Remembrance 2025 demonstrates exactly why this reframing is urgent. When Rep. Nancy Mace repeatedly uses anti-trans slurs during official House hearings and dismisses the harm with "I don't really care," we are not witnessing debate—we are witnessing hate speech weaponized and amplified through government power and media reach. This isn't political theater. This is state-sanctioned targeting.
And when hate speech is repeated, codified, and enforced through legislative action, the harm multiplies exponentially.
The words spoken inside Congress do not stay there. They ripple outward into homes, workplaces, streets, and schools where trans people are already navigating fear and isolation. When those who wish us harm hear elected officials mock us, lie about us, or dehumanize us, they hear permission.
The anti-trans bills aren't policy disagreements. The slurs aren't slips. The mockery isn't free expression. These are deliberate acts of discrimination that create conditions in which violence becomes more likely, embed stigma into law, and perpetuate cycles of intolerance. As Pérez writes: "Legislative hate is not speech. It is complicity in murder." She's right.
We need accountability that matches the harm.
Hate speech should never be protected under free speech laws or human rights legislation, because it perpetuates the very harms those laws exist to prevent. And when it comes from those entrusted with public power, removal from office should be the minimum consequence, not a radical idea.
As responsible members of society, we must stand against hate speech wherever we encounter it—including and especially inside our legislatures—and promote a culture rooted in respect, diversity, and inclusivity. Our survival cannot be treated as political sport.