this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
282 points (97.6% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2840 readers
712 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So that’s not exactly true.
There are around 40 offices in the Capitol Building, each of which has a private restroom. The rest of the members have offices in nearby buildings.
There are also private, members only restrooms in non-public areas of the building. These are single occupancy rooms.
Multi-occupancy restrooms are for staff and the public.
This whole thing is absurd theater. McBride has been offered access to several private restrooms, so there’s no reason for her to go into a public, multi-occupancy restroom.
McBride never went inside and expressed that she will comply with the ban. I agree it's theatrics to cause a commotion though.
No, you fucking halfwit meatball. They are pointing out the obvious reasons why from the outset it would not have been her in that bathroom.
They (McBride) wouldn't want to be going in a restroom like that where they could be harassed rather than just using any of the myriad of private restrooms that they have access to.
Therefore, the outcome that it was not McBride was obvious from the outset, but only Blowbert (and apparently you) are dumb enough to believe that it actually would have been her in the restroom.
I think the one that got me the most was some commenter on reddit called another a "fucking bucket". In context it was really funny.
I’m not sure how you got there. My comment was about “the world’s most powerful government” forcing its officials to use public restrooms.
That part is untrue. They (mostly) have private, single occupancy restrooms and there would be no reason for McBride to go into a public, multi occupancy room for either sex. Especially since she has been offered access to other elected officials private restrooms in private offices
Sure, I get it.
The article is somewhat about McBride in that Lauren Boebert made a scene suggesting that “a man” (McBride) was in the public women’s restroom. Then later retracted her statement saying it was a case of mistaken identity.
But the problem with the whole story is that A) McBride has indicated she would comply with House rules and not use a public, women’s restroom and B) McBride has no reason to use those public restrooms because C) most Members use private, single occupancy restrooms and D) members with personal restrooms in their private offices have offered to let McBride use them.
To tie all this together, Boebert created a farcical situation to get attention. It’s classic rage bait. She can win points with bigots because she’s defending the sanctity of women’s restrooms. Plus progressives get mad at her for being bigoted, which makes bigots happy with her.
The only response to this garbage is to not engage