Is It a Privilege to Pee?
  November 19, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, Remember last week when I said we would be doing a special photos-only send of my Christmas sweater once I finished making it? Well, guess what? We are totally not doing that because we are serious news people and these are serious times, but if you want a little holly in your jolly, you may or may not find it here. In today’s newsletter, we’re talking about bathroom bullies in Congress, Matt Gaetz, and a win in Wyoming. Seriously serious, Shannon Melero  WHAT’S GOING ONIt’s a privilege to pee (apparently): When I first heard that Delaware lawmaker Sarah McBride had won her election, making her the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress, I turned to my roommate and said, “How long do you think we have until Republicans completely lose their shit?” As it turns out, not long at all. On Monday, South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace (R) introduced a resolution banning any members of Congress or House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” When asked by reporters if the bill was targeting McBride specifically, she responded, “Yes and absolutely, and then some… I’m absolutely 100% gonna stand in the way of any man [sic] who wants to be in a women’s restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms.”  MCBRIDE AT THE CAPITOL (VIA GETTY) There’s been much ado lately about whether or not all women should be allowed in women’s restrooms, women’s locker rooms, women’s sports. But this conversation has never really been about restrooms. We are witnessing a debate on whether or not trans people should be allowed to exist in public life. If we were all in agreement on that point—if this public panic was truly about women’s safety or the sanctity of your 8th grade daughter’s Little League team—then this conversation would be a logistical one. Those in opposition would propose alternate solutions. They’d have an answer (any answer at all!) for where a grown-ass man with a full beard and a vagina should pee. But they’re not even considering the question. Nancy, if you really want women in Congress to be safer, I’d start focusing your energy on…well, just read the next item. —Bailey Wayne Hundl About that (alleged) abuser: Ever since last week’s bombshell that Matt Gaetz is Trump’s pick for Attorney General, the media has been asking why, exactly, anyone (even Trump) would nominate him. As a refresher: Not only is Gaetz patently unqualified for the job, deeply disliked by his Republican colleagues, and primed to carry out the retribution Trump has been threatening, he’s also been the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation amid various accusations including sex trafficking and bribery. (Some details from that investigation have already leaked; WaPo reports that two women testified they were paid to have sex with Gaetz.) According to the New York Times, even Trump himself privately acknowledges Gaetz’s uphill struggle in winning the nomination. So the question remains: Why did he nominate this creep in the first place? We have to presume he knew what was in the House investigation and doesn’t care. But analysts suggest there may be something more nefarious at play: The kerfuffle around Gaetz draws attention away from Trump’s other dangerous choices, like anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., accused sex offender Pete Hegseth, or Putin darling Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz makes them all seem less clownish in comparison. The plan may be to lower the bar for nominees, presenting so many extreme choices that the Senate can’t block all of them. So although it’s good news that Gaetz is far from a shoe-in, it’s unsettling that he might help pave the way for some equally abysmal government officials. (And if you too are unsettled, keep calling.) —Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
