Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pillbinge t1_jefcak2 wrote

People have been changing their names for a long time. Why is this specifically a trans issue and not a reform on credit companies, barring the obvious - she can’t reform them at her station. Still, I’d imagine this affects anyone who’s changed their name.

26

pwmg t1_jefj206 wrote

I was wondering about people who change their name when getting married or divorced. Seems like that would be a much larger demographic subject to the same issue.

13

DeliPaper t1_jefmimi wrote

But if you call it that, you can't take advantage of the 14th Amendment to force the issue.

5

[deleted] t1_jefv8rl wrote

She’s grandstanding, virtue signaling for social justice points aka pandering to the less than 1% of people in this country while inflation is skyrocketing and everyday citizens are struggling to make ends meet. But this is her priority. You get what you vote for

3

pillbinge t1_jefw8ot wrote

She can't directly affect any of those things, so that's irrelevant. My question is why she's focusing on this as a trans issue, or why outlets are, when this has been happening for as long as married women have been changing their name, and other people have decided for different names for other reasons, for a long, long time. I'd say thousands of years, but it depends where, and credit bureaus have only been around so long.

1

[deleted] t1_jefx48i wrote

She’s a US congresswoman. She has a direct effect and a sat on all of those things.

0

pillbinge t1_jefyp5g wrote

But she can't introduce bills in the same way.

It's one thing to be critical of this piece. It's another to then be outraged at the wrong things.

2

SandyBouattick t1_jeguifq wrote

>But she can't introduce bills in the same way.

Why not? Honestly, could she not introduce bills on those issues too?

4