I'm pointing out that is wasn't the Republican party pushing for secular education, that's for damn sure. You make a fair point about holding political office. Let me think about that for awhile.
Okay, I've thought about it. The extreme would be the fill a quota over qualification for office which I would call left leaning.
Because gender dysphoria is a mental illness which needs professional treatment, not affirmation. The extreme is allowing these people to compete in sports for which they have an obvious advantage. Pushing this nonsense on small children is insane and only acceptable to the extremists.
I don't think it is an issue (you weren't asking me, of course). But I think it is an issue if you disenfranchise women with a rule that pits them against individuals who have a physical/biological advantage.
Put on your science fiction cap and imagine a future where people can change race and gender in a few minutes, and it has became common to do so, considered no more strange than putting on a different suit. How much weight would we then give to the roles and actions we today accept as normal for men but not women, and vice versa? Leave off the problems of adjustment for the moment, that's a process.
Joe Manchin continues to get his pound of flesh as this train keeps rolling on: Senate is doing a marginal paring back of eligibility with a pretty steep cut off of 5 and 10k, single or married, respectively.
This is bad strategy by Republicans, IMO. By lengthening the time to pass this highly popular bill they will only draw more attention to their unified opposition. If they are not going to participate, they should just dispense with it and move on.
And of course it might draw attention to what is actually in the bill, and you would not want that, EH??