311
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by MicroWave@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world

They're minors and he used their pictures without their parents' permission, seemingly calling them "boys in girls' sports."

Republican Ted Cruz’s desperate search for trans targets in a hateful series of anti-trans attack ads directed at his Democratic opponent Colin Allred has landed the two-term Texas senator in hot water with the parents of two cisgender girls and their high school.

The teens appear in at least two fear-mongering ads attacking both the trans community and Allred, picturing them alongside former University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas and CeCé Telfer, a Jamaican-born sprinter and the first out trans woman to win an NCAA title.

all 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SeikoAlpinist@slrpnk.net 45 points 3 weeks ago

Not an ounce of athleticism in Ted Cruz's body.

Which isn't a disqualifier for his position. But since it's Ted fucking Cruz we're talking about, it's fair game. He might be the only person on the planet who looks less intimidating with a beard.

Maybe he should stay in his fucking lane. Hope you Texans can help him figure that out in ten days.

[-] paw@feddit.org 44 points 3 weeks ago

I think this is a good example that free speech is not free consequences. The question is who carries the consequences. My guess is the two girls that may get mobbed at least until they graduate, maybe even longer.

Btw, I am pro free-speech, I just find it kind of sad that more often than not the consequences of free speech from people like Ted Cruz hit the people he's speaking about.

[-] kerthale@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

Free speech doesn’t mean irresponsible speech. I’m for free speech as well. Except I expect to be held accountable over what I say, and so do others. And I accept that I give space to speech I disagree with.

The irony is that those who whine about needing free speech the most also hate to be held accountable to what they say and they hate it when others disagree with them. Both of which are actually violating the principles of free speech.

So how about we all accept that free speech is an important right to uphold and protect as well as not be a bunch of dicks about it 😎

[-] Glide@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Right. As in all cases involving freedom and liberty, my freedom to swing my arms ends where your face begins. This is hurting someone.

Even if it weren't such a rediculously politically charged topic, these girls are likely to now have peers who see Ted Cruz's statement. They'll have to deal with some of those peers making comments, and mocking them for being "masculine." We have countless cases of bullying getting out of control and leading to serious psychological and physical harm, and now we have grown-ass men in positions of political power enabling this kind of behaviour to do what? Weaponize gender issues and spread hatred along political lines?

Fuck Ted Cruz, and fuck anyone who thinks a grown-ass man commenting on the gender of and posting images of young girls should be protected under "freedom of speech". This is abuse of power and child abuse. You wanna save the children, Republicans? Start with saving them from your leadership.

[-] femtech@midwest.social 0 points 3 weeks ago

I'm for free speech but not freeze peach, this is harassment and...slander I think.

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

This is why we don't want idiots like Ted Cruz in charge of what defining what gender your child is

[-] nokturne213@sopuli.xyz 21 points 3 weeks ago

This is why we don't want idiots like Ted Cruz in charge. FTFY

[-] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 weeks ago

This is why we don't want Ted Cruz.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

We don't want Ted Cruz.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Twentieth post on lemmy, hundredth article. No charges for ted.

[-] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Just for clarity's sake, if you watch the video, they seem pretty clearly represented as the "girls" being invaded by the "boys" ruining their sport.

"Boys in girls' bathrooms," shows picture of women's restroom, "boys in girls' sports," shows picture of girl athletes, one of them making a kind of "hmmm" face.

It's pretty ugly no matter how you slice it, but the title of the article seems to be a misinterpretation of how the image was used.

[-] bravesilvernest@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Serious question to them: what about girls in boys' x, y, z?

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

No no no. Girls in kitchen

[-] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 7 points 3 weeks ago

Fucking bigot

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So the one on the right in the picture is actually Jackie Haffner, the one who originally complained to Central Oregon Daily about Ada Gallagher competing as a girl in the Sherwood Need For Speed Classic. Even though they were in different disciplines. Ada was running while Jackie was jumping.

Here is Jackie wearing that same piece of clothing and hairstyle of the picture but at a different meet, just for proof that it's really her in the picture: https://youtu.be/wLFJRcMVctY?t=35

The one in the left of the picture is Saskia Dorf, see here: https://concordia-university-river-forest-illinois.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=14466&do=videos&video_id=389703

Certainly neither is Ada. Ada is the winner in heat 1 of the 200m sprint, there is a picture of their photo finish available here: https://live.athletictiming.net/meets/33717/events/individual/1224515

I think it's most likely that the Cruz campaign fucked up, didn't do their research and assumed Saskia was trans just because she's tall and sporty. The other option is that they wanted to depict the poor uncomfortable girls who have to compete against a trans girl, except they didn't since they weren't on the track that day.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
311 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2087 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS