MMR Weekend December 8-10 2023: Low Life

Interrogations are considered one of the most violent parts of detention for many women as sexual harassment and torture are often used as a means of intimidation and coercion to confess. Physical/psychological torture tactics include stress positions, sleep deprivation, beatings, shouting sexual words, insults, and questions about her husband. Sexual violence occurs to most women, and may include beatings, threats, sexually explicit harassment, threats of rape (including threats of rape of family members), and body searches. These routine body searches include almost all clothing being forcibly ripped off, sometimes including undergarments. The women are often asked to squat while naked and are frequently subjected to intrusive internal body searches.

For Republicans, the rise of antisemitic speech and the timid responses of some academic leaders presented a long-sought opportunity to flip the political script and cast liberals or their institutions as hateful and intolerant. “What I’m describing is a grave danger inherent in assenting to the race-based ideology of the radical left,” said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., at the hearing, adding, “Institutional antisemitism and hate are among the poison fruits of your institution’s cultures.”



The potency of the critique was underscored by how many Democrats joined the attack.

And one of the most spectacular stories in modern American history has been how these limits have changed. Over the past few decades, public opinion on LGBT issues, represented in the debate over same-sex marriage, has shifted to an extent and at a rate with few parallels in political history. Starting around the mid-2000s, support for same-sex marriage changed from a solidly outnumbered minority position to a stance with supermajority support among the public—over the course of a single decade. It happened with such speed that it caught nearly every person in power off guard.

(...)

As easily as Trump would make this sort of outreach, he would also promise to overturn Obergefell and put out lists of potential Supreme Court nominees who were very likely to do so. For his running mate, he would pick a leader of the Christian right, notorious for his homophobia even within the Republican Party itself. Still, even mere changes in rhetoric were still remarkable to see compared to how the party had previously dealt with the issue. And while Trump’s ultimate victory could never be construed as anything near a progressive development, the way in which he won—winning over support from traditionally Democratic voters who saw him as an independent moderate—perhaps could have represented proof to Republicans that they might be best served leaving issues of sexuality and gender be.

(...)


Demonizing transgender people is now central to nearly every Republican political campaign. And the ultimate aim of their scheme is clear: the criminalization and eradication of non-traditional gender identities.

(...)


Even at the time, commentators could tell that this Republican ascension was going to be far different than the usual coming and going of party power. Seemingly overnight, a political class that had long been known for a moderate, pro-business approach was replaced wholesale by a group of ideologically motivated movement conservatives—set up by their own maps to hold power indefinitely. And they had lofty aims. North Carolina, along with other states with historically moderate politics like Wisconsin and Kansas, was selected by national movement conservatives as a “laboratory:” where the new right-wing governments would enact as many extreme, far-right policies as possible.

[...]


Charlotte did not pass this ordinance randomly. While the legislation that would eventually be referred to as “bathroom bills” had not yet been passed in any state, they had begun to be considered by various state legislators across the country starting around 2013.

(...)

The backlash to the bill would be swift and harsh, beyond anything expected by even the most optimistic of the bill’s opponents. Instead of a reasonable protection against overbearing cultural liberals, HB2 was broadly seen as, at best, an overly broad solution in search of a problem. At worst, it was seen as mandating discrimination against the LGBT community, an undeniable act of legal bigotry that made even the mere act of visiting the state a moral dilemma. Not only was it unpopular with voters, it went as far as to ruin the image of the state in the eyes of the nation, particularly—and most importantly—to big business.

(...)

All told, the cumulative economic costs of the pullouts and canceled events as a result of HB2 has been estimated to have been nearly $4 billion over the course of 2016. And even this number is certainly a low estimate. It only includes the costs of projects that were planned ahead of time and canceled as a result of the law. The true cost of the law, including new projects that may have considered North Carolina but didn’t because of HB2, will never be known.