The U.S. House of Representatives erupted into controversy this week as South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace became the focal point of a heated debate over gender-affirming care, political rhetoric, and congressional decorum. The events, which unfolded on the House floor and quickly spilled onto social media, have reignited national conversations about trans rights, political hypocrisy, and the boundaries of personal attacks in American politics.
On Friday morning, September 12, 2025, Representative Mace appeared on CNN, where she attributed the fatal shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk to what she described as an increase in political violence and divisiveness. According to Mace, these problems were “very one-sided right now,” and she placed the blame squarely on Democrats and the political left. “I have never called one of my colleagues the kind of names that we’ve been called. I’ve never dehumanized my colleagues,” Mace said, echoing sentiments voiced by several Republican leaders in recent months.
Yet, as reported by The New Republic and other outlets, Mace’s claims of civility have drawn skepticism and sharp criticism. Her record in Congress includes a well-documented history of transphobic attacks, most notably directed at Delaware Democratic Representative Sarah McBride, the first transgender woman elected to Congress. In November 2024, Mace spearheaded an effort to ban transgender people from using Capitol bathrooms, a move she openly admitted was “absolutely” meant to target McBride. Mace referred to McBride as a “biological man,” stating, “It’s offensive that a man in a skirt thinks that he’s my equal.” When demonstrators protested her proposed ban, Mace escalated the rhetoric, using the slur “tranny” both in public and during a congressional hearing. When confronted about her language, she taunted, “Tranny! Tranny! Tranny!”
These incidents were not isolated. In January 2025, Mace responded to criticism from Democratic Representative Jasmine Crockett with what appeared to be a threat, saying, “If you want to take it outside,” though she later denied implying a physical altercation. Such episodes have led critics to accuse Mace of the very behavior she claims to oppose—derogatory attacks and dehumanization of colleagues.
The controversy reached a boiling point on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, when California Democratic Representative Sara Jacobs took to the House floor to address what she saw as the GOP’s hypocrisy on gender-affirming healthcare. Jacobs singled out Mace, labeling her a “proud transphobe” and criticizing her attempts to amend a Defense Department funding bill to ban gender-affirming care for military members and their families. Jacobs noted, “I would just like to point out that it’s interesting my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs to talk about them, when many people in this body have received gender-affirming care.”
Jacobs then listed examples of gender-affirming care, including fillers, breast augmentation (“boob jobs”), and Botox—procedures that, as she suggested, Mace herself may have undergone. “Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care, and let me be clear, everybody should have access to the gender-affirming care they need, and I think that we should respect everybody in this country,” Jacobs declared.
Mace’s response was immediate and explosive. Violating House procedure, she shouted at Jacobs, “Ridiculous. You are absolutely ridiculous. What the hell is your problem? You are disgusting. You are an insult.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, presiding at the time, intervened, stating, “The gentlelady is not recognized. The House will be in order,” and cut Mace’s microphone. Yet, Mace’s voice could still be heard in the background as Johnson struggled to restore order, according to WCBD News 2.
Undeterred, Mace took her grievances to social media, posting on X (formerly Twitter) that Jacobs’ comments about cosmetic procedures were personal attacks on her own body. She ended her post with a remark widely condemned as antisemitic: “PS—I have a good surgeon if you ever want to get your nose done.” The backlash was swift, with many decrying both the tone and the content of Mace’s remarks.
In an interview with The New Republic on the same day, Jacobs clarified her intent: “Look, I didn’t actually say anything about Nancy Mace. I said many of my colleagues have had this kind of care. I think it’s very telling that she thought that I was picking on her. It sounded like she told [on] herself.” Jacobs added, “I think everyone should get whatever gender-affirming care they want. Like, you do you, girl. But the idea that she would use that to target this already vulnerable population is horrible. She knows it gets her headlines and clicks. She thinks it’s going to help her in her campaign for governor of South Carolina. And she’s targeting vulnerable young people to do that.”
Jacobs also highlighted the broader implications of Mace’s legislative efforts. “She offered a number of amendments that would have prohibited gender-affirming care for service members and their dependents, which would have included mental health care, that would have stopped trans people from being able to use the restroom that they need. There was a number of other things she was trying to do.” Jacobs accused Mace of a “very strategic targeted approach” against trans people, especially trans kids, for political gain.
Medical experts and organizations have weighed in on the debate, underscoring that gender-affirming care encompasses a wide range of interventions, not limited to those sought by transgender individuals. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and the Association of American Medical Colleges, procedures like brow lifts, jaw recontouring, forehead cranioplasty, breast augmentation, and non-surgical treatments such as fillers or Botox are all considered forms of gender-affirming care. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines gender-affirmative healthcare as any combination of social, psychological, behavioral, or medical interventions—including hormonal treatment or surgery—designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity. These procedures are routinely performed on cisgender people seeking to enhance features associated with the gender they were assigned at birth.
This scientific consensus stands in stark contrast to the political rhetoric often heard in congressional debates. As Jacobs noted, “Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care,” a statement meant to highlight the ubiquity—and the personal nature—of such procedures, regardless of one’s gender identity.
In response to a post from Mace tagging her on X, Jacobs wrote, “I feel sad for you. Stop lashing out against trans kids and pretending it’s to ‘protect women’. Hope you get the help you need.” The exchange encapsulated the deeply personal and often painful stakes of the debate, as well as the ways in which political maneuvering can overshadow substantive discussion about health and human dignity.
As the dust settles from this week’s confrontations, the clash between Mace and Jacobs has laid bare the tensions simmering beneath the surface of American politics—not just over policy, but over language, identity, and the limits of civility itself. With legislative battles over gender-affirming care continuing to play out, the episode serves as a stark reminder of how personal and political interests can collide on the national stage, sometimes with consequences that ripple far beyond the walls of Congress.