Culture War in the Committee: Mace Challenges DC Mayor on Gender Terms and Racial Policy

A recent committee hearing escalated into a dramatic political confrontation as Representative Nancy Mace (R-SC) systematically challenged Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser on the specific language and principles underpinning the city’s legislative code, particularly concerning issues of gender, race, and equity. The exchange, which included pointed questions about fundamental definitions and the Mayor’s familiarity with her own municipal code, immediately drew national attention as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over identity politics in government policy.

The Challenge to Legal Definitions: What is a Woman?

Mace’s questioning quickly moved beyond standard budget oversight into the realm of social definitions embedded within DC law. She directly referenced specific sections of the DC code (e.g., Section 7-1234.02) containing phrases like “child welfare involved birthing people,” “justice involved incarcerated and homeless birthing people and their non-birthing partners,” and the use of “intersectionality of gender and race.”

Mayor Bowser repeatedly stated she was unfamiliar with these specific sections or terms, leading Mace to repeatedly highlight the Mayor’s lack of knowledge of her own city’s laws, asserting, “You’re literally the mayor of DC and you don’t know your own code of laws.”

The most confrontational moment came when Mace pressed Bowser on the core definition of gender, asking directly: “What is a woman?”

Mayor Bowser’s response—“I’m a woman. Are you a woman? You’re looking at one”—was definitive, but the subsequent line of questioning about whether a man can become a woman or if a man can get pregnant was met with deflection and silence from the Mayor, who attempted to reclaim her time amidst the tension. Mace utilized this hesitation to underscore her central argument: that DC’s code utilizes language like “birthing person” as part of a perceived campaign to engage in the “erasure of women.”

Racial Policy and the Push for Reparations

Mace then shifted focus to race, demanding a simple “yes or no” answer on two critical policy fronts: structural racism and race-based benefits.

First, Mace asked if Mayor Bowser believed the DC government was “structurally or institutionally racist,” referencing the code’s use of the phrase “structural or institutional racism.” Mayor Bowser refused to give a simple answer, which Mace interpreted as a failure to address the city’s stated policy problems.

Second, Mace referenced Chapter 14D of the DC code, which establishes a Commission on Reparations and a fund to provide eligible African-Americans with “monetary reparations or other forms of redress.” Mace asked: “Is it the position of DC government benefits should be provided to individuals on the basis of race?”

Mayor Bowser meticulously avoided confirming this position, stating that the legislation only “requires a study.” Mace pressed the question multiple times, challenging the Mayor’s apparent unwillingness to defend the principle behind a significant initiative established within the city’s laws. The Mayor’s continued evasion suggested a high degree of political sensitivity around directly answering whether government benefits should be distributed based on racial criteria.

Legislation and Oversight

Representative Mace framed her line of questioning as a precursor to legislative action, announcing her intention to introduce the “No DEI and DC Act.” She stated the bill would “rip the DEI and gender bender nonsense out of the DC government root and branch and restore common sense and equal treatment under the law,” citing Congress’s plenary authority over the District of Columbia (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17).

The hearing served as a high-stakes, public demonstration of the deep ideological chasm between congressional Republicans seeking to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, and the progressive municipal governments that have adopted them. While Mayor Bowser defended her position by seeking to stick to procedure and claiming lack of familiarity with the specific code citations, Representative Mace utilized the platform to expose the terminology of the code itself as a political target, arguing that the ambiguity and ideological language represent a governmental overreach into sensitive cultural domains.

The confrontation highlights how legislative language—particularly terms related to race, gender, and equity—is rapidly becoming the central battleground for political oversight, where questions of semantic definitions are used to challenge the principles and priorities of government administration.