Nebraska governor Jim Pillen, a Republican not noted as a women’s rights supporter, yesterday issued an executive order “defining” males and females and the attributes thereof. The anti-transgender political grandstanding offers fusty explanations of the sexes–men are “bigger, stronger and faster” on average–in pursuit of Rowling-esque calls for sexual segregation (and even echoing her ostensibly feminist rationales) and not a lot else.
The order declares that, in matters of the state, the “biological differences between the sexes are enduring” and that the “sex” of a person will be defined by the gender designated at birth. In addition to specifically noting how boy, girl, man, and woman will be defined, the order also includes biological descriptions. …
“It is common sense that men do not belong in women’s only spaces,” Pillen said in the news release. “As Governor, it is my duty to protect our kids and women’s athletics, which means providing single-sex spaces for women’s sports, bathrooms, and changing rooms.”
The reaction, at least from Democrats, is to point out that if it were enforced, the likely outcome would be Nebraska losing federal funding for womens’ shelters.
“Today Governor Pillen, famous women’s rights supporter, signed this offensive and ridiculous proclamation establishing a “Women’s Bill of Rights.” He should try saying this stuff to my face then we would see who’s got what biological advantage,” wrote State Senator Megan Hunt on Twitter.
I am, on average, bigger, faster, and stronger than a child.
All children are now women.
By the way ; if you had to define woman and man, what would you say ?
Nobody has to.
I’m offended because it is so daft. If I had to define a man and a woman, I would say that it is currently difficult as there are two definitions, one being based on biological sex (which is itself a surprisingly ticklish concept) and the other based around gender and self identification. Personally, I’m happy with the latter. The former is useful in medical contexts.
But what does that mean, what’s the point of it? Both my daughters are above average height, probably about the height of the average man. Does that tell us anything useful?
There is a missing “on average” in the title of this headline, which completely negates the oniony part of the sentence.
This bill did not say that men were exclusively bigger, stronger, and faster, or that women weren’t. It just said that, on average, they are, which is true.
Why that is in an executive order, honestly, there is no good reason for it, but the principle is still the same: lying by omission is still lying, especially in a culture where people only read headlines.
We already have the chromosomes, why bother with this bullshit?
We all knew where this was going and making fun of the preamble is way more fun than going “well shit there’s another state ruining lives.”
I honestly think that’s semantics. If the preamble doesn’t matter, then why is it there? Why have it if it doesn’t mean anything? Just because one is called a preamble and one a definition doesn’t mean that people won’t use either as the “real” definition. Maybe you could have argued that several years ago, but you certainly can’t now.
IANAL but isn’t there an issue with “if any data is collected it must define someone as a man or a woman” doesn’t allow there to be an “unknown.” Therefore you could potentially skew things like crime or Healthcare statistics by counting all unknowns as one gender or the other.
Secondly, the definition “shall identify each individual… as male or female at birth” also provides a problem as one presumably can now kick back a whole bunch of stuff with the message “yes but this data doesn’t contain their sex at birth, please provide birth certificates for all 128,323 members of this list”
How Christian of him.