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.


    • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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”

    • SCB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • Obinice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not from there and didn’t know where it was going, and this user’s explanation is very important, I’m glad they shared it <3