Nebraska governor signs order narrowly defining sex as that assigned at birth

[rjs330]

Not strange but by design. If any trans man tries to use the toilet in accordance with this law they will face the police being called, and if they ignore the law the same.


Quite deliberate.

Just wondering if they've had all the surgeries who's going to know?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Just wondering if they've had all the surgeries who's going to know?

Are you suggesting they should just break the law?

 

[RDKirk]

This sounds like bad news for a friend of mine. Her genitals were "misformed" at birth and, despite actually being female (including a vagina, ovaries, etc), the fact she had something resembling a penis at birth she was "identified" as male initially. I guess she would be smart to avoid Nebraska in the future, where it would now be a crime for her to use women's restrooms and changing rooms.

And before someone asks, her birth certificate was corrected -- even as that of many transsexuals ends up being "corrected" -- but the Nebraska law specifically states the sex assigned at birth; likely so that transsexuals who move from other states can't claim to be the opposite sex based on their corrected birth certificates.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Public policy can be created for the common situation and adjusted as necessary for bona fide exceptions.

But here, now: Weren't we told that there is a difference between sex and gender, and sex was indeed biological but gender was a social construct? Wasn't that the position of trans activists not long ago?

Has that changed? Have they conflated sex and gender today, and are they claiming both are social constructs?

Why, yes....they are:

Biological Sex is a social construct

I recently tweeted, as an aside, that biological sex is a social construct, and the backlash and attacks were swift, incredulous and heavily reliant upon very basic biology. There is a common perce…

growinguptransgender.com

 

[RDKirk]

Just wondering if they've had all the surgeries who's going to know?

Personally, I "call 'em as I see 'em," and I don't look too closely unless they're in my personal space (at which point I'm looking more closely at them for a variety of reasons).

My daughter strongly disagrees with me on this point, but I feel that a man who has gone to the trouble of looking as much like a woman to pass visually and actively seeking to remain undiscovered is unlikely to be a threat in a public restroom.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Public policy can be created for the common situation and adjusted as necessary for bona fide exceptions.

Sure - I'm just not certain what is accomplished by the law in the OP, and I highly doubt that the Nebraska legislature has any interest in creating exceptions to the new law that they wrote specifically to eliminate such exceptions.

But here, now: Weren't we told that there is a difference between sex and gender, and sex was indeed biological but gender was a social construct? Wasn't that the position of trans activists not long ago?

This is a false dichotomy. A "social construct" is just a way for humans to categorize complicated groupings of things. You can have social constructs that relate to biology. I have no doubt that some trans activists have misused terms though.

Has that changed? Have they conflated sex and gender today, and are they claiming both are social constructs?

Why, yes....they are:

No, they have not. The blog post you linked does not conflate sex and gender - it points out that there are people who biologically do not fit into the "male" OR "female" buckets, having biological characteristics of both (or even neither). I'm not necessarily certain that I would personally categorize sex as a "social construct," but it's pretty obvious that it's not a strict binary. As for why that's changed, welcome to the wide world of science, where people re-evaluate their conclusions based on new evidence.

See also: Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic

 

[RDKirk]

No, they have not. The blog post you linked does not conflate sex and gender - it points out that there are people who biologically do not fit into the "male" OR "female" buckets, having biological characteristics of both (or even neither). I'm not necessarily certain that I would personally categorize sex as a "social construct," but it's pretty obvious that it's not a strict binary. As for why that's changed, welcome to the wide world of science, where people re-evaluate their conclusions based on new evidence.

Actually, no. "Sports" have long been known to exist, but a sport is not actually a different sex.

A sex is biologically necessary for procreation of the species. An example mutation of sexual characteristics that doesn't contribute to reproduction is automatically eliminated from the gene pool.

There have been science fiction stories of species with more than two sexes. For instance, one story suggested a species that had a male sex that contributed sperm, a female sex that contributed an egg, and a third sex that provided the womb. Both the male and female had intercourse with the "carrier" sex, but the male and female did not have intercourse with each other.

That is a concept of a true "third" sex. Otherwise, biology filters them out.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A sex is biologically necessary for procreation of the species.

Biologically, yes. But we use "sex" as a legal and social term as well. If you tie social functions to someone being "male" or "female", then you have to both define those categories and allow for exceptions for those who don't fit into them.

An example mutation of sexual characteristics that doesn't contribute to reproduction is automatically eliminated from the gene pool.

Not necessarily - they're generally only eliminated if they prevent reproduction (or at least make it more difficult).

 

[HARK!]

View attachment 336570
This person’s birth certificate said “Female” at birth…they’d have to use the women’s room at Walmart…how do you think that’s going to go over?

At least young ladies won't find themselves alone with this guy; when they go into a public shower room.

TRANSGENDER woman with a BEARD is now a LESBIAN​

MSN

 

[The Barbarian]

<Sits back and awaits the inevitable consequences of drafting legislation without considering the ramifications>

It is often the case that a newborn will present anatomically as one gender and be genetically the other. Mistakes are made. This one is going to eventually blow up in his face in a big way.

 

[rjs330]

Personally, I "call 'em as I see 'em," and I don't look too closely unless they're in my personal space (at which point I'm looking more closely at them for a variety of reasons).

My daughter strongly disagrees with me on this point, but I feel that a man who has gone to the trouble of looking as much like a woman to pass visually and actively seeking to remain undiscovered is unlikely to be a threat in a public restroom.

Yeah I agree. It's a rare case that one can't tell, but there are definitely those that have gone through it all and one wouldn't really know.

Yeah it seems that if you go to all that trouble you're probably not a threat.

 

[rjs330]

Biologically, yes. But we use "sex" as a legal and social term as well. If you tie social functions to someone being "male" or "female", then you have to both define those categories and allow for exceptions for those who don't fit into them.

Not sure what you mean here. Biology is the basis for the legal terminology and social functions as well, like women's spaces.

And I don't have problems with exceptions for people with a mental health issues as long as they are within reason.

For example if professional and amateur sports want to create a special category go for it. Or a business wants to create specialized bathrooms with fully enclosed individual rooms I'm fine with that.

 

[rjs330]

It is often the case that a newborn will present anatomically as one gender and be genetically the other. Mistakes are made. This one is going to eventually blow up in his face in a big way.

Often? What's your definition of often?

No this isn't going to blow up in anyone's face.

 

[RDKirk]

It is often the case that a newborn will present anatomically as one gender and be genetically the other. Mistakes are made. This one is going to eventually blow up in his face in a big way.

I personally know a case like that. It's tragic, and I deeply sympathize. But it should not be the basis of public policy for the masses.

 

[BPPLEE]

View attachment 336570
This person’s birth certificate said “Female” at birth…they’d have to use the women’s room at Walmart…how do you think that’s going to go over?

Who is going to enforce this? Do you really think police are going to be staking out bathrooms? This is all politics and in reality changes nothing about public restrooms. It may stop trans people from competing in women’s sports and using dressing rooms but as far as public restrooms I think they have nothing to worry about.

 

[The Barbarian]

I personally know a case like that. It's tragic, and I deeply sympathize. But it should not be the basis of public policy for the masses.

This is what always happens when government inserts itself into such things.

 

[The Barbarian]

Who is going to enforce this? Do you really think police are going to be staking out bathrooms? This is all politics and in reality changes nothing about public restrooms. It may stop trans people from competing in women’s sports and using dressing rooms but as far as public restrooms I think they have nothing to worry about.

Think about "whites only" restrooms and water fountains. How did that go?

 

[BPPLEE]

Think about "whites only" restrooms and water fountains. How did that go?

Apples vs oranges

 

[Aaron112]

Think about "whites only" restrooms and water fountains. How did that go?

Sometimes perfect, sometimes not so perfect. Varies from totally peaceful, to very violent in history.

 

[Aaron112]

Do you really think police are going to be staking out bathrooms?

For decades they have, and they have caught some extremely vile offenders that way.

 

[Aaron112]

As for why that's changed, welcome to the wide world of science, where people re-evaluate their conclusions based on new evidence.

'New'? Yes. 'False'? Yes. False evidence. Not good. Not truth.
'Science'.... ick