Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Jim Pillen on Wednesday signed an executive order strictly defining a person’s sex.

The order notably does not use the term “transgender,” although it appears directed at limiting transgender access to certain public spaces. It orders state agencies to define “female” and “male” as a person’s sex assigned at birth.

“It is common sense that men do not belong in women’s only spaces,” Pillen said in a statement. “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.”

  • ayaya@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not that I agree with what is happening but they are defining it in legal terms, which is absolutely their job. A simple example might be killing someone is just killing someone, and the government defines what is murder and what is manslaughter.

    • BOMBS@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I understand the point of defining a criminal act, but being a sex isn’t criminal. It’s being a human.

      • ayaya@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe that was a bad example to use, that is my bad. It was just the first thing I thought of. The government needs to define all sorts of things, not just criminal acts. You say it’s being human. They even define what a human is.. Laws have to be written in such a way as to include explicit definitons so they can be enforced without loopholes. (Or in some cases create loopholes like with the rich and taxes)

          • ayaya@lemdro.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Are you implying it requires a law degree to understand that the government defines what terms mean for legal purposes? If you don’t understand that you have a lot more to worry about than my certifications.

            • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              It’s sarcasm. Obviously you didn’t study law.

              The fact that laws often define terms does not justify a law defining sex or gender. There’s nothing implicit to concepts of positive law or legislative authority that require legal definitions of gender.

              There are so few occasions in law where it’s not a violation of equal protection to discriminate on the basis of gender that there really is almost zero need for law to define it.

              Most of those rare occasions are related to reproduction, and even then there’s no inherent reason to define genders, the law could just refer to pregnancy or pregnant persons.

              You would have learned all about this if you had studied law. I’m sure they must have these concepts where you’re from.

              https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment14/annotation06.html