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’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.
Removed by mod
Ah, I just thought of something.
“Man” and “woman” are archetypes. Not descrptions of objects, like “table” or “chair” – instead, like “hero” or “villain” or “aristocrat” or “scoundrel.”
All of us have an archetype we identify with; some of us have a physical appearance or characteristics that don’t match the archetype we identify with. Some of us feel that it would benefit our mental health to have our physical appearance match more closely with the archetype. Among other things, it makes it so that other people are more likely to see us as us, rather than seeing a person who isn’t us.
Not being seen is deeply traumatic. If one’s physical characteristics cause them trauma, those characteristics should be considered disabilities, and we should welcome resolutions to them from medical science.
Some of us identify very strongly with one of “man” or “woman,” others more weakly. Some of us are in between somewhere, or switch back and forth depending on the day. Or don’t identify on that gender spectrum at all, or in some other dimension not represented by those two points.
That’s why we call people what they want to be called. I’m not going to pretend that it’s easy to get your lizard brain to really see some of us as “men” or “women” when the physical appearance doesn’t match our expectations. But just using the correct language goes a long way towards communicating that you want to see them, and by extension, reduce their trauma.
Now that you know this (and of course, if you agree), you must grapple with the fact that misgendering people is traumatic (which is to me a reminder to try harder every time), and that misgendering people on purpose is simply cruel.
Side note, I made a point through this comment to refer to us instead of the more arm’s length “some people, other people, these people, those people.” We are some people, we are other people, these people, those people.
Removed by mod