Really? Why dont you tell the listeners what my position is on the vote from the people in Kansas (Hint: It wont fit your narrative.)
The bill doesn't mention gender at all, that's the writers' interpretation of the bill's impact. ------------------------------- Section 1. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary, with respect to the application of an individual's biological sex pursuant to any state law or rules and regulations, the following shall apply: (1) An individual's "sex" means such individual's biological sex, either male or female, at birth; (2) a "female" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova, and a "male" is an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female; (3) the terms "woman" and "girl" refer to human females, and the terms "man" and "boy" refer to human males; (4) the term "mother" means a parent of the female sex, and the term "father" means a parent of the male sex; (5) with respect to biological sex, the term "equal" does not mean "same" or "identical"; (6) with respect to biological sex, separate accommodations are not inherently unequal; and (7) an individual born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of "disorder/differences in sex development" shall be provided legal protections and accommodations afforded under the Americans with disabilities act and applicable Kansas statutes. (b) Laws and rules and regulations that distinguish between the sexes are subject to intermediate constitutional scrutiny. Intermediate constitutional scrutiny forbids unfair discrimination against similarly situated male and female individuals but allows the law to distinguish between the sexes where such distinctions are substantially related to important governmental objectives. Notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary, distinctions between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms and other areas where biology, safety or privacy are implicated that result in separate accommodations are substantially related to the important governmental objectives of protecting the health, safety and privacy of individuals in such circumstances. (c) Any school district, or public school thereof, and any state agency, department or office or political subdivision that collects vital statistics for the purpose of complying with anti-discrimination laws or for the purpose of gathering accurate public health, crime, economic or other data shall identify each individual who is part of the collected data set as either male or female at birth. ------------------------------- To me, the part that our society can't seem to get on the same page on is what is identified in #3. Those who agree with #3 see those who don't as seeking to change a well-understood meaning of already existing language. Those who do not agree with #3 would have to at least admit that the value of what "man" and "woman" means is subjective, so at best, you can't say that #3 is wrong, only that you don't agree with the message being conveyed. I would guess that most people don't actually care about the modern definition for gender (i.e. socially constructed gender) and are only interested in sex (synonymous with the traditional use of gender); this includes designations for women's sports, bathrooms, marriage/dating partners, sleeping accommodations, etc. What is the most appropriate way for the government to establish that they are not interested in subjective identifiers but instead are only interested in objective identifiers? It's why race and religion aren't identifiers on a driver's license. Go GATORS! ,WESGATORS
Thanks for the information. Misleading headline and article. Similarly, people sometimes claim a doctor mis-gendered them, or assigned their gender at birth. The reality is the doctor simply recorded the biological sex. There may be examples of a doctor screwing that up, but that would be a different issue.
What's wrong with you today, Tilly? In a REFERENDUM the citizens at large opposed abortion restrictions. It's the members of the Legislature in a gerrymandered state who do not represent the will of the people who have imposed their will upon the people. Of course, for the minority who are against abortion, such an imposition is fine. But that's not democracy; it's a dictatorship.
Simple solution: don't do it. What you should do is to recognize that not everyone is like you and to accept differences. Think what you like, do what you like, and allow others the same freedom as long as it doesn't endanger you or your family. For the life of me, I don't know why that's so hard to do.
Thats not what I asked. IRT Kansas I actually side with the people because the alternative would likely have been a ban even in extreme cases which I am against. The legislature should have taken a more measured and comprehensive approach that laid out a detailed plan with all of the exceptions protected beforehand. Their lazy approach made me side with the people.
I mean, lots of people read stories with children. Both transgendered people and not transgendered people. Lots of people, both transgendered and not, don't. No, I don't find reading a children's book to children either a disgusting or perverted act.
I don't mind when football players read to children... Moms and Dads coming to class and reading to these kids.
The Kansas law is 22 weeks currently. The amendment that was rejected would have given the legislature the ability to override the current law. What exactly the extent of a future ban would have been is unknown. So you support an abortion ban at 22 weeks? That’s good to know.
So you don't mind them existing and you don't mind people reading to children....so what is the issue exactly?
Nice try. No i dont. What I also dont support is giving the legislature a chance to force rape victims to carry and health issues not be a factor. This would have opened that door.
