Kim Reynolds introduces bill defining 'man' and 'woman,' opponents brand it 'LGBTQ erasure'
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Electing Reynolds as governor is like making kwik44 a mod on HORT. Effing stupid.
As usual, the GOP idiots in the Statehouse and Terrace Hill are tackling the really important issues for all Iowans.
I guess that means you are happy with the policies in Iowa being more theatrical than practical. I exercised my right to vote for Reynolds' challenger, but she won anyway. As Iowa's governor she is supposed to take into account the needs of all Iowans not just those that voted for her.
Stop with the assumption BS. It makes smart people look stupid.
That's politics, the person you vote for doesn't always win.
True, but they're still supposed to serve all citizens not just Republicans or Democrats.
Couldn't agree more. Wish someone would've explained that to Nansy P.
This isn't that hard... she doesn't have control of where the money goes or how it's spent. If the Iowa legislature puts an infrastructure bill on her desk and she doesn't sign it... then we have something to talk about. If you want money spent on water or bridges it's YOUR job as a citizen to reach out to your representative inform them of the issues in their district and they need to add those items into a proposed budget. If your representative isn't taking care of their district then the next step is to either run yourself or support a candidate who can better represent your interests.
Welcome to constitutional democracy 101 with kfsdisciple.
Could someone explain to me how this addresses Iowa's filthy waterways, lakes, etc...?Gov. Kim Reynolds introduced a bill Thursday that would define the words “sex,” “man” and “woman” in state law, requiring changes to the way the government collects public health data, issues birth certificates and drivers’ licenses, and offers anti-discrimination protections.
"We refer to it as the LBGTQ erasure act," said Keenan Crow, director of policy and advocacy for One Iowa.
The legislation, House Study Bill 649, creates a new section of code defining a person’s sex as their sex assigned at birth.
The bill defines a “female” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova and a “male” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.
“Women and men are not identical; they possess unique biological differences,” Reynolds said in a statement provided to the Des Moines Register. “That’s not controversial, it’s common sense.
“Just like we did with girls' sports, this bill protects women’s spaces and rights afforded to us by Iowa law and the constitution. It’s unfortunate that defining a woman in code has become necessary to protect spaces where women’s health, safety, and privacy are being threatened like domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers. The bill allows the law to recognize biological differences while forbidding unfair discrimination.”
The bill says that if a person is issued a new birth certificate, driver’s license or non-operator’s ID card following a sex-change operation, the new document will list the person’s sex at birth and their sex following the operation.
It also says that when the state, cities or school districts collect data — for public health reasons, crime statistics, or to comply with antidiscrimination laws — they will identify people as only “male” or “female.”
Intersex people, who are born with sex characteristics that do not fall under male or female, are not explicitly mentioned in the legislation.
The legislation does say that a person “born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development shall be provided the legal protections and accommodations afforded under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.”
In a statement, Iowa Safe Schools said the bill could be interpreted “as segregating transgender Iowans in facilities owned, operated, or funded by state government.”
“This bill is an affront to everything we’re about as Iowans,” Becky Tayler, executive director for Iowa Safe Schools, said in the statement. “Gov. Reynolds has made it crystal clear that transgender Iowans are not welcome in their own state.
Reynolds' proposal could require transgender Iowans to have unique birth certificates and drivers' licenses — which advocates said would mean disclosing personal medical information while purchasing alcohol or other unrelated activities that require a form of ID.
Pete McRoberts, policy director for the ACLU of Iowa, called the language an "astonishing violation" of privacy.
"Can you imagine if Gov. Reynolds had wanted you to put your COVID vaccination status on your license? Why would this medical information be any different?" McRoberts said.
"We're not talking slippery slope here," he added. "The slope is in the rearview mirror. The damage is done."
The legislation's definition of "mother" ("a parent who is female") and "father" ("a parent who is male") could also complicate circumstances for children with same-sex parents, Crow said.
Kim Reynolds introduces bill defining 'man' and 'woman'; opponents brand it 'LGBTQ erasure'
A bill introduced by Gov. Kim Reynolds defines the words "sex," "man" and "woman" in state law, part of what opponents called "the LGBTQ erasure act."www.press-citizen.com
Iowa will be on God's radar after this law and with his God magic he will remove the toxins from the land and water. It's common sense.
Will people born intersex cease to exist in Iowa if this passes?
That or label them as broken and institutionalize them...until they see what that costs.
They pretend they don't exist already, so why not?
How many people do you think are born "intersex" in Iowa?
"Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births." According to the Intersex Society of North America
Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births
Klinefelter (XXY) one in 1,000 births
Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births
Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births
Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals
Vaginal agenesis one in 6,000 births
Ovotestes one in 83,000 births
Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause) one in 110,000 births
Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother) no estimate
5 alpha reductase deficiency no estimate
Mixed gonadal dysgenesis no estimate
Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft) one in 2,000 births
Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis) one in 770 births
Depending how loosely you want to use the term "intersex" we could be talking anywhere from a handful to maybe a couple thousand people
Once again gohawks pulls out the "guide to liberal talking points" with the old go to of "problems that rarely if ever happen. The libs recite that like a parrot every time issues arise with a tranny playing sports with their biological opposites.
As soon as you explain how Biden letting in millions of illegal aliens reduces our budget deficit.
Nobody said it would?
BTW we have a vrbo on West Lake Okoboji and the water is not filthy.
You need to get out of the slough's or backwaters, Iowa has lots of nice lakes.
I have no f@cking clue, just like you or anyone else. But, it does exist and making a law to make people feel better about their uncomfortable feeling on the subject is dumb.
Because this whole thing is a charade. It's a solution in search of a problem. It's the marginalization of a vulnerable group of citizens by the majority for political gain. It's history being repeated once again. You don't see trans citizens trying to marginalize you, do you?
It's just an issue that activates people with bigotry in their hearts, or people unwilling to educate themselves on the trans community, or unwilling to let other people quietly live their lives without being punched around by the majority.
Not true. The law says you can compete in the division that is designed for your biology sex, and that males cannot compete against females.
I don’t believe education on the topic is a winner for those who believe people should be allowed to decide their own sex for purposes of sports or other things that are reserved for a specific sex. Richard Dawkins is pretty damn educated on biology and disagrees with that notion.
I really hope Kim has one of her grandkids decide to transform
In your opinion, if a person has gone through sex reassignment surgery should they be identified as their birth sex or post-surgery sex?
I sure don't. She would make that kids life a living hell.
what’s your non marginalizing definition of male and female?
The bill says this…
The bill defines a “female” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova and a “male” as a person whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.
What would you add or remove from that definition?
We talkin' Wolffian and Müllerian duct formations up in here?
Don't bother. @Jerome Silberman and the gang think there are human hermaphrodites.
The bill says that if a person is issued a new birth certificate, driver’s license or non-operator’s ID card following a sex-change operation, the new document will list the person’s sex at birth and their sex following the operation.
What color panties are you wearing under your skirt today?
Right to the bigotry from the "They're being genocided!" crowd.
You think people can change sex. You're a moron.
Legally they can. You are probably putting lipstick on now.
