US Bill defining gender expression

[MrSoapsud]

If I read this right, there's a bill before US Congress already that seeks to define everything about sex/gender as entirely binary - male or female - that extends to"gender role" and "gender expression". Now why would they want to go that far if they don't want to go on to control it? I get that there's debate here about whether we're expressing a different gender but you can see this making it illegal for a man to wear a dress or a skirt. I've saved a pdf and linked to it as the article is a member only one on medium.

https://readcultured.com/the-bill-that- ... 2494b7f98e
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-4g9V7 ... sp=sharing

[robehickman]

That concept is problematic for a huge number of reasons and I doubt it would stand in the real world for a huge number of reasons. Isn't there a rule here about no politics?

[Jim]

The official text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... 18/text/ih

I think Congress does have the power to define what words mean in laws that they passed, so it might stand up in court.

[Coder]

A couple of thoughts:

1) nothing in the law appears to stipulate expression and what that means - keep in mind the US still has a first amendment

2) US law doesn’t impact the rest of the world, at least it shouldn’t

3) this law is just a set of legal definitions

4) since this site is about men in skirts… I don’t see anything in the text that impacts MIS

Now… couple that bill with a sumptuary law that says a man cannot express himself as a female (even though that’s not our goal, and never mind that it would be worded one way only) through appearance - such a law would likely would impact MIS. However, I just don’t care for “fear porn” and that’s what this kind of speculation is. “Oooh, that bad people are going to come for us”. No, we aren’t special and are invisible for most of the world.

[mr seamstress]

I think Congress does have the power to define what words mean in laws that they passed, so it might stand up in court.

Under the First Amendment we all have the freedom of expression, by that it shouldn't stand up in court. Why to stop there? Make it illegal for a woman in possession of pair of pants and a man in possession of dress or skirts. Make it illegal for an actor or actress that play roles that is opposite of their gender. Make it illegal for distributing movies that have actors or actresses playing opposite roles of their gender. Make sales illegal for selling a pair of pants to woman and for selling a dress or skirt to man. If they going to make tough laws against men in skirts or dresses, then they need to make tough laws also against women in pants. This way everybody will be put in jail.

[Fred in Skirts]

As I read the article and the a fore mentioned bill I see no problem with the way it is written.
There are 2 sexes Male and Female. How you see your self has no bearing on that. If you don't like what you were born as then think of yourself as what you want to be. But you can not change the true sex you were born as. No matter what you cut off or add on you are still the same male or female sex that you started out as, you just look different.

[happykilt]

Read the Bill...

This might arouse some difficulties:
"(10) ‘gender’—
(A) means—
...klip...
(ii) a synonym for sex..."

Compare:
"The World Health Organisation summarises the difference between sex and gender in the following way:
Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.”
Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed. The concept of gender includes five important elements: relational, hierarchical, historical, contextual and institutional. While most people are born either male or female, they are taught appropriate norms and behaviours – including how they should interact with others of the same or opposite sex within households, communities and work places. When individuals or groups do not “fit” established gender norms they often face stigma, discriminatory practices or social exclusion – all of which adversely affect health"

The complete text is here: https://www.coe.int/en/web/gender-matte ... and-gender

[crfriend]

As I read the article and the a fore mentioned bill I see no problem with the way it is written.
There are 2 sexes Male and Female. How you see your self has no bearing on that. If you don't like what you were born as then think of yourself as what you want to be. But you can not change the true sex you were born as. No matter what you cut off or add on you are still the same male or female sex that you started out as, you just look different.

The problem here is that biology and psychology -- which are very different things are getting conflated. Compounding the issue is that the United States has never been very good with psychology, which is one of the reasons we're regarded by the rest of the planet as crazy.

Also in play -- and few actually realise this -- is that by and large the United States is largely post-constitutional at this point having morphed into an oligarchy in the 1980s a few minutes after the Soviet Union similarly came apart (and for the same reasons). Thus, the (in)famous "Bill of Rights" is largely null-and-void at this point with virtually all facets having been corrupted, misinterpreted, or simply ignored. To the best of my knowledge, the only one that hasn't been attacked is the one dealing with the billeting of soldiers in private homes

So, I suspect the bill will pass and be signed into law and be upheld by the Supreme Court.

No, I haven't bothered to read the gritty details. I've read enough neocon cr@p in the past few months.

[phathack]

The official text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-con ... 18/text/ih

I think Congress does have the power to define what words mean in laws that they passed, so it might stand up in court.

This is before the 118th Congress whos term ends January 3rd 2025.
The bill has to go to committee to be approved for a vote and there it will stay until this congress ends.
It will have to be reintroduced in the 119th Congress in 2025.
Where it will again get lost in a committee and never be heard from again.
Every year thousands of bills like this are introduced into congress and send to committee where they die. It allows a congress person to say they tried.
Its a game called Poly-Ticks.

[Barleymower]

Even if it were enshrined in law how would this be policed. Who other than gender critical feminists will police trans women using the female convenience? How will they tell? Will they stop all masculine women and ask them? This would be an infringement of their right to go about their daily business. What about post op trans women, will they be expected to use the men's.

The wearing of skirts and dresses by men in public. Can they be expected to be detained in floor length skirt / dress. On what basis?

It's a load of nonsense, designed to work people up and detract from the real issues.

[Jim]

I think Congress does have the power to define what words mean in laws that they passed, so it might stand up in court.

Under the First Amendment we all have the freedom of expression, by that it shouldn't stand up in court. Why to stop there? Make it illegal for a woman in possession of pair of pants and a man in possession of dress or skirts. Make it illegal for an actor or actress that play roles that is opposite of their gender. Make it illegal for distributing movies that have actors or actresses playing opposite roles of their gender. Make sales illegal for selling a pair of pants to woman and for selling a dress or skirt to man. If they going to make tough laws against men in skirts or dresses, then they need to make tough laws also against women in pants. This way everybody will be put in jail.

The bill does none of that. It just defines "sex" and "gender", "male" and "female", as used in US law, biologically. I don't support it, but it, in itself, does not challenge MIS.

I agree with phathack that the bill will probably never come to a vote.

[Modoc]

When the intent of those in power is to distract from the real problems plaguing the nations, it's not unreasonable to expect that something like this could get much more attention than reasonable people would assume. At one time, I would have assumed that this kind of thing was impossible, but now logic and reason are being sacrificed on partisan alters, and no possible outcome should be ignored.

[robehickman]

It can be argued that biologically there are more than two sexes, which is called 'intersex'. To the extent that I understand this (very little), it is rare and caused by odd chronozone combinations. There is a wiki article about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

[crfriend]

It can be argued that biologically there are more than two sexes, which is called 'intersex'.

To the precise point of that, yes, it "can be argued". However, the situation results from errors in genetic replication of genes and is likely to cause other problems as well, some of which may be fatal to the embryo/fetus in utero. There's a reason why it's rare in the wild.

Let's not give the neocons more ammunition than they have already.

[denimini]

H.R.9218 Act is rather insidious. It describes the term gender as a synonym of sex and says that if a person once had a particular genitalia then they will always be considered as that sex. The Bill determines gender as with sex, based on physiology alone without psychological considerations.
It says “(11) ‘gender identity’ does not mean sex or gender.” which means thay someone can refer to themselves as a particular gender but the Government will not accept them as such.

It is a backward step. Quite different to that in Australia which requires just a statement from a medical practitioner saying that the person identifies as a particular gender, to be accepted and recorded as such.

Extracts from the Australian Government Guidelines on the Recognition of Sex and Gender.
15. A person’s sex and gender may not necessarily be the same. Some people may identify as a
different gender to their birth sex and some people may identify as neither exclusively male nor
female.

19. Where sex and/or gender information is collected and recorded in a personal record, individuals
should be given the option to select M (male), F (female) or
X (Indeterminate/Intersex/Unspecified).

The full document:
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/fil ... Gender.pdf