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.”

  • randon31415@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just a reminder if you are worried about your children being ogled by trans people in the “wrong” restroom: There are ten gays for every one trans person, so the likelihood of being ogled by people in the “right restroom” should be ten times higher. The solution is not to police who uses what restroom, but to design restrooms that don’t allow for ogling!

    I swear, the only proof of a grand gay conspiracy I’ve ever found is the bathtub urinal. Walls, people, real walls, not plywood separators that have gaps between the doors and opening on the bottom.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      That, and like, don’t flatter yourself (person who is afraid of getting hit on by a hypothetical gay guy in a bathroom). Most people, the vast majority, look like 20 lbs of birdshit.

      There’s better places to date and get asked out anyways, like a gay bar, or at a fun climbing gym. If you do get asked out (which won’t happen), take it as a compliment for not looking like hell and move on. xD

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      47
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the main concern comes from females not wanting males in their bathroom.

      • ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Please hear me out – wouldn’t requiring females who identify as men and look like men, to use women’s washrooms, be virtually indistinguishable from a cis man using women’s washrooms? It seems like this law might actually result in more manly-looking folks in the women’s washroom, as all trans men would be required to.

        Also, how do you enforce that? Is there going to be someone checking ID at the door, but only if you look “manly?” In that case, wouldn’t a male who identified as a woman, and looks like a woman, be able to slip by undetected anyway, or is this “bathroom bouncer” going to check everyone’s IDs?

        Even if I agreed with the thesis that people born with penises shouldn’t be allowed in women’s washrooms (and I don’t), any implementation seems like it has far too many flaws to be remotely effective.

        Instead, how about bathrooms have actual, private rooms instead of stalls with doors you can see over, under, or around? Wouldn’t that be a more practical solution to the problem of bathroom privacy?

        Thanks for reading. I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I actually agree with everything you say.

          Unisex bathrooms with actual rooms would be awesome.

          However, a significant amount of women will still have and voice their concerns over having trans women in their restrooms.

          I’m not saying they’re right. I actually think TERFs are some of the most deplorable people on the planet. But they do exist and are the driving force behind separation of bathrooms.

          Their main excuse is fear, but I actually think it’s sexism. They think men are dirty and barbaric and don’t belong around women in a restroom. I don’t think they’re genuine enough to admit this publicly.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, no law is 100% effective.

          Are you saying we shouldn’t have laws against murder because people will still murder?

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We already have laws against sexual assault and harassment. The purpose of this law is to harass trans people not to protect anyone.

            It will end up only hurting people, many of whom won’t even be trans. We’ve already seen masculine-looking women getting subjected to this kind of law in other states. It’s nothing more than the government abusing its own citizens.

            Trans people taking a dump aren’t hurting anyone.

          • HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Murder is bad

            A woman having a shit in a stall (whilst having a Y chromosome) is pretty neutral

            Anyway, answer the FtM question

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, why are you telling me this?

              Tell it to the guy who thinks laws don’t work.

              • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Because your argument is invalid either way. This law doesn’t protect women from bathroom predators. We have laws that protect women from bathroom predators, and if they are effective, we don’t need this law, and if they are ineffective, then we don’t need this law.

                The purpose of this law is to discriminate against transgender individuals. Any other justification is bullshit.

                • bobman@unilem.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The purpose of this law is to discriminate against transgender individuals.

                  Yes, which is effective. If it wasn’t, then why would people be getting upset?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I would like a law that religious figure are no longer eligible to run tax free organizations if they meet at the White House

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I am fine with that. Tax them the way we do corporations. Same for any group that lobbies, like CATO. It is obnoxious how the wealthy are able to lobby can get jobs for their nephew by proxy tax avoidance schemes.

                Koch wants certain laws passed. Koch gives money to CATO so CATO can lobby for them. CATO is a non-profit.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great point! This is exactly why we shouldn’t be forcing ftm trans people to use women’s restrooms.

        There are men that you’ve encountered, or even know personally, that were assigned female at birth and you would never have any fucking idea. These people are completely indistinguishable from cis men, and have zero business being in a women’s bathroom.

        But no, people like you ignore their existence because it’s inconvenient to the argument you’ve invented to try to justify being a piece of shit.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are literally in here defending their reasoning and talking about it as if it’s logical and rational.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s nice, but most women would probably be more concerned with trans women in their restrooms.

          I’m not saying it’s okay. It’s just the world we live in.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even if true I am not sure when “concerned” suddenly got veto power over my basic rights.

            If I could statistically demonstrate that most Western women were “concerned” about certain races using the bathroom I doubt you would be adapting this world-weary tone of “it is what the people want”.

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Even if true I am not sure when “concerned” suddenly got veto power over my basic rights.

              Yeah, it shouldn’t.