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.”

    • 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.