Sex/Gender free law

[maquiscat]

Proposed federal law:
1.No law at any level of government within this country shall make any direct reference to any given sex or any given gender in any part of the law. All laws will apply equally regardless of what sex or gender is claimed by an individual.
a. Any use of the terms "male" or "female" will be replaced with the term "male, female or other"
b. Any use of the terms "man" or "woman" will be replaced with the term "man, woman or other"
c. Any use of the terms "husband" or "wife" will be replaced with the term "spouse"
d. Any use of the terms "father" or "mother" will be replaced with the term "parent"
2. The above terms can still be used for statistical purposes, or any other non-law application.
3. The restriction applies only to laws, and in no means imposes the same restrictions on private applications.


Challenge for opponents: Show me how this would cause any harm to any person or group.

Challenge for supporters: How can this proposal be improved?

 

[Lovebug]

How do we break the glass ceiling if no gender is involved? What about promoting a male or female admiral, yet here we are, discussing a gender free law? It either is, or it isn't. So how about it? Is the admiral a women or does gender NOT matter?
C'mon people, snap out of it.

 

[noonereal]

Proposed federal law:
1.No law at any level of government within this country shall make any direct reference to any given sex or any given gender in any part of the law. All laws will apply equally regardless of what sex or gender is claimed by an individual.
a. Any use of the terms "male" or "female" will be replaced with the term "male, female or other"
b. Any use of the terms "man" or "woman" will be replaced with the term "man, woman or other"
c. Any use of the terms "husband" or "wife" will be replaced with the term "spouse"
d. Any use of the terms "father" or "mother" will be replaced with the term "parent"
2. The above terms can still be used for statistical purposes, or any other non-law application.
3. The restriction applies only to laws, and in no means imposes the same restrictions on private applications.


Challenge for opponents: Show me how this would cause any harm to any person or group.

Challenge for supporters: How can this proposal be improved?

How can anyone give a **** about such nonsense?

The left is insane to push this gay shit, the right is insane to care that they do.

 

[grip]

Challenge for supporters: Simplify it. Call them all human.

 

[maquiscat]

How do we break the glass ceiling if no gender is involved? What about promoting a male or female admiral, yet here we are, discussing a gender free law? It either is, or it isn't. So how about it? Is the admiral a women or does gender NOT matter?
C'mon people, snap out of it.

If there is no glass ceiling to break, there is also no glass ceiling to limit.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Proposed federal law:
1.No law at any level of government within this country shall make any direct reference to any given sex or any given gender in any part of the law. All laws will apply equally regardless of what sex or gender is claimed by an individual.
a. Any use of the terms "male" or "female" will be replaced with the term "male, female or other"
b. Any use of the terms "man" or "woman" will be replaced with the term "man, woman or other"
c. Any use of the terms "husband" or "wife" will be replaced with the term "spouse"
d. Any use of the terms "father" or "mother" will be replaced with the term "parent"
2. The above terms can still be used for statistical purposes, or any other non-law application.
3. The restriction applies only to laws, and in no means imposes the same restrictions on private applications.


Challenge for opponents: Show me how this would cause any harm to any person or group.

Challenge for supporters: How can this proposal be improved?

It's not true. It's teaching and perpetuating a lie.

 

[Drowning Man]

So…are women going to be allowed to go shirtless or do men have to always wear a shirt?

 

[maquiscat]

It's not true. It's teaching and perpetuating a lie.

What's not true? Which lie? You are very unclear here.

 

[maquiscat]

So…are women going to be allowed to go shirtless or do men have to always wear a shirt?

Either or. Any reason why women should not be allowed to be topless? Or given the body builds of some men, should they actually be allowed to go topless?

 

[Drowning Man]

Either or. Any reason why women should not be allowed to be topless? Or given the body builds of some men, should they actually be allowed to go topless?

I wasn’t placing a value judgment either way. I was just wondering how your system would deal with it.

Another question: in many jurisdictions, only a female cop can search a female suspect. Does this do away with that requirement or does it then require the police to have trans police on staff in case there is a search of a trans suspect?

 

[maquiscat]

I wasn’t placing a value judgment either way. I was just wondering how your system would deal with it.

I didn't think you had. Apologies if it came across that way. And quite honestly, they way I wrote it, one area can say all can go topless, and another say that none can do so.

Another question: in many jurisdictions, only a female cop can search a female suspect. Does this do away with that requirement or does it then require the police to have trans police on staff in case there is a search of a trans suspect?

A good question. However, let's start with is it law or just policy. That said, if it came to law, I'm pretty sure that "man and woman" for who must be present for the search would still fall under the principle of the proposed law.

 

[Drowning Man]

I didn't think you had. Apologies if it came across that way. And quite honestly, they way I wrote it, one area can say all can go topless, and another say that none can do so.


A good question. However, let's start with is it law or just policy. That said, if it came to law, I'm pretty sure that "man and woman" for who must be present for the search would still fall under the principle of the proposed law.

Alright. Under this would there still be prisons separated by gender?

 

[maquiscat]

Alright. Under this would there still be prisons separated by gender?

Are they private or government prisons? Many are privately run nowadays. As such that is up to their private policy, it's not law. As to government run, I can't think of a need to make a law requiring separation. It can be done as a matter of policy. The law simply would require imprisonment, not how such is carried out. Home arrest can be just as valid a prison, especially for non violent.

 

[Lovebug]

If there is no glass ceiling to break, there is also no glass ceiling to limit.

But there will always be boys and girls, and, once in office, we will, of course, celebrate the first FEMALE potus, will we not?

 

[Drowning Man]

Are they private or government prisons? Many are privately run nowadays. As such that is up to their private policy, it's not law. As to government run, I can't think of a need to make a law requiring separation. It can be done as a matter of policy. The law simply would require imprisonment, not how such is carried out. Home arrest can be just as valid a prison, especially for non violent.

So, could there be a policy that women get less pay than men because they take time off to have babies?

 

[OrphanSlug]

The more we rely on the Federal Government to regulate relationships and "people," which there is little to no Constitutional authority for, the more this will be a disaster down the road.

 

[maquiscat]

But there will always be boys and girls, and, once in office, we will, of course, celebrate the first FEMALE potus, will we not?

Indeed, but the point still remains that there will never be any claim that such is not allowed by law. For a while, that was a claim. In the end the goal is that no one will bat an eye twice at whether the person is man or woman, cis or trans, black or white, human or Androian. Oh wait, got a little ahead of myself on that last one.

 

[maquiscat]

So, could there be a policy that women get less pay than men because they take time off to have babies?

My premise only addresses law, and specifically states that private business are not require to do the same. But, it occurs to me that such would only have to be written as an issues of how much time is taken off for newborn children, especially given that many companies are moving to a policy of men get paternity leave as well as mothers getting maternity leave

 

[maquiscat]

The more we rely on the Federal Government to regulate relationships and "people," which there is little to no Constitutional authority for, the more this will be a disaster down the road.

What in the proposed law regulates relationships or people? I would argue that it removes any regulation on relationships period. The only relationship that could be regulated would be incest, which should be sex/gender free in its application as is, and poly, which addresses only numbers, not sex/gender.

 

[Lovebug]

Indeed, but the point still remains that there will never be any claim that such is not allowed by law. For a while, that was a claim. In the end the goal is that no one will bat an eye twice at whether the person is man or woman, cis or trans, black or white, human or Androian. Oh wait, got a little ahead of myself on that last one.

Humans, yes, androian? Weird things have come to pass.

 

[maquiscat]

Humans, yes, androian? Weird things have come to pass.

You maybe prefer Klingons?

 

[Lovebug]

You maybe prefer Klingons?

Now that's some weird stuff.

 

[OrphanSlug]

What in the proposed law regulates relationships or people? I would argue that it removes any regulation on relationships period. The only relationship that could be regulated would be incest, which should be sex/gender free in its application as is, and poly, which addresses only numbers, not sex/gender.

Alters legal definitions, you wrote the OP... how could you not know that?

 

[maquiscat]

Alters legal definitions, you wrote the OP... how could you not know that?

Alters what? The legal definition of man or woman, or male or female? No it does not. It only keeps them from being specifically referenced by law. Nor does the lack of referencing by law cause any regulation of relationships. Provide examples of how you think that not specifically mentioning a sex or gender in a law regulates a person or a relationship? So far all you have given in generalities.

 

[The Baron]

Proposed federal law:
1.No law at any level of government within this country shall make any direct reference to any given sex or any given gender in any part of the law. All laws will apply equally regardless of what sex or gender is claimed by an individual.
a. Any use of the terms "male" or "female" will be replaced with the term "male, female or other"
b. Any use of the terms "man" or "woman" will be replaced with the term "man, woman or other"
c. Any use of the terms "husband" or "wife" will be replaced with the term "spouse"
d. Any use of the terms "father" or "mother" will be replaced with the term "parent"
2. The above terms can still be used for statistical purposes, or any other non-law application.
3. The restriction applies only to laws, and in no means imposes the same restrictions on private applications.


Challenge for opponents: Show me how this would cause any harm to any person or group.

Challenge for supporters: How can this proposal be improved?

The problem with your proposal--as I see it--is that is assumes a compelling reason for going through all of this non-sense.

And there is no compelling reason for it.