4 limbs having person
Shouldn’t that be “inseminated thing”?
DemocratIC Governor. “Democrat” is a noun, not an adjective. The adjective is “democratic.”
But anyway – the determination to erase women continues. Men can’t be inseminated, so there’s no point in changing “pregnant woman” to “inseminated person.” If women who claim to be men are offended by “pregnant woman” that’s just too bad.
Those who are female who believe they’re male don’t want to be told otherwise, hence the use of “person” as an identifier. We all know that the sex that’s inseminated is female, not male. At some point it isn’t mentally healthy to live in denial about reality though and as we’ve seen there are those who desist living in denial.
The Democratic Party (“Democrat Party” was originally an insult but it’s now becoming more or less standard usage) has embraced transgender ideology and what Governor Evers did doesn’t surprise me at all because science tells us that gender is a real thing that matters more than the reality of sex. Unfortunately for the Democrats the demands that transgender ideology makes with respect to issues like sex-segregated spaces, women’s sport, misgendering, and especially gender dysphoria in children is rejected by a majority of voters, so as they say the beatings at the polls will continue until morale improves.
This morning’s paper in Maine has a headline about our governor Janet Mills opposing Trump on the issue “transgendered athletes.” I recoil from the whole matter.
All I see are a pair of concrete shoes on the Democrat party and on the gay rights movement.
Definitions are fascist.
And it mustn’t, which is why I continue to grumble about it.
It’s still an insult. It’s the insult that has been normalized.
Why the fuck are they doing this shit? Did they see what happened in the election and fail to draw any conclusions as to how toxic this issue is?
Democratic governors are some of the last defenses against all the evil shit he’s doing but it’s such an unpopular position. There’s so much good to be done protecting immigrants, reproductive rights, etc and to squander it on this…
FWIW, the existing (!) statute asserts that the natural father of the child is the woman’s husband, not the sperm donor.
At best this redefines natural contrary to its established meaning; at worst it asserts facts contrary to reality. I think neither law nor society are served by such language.
I think this change is fundamentally about same sex couples, not gender identity language. In Wisconsin, a child can now legally have two women with the status of ‘mother’, since a case in 2016 (for now, at least). Given that the statute in question is very specifically about artificial insemination, it is not hard to see why the word ‘mother’ does not work to define the legal relationship to the child that results.
Wouldn’t that apply to “father” rather than “mother”?
The 2016 case involved a married lesbian couple who were directed to have the birthing mother written in as ‘mother’ on the birth certificate, with the wife to be written in as ‘father’. They objected to that. Having two ‘fathers’ in that context would imply adoption or surrogacy, neither would be the ‘inseminated person’, and it is important to note that this re-written statute does not speak to that situation at all. It takes an existing definition of status (husband-wife) and transfers it to a precise relation between the legal parentage and the act of insemination. It removes the usage of ‘mother’ here because the 2016 case makes that no longer clear, and sets out ‘parent’ instead, solely for the purpose of governing parental status vis-a-vis artificial insemination in this statue and this statue alone.
The framing of it as ‘erasing ‘mothers’ in Wisconsin state law’ is just more of the usual GOP culture war bullshit. It is an adjustment of language in an existing statute thrown into an omnibus budget bill along with 2000 or so pages of other changes, with the section it is in largely changing language like ‘husband and wife’ to ‘two spouses’.
Why am I unsurprised by this clarification?
@Naif
That explains why the word “mother” should be replaced, but not why it is replaced by “inseminated person” instead of “inseminated woman”.
Sonderval,
Fair point, and who knows what informed that particular word choice at that stage. I know in drafting it is generally better practice to avoid needless specificity – I would probably use ‘person’ there to ‘woman’ without ever thinking of this issue set. But I can readily see someone choosing to use the most open-ended definition of the relation due to concerns around gender identification.
However, that is a very long way away from the social media charge that ‘the libs are taking mothers out of Wisconsin state law’. Elsewhere in that omnibus bill, ‘woman’ is used. Falling for it is the sort of culture war ‘look, squirrel!’ bullshit that the GOP have used very successfully to distract from what is perilously close to the end of a republic.