How a new law in Montana will define sex for legal purposes

[IwantToRetire]

Montana's Governor Greg Gianforte has signed into law a controversial bill that legally defines sex as binary, based solely on an individual's reproductive system.

The legislation, enacted nearly a year after its passage through the state Legislature, officially amends numerous sections of Montana law to include new definitions for "male," "female," "sex," and "gender."

The bill defines sex as whether someone is male or female, as distinguished by their reproductive system. Specifically, the legislation defines those categories based on a person’s “primary sexual anatomy.”

It defines a female as an individual who “naturally has, had, will have or would have but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption” a reproductive system that uses the ova ( or egg cell ) for fertilization. In the same way, the law defines a male as someone with a reproductive system that uses sperm for fertilization.

While the definitions are largely similar to the 2023 bill, SB 437 removes references to sex markers in a person’s chromosomes.
It also adds definitions of man, woman, father and mother based on the definitions of male and female.

The bill states that the term “gender” must be considered a synonym for sex — as defined in the new legislation — and may not be considered synonymous with a person’s gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression or gender role. The term “gender identity,” if used in state law or rules, may not be considered a substitute for sex or gender.

In essence, supporters of the new law say they want categories of male and female to be cemented and consistent — not evolving or subjective based on how a person identifies.

Full article https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/montana-senate-bill-437-sex-b2951393.html?loginSuccessful=true

Also at https://archive.is/3KZPg

What's controversial about it? Seems to spell out reality.

Did you read the article?

I read the article and can't see a problem.

There are only two sexes.

Whether someone has a feeling they're the opposite sex or of no sex is irrelevant, they still are male or female. Congenital disorders of sexual development would be covered by the clauses which talk about reproductive systems which would have existed if there had been no disorder( assume they would do chromosome and other tests).

I don’t see a problem with this either. Common sense prevails.

That's a bit like living in La La Land

The title of the OP is the newspaper article.

The article tells you this has been blocked on more than one occassions.

So a bit like in the UK a few of us saying isn't it great the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of common sense is about as useful and pissing in the wind.

ie Controversial is telling you that what you think is normal is seen by others as being controversial.

And sadly this has been the case now for what a decade or more?

<>

In relation to the information in the article I think it shows that someone has done thorough research and recognises that many areas that gender identity is not appropriate.

I was wondering if someone should send to both the EHRC and Brigid Phillipson.

I like it, I know it was blocked twice but it seems to be for genuine reasons, if a law is to do what it says it needs to say what it intends clearly.

There's no reason such things can't be sent back so they can be done better, that's what the HoL's is for in the UK. Unfortunately the HoC don't have to listen to the objections which is way we end up with rubbish, wishy washy laws on the books.

It's been met with the usual screech 'we're being erased' but

“In our culture, it’s gotten to where that is not clear,” he said. “It becomes a fuzzy line for some, so we just need to have clear definitions in law so that it’s clear what we’re talking about when we talk about a male or female.”

I think we can all relate to that. Well done Montana 😁

I think it seems to have been well thought out and I hate the idea that the reality of there only being two sexes is seen as 'controversial'. Though I don't believe that the vast majority of people DO consider that controversial, it's just that their voices have been shut down by a few powerful people who've ridden roughshod over everyone else.

Laws need to change in a lot more places. Gender Identity should never have been allowed to be considered to be more appropriate than biological sex in ANY situation.

Well done to Montana and I'm glad they didn't give up when it was blocked before.

Opponents said the bill is unnecessary, discriminates against transgender, nonbinary, intersex and other gender non-conforming people and requires people to misgender themselves or risk penalties.

Not a word about women or children.

I would say the bill is necessary, reinstates women’s single sex rights and requires transgender-etc people to be honest.
Whereas the present situation discriminates against women and children by removing any protection from sex predators, and requires everyone to collude with a harmful delusion.

It's a great definition to bookmark/memorise and use when people attempt one of the many lame gotcha's such as "Ah, but what about women who've had a hysterectomy ...".

I don't know about the motivations of the Montana legislators -- whether they were grandstanding or simply generating a pragmatic solution to real problems.

But I'm not convinced that we need a definition of sex in law. It feels performative and hostile. The Supreme Court gives us a very clear view of how we can proceed realistically without any such definition. After all, we have laws around working at height without providing a legal definition of gravity.

I suspect I wouldn't share the (political) motives of those who have put this forward.

But I think it recognises just how far what we in the UK call Stonewall Law has gone.

Of course it shouldn't be necessary to say more than sex is biological.

But as we all know that the word gender has been the trojan horse. And its use in legal documents / agreements has led to entryism and worse. So the spelling out is a response to just how prevasive the word gender has become.

I think there are currently 2 if not 3 threads about this at the moment on FWR, and the problems it causes.

Thank you for sharing that. It is extraordinary that the simple truth is so unacceptable for trans activists and they hold common sense at a standstill in this way.

Looks remarkably sensible. Well done Montana. Women can have rights. Gay men and lesbians can be same sex attracted. Good.