Bill to define sex in state law advances to Senate floor
Tom Kuglin 2 hrs ago
Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila.
THOM BRIDGE, Independent Record
Tom Kuglin
ASenate committee late Monday night gave approval to a bill that would define sex in state law.
Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, brought Senate Bill 458 to the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Safety Committee that same night. The bill drew several proponents who said the legislation is about basic biology and bringing fairness to women’s sports, but an onslaught of opponents said the bill would effectively erase people who did not fit within the definition, whether due to gender identity or for medical reasons.
The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration and needs to clear the chamber by Friday to meet a procedural deadline. Before the committee passed the bill, all Republicans voted to add a severability clause, meaning if part of it is found invalid, other parts would remain standing. Sen. Jen Gross, a Billings Democrat, also brought a motion to table the bill, but committee chair Sen. Tom McGillvray, of Billings, declined to allow that.
The legislation offers the definition of sex as “determined by the biological indication of male or female, including sex chromosomes, gonads, and nonambiguous internal and external genitalia present at birth, without regard to an individual's psychological, chosen, or subjective experience of gender.” The 60-page bill then goes on to touch on sections of law that would reference that definition, including insurance, athletics and legal documents such as marriage licenses.
Glimm and other supporters said that while “sex” and “gender” may have once been considered synonymous terms, that is no longer the case.
More:
https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/bill-to-define-sex-in-state-law-advances-to-senate-floor/article_ad517b3f-e9df-5c41-b8fa-5cf5288c4470.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
And I do have people to ask about stuff with, that being Krista who've I've known 15 years, or Ashley, cashier at the Walgreen who I see every other day or so for the past couple years, and with whom I try to include some kind of gender affirming comment to every time I see her, which I know she appreciates (she's literally told me so). My Walgreen's account shows my name as being 'Dude' (long story) so she always makes it a point to say 'Dude' to me, and I call her 'Missy' ... cause she's probably 1/2 my age. She'd tell me if she didn't like it.
Anyways, I'll try to do better. I'm really only being a Nervous Nellie about the idea of someone erasing all vestiges of their chromosomal 'sex' from all records because I honestly wonder if that could come back to hurt them in an emergency sitch, but you're right ... there's a lot more likely dangers that might be avoidable, and nobody tries to legislate those away.
I sometimes wonder if the real money behind the transphobic legislation we're seeing ... isn't Big Insurance. Both Health, and Life. Logically, Insurance Companies want this subject to be cut and dry. I think ambiguity ... fucks with their business model and algorithms and such. They, perhaps above all other large entities, probably hate the idea behind people altering records of their sex when they transition. I'd not be surprised if they aren't behind these kinds of laws in a similar way Big Petroleum is behind efforts to deny climate change.
Anyways ... peace to you and yours, and I'm pulling for you with the sarcoma thing 
