Posted on 04/04/2023 7:47:40 AM PDT by Twotone
North Dakota House Republicans on Monday failed to secure enough votes to override Gov. Doug Burgum’s (R) veto of legislation that would have allowed state employees and educators to misgender transgender staff and students.
The North Dakota House in a 56-36 vote on Monday failed to secure the two-thirds majority needed to override Burgum’s veto of Senate Bill 2231, which had sought to prevent public schools and state government entities from adopting policies that require students and employees to address a transgender person using pronouns consistent with their gender identity.
Burgum vetoed the measure last week, writing in a letter to North Dakota Senate President Tammy Miller (R) that the bill would have forced teachers to “take on the role of pronoun police.”
Burgum in the letter wrote that he would have signed off on the proposed law if it had only applied to state government employees, arguing that existing free speech protections already shield against compelled speech.
But extending the same requirements to schools is a step too far, Burgum wrote, and “infringes on local control by unnecessarily injecting the state into rare instances most appropriately handled at the parent, teacher and school district level.”
“This section removes discretion from school boards, schools and teachers in determining how to accommodate the needs of all students in public schools,” Burgum wrote.
Burgum’s veto was quickly overridden last week by the North Dakota Senate in a 37-9 vote, but with the effort falling short in the House, Burgum’s veto will stand and the legislation will not take effect.
At least 15 other bills targeting LGBTQ people have been introduced in the North Dakota legislature this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, including legislation to bar transgender women and girls from competing on female sports teams and to criminally prosecute doctors who provide gender-affirming health care to minors.
[[ would have allowed state employees and educators to misgender transgender staff and students. ]]
No bias in this article. /s misgender? Since when is calling someone a pronoun based on their birth sex misgendering?
Liberals are stealing lanGuage even!
“...veto of legislation that would have allowed state employees and educators to misgender transgender staff and students...”
So now they aren’t allowed? What’s the penalty if they do? Nice job gov.
Newspeak embraces Newsex. Funny really.
i did say sorry about the old woman, but from behind...
Mark my words.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Gleaves/Dinner_at_the_White_House_-_a_parable.shtml
What had I done wrong?
As if answering the unspoken thought, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes to mine, and bared a million teeth, chuckling wryly as he folded his hands.
“You should have stopped me at the dinner roll,” he said.
You could have called me Dennis....
fails to override veto.
That is a triple negative.
Makes my head spin.
legislation that would have allowed state employees and educators to misgender transgender staff and students.
= = =
‘misgender’ - add another negative
Wow, is that ever an Orwellian statement! To refer to people by their ACTUAL sex/gender, is "misgendering" them?
“Burgum’s veto was quickly overridden last week by the North Dakota Senate in a 37-9 vote”
How can that be with the ND Senate majority of Republican (43) to minority Democratic-NPL (4)?
This is one of the hardest to understand articles I’ve read with at least four consecutive negatives in one sentence: “failed...override...veto...misgender.”
No, you idiot. It does exactly the opposite. So, he embraces free speech in the workplace, but not the classroom. Dumba**
More bad news.
The best I can tell is that the veto stands. And because of that, the schools cannot force employees to use the “preferred pronouns”.
The teachers are allowed to call people by their true sex.
So, the use of correct pronouns issue comes up when we speak about a person in third person.
Okay, so let’s entertain how this goes down and the implications.
New boss: Explain to me how the DDD report gets done.
Me: Every Friday I email Pat the weekly sales figures and Pat inputs them into the AAA spreadsheet. Then Pat standardizes them and runs an RRR calculation and sends the result to Tom.
In the above conversation that occurs between me and the boss with no one in the room, Pat is the person who is trans and I am trying to avoid using the wrong pronoun by not using one at all.
I can just as easily keep referring to Pat as Pat and never he or she or her or him even if Pat is in the room. It may sound stilted, but it avoids controversy.
Or does it. Will Pat complain because I never want to support her by using a pronoun for her at all? I can see this happening some day.
But Pat is not going to have the same relationship with co-workers as Jill when it comes to non-work functions.
Me: Did you hear that Jill’s mother just passed away>
Katie: Oh no. We should do something for her. Do you have any ideas?
In this example, Jill is a normal person and we feel free to talk about her in normal ways to get normal things done.
If Pat’s mom passed away, we avoid talking about it so as to not accidently lapse into wrong pronoun speak and be reported.
The Democratic cancer continues to consume this Republic.
You have it 180 degrees backwards. The bill would have prevented schools from forcing teachers to use chromosomally false pronouns. The governor's veto will allow schools to coerce teachers into using fake pronouns and be fired if they refuse. From the article:
Only if by "true sex" you mean the gender of the clothing they chose to wear that day.
The language in the article is so convoluted it’s almost impossible to follow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.