What are you talking about? Here is her executive order:
WHEREAS: Women are women;
WHEREAS: An XX chromosome is an XX chromosome. The science is clear and real;
WHEREAS: There are things only women can do, like perform the miracle of birth;
WHEREAS: Government should reject language that ignores, undermines, and erases women;
WHEREAS: Government should celebrate gender distinctions between men and women—not erase them; and
WHEREAS: It is the policy of this administration to prohibit the use of woke, anti-women words for official state government business.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, acting under the authority vested in me as the Governor of the State of Arkansas, do hereby order:
(1) All state offices, departments, boards, and commissions are prohibited from using exclusionary, sexist language in official state government business, effective immediately.
(2) In official government documents, the following exclusionary and sexist terms shall be replaced with accurate, female-affirming alternatives:
a. Rather than “pregnant people” or “pregnant person,” use “pregnant women” or “pregnant mom.”
b. Rather than “chestfeeding,” use “breastfeeding.”
c. Rather than “body fed” or “person fed,” use “breast fed.”
d. Rather than “human milk,” use “breast milk.”
e. Rather than “birthing person,” use “birth mom.”
f. Rather than “laboring person,” use “birth mom.”
g. Rather than “menstruating person” or “menstruating people,” use “woman” or “women.”
h. Rather than “birth-giver,” use “woman.”
i. Rather than “womxn” or “womyn,” use “woman.”
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the State of Arkansas to be affixed this 19th day of October, in the year of our Lord 2023.
Don't read too much into flags. I worked in a job that worked closely with the Military. We had a shit ton of flags for a whoop-dee-doo. I had to correct them on their placement and display. Very few people know proper flag etiquette.
When I was in the Army, questions of flag etiquette were the questions that stumped the most.
Sigh. Censorship is never the right path. If someone writing up a law wants to use "birth-giver," let them. If it goes to the floor for a vote and the other people involved in the law making process want the wording changed, take care of it there. "Banning" words (making it a law that you can't say something) is never the answer!
How can ANYONE not get that by this point?
Banning words isn't a "slippery slope," it's a purposeful leap off a cliff into the void.
We're just getting started -- 1938, Berlin, book burning party
It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government, not that the words are banned from being spoken by people under penalty of law.
It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government
Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal from "the State" for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.
What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?
Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?
If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.
The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.
Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people (lawmakers in this case) might choose to follow her ideas. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.
At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.
Sure, but people are free to lack common sense. This shit doesn't affect me or Sanders' constituents at all, so why is a governor spending time and money to limit people's freedom of speech?
And if someone was offended by being referred to as a non-gendered, yet still accurate term, that is their own problem.
The use of only ONLY two genders (male and female) to describe persons in government documents, FDA, CDC, etc., was normal and acceptable for 250+ years. In recent years, they have gone in and removed, changed or diminished ALL OF THE FEMALE names and descriptors to minimize natural, biological women. This change to benefit the WOKE trans and gay agenda was never put up for a vote. Had it been, it would have been defeated. The new governor is just putting things back they way they were to RESTORE natural, biological women's names and descriptors.
I don't disagree with a single word you said except the last sentence. I agree that it is important for people to understand the mind games that have been played to drive a hidden agenda. My protest has nothing to do with that. My protest is against the use of LAW (in this case by Sovereign decree) to limit people's choice of words.
The new governor is just putting things back they way they were to RESTORE natural, biological women's names and descriptors.
The new governor is NOT putting things back, they are making a decree, by fiat, of allowed speech by the individuals who make up the laws and documents of the government. I'm not saying the rhetoric shouldn't be changed. I am saying such statements of law (AKA forced coercion) are not the way to do it.
The only way to change a persons mind in the right way is to present your argument and evidence, keep the debate perpetually open for discussion, and let people decide for themselves. Any such attempt to place a limit on choice, through the use of coercion (the definition of law), is a direct attempt to violate the individuals inalienable Rights. No matter who that person works for, or what their job is, they are still an individual, and have the same inalienable Rights that must not be infringed. Any attempt by government to infringe on those Rights is, by definition, tyranny. No matter how many people agree with the direction of those violations, that doesn't make it not Tyranny.
She's good friends with the Trumps, and she is practically the only politician going after the issue that truly matters, election fraud and how to stop it.
I wish they would ban Spanish language from ANY government document associated with ANY government in the U.S.! And then people should boycott the private companies that market their products in Spanish. The push to make the U.S. a bilingual country is disgusting!
I like how she is actually taking action on things that matter. Did you notice all the flags in the background have gold fringe on them?
Banning words from your driver's license renewal form is a "thing that matters"?
What are you talking about? Here is her executive order:
WHEREAS: Women are women;
WHEREAS: An XX chromosome is an XX chromosome. The science is clear and real;
WHEREAS: There are things only women can do, like perform the miracle of birth;
WHEREAS: Government should reject language that ignores, undermines, and erases women;
WHEREAS: Government should celebrate gender distinctions between men and women—not erase them; and
WHEREAS: It is the policy of this administration to prohibit the use of woke, anti-women words for official state government business.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS, acting under the authority vested in me as the Governor of the State of Arkansas, do hereby order:
(1) All state offices, departments, boards, and commissions are prohibited from using exclusionary, sexist language in official state government business, effective immediately.
(2) In official government documents, the following exclusionary and sexist terms shall be replaced with accurate, female-affirming alternatives:
a. Rather than “pregnant people” or “pregnant person,” use “pregnant women” or “pregnant mom.”
b. Rather than “chestfeeding,” use “breastfeeding.”
c. Rather than “body fed” or “person fed,” use “breast fed.”
d. Rather than “human milk,” use “breast milk.”
e. Rather than “birthing person,” use “birth mom.”
f. Rather than “laboring person,” use “birth mom.”
g. Rather than “menstruating person” or “menstruating people,” use “woman” or “women.”
h. Rather than “birth-giver,” use “woman.”
i. Rather than “womxn” or “womyn,” use “woman.”
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the State of Arkansas to be affixed this 19th day of October, in the year of our Lord 2023.
Don't read too much into flags. I worked in a job that worked closely with the Military. We had a shit ton of flags for a whoop-dee-doo. I had to correct them on their placement and display. Very few people know proper flag etiquette.
When I was in the Army, questions of flag etiquette were the questions that stumped the most.
It seems that few care, and even fewer know.
Sigh. Censorship is never the right path. If someone writing up a law wants to use "birth-giver," let them. If it goes to the floor for a vote and the other people involved in the law making process want the wording changed, take care of it there. "Banning" words (making it a law that you can't say something) is never the answer!
How can ANYONE not get that by this point?
Banning words isn't a "slippery slope," it's a purposeful leap off a cliff into the void.
It means you can't use these terms in official business of running the government, not that the words are banned from being spoken by people under penalty of law.
Let's say someone whose job it was to type up laws did use one of the forbidden words. What would happen? Would they get fired? Would they get reprimanded? If there is any reprisal from "the State" for using one of these terms, that's the definition of a law. More specifically, a "Law" by definition, is a description of a limit from a legally appointed authority (like a Governor), that is enforced through coercion.
What would you call a decree from the Sovereign with veiled threats of reprisal?
Let's go a step further. Would such a law proposal, written with the outlawed words, get forwarded to the other lawmakers to be read as is supposed to happen, or would someone change it first? How would someone know to change it? Would they have word monitors to make sure no one whose job it is to type up the laws is using one of the banned words?
If there is any way of keeping the words from making it to where it is intended to go, then it is no different than any other action by a government to prevent the use of words or ideas.
The proper way to handle something like this is through choice. If the lawmakers, who make the laws, decide themselves to change the wording, that is their jurisdiction. Words aren't being banned, they are being decided upon by the right people. No harm, no foul, no Hitler analogies required.
Ms. Sanders could have easily made her case without making a decree or threatening reprisal against her decree. She had the floor, she could have made her argument. If it was a good one, the people (lawmakers in this case) might choose to follow her ideas. One person, having the power to control words or ideas, in any jurisdiction but her own voice, is the opposite of what we are fighting for.
At least it's the opposite of what I am fighting for.
Yeah seriously. What part of freedom is this?
Common sense.
Sure, but people are free to lack common sense. This shit doesn't affect me or Sanders' constituents at all, so why is a governor spending time and money to limit people's freedom of speech?
And if someone was offended by being referred to as a non-gendered, yet still accurate term, that is their own problem.
The use of only ONLY two genders (male and female) to describe persons in government documents, FDA, CDC, etc., was normal and acceptable for 250+ years. In recent years, they have gone in and removed, changed or diminished ALL OF THE FEMALE names and descriptors to minimize natural, biological women. This change to benefit the WOKE trans and gay agenda was never put up for a vote. Had it been, it would have been defeated. The new governor is just putting things back they way they were to RESTORE natural, biological women's names and descriptors.
I don't disagree with a single word you said except the last sentence. I agree that it is important for people to understand the mind games that have been played to drive a hidden agenda. My protest has nothing to do with that. My protest is against the use of LAW (in this case by Sovereign decree) to limit people's choice of words.
The new governor is NOT putting things back, they are making a decree, by fiat, of allowed speech by the individuals who make up the laws and documents of the government. I'm not saying the rhetoric shouldn't be changed. I am saying such statements of law (AKA forced coercion) are not the way to do it.
The only way to change a persons mind in the right way is to present your argument and evidence, keep the debate perpetually open for discussion, and let people decide for themselves. Any such attempt to place a limit on choice, through the use of coercion (the definition of law), is a direct attempt to violate the individuals inalienable Rights. No matter who that person works for, or what their job is, they are still an individual, and have the same inalienable Rights that must not be infringed. Any attempt by government to infringe on those Rights is, by definition, tyranny. No matter how many people agree with the direction of those violations, that doesn't make it not Tyranny.
You do know that Lake got her election heisted
She's good friends with the Trumps, and she is practically the only politician going after the issue that truly matters, election fraud and how to stop it.
I dunno. This log I'm trying to push out really makes me identify as a "laboring person", and my screaming is making family think I'm a "birth-giver".
/shit-post
I wish they would ban Spanish language from ANY government document associated with ANY government in the U.S.! And then people should boycott the private companies that market their products in Spanish. The push to make the U.S. a bilingual country is disgusting!
Where im at,all school signs are in a foriegn languge.only part that is in english is the schools name.
There goes freedom of speech and the right clamors in support. Fucking stupid. While these phrases are retarded, so is limiting someone’s speech.
Edit after reading it’s in state documents. Still fucking retarded. But a little less retarded.
Official documentation should not be playing these sorts of word games. If you want to do this on your own, that's one thing.
But insofar as how the government behaves, no. Male and female. Man and woman.
Not breaking news. 4 days old.
DAMN she could get it. this is good but is this constitutionally legal