The use of pronouns other than the one with which a person was born has been submitted in the North Dakota House of Representatives.
The definition of gender under House Bill 2199 is limited to the person’s gender at birth, and all pronoun usage must reflect that gender. Any infraction by a state-funded organization, such as a public school, would result in a $1,500 fine.
If a person’s gender is questioned, the bill requires them to provide proof of it.
“Say, they’re a boy, but they come to school and say they’re a girl. As far as that school is concerned in this bill, that person is still a boy. If it becomes contested, the burden will be on the girl, the so-called girl, or the boy, to prove that he is a girl,” said North Dakota State Senator David Clemens while discussing the bill.
He added that the bill “does not publicly outlaw an individual’s personal expression, but it does outlaw the use of public funds to promote or support anything that is contrary to a person’s biological sex at birth.”
The bill isn’t limited to just students, saying that “words referring to an individual, person, employer, employee, contestant, participant, member, student, or juvenile must be used in the context of that person’s sex as determined at birth.”
The bill also says that gender is “established by the individual’s deoxyribonucleic acid.”
That could be a reference to chromosomes, which are made up of proteins and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Schools and other public institutions do not conduct chromosomal gender tests on their students.
Only Clemens testified in favor of the law, despite more than 90 testimony being presented against it, according to KFYR. The state senate judicial committee also unanimously agreed to recommend that the bill be opposed because it was poorly worded and would be challenging to implement. From here, it will still proceed to the state senate floor.
Only the testimony of the bill’s sponsor was given in favor of the bill. About 100 different types of testimony were given against the bill. The proposed bill was rejected by the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee as well.
“I see no way this law would pass any sort of legal challenge based on basic legal construction principles,” North Dakota Human Rights’ Christina Sambor said in an interview with KFYR-TV of Bismarck. “It is vague, fails to advance any legitimate state interests, and not only would cause impermissible, gender-based discrimination, its very purpose is gender-based discrimination.”
