apnews.com
South Dakota Rejects Gender-Neutral Language in State Constitution
South Dakota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to change the gendered term "he" for the governor to gender-neutral language, despite Governor Kristi Noem's efforts and a state law update reflecting the rising number of women in politics nationwide.
- Why did South Dakota voters reject the proposed constitutional amendment to update the gendered language referring to the governor?
- South Dakota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to replace the gendered term "he" referring to the governor with gender-neutral language. This follows six years under Governor Kristi Noem, the state's first female governor. Despite a state law change to gender-neutral language, the constitutional amendment failed, highlighting a disconnect between legal updates and societal acceptance.
- How do the events in South Dakota relate to broader trends concerning gendered language in state constitutions across the United States?
- The failure of the South Dakota constitutional amendment reflects broader national trends. Many state constitutions contain outdated gendered language, despite a growing number of women in elected office. While some states have successfully modernized their constitutions, others face resistance, often tied to political and cultural debates surrounding gender identity.
- What are the potential future implications of this vote for similar efforts to modernize gendered language in other state constitutions?
- The rejection of the amendment in South Dakota signals potential future challenges to updating gendered language in state constitutions. The confluence of factors—conservative backlash against gender-neutral terms, lack of campaigning, and concerns over costs—suggests similar efforts may face difficulties. Future success may require broader public education and strategic framing of the issue.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing centers on the failure of the South Dakota amendment, emphasizing the conservative opposition and the role of anti-transgender sentiment. While acknowledging some support for the amendment, the narrative prioritizes the arguments against it, potentially shaping reader perception towards viewing the failure as expected or even desirable. The headline itself, while factually accurate, implicitly highlights the rejection of the measure.
Language Bias
The article uses relatively neutral language, but the repeated emphasis on "anti-transgender sentiment" and linking it to the failure of the amendment might be considered subtly loaded. While factually accurate, this framing could influence the reader's interpretation. More neutral phrasing could focus on the diversity of opinions and motivations behind the vote, rather than solely emphasizing opposition.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the South Dakota constitutional amendment and its failure, but omits discussion of similar efforts in other states beyond brief mentions of New York, Vermont, Washington, and Connecticut. This omission prevents a broader understanding of the prevalence and success rates of such amendments across the nation. While acknowledging space constraints, including more examples of successful and unsuccessful attempts could provide valuable context.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between "he" (inclusive of all genders historically) and gender-neutral language, neglecting the option of using "he or she" or other inclusive phrasing that directly addresses the issue without eliminating traditional gendered terms. This simplification ignores the nuanced positions of some individuals, such as Rep. Schaefbauer, who support gendered terms but oppose gender-neutral language.
Gender Bias
The article features several prominent women politicians, including Governor Noem, Senator Tobin, and Representative Schaefbauer. However, the inclusion of Noem's stances on transgender rights and the significant coverage of anti-transgender political action committees may inadvertently reinforce gendered stereotypes by associating certain political viewpoints with specific genders. More balanced representation of viewpoints on transgender issues, regardless of gender, could mitigate this.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the rejection of a constitutional amendment in South Dakota aimed at updating gendered language to be more inclusive. This negatively impacts gender equality by perpetuating outdated and exclusionary language in legal documents. The failure reflects resistance to recognizing and including non-binary identities and underscores challenges in achieving equal representation and recognition for all genders.