Public hearing focuses on whether to define male, female in Nebraska law
LINCOLN — Dozens of Nebraskans, with a majority in opposition, testified Friday on legislation seeking to create sex-based definitions of 'male' and 'female' in state law, on a bill largely aimed at K-12 and collegiate sports, bathrooms and state government.
Legislative Bill 89, from State Sen. Kathleen Kauth of Omaha and introduced at the request of Gov. Jim Pillen, would adopt the 'Stand With Women Act.'
The bill would define sex in Nebraska as binary — male or female — based on whether someone 'naturally has, had, will or would have, but for a congenital anomaly or intentional or unintentional disruption, the reproductive system that at some point produces, transports and utilizes' either eggs (female) or sperm (male) for fertilization.
The legislation mirrors a 'Women's Bill of Rights' that Pillen enacted by executive order in August 2023 and multiple similar orders from President Donald Trump over the past few weeks.
'This is not a political issue,' Kauth told the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee. 'This is an issue of common sense, adherence to biology and establishing protections for women and girls.'
Kauth received supportive testimony from Pillen, the Nebraska Family Alliance, Alliance Defending Freedom, Nebraska Catholic Conference and a couple of high-profile student-athletes, including Selina Soule, a former track and field athlete from Connecticut, and Rebekah Allick, a member of the Nebraska volleyball team.
'Maybe I'm too long in the tooth,' Pillen testified. 'We just need to move back a generation and have common sense.'
Michelle Jud spoke against the bill on behalf of Rainbow Parents of Nebraska, a recently formed coalition of parents advocating for LGBTQ youths and their families.
'As parents of queer kids, we knew from the moment our children came out to us that they would face more challenges than most,' Jud said. 'We didn't know how hard we would have to fight to protect their basic rights.'
Jud echoed a fellow 'rainbow parent' Friday in saying that being queer is the 'least interesting thing' about their children, who are artists, singers, poets, multi-sport athletes and leaders in student government.
More than 100 people testified, and about 20 spoke in favor. Opponents stretched the hearing well into the evening, led by transgender youths and adults, parents, multiple nonprofits and the school board president of the Omaha Public Schools.
'We are here, and we will not be erased,' said Jessie McGrath, a native of Max, Nebraska, veteran and transgender woman who lives in Kauth's district.
Amos Sobotka, a Nebraska native, who is transgender, said his gender transition gave him 'peace' and that passing Kauth's LB 89 would risk his livelihood, family and community.
'I was raised to believe that all people have value here,' Sobotka said. 'I did not come all this way to be degraded and dismissed, and I refuse to accept this travesty.'
Kauth's bill, and an amendment she unveiled Friday, would require public K-12 schools, postsecondary institutions and state agencies to designate all bathrooms for use by females, males or families. Restrooms could also be single occupancy and be gender neutral.
The amendment strips placing such requirements on private schools, a decision Kauth said she reached while crafting the amendment with the national Alliance Defending Freedom.
Public schools, and private schools that compete against or are part of an athletic association with public schools, would need to designate sports teams as for males, females or mixed. Female students could participate in male-only sports if there is no female alternative, such as football or wrestling.
One of Trump's executive orders called for executive agencies to schools or colleges that allow trans student-athletes to participate. On Thursday, a day after Trump signed that order, the National Collegiate Athletic Association reversed allowing trans student-athletes to compete in women's sports.
Kauth said that while she is 'thrilled' about the Trump policy, it can be overturned, and states need specific legislation.
State Sen. Merv Riepe of Ralston, who opposed a 2024 bill from Kauth that was limited at the time to just K-12 sports, restrooms and locker rooms, said he likes Trump's executive order, describing it as straightforward and that it 'took no prisoners.' That Kauth bill fell short by two votes of advancing.
'I will see how this plays out in the next 30 days and defer on any state legislative action,' Riepe said in a Wednesday text.
NCAA President Charlie Baker told a U.S. Senate panel in December that he was aware of fewer than 10 active transgender student-athletes out of the NCAA's 510,000 participants.
Jeff Stauss, an assistant director for the Nebraska School Activities Association (NSAA), said eight students have applied since 2018 under an existing Gender Participation Policy for the NSAA, the group most public and private schools in the state coordinate with for school athletics.
The policy requires transgender student-athletes to provide affirmation on their gender identity. Trans female students must also demonstrate through medical examination and physiological testing that they do 'not possess physical… or physiological advantages over genetic females of the same age group.'
Trans girls must also take one year of hormones or go through gender reassignment surgery, which was banned in the state after Oct. 1, 2023.
Kauth led the legislative push for that prohibition as well, which also mandated months of gender-identity-focused therapy for youths with gender dysphoria before minors could access puberty blockers or hormone blockers.
Jane Erdenberger, president of the Omaha school board, said the previous restrictions could lead to at least a two-year delay for trans girls before they could even be considered for athletic participation. She said Kauth's new bill interferes with an OPS vision that every student is daily prepared for success and learning.
Kauth has said school districts can choose whether to use the NSAA model, such as Kearney or Norfolk Public Schools requiring sports participation based on a student's sex at birth. No public school officials spoke in favor of Kauth's bill.
Stauss said NSAA doesn't release specific information about its applications, such as how many were accepted, 'to protect the privacy and legal rights of the students and their families.'
'The NSAA is aware of President Trump's executive order and we are monitoring the legislation in the Nebraska Unicameral,' Stauss said in a statement to the Nebraska Examiner. 'The NSAA will comply with any new federal or state law.'
Allick, the Husker volleyball player who testified, joined Kauth in January to unveil the Stand With Women Act. Allick said Friday that there were real-world problems to address — such as children dying, human trafficking, homelessness and hunger — but that women and girls need protection.
'Forgive me for my brazenness and insensitivity to this right now, but women have fought too freaking hard to have space in politics, doctors' offices, classrooms and sports for all to be taken over yet again by men,' Allick said.
The UNL student-athlete said those with gender dysphoria need compassion, but she said she didn't want to see a penis in her locker room. She told the committee not to sacrifice women's safety or opportunities or wait until something tragic happens before acting.
'My locker room is a safe space,' said Allick, who still competes at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 'It is a place of sisterhood, a place to talk about love lives, hardships, period cramps, things that women talk about and only women understand.'
Kauth said whether even one girl or woman is made to feel threatened or unsafe, or if they lose an opportunity, is, 'by definition, a problem.'
Soule, from Connecticut, is one of the lead plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit against trans-inclusive sports policies in her state. She told the committee not to let future student-athletes compete against trans student-athletes, as she did in high school.
'I remember what it was like in the lineup for the race to get into my blocks wanting to win but knowing the outcome long before the start of the race,' Soule testified.
Soule said lawmakers risk the 'complete eradication' of women's sports if they don't step in.
Former student-athletes Emma Haith, from Burke High School and UNL, and Dahly Long, from Omaha Central High School and a senior social work major at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, spoke against the bill.
Long said LB 89 fosters exclusion rather than fairness, and Haith, citing her faith as a Catholic, said she believes in treating all people with dignity and compassion.
'They [sports] teach teamwork, discipline and inclusion,' Haith said at a noon news conference. 'This bill contradicts those values by targeting transgender youth and denying them the opportunities that benefit all young people.'
Greg Brown, an attorney, professor of exercise science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and a fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine, said that to say 'sex is complicated' is 'intentionally disingenuous about a universal and simple truth.'
'Human beings are either male or female,' Brown said. 'Every human that has ever existed owes their existence to the unification of the male gamete sperm with the female gamete ova. There's no other option when it comes to human procreation.'
Brown said that includes intersex people, about 0.02% of people, he said, who have a sex development disorder.
Male student-athletes also have an advantage as young as 8 years old, Brown said.
'When someone says, 'Well, it's only a few trans women,' they're asking us to accept unfair male advantages in the female sporting category,' Brown testified.
Freshman State Sen. Dan Lonowski of Hastings aided Kauth with his questions, saying he understood where she was coming from. He served as a wrestling coach for 35 years, but it wasn't until about five years ago that girls competed, when he saw physical differences.
Kauth's bill could offer intersex people accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, though under questioning from State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha she said she didn't know if intersex people were covered already or what accommodations would exist.
'Is it your opinion that trans people have a mental disorder?' Cavanaugh asked Kauth.
'Yes,' she replied.
Cavanaugh asked how the Legislature could direct the University of Nebraska to adopt her bill, as under the Nebraska Constitution and state law the Legislature can't dictate how NU manages its facilities — that's up to the NU Board of Regents.
Kauth said enforcement would be like any other law or school policy, leaving wide latitude to colleges, universities and public schools how to implement the directives.
Erin Feichtinger of the Women's Fund of Omaha and Abbi Swatsworth of OutNebraska said that this enforcement model would open up all women to the subjective view of what is 'female.' Swatsworth said the bill reminded her of the Jim Crow era, and she questioned whether people could be forced to 'prove' their gender before being allowed to enter a bathroom under the law.
Kathy Wilmot of Beaver City, an NU regent who testified in favor of the bill for the Eagle Forum, and in her personal capacity, told the Examiner that regents aren't currently considering a policy such as Kauth's.
State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha voiced concern about putting into law that 'women are weaker when we know not all women are weaker than all men.' She questioned what legal implications adding those findings could have for other cases 'down the road,' such as equal employment or fair pay.
Kauth, who chairs the Legislature's Business and Labor Committee, said Hunt's questions were 'quite a stretch' and that whether women were 'weaker' was in Hunt's words, not her own.
'If that's not your intention, I'm happy to have you correct the record right now,' Hunt said.
Kauth responded: 'Physically and biologically women and men grow differently, and women are consistently less strong than men.'
The committee took no immediate action on Kauth's bill. If advanced, the bill would require at least 33 votes in the 49-member Legislature to overcome a promised filibuster.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Venezuela's Maduro Set to Sweep Vote, Cementing One-Party Rule
President Nicolás Maduro's ruling socialist party is poised to sweep Sunday's local elections, with preliminary results showing government-aligned candidates winning control of key municipalities across Venezuela. With 82.5% of votes counted, officials said the United Socialist Party had secured victories in 26 out of 34 mayoral races in mayor cities across the country. While final results for 335 mayoral races are still pending, the tally so far points to a significant setback for opposition forces.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Japan Investors Brace for BOJ, Earnings After Trump-Fueled Rally
(Bloomberg) -- Japan's surprise trade deal with the US sent its markets on a wild ride, pushing stocks to all-time highs and fueling a selloff in government bonds. The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy Automakers' shares led a market-wide surge after US President Donald Trump announced the deal on Wednesday. The broad Topix index hit a record close. Investors, finally having some good news, seemed to largely ignore thorny questions about the details of the trade deal, let alone the tenuous position of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba following a recent election setback. But as the dust settles and focus returns to problems closer to home, investors are questioning whether the rally was a sign of things to come — or just a blip for a market that is facing multiple sources of volatility in the coming weeks and months. 'The deal came and there was this immense relief, and now markets are saying: 'hang on, not too much',' said Vishnu Varathan, head of economics and strategy at Mizuho Bank Ltd. 'It's a relief that we didn't bleed to death. But we are still in triage, if not the ICU.' The headache for investors in Japan is that almost every piece of good news comes with a caveat. The trade deal was a clear win, but the 15% tariffs facing Japanese companies are still well above their level at the start of the year. The economy may get a boost, but that could in turn speed up interest rate hikes. The deal removes one reason for Ishiba to cling to power — since he had made clear he wanted to get it done while in office — but the win means he now has a better case for hanging on. That has shifted attention to some major events in the coming days, which will offer clues to the direction of travel for a stock market that has underperformed its regional peers this year. The Bank of Japan's monetary policy announcement on Thursday, although unlikely to result in a rate change, will be scrutinized for hints that the central bank may hike as early as September. That could hit both bond and stock prices. Investors will also be focused on corporate earnings, with Fujitsu Ltd., Tokyo Electron Ltd. and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. among the companies set to report. Those earnings will be far too early to gauge the impact of the trade deal, but they will help investors get a sense of how strong Japanese companies are as they prepare for a prolonged period of higher tariffs — however good the figures might look compared to the worst case scenario. The 15% tariff on Japanese goods, including autos, was a relative reprieve from earlier threats of 25% or higher. Japan also agreed to invest $550 billion into the US as part of the deal, a vague pledge that has left market participants guessing at the potential details. 'You've certainly got the makings of an extended rally,' said Pelham Smithers, an analyst who runs an eponymous Japan equity research firm in the UK. 'But the bigger questions will be Bank of Japan policy, and whether Trump backtracks on this tariff deal.' Fiscal Fears Smithers, who was engrossed in the video-game Civilization when news of Trump's Japan deal broke, says his 'army of sales people' were swamped with calls from clients asking for updates on Japan's market. The enthusiasm is understandable. After trading sideways for most of July, the Topix Index jumped 4% over the course of the week, notching a new all-time high. Toyota Motor Co.'s shares posted their biggest intraday gain since 1987. SoftBank Group Corp.'s shares hit a record high. Japan's 10-year bond yields reached their highest level since 2008 after the trade deal was announced. Two-year yields, which are sensitive to changing interest rate expectations, also jumped. 'The tariff news was a complete positive surprise,' said Hisashi Arakawa, director and head of equities at abrdn Japan Ltd. 'I didn't expect the market to move that quickly.' The outlier to the wild moves was the yen, which fluctuated between gains and losses as traders digested the news. Caution was returning to the stock market by the end of the week, with both the Nikkei 225 index and the Topix closing down almost 1% Friday, part of a wider decline in Asia. One major concern is that the weakened government — whether led by Ishiba or someone else — may give in to opposition calls for tax cuts, worsening Japan's already stretched fiscal position. Worries about government finances have weighed on global debt markets in recent months, hitting Japan's ultra-long bonds alongside those in the US and elsewhere. Local media reports that Ishiba will soon announce his resignation have fueled these concerns, although he denied the reports. For now, investors in Japan have more questions than answers. The country's trade relationship with the US is, more or less, clear. But almost everything else remains in flux, and market watchers think the recent rally may reflect hope more than reason. 'We all need to cool our heads and regroup,' said Yusuke Sakai, a senior trader at T&D Asset Management in Tokyo, who called the stock rally a knee-jerk reaction. --With assistance from Momoka Yokoyama. Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información