Issue
In proposing the state budget, a governor has chosen to replace “mother” with the term “inseminated person” in a nod toward gender-neutral terminology.

Background
Tony Evers was elected the 46th governor of Wisconsin in 2019 as a Democrat. His first Executive Order, signed on his first day in office (January 7, 2019), prohibited discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the state. In June of that year, he joined California and New York as the first states in American history to raise a specially designed flag over the state capital in recognition of June being Pride Month. In June 2021, he issued executive orders directing state agencies to use gender-neutral language in external documents and banning the use of state funds for conversion therapy for minors. Since then, he has repeatedly vetoed bills that would restrict transgender athletes in school sports.

In the section of the proposed 2025-2027 biennial budget dealing with artificial insemination (Sections 3105 and 3016), Governor Evers replaced “mother” with “inseminated individual.” He had defended this change to provide “legal certainty” for people using in vitro fertilization (IVF), particularly same-sex couples.

The governor’s replacement of “mother” with “parent” or “birth parent ” received less attention elsewhere in the budget. The proposed budget also included places where “mother” was still used when it was clear who was being referenced.

In the gender-neutrality movement, there does not appear to be any precedent for replacing “mother” with “inseminated person.” There is also no movement underway in the IVF community to replace “mother” with “inseminated person.” This appears to be Governor Evers’ novel approach, consistent with his commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.

Perspective
For Christians who accept the Bible as God’s word, inerrant and authoritative for living (Psalm 119:105; John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), there is no acceptance of novel gender expression beyond man and woman (Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4-5; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). References to eunuchs (Matthew 19:12) and same-sex desires (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; Jude 1:7) indicate there may be psychological or physiological variants to the man/woman binary of sex, but acting on those anomalies is not deemed God-pleasing (Romans 7:15-20; Galatians 5:16-17; James 1:14-15).

Experience has shown us that many people engage in sinful activity, unaware that just because they “feel” a certain way does not make it right in God’s eyes (Numbers 15:22-29; Acts 17:30; 1 Timothy 1:13). Because of the ever-present desire to do things contrary to God’s will in all people (Genesis 8:21), it would be self-righteous and wrong to approach the matter without a spirit of great patience, careful instruction, gentleness, and respect (2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 3:15). Correction can only happen when a relationship is built based on imitating the sacrificial love we know from God through his son, Jesus Christ (John 13:34; 1 Peter 2:21; 3 John 11). As God is long-suffering with us in our sinfulness, so also are we to be long-suffering with others as they wrestle with sin (Galatians 6:1; Colossians 3:12-13; 1 Thessalonians 5:14).

Not everyone who engages in or advocates progressive gender neutrality does so from ignorance. Some, wishing to maintain their Christian identity, will justify their position based on selective readings from the Bible (Matthew 23:23-24; Luke 4:1-14). They will argue that the Bible “contains” the word of God but does not equal it. With that qualifier, they pick and choose the portions of the Bible that are most appealing to them.

Unfortunately, advocates of this approach fail to justify their selectively chosen passages. Who is to say the passages they chose to ignore are not, in fact, God’s word, and their selected passages are not the word of God? Their arbitrariness in selecting pertinent Bible passages makes them the final judge of right and wrong. Invoking “God” becomes little more than name-dropping to justify their position (Isaiah 29:13; Matthew 23:25-28).

Another vein of opposition to the biblical view on this matter is the genuine atheist who rejects any objective authority that might be attributed to a “Supreme Being.” Often, they will insist that you not press your God-rooted religious beliefs in the public square while expecting that they should be able to push their godless religious beliefs in the public square. In other words, they also are advocating a religious position (albeit godless) and, therefore, would be disqualified by the very argument they use against those who advocate a Christian or biblical position on gender identity.

These emotionally charged issues often distract us from our primary mission to evangelize the world (Isaiah 49:6; Mark 16:15; Romans 10:14-15; 2 Corinthians 5:20). In a representative form of government, as we have in the United States, we are not only given the right but arguably obliged to participate in the process. Everyone has a religious position, though not everyone’s religious position has a Supreme Being. The religion of many is humanism, which bequeaths upon human judgment a level of wisdom and insight that consistently has failed scrutiny throughout history. Without objective standards for right and wrong, humankind will find new ways to hurt itself.

The gender identity debate has decimated the venerated position of women as the sustainers of humanity. With their unique and exclusive ability as child bearers, women carry the future of humanity. Lessening that role in any way does so at the peril of our survival.