Should Gendered References to the President and 'His' Spouse Be Removed From the U.S. Code? (H.R. 677)
Do you support or oppose this bill?
What is H.R. 677?
(Updated October 1, 2020)
This bill — the 21st Century President Act — would remove gendered references to the president and their spouse in the U.S. Code. This would entail removing references to presidents as men and their spouses as wives.
Argument in favor
Gendered language in the U.S. Code referencing presidents as male and their spouses as female reinforces the expectation that presidents will be male and their spouses will be female. Given the wide field of presidential candidates in the 2020 field — including female and non-heterosexual candidates — the U.S. Code gendered references to straight male presidents should be stricken.
Argument opposed
Whether the U.S. Code references presidents as male and their spouses as female doesn’t affect the public’s perception of presidential candidates’ viability for higher office or how the law treats presidents and their spouses. Rather than wasting Congress’ time on this purely symbolic bill, it’d be better to focus on ensuring that public perceptions of female and non-heterosexual candidates are fair.
Impact
U.S. Code; presidents; and presidential spouses.
Cost of H.R. 677
A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.
Additional Info
In-Depth: Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) introduced this bill to clarify that presidents don’t have to be men and their spouses don’t have to be wives:
“In 2016, one of the two major party candidates for President was a woman with a husband and in 2020, for the first time in history, we may have more presidential candidates who are women than men, as well as a potential LGBTQ candidate who is married. The U.S. Code should not assume that Presidents will be men or that they will only marry women, especially when describing which people will or will not be protected by federal law. While this language may have been accepted when the original law was enacted, it does not reflect the America of today and I look forward to ensuring that federal law recognizes this reality.”
This bill has 39 Democratic cosponsors.
Of Note: Studies have shown that gendered wording in reference to jobs and careers limits discussions, makes male-sounding jobs sound less appealing to women, and affects day-to-day perceptions of who belongs in certain professions. BYU English professor Delys Snyder argues that “in changing the language, [you are probably] changing the way people see who could be in this job.”
Media:
Summary by Lorelei Yang
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / BasSlabbers)
The Latest
-
IT: Should the U.S. implement a tax on AI to fund worker benefits, and... 🔥Are you ready to take action against climate change?Welcome to Friday, March 29th, readers and observers... Should the U.S. government implement a new tax on AI to fund displaced read more...
-
🌎 Are You Ready To Take Action Against Climate Change?Scientists claim that last year "smashed" the record for the hottest year by a large margin , offering a "dramatic testimony" of read more... Environment
-
Should U.S. Implement a New Tax on AI to Fund Worker Benefits?The debate As technology advances, artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more integrated into our society. While leaders in AI read more... Artificial Intelligence
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health