Cultural Battles Over Gendered Language Intensify in Wisconsin and Beyond

Wisconsin Governor Faces Backlash Over Budget Proposal Rewriting Gendered Terms

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, a Democrat, has sparked controversy with his 2025-2027 budget recommendation, which proposes changes to certain gendered terms in state law. The budget, introduced to the state Senate’s Joint Committee on Finance, suggests replacing the word "mother" with "inseminated person" and "paternity" with "parentage." Other terms, such as "wife" or "husband," would be updated to the more inclusive "spouse," while "father" would become "parent," and "mother" would be rephrased as "parent who gave birth to the child." These changes aim to modernize language and reflect evolving views on gender, but they have drawn sharp criticism from conservatives and some members of the public.

Republican leaders and commentators quickly seized on the issue, framing it as an overreach by progressives. Wisconsin radio host Dan O’Donnell mocked the proposal on social media, calling it "beyond parody," while Sen. Mike Lee of Utah simply commented, "red flag!" The Republican Governors Association (RGA) also weighed in, with executive director Sara Craig issuing a statement condemning the changes. "Being a mother is the greatest privilege I will have in my lifetime," Craig said, "and every mother I know feels the same. If Tony Evers can reduce motherhood to an ‘inseminated person,’ then our society is lost." The backlash highlights the polarized nature of debates over gendered language in America today.

A Broader Cultural Debate Over Language and Identity

The controversy in Wisconsin reflects a larger cultural battle that has been raging for years. Advocates for gender-neutral language argue that such changes help recognize diverse family structures and promote inclusivity. For example, terms like "chestfeeding" instead of "breastfeeding" or "birthing person" instead of "mother" have gained traction in certain circles as ways to acknowledge non-traditional parenthood. However, critics argue that these changes erode the significance of traditional roles and biological realities.

The debate has become a flashpoint in the broader culture wars, with politicians and activists on both sides using it to rally their bases. In Wisconsin, Governor Evers’ budget proposal has been portrayed by opponents as an example of progressive overreach, while supporters argue it is a necessary step toward equality. The language changes are just one part of a broader budget plan that includes tax cuts, infrastructure improvements, and property tax reforms, but they have overshadowed other aspects of the proposal.

President Trump Weighs In on Gender Ideology

The debate over gendered language has also drawn in national figures, including former President Donald Trump. On his first day back in office, Trump issued an executive order titled "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government." The order establishes official government policy to "recognize two sexes, male and female," stating that these categories are "not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality." It also explicitly separates "sex" from "gender ideology," framing the latter as a threat to women’s rights and biological reality.

Trump has continued to escalate the issue, recently issuing another executive order called "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports." The order aims to prevent transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports, aligning with a growing movement among conservatives to restrict transgender participation in athletics. During a recent White House event, Trump clashed with Maine Governor Janet Mills over the issue, threatening to withhold federal funding if her state does not comply with his order. The exchange ended with both sides vowing to take the matter to court, signaling that this debate is far from over.

Implications of the Debate for Society and Governance

The ongoing debate over gendered language and identity raises important questions about the role of government in shaping cultural norms. Supporters of inclusive language argue that such changes are essential for recognizing the diverse experiences of all individuals, particularly LGBTQ+ families. They contend that using terms like "parent" instead of "mother" or "father" helps create a more inclusive society where everyone feels valued.

On the other hand, critics argue that these changes dilute the meaning of traditional roles and undermine biological realities. They see efforts to erase gendered language as part of a broader assault on traditional values, and they fear that such changes could have unintended consequences for women’s rights and identity. The debate also touches on free speech concerns, as some argue that government-led efforts to redefine language infringe on personal expression and beliefs.

Gov. Evers and the Broader Political Landscape

While Governor Evers has not publicly defended the specific language changes in his budget proposal, his administration has framed the recommendations as part of a broader effort to modernize state law. The budget includes a range of other initiatives, such as eliminating income tax on tips, preventing property tax increases, and improving infrastructure. However, the backlash over the gendered language changes has overshadowed these other provisions, drawing attention to the deeper cultural divides that shape American politics.

Evers’ opponents have seized on the issue as evidence of what they describe as his "left-wing agenda," while his supporters argue that the changes are a necessary step toward equality. The controversy highlights the challenges progressive politicians face in advancing inclusive policies in a politically polarized environment. It also underscores the significance of language as a battleground in the ongoing struggle over identity, culture, and governance.

Conclusion: A Nation Divided Over Words and Meaning

The debate over gendered language in Wisconsin and at the federal level reflects a nation deeply divided over issues of identity, biology, and culture. While supporters of inclusive language argue that such changes promote equality and inclusivity, critics see them as an erosion of traditional values and biological truth. The controversy has become a rallying cry for both sides, with politicians and activists using it to mobilize their bases.

As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether such language changes will gain widespread acceptance or be rejected as overreach. Whatever the outcome, the controversy serves as a stark reminder of the power of language to shape culture and identity—and the deep divisions that exist in America today. Ultimately, the question of how to balance inclusivity with tradition will likely remain a central issue in American politics for years to come.