Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Legislative Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators sharply debate adoption of gender‑neutral term for Assembly; opponents say change erases 'woman'
Summary
A proposal to adopt the term 'assembly member' in joint standing rules prompted heated debate on Feb. 3, with supporters saying the term is inclusive and routine for written records and opponents calling the change an erasure of women.
The Nevada Senate engaged in a contentious floor debate on Feb. 3 after leadership moved to adopt an Assembly‑authored concurrent resolution that replaces gendered terms in joint materials with the term “assembly member.” The motion to transmit and adopt the assembly concurrent resolution passed, but several senators spoke strongly against the change.
Senator Marilyn Dondero Loop moved that the resolution be referred to the committee on Legislative Operations and Elections and the motion carried. The dispute emerged when a majority leader’s explanation and the resolution’s language prompted objections from conservative senators who said the change would prevent women from being identified as “assemblywoman” or “assemblywoman” in official joint documents.
Senator Titus said she opposed the change on principle: “I will not be able to support that,” she told the chamber, arguing individual members should be able to use gender‑specific titles. Senator Ira Hansen objected more bluntly on the floor, saying in part, “We now allow men to call themselves women, but in this very building, we're not gonna allow women to call themselves women ... I'm going to absolutely vote no on that.”
Senator Scheibel defended the change, saying it was “simply allow[ing] us to move forward with business in a way that is normal and customary, as well as efficient.” Scheibel added that using “assembly member” in written introductions ensures all sponsors are accurately described and does not prevent any individual from using the honorific they prefer in other contexts.
Despite the objections, the motion to transmit the assembly concurrent resolution was carried and ordered transmitted to the Assembly. The transcript records both vigorous floor remarks and a final voice vote that carried the measure; the record does not show a roll‑call tally for the vote on the concurrent resolution.
Why it matters: the debate highlights sharp political and cultural tensions at the start of the session over identity terminology and how official legislative records refer to members. Although procedural in form — changing titles in joint rules and printed summaries — the issue drew emotive floor exchanges and partisan responses.
The Senate scheduled consideration of multiple vetoed bills for a special order on Feb. 11 and otherwise moved forward with organizational business after the debate.
