Confused over what is a male and what is a female?

NASHVILLE - Two Republican lawmakers want to strictly define what it means to be a mother, father, husband and wife in Tennessee.

They have filed a bill to establish legal clarity and define the terms based on biology, a move they say is necessary to save the state money and time in courts where the words are legally ambiguous.

Legislation filed in both the state House and Senate say those four terms should be "given their natural and ordinary meaning" based on "biological distinctions between women and men," and come following a civil court case in Knoxville where gender roles in state law became an issue for two same-sex parents trying to determine child custody.

But civil rights groups immediately flagged the bill as one that could be harmful to LGBT people, an attempt to subvert the U.S. Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage, and say it could have a vast impact on all Tennesseans.

If the bill passes, the definition would apply any time those four words come up in Tennessee law. For example: Husband appears more than 50 times, according to a search performed by The Tennessean, in laws ranging from marriage and divorce to taxes and timeshares.

Sen. Janice Bowling, R-Tullahoma, said she filed the bill after the civil court case in Knoxville where a same-sex couple were trying to define parental rights of their child after filing for divorce. A similar bill in the Tennessee General Assembly died last year.

"They're trying to tortuously redefine everything," Bowling said, referring to judges trying to ascertain the definition of mother and father as it applies to same-sex couples.

In June, a judge in Knox County ruled that a woman, whose wife gave birth to a child via artificial insemination, did not have parental rights to the child because she did not meet the legal definition of a husband. When a lawyer argued the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 ruling allowing same-sex marriage changed those definitions, the judge said his hands were tied to interpret the law as-written.

Bowling said it's not uncommon for the legislature to pass bills that define specific terminology. She referenced previous legislation she's carried that called for "unstructured" recess for school-age children. She said the legislation had to define the term "unstructured" as it applied to that particular bill.

Bowling said Thursday she's already received resistance in the form of email and phone calls, but the opposition to that point had been about wasting taxpayer money, not the rights of LGBT individuals.

"Rights are something that God gives you, the law can't give you that," Bowling said. "What this does is clearly define words. We are a nation of laws. Laws are made up of words and words have clear understanding — clear meaning."

But those in the LGBT community are worried about the proposal, according to Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBT advocacy group.

"For our community, it makes it clear they want to shut us out," he said. He worries the bill could limit rights of same-sex couples to adopt and restrict other rights.

"The unintended consequences could be great because of the number of times the word comes up in the code," he said.

Leaders of the American Civil Liberties Union in Tennessee called on the sponsors to consider more inclusive terms and update paperwork for marriages and adoptions to include those terms. Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said it's time for Tennessee lawmakers to recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed same-sex couples to marry, and those couples are now raising families.

"The statutes were enacted decades ago," she said. "What the legislature should in fact do is go through the statutes and everywhere it says husband and wife change it to spouse, and everywhere it says mother and father change it parent. That would be a very positive, forward thinking initiative that I would hope the members of our legislature would want to do, instead of debating a mean spirited, clearly unnecessary and confusing bill."

Rep. John Ragan, R-Oak Ridge, the bill's sponsor in the House, said the legislation simply codifies portions of a decision in a different 2000 court case.

"It's a separation of powers issue," he said, meaning the courts interpret laws and policy that are established by the legislature.

The legislation comes ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court case that would define the rights of transgender individuals. The court has indicated it will rule on legislation from other states regarding the use of bathrooms by transgender students in public schools.

Both Ragan and Bowling said there was no connection to their bill and the case on the high court's docket. That Supreme Court case and ruling are expected to take place later this year, likely before June.