If big tech continues censoring conservatives, that means our days on these platforms may be numbered. Please take a minute to sign up to our mailing list so we can stay in touch with you, our community. Subscribe Now!
The LGBT left's argument that there is no such thing as biological sex is one of the more curious absurdities of the movement in recent years. Chase Strangio of the ACLU tweeted out, "The notion of 'biological sex' was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people. Courts are recognizing it. Now you should too."
This was in response to two federal rulings in August determining that school policies that do not allow transgender students to use the restroom of their choice is unconstitutional, as now interpreted by the recent SCOTUS ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.
One judge argued in the case of Adams v. The School Board of St. Johns County, Florida, "Bostock confirmed that workplace discrimination against transgender people is contrary to law. Neither should this discrimination be tolerated in schools. The School Board's bathroom policy, as applied to Mr. Adams, singled him out for different treatment because of his transgender status…"
The judge continued, "A public school may not punish its students for gender nonconformity. Neither may a public school harm transgender students by establishing arbitrary, separate rules for their restroom use. The evidence at trial confirms that Mr. Adams suffered both these indignities. The record developed in the District Court shows that the School Board failed to honor Mr. Adams’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX."
Lambda Legal celebrating victory tweet:
Similarly, Gavin Grimm had been given access to a single restroom at his high school to use instead of going into the boy's restroom. The court described this as a, "special bathrooms that might as well have said 'Gavin' on the sign."
The ruling argued, "Grimm was treated worse than students with whom he was similarly situated because he alone could not use the restroom corresponding with his gender," the ruling stated. "Unlike the other boys, he had to use either the girl’s restroom or a single-stall option."
Under the new understanding of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, gender identity and sex are legally the same thing, therefore if a biological girl identifies as a boy, she must be treated as a boy under sex discrimination law.
What is baffling about all of this is the insistence that biological sex, physical primary and secondary sex characteristics that define not only human biology and reproduction, but the very basis of sex-segregated spaces, does not exist, which invalidates the argument in favor of gender identity bathroom policies.
Without sex distinctions, there is no need for sex-segregated bathrooms, and without sex-segregated bathrooms the entire transgender argument regarding these cases falls apart. Equality is better represented in single-use restrooms, the very solution presented by the school which the court found unconstitutional.
But more than that, without precise definitions of sex differences, there is no foundation for transition or even for gender recognition, legally or socially. Strangio himself was born female and transitioned to male, he uses male pronouns, he adopts biologically male physical features, he demands to be treated as a man in society. How can this even be understood without a clear set of differences between the sexed body he was born into and the body he has chosen to develop to represent the sex he believes himself to be? If biological sex does not exist, what did he transition from and then to?
The basis of the transgender argument requires a firm definition of biological sex, as does the gay rights movement. All legal advancement for both groups is based on this fact, including the SCOTUS ruling in Bostock which argued that in order to discriminate against a gay or trans person, you must first discriminate against their sex. Chase's tweet includes a quote that reads, "Given that the Board seemingly created the concept of 'biological gender' sua sponte, it comes as no surprise that it has struggled to define the term in a way that provides any consistent reason to assign a given transgender student to a male or female restroom."
The court document in the Grimm case, however, makes the following argument, "Using the school restrooms matching their gender identity is one way that transgender students can affirm their gender and socially transition."
It should be obvious that from the perspective of the transgender student male and female have explicitly clear definitions, otherwise the significance of which bathroom they used wouldn’t be so personally impactful or necessary. The school board did not arbitrarily define "biological sex," the progressive movement has just chosen when to arbitrarily recognize it.
The bathroom issue is and has always been one of security for students. Whether they wish to recognize it or not, an unsupervised girl in the boy's restroom or locker room is not safe for the girl, considering the left's argument of "rape culture," this should be a valid concern for them. In the same way, a physically intact boy in spaces where girls undress is never going to be acceptable to parents or young women. This is not bigotry; it is simply the reality of safety and privacy.
The most reasonable response would be to install gender neutral restrooms, something I am sure the majority of students would prefer anyway, but LGBT activists have fought against this on principle. They want public recognition and acceptance of their views, which have grown more and more ridiculous and extreme, but equally as steadily validated by activist judges.
Compromise is not the goal. As this aggressive activism rapidly consumes girls' sports, it is important to remember the inconsistent and illogical arguments being used to justify whatever it is the LGBT left wants right now.