I actually thought I was done with this series and had said what I needed to say, but then I opened the Daily Iowan, the student rag here at the University of Iowa, and read this stunning editorial that calls for an end to Title lX protections for females in order to accommodate people who think they are the opposite sex from the one they were born as. If I had any doubt that the tranz fad is all about misogyny and the attempt to terrorize women and invade our hard won private space and generally erase us and the gains we have made in the legal sphere, then this piece of yellow journalism clears away those doubts.
The very worst part of this is that I can’t get anyone in the UI community or this paper to answer any of my questions about the tranz phenomenon. It’s like I entered the Twilight Zone and I am surrounded by the Gender Zombies. Appparently now that we are no longer distinguishable from one another and are sexually interchangeble there is no longer a problem with male privilege, male violence against women or the thousands of ways that that people who are born with “front holes” are harassed, diminished, paid less for the same work, and subject to forced pregnancy and “sex work.” Tranzing non-gender-conforming kids is a progressive idea and anyone who disagrees and wonders whether a child can give informed consent to poisonous sterilizing hormones and mutilating plastic surgery is a gay-bashing bigot who does not deserve the dignity of a reply.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a potentially landmark case in the battle for LGBTQ rights. This is the second major case the Supreme Court has heard with regards to the LGBTQ community in the past two years (the first being the mandate that all U.S. states legalize same-sex marriage).
The upcoming case deals with the increasingly ubiquitous debate over public restrooms. According to NPR, the case, Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm, involves a transgender boy who was able to use the boy’s restroom as a freshman in high school until some parents complained. As a result, the School Board adopted a policy requiring students to use the restrooms corresponding with their biological sex or a separate single-stall restroom.
In April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th District agreed to see the case. Gloucester County then petitioned the court, and justices ruled (5-3) that the School Board did not have to follow the order of the lower court.
According to numerous sources, Grimm’s argument has been that Title IX (the federal law banning sex-based discrimination in schools) protects transgender people as well.
The case becomes interesting because, according to the Washington Post, Title IX may not apply to this scenario. Title IX does not make a comment on gender classification; rather, it comments on the ability of men and women to use specific facilities. Grimm’s case may, therefore, have some difficulty proving a connection to Title IX because Grimm would have to prove that as a male, he is being discriminated against (as opposed to the school debating how he defines his own gender). This is not to say that Grimm does not have a case, but that he may not be able to win on the grounds that the actions of the Gloucester County School Board violated Title IX.
Regardless of whether this case is winnable for Grimm, federal legislation like Fair Housing and Civil Rights could also be affected by the decision.
While the case will not be heard until sometime next year, the implications of this case are massive and are only magnified by the battle currently going on over the ninth Supreme Court seat. This case — taken alone — will have effects on many future cases involving transgender individuals. But given that there may be an impending flip of partisan power on the Supreme Court, the precedent set by this case will inform all future cases involving public expectations, no mater how insensitive of transgendered people.
The weight of this case, therefore, cannot go unnoticed. The actual decision may be several months away, but it is never too early for the Supreme Court to consider the long-lasting impact of its decisions. The Daily Iowan Editorial Board believes it is the Supreme Court’s duty to protect the rights of these Americans, as it finally did last year for other members of the LGBTQ Community.
Perhaps because of the vague language used in Title IX, this could not be the case that opens doors like the gay marriage decisionof last year opened doors for other members of the LGBTQ community. But it is the beginning of a more serious national discussion of openness that has been coming for some time.
That said, we hope the case to rule in favor of Grimm. But it seems this all sits in limbo of who will sit in the ninth seat on the Supreme Court and how that person chooses to interpret Title I.
My Reply :
You say,”But it is the beginning of a more serious national discussion of openness that has been coming for some time,” but in fact this paper has never once printed any information from anyone who questions the merits and the science behind transgendering people. And whenever I personally try to engage anyone in the UI community on this topic, from RVAP (Rape victim’s Advocacy Program) to WRAC (Women’s Resource and Action Center) to the GWSS (Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies) program I am studiously ignored. You mention that ” the precedent set by this case will inform all future cases involving public expectations, no mater how insensitive of transgendered people,” but you say nothing about how abolishing the legal difference between males and females will be far more than simply insensitive to women.
I would like you to present peer-reviewed scientific studies that prove that there is no biological or therefore, legal, difference between males and females and that the socialized gender noms that have been establsihed by patriarchy in order to enforce the second class status of females are inborn characteristics that have more validity than being born XX or XY, that is, as a male or a female with their associated sex organs.
People may be “assigned” a sex ROLE at birth and they may not like that sex ROLE, but this does not therefore mean that they have the “wrong” body. Why am I not allowed to say this?
I would also like to know what not liking your body, such that you want to mutilate yourself in order to appear to be the opposite sex, has to do with being homosexual. Are all transgender people homosexual? If they aren’t, then why are they part of the the gay, lesbian, queer, bisexual political rights cadre? I would be happy to hear what the reasoning behind this is, especially since I am a bisexual, non-gender-conforming grandma and I apparently missed something as this was becoming an issue that I am now being forced to grapple with.
Another problem with your continued advertisement of and normalization of this trend is the way that it affects children. I went along with the trans ideology until I realized that parents were taking their non-gender-conforming kids to shrinks and surgeons and subjecting them to hormone treatments (which can cause cancer and mitochondrial damage as well as sterilizing a child before they really understand what this means) and plastic surgery. That is when I had to put my foot down and speak up.
Being gender-non-conforming is fine with with me. People who don’t conform to patriarchal sex role stetreotypes should not be the targets of male violence. But trivializing and erasing the rights of an entire sex class (women) and trying to shame people like me into silence for questioning whether there is even any science behind this assertion, i.e., that somehow there is no biological difference between men and women and that a person can be born into the wtrong body and needs the ministrations of surgeons and Big Pharma to cure them of this malady, – is just more male privilege at work.