The transgender rights movement has taken a wrong turn in recent years, and the impact of the physical, emotional, and cultural damage it has left in its wake is difficult to quantify.
Many people are now paying attention to this year's Supreme Court cases. United States vs. Scumetti, Oral arguments are being held today to bring about a much-needed restoration of sanity.
The Biden-Harris administration began with a now infamous policy. presidential order This legitimized a new gender ideology and represented a damning extension of the 2020 Supreme Court decision. Bostock v. Clayton County. This executive order set off a cascading effect of linguistic acrobatics that not only asks us to overturn existing legal frameworks, but in many cases requires us to do so.
But before these dramatic policy changes were implemented (and perhaps provided the political fuel for them), social contagion occurred. explained Due to the rapid spread of “rapid-onset gender identity disorder,'' furious pace. Instead of protecting our nation's youth as they deal with dangerous online phenomena, the dramatic policy changes served as incubators and caused the metastasis of the disease.
We are in a place right now. new databaseapproximately 14,000 minors received so-called “gender-affirming care” between 2019 and 2023, all of which is experimental and irreversible. Ultimately, the strategy of equating “gender identity” with biological sex has caused great physical harm, undermined the larger transgender rights movement, and set it on a fast track to failure.
Traditionally, progressive movements pursue one of two approaches: equality or equity, depending on the specific needs of the groups they aim to support. Equality movements seek equal treatment across the board, while equity movements advocate special consideration to level the playing field for vulnerable groups.
A prime example of an equality-based movement is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which states that institutions receiving federal funding may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Masu. This law requires equal treatment and leaves no room for discriminatory treatment, even with good intentions.
on the other hand, Americans with Disabilities Act exemplifies an equity-driven approach. The organization recognizes that individuals with disabilities require special accommodations to enable them to participate in society on an equal footing. The ADA requires that people with disabilities be treated differently than people without disabilities to achieve equity, and recognizes the unique challenges of people with disabilities.
Title IXprotects the rights of women in the educational field and maintains a balance between equality and fairness. The law recognizes that biological differences do not affect intellectual ability and prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in academic admissions (measure of equality). However, it recognizes that biological differences can affect fairness and safety in athletics, and also allows for separate men's and women's sports teams (a measure of fairness).
The transgender rights movement has achieved notable success using equality-based legal strategies. For example, Bostock held that discrimination based on gender identity in employment is illegal under Title VII. This is not surprising. Just as religion or skin color does not affect your ability to perform a job, neither does gender identity.
But the movement is also pushing for equity-driven changes that defy biological reality and contradict existing gender-based protections that women have fought for. This is where things start to unravel.
USA vs. Scrumetti, The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to establish the same rigorous standards for gender identity as it currently does for sex, which would change state laws banning “gender-affirming” medical care for minors. I hope it will be unconstitutional. However, our legal framework for gender-based protections is built on recognition of the biological differences between men and women.
Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender are subject to “interim review,” and they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of gender when they serve an important purpose, such as keeping women's sports fair by banning men from competing on women's teams. A bar exam will be held to confirm the decision. Courts will find a law that discriminates on the basis of sex to be constitutional if it is reasonably related to achieving an important interest, such as providing an opportunity for women to participate and compete fairly in athletics. I will do it.
“Gender identity” occurs outside of objective biological reality and is often logically equated with gender, making the meanings of the words “male” and “female” interchangeable. It is not possible. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would accede to the Justice Department's request, since such a classification would eliminate all current legal distinctions based on gender. This is a disadvantageous proposal from a legal perspective, precisely because it puts transgender rights in direct conflict with women's rights, making them mutually exclusive.
The ongoing college sports saga provides a clear example of this problem. in Gaines vs. NCAAmore than a dozen female athletes are challenging their governing body's policy of allowing transgender men to participate in women's sports. The NCAA aims to be inclusive of transgender athletes and therefore does not preclude transgender women from participating in women's sporting events.
However, when rights to space and limited opportunities are involved, as in sports teams and competitions, prioritizing one group inherently limits the rights and opportunities available to members of other groups. means. It's a zero sum game. As a result, female athletes are at an inherent disadvantage and the measure of fairness for single-sex teams under Title IX is outdated.
It's time for the transgender rights movement to change direction. Advocates will do the right thing for voters by accepting that “gender identity” is a separate category from binary sex and necessarily has less legal protection. Accepting this reality is perhaps the only hope the movement has for gaining all the equality-based consideration possible under the law.
If the Scumetti court chooses to address the issue directly, everything could come to a foregone conclusion in June.
Leigh Ann O'Neill is a staff attorney at the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.
