Christians and Feminists Unite Against Transgender Bathroom Policy

Politics, it has been said, makes strange bedfellows; and what could be stranger than an alliance of Christian pro-family activists and radical feminists? Yet that is precisely what has occurred in response to the Obama administration’s attempt to force schools to open up sex-segregated private spaces to “transgender” individuals.

The Family Policy Alliance (FPA), a public-policy partner of Focus on the Family, has joined with the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF), which describes itself as “a radical feminist organization dedicated to the total liberation of women,” to oppose the administration’s “bathroom policy.”

That policy, articulated last year in directives from the Justice and Education Departments, requires schools that receive federal funding under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to allow individuals identifying as transgender to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities of their choice, regardless of their biological sex. Schools are threatened with a loss of funding for failure to comply.

In a video posted on FPA’s website, FPA director of public policy Autumn Leva and WoLF board member Kara Dansky discussed their unlikely alliance.

After naming some subjects on which the two groups disagree, Dansky said, “But on certain issues, such as gender identity, pornography, and prostitution, WoLF finds that the Left has pretty much sold out women.”

“We stand up for women and girls,” she added, “and to the extent that Family Policy Alliance also stands up for women and girls on these issues, we’ll work together.”

Dansky made the once-obvious point that viewing male and female as sexes determined by one’s chromosomes, not “identities” subject to one’s feelings, “is not a conservative argument, it’s not a liberal argument, it’s not even a political argument at all. It’s basic biology.”

FPA, naturally, views the sexes as creations of God, “and that’s why … we will always oppose any efforts to erase either sex from the law,” said Leva.

The two organizations have filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case challenging the Obama administration’s novel interpretation of Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in schools. The case concerns a female Virginia high-school student who identifies as male but was prohibited from using the boys’ restroom in her school. Although the school installed single-stall unisex toilets open to any student, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this was insufficient to comply with the administration’s directive and ordered the school to allow the student to use the restroom of her choice. The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which granted a stay of the ruling until such time as the appeal could be heard.

“Pro-family Christians and radical feminists may not agree about much, but they agree that redefining ‘sex’ to mean ‘gender identity’ is a truly fundamental shift in American law and society,” FPA and WoLF state in their brief. “It also strips women of their privacy, threatens their physical safety, undercuts the means by which women can achieve educational equality, and ultimately works to erase women’s very existence.”

The groups argue that accepting the Obama administration’s interpretation of the law means “women will lose their physical privacy and face an increased risk of sexual assault” since “any man can justify his presence in any women’s restroom, locker room, or shower by saying, ‘I identify as a woman.’”

This extends far beyond letting boys using girls’ restrooms in school, they say, because colleges and universities that get federal funding will now be prohibited from having women-only dormitories under the administration’s directives. Worse still, women who think they are living in sex-segregated housing will not even know in advance if a man is living there because the administration believes that informing people that someone has chosen a “gender identity” different from his biological one is an invasion of that individual’s privacy. “It is truly mind-boggling,” reads the brief, “that informing women as to which men might have the ‘right’ to share a bedroom with them is an ‘invasion of privacy’, but it is not an invasion of privacy to invite those men into women’s bedrooms in the first place.” (Emphasis in original.)

Aside from matters of safety and comfort, there is also the fact that Title IX was intended to remedy historical discrimination against women. Letting men claim to be women, however, will enable men to enjoy benefits that were never intended for them, defeating the purpose of Title IX, the groups maintain. They also note that at one time women were denied opportunities for higher education under the mistaken assumption that they were not meant for it physiologically. “It is ironic,” they observe, “that while women’s bodies were once used as an excuse to deny them education, now women’s educational opportunities will be curtailed by saying that there is actually no such thing as a ‘female’ body: Women, after all, are simply anyone who ‘identifies’ as such.”

Finally, they point out that “the most serious consequence of legally redefining ‘woman’ as anyone who claims to be one, is that ‘woman’ — as humankind has always recognized ‘woman’ — will cease to exist.” This could leave women even more at the mercy of men than they were in the days when women were largely considered the property of their husbands or other male relatives. At least then they still had a separate legal identity. “If, as a matter of law, anyone can be a woman, then no one is a woman,” write the groups.

All of this, of course, could have been avoided had the federal government not strayed from its constitutional limits and gotten involved in funding education in the first place. Then it would have no “carrots” and “sticks” with which to force schools to comply with its demands.

Be that as it may, the Supreme Court should certainly overturn the Fourth Circuit’s decision, which treated a mere directive from the Obama administration — one that radically altered the clearly intended meaning of existing law — as if it had the force of law or even of a duly promulgated regulation. Better yet, incoming President Donald Trump could order his agencies to rescind the Obama administration’s directives, rendering the entire case moot and saving other schools from suffering the same ordeal, at least for the next four years.

One way or the other, the notion that everyone else should be forced to accept an individual’s chosen “gender identity” regardless of legitimate privacy and safety concerns needs to be quashed as soon as possible. As FPA’s Leva remarked, “How wrong does something need to be for a Christian pro-family organization and a radical feminist organization to oppose it together?”

Sodomy promotion and the tranny movement is to destroy normal sexual identity in little children—to create gender confusion and fixate children in puerile, immature age for life.

Destroy virtue formation in children by promotion and glorification of dysfunction and unnatural, vile behaviors will collapse the culture.

Marxism is to destroy the Natural family, destroy identity formation to destroy individualism and free will so that children will be slaves for life. Vice creates slaves only. The removal of Right Reason and virtue (Justice) from our “Justice” system will collapse culture.

Only ONE worldview created the Age of Reason and Modern Science and the US Constitution and that is the Chrisitan worldview. No other worldview is based on Right Reason and Natural Laws (Laws of Nature and nature’s God). We have to bring back Classical Christian curricula, that which John Dewey destroyed so children could be made into dumb, irrational slaves for the State.

As Socrates noted, the only purpose of government schools is to make slaves for the State. The schools are puking out the dumbest, most irrational, immoral children in our history. Sex Ed was a Marxist construct forced into schools by 1970-—the Kinsey pederast ideology—to corrupt the normal sexual identity formation of children—to warp their perceptions of male and female to destroy the Natural Family (the only unit which creates individualism and free will in children).

Thank you for referencing that article VitacoreVision. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you

"That policy, articulated last year in directives from the Justice and Education Departments, requires schools that receive federal funding under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to allow individuals identifying as transgender to use the bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities of their choice, regardless of their biological sex. Schools are threatened with a loss of funding for failure to comply."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriots need to get into the habit of making sure that the feds can justify every official action the feds do, and laws that they make, with one of the clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers and other constitutionally express delegations of power.

And in the case of Title IX, note that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals with voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment.

And since politically correct transgender issues are clearly out of the scope of voting rights, Title IX and the pro-LGBQ transgender bathroom policy issues that the misguided and mischievous Department of Justice and constitutionally undefined Education Department are basing their transgender policy on is based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers imo. (Note that the corrupt, RINO-controlled Congress wrongly let the Justice and Education Departments get away with stealing state powers to make the transgender bathroom policy.)

In fact, note that a previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers that the states have not expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds.

”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Also, note that Thomas Jefferson had indirectly indicated that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate schooling purposes.

“The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers [emphases added].” —Thomas Jefferson: 6th Annual Message, 1806.

So the Education Department shouldn’t exist imo.

Also, regarding the loss of “federal” funding that the constitutionally undefined Education Department is threatening schools that don’t comply with its unconstitutional transgender bathroom policy with, please consider the following.

A previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had also clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue that Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

So the so-called “federal” funding that the unconstitutional Education Department is threatening to withhold from schools that don’t comply with its unconstitutional transgender bathroom policy is arguably state revenues that corrupt Congress stole from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.

Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.