Posted on 05/11/2016 9:04:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
What if a state department of motor vehicles or a public school insisted that only biological females could use the restroom set aside for females and that biological males had to use the restroom set aside for males?
Would that be a rational policy? Would it be just?
The U.S. Justice Department is now arguing in federal court that such a policy wrongfully discriminates against people whose "gender identity" does not "align" with their biological sex.
The department filed suit on Monday against the State of North Carolina.
At issue is the law North Carolina enacted this year that states: "Public agencies shall require every multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility to be designated for and only used by persons based on their biological sex."
The law says: "A multiple occupancy bathroom or changing facility may include, but is not limited to, a restroom, locker room, changing room, or shower room."
It defines "biological sex" as the "physical condition of being male or female, which is stated on a person's birth certificate."
In its legal complaint against North Carolina, the Justice Department contested the state's definition of a person's sex and offered an alternative definition.
"An individual's 'sex' consists of multiple factors, which may not always be in alignment," the department said in the complaint.
The complaint then cited various biological factors that might help determine a person's sex, but it capped the list with "gender identity, which is an individual's internal sense of being male or female."
"For individuals who have aspects of their sex that are not in alignment, the person's gender identity is the primary factor in terms of establishing that person's sex," the Justice Department told the court.
Therefore, according to the Justice Department's logic, a person who is biologically male but claims a female "gender identity" must be treated as a female by state governments and schools that receive federal funding.
And that means, according to the Justice Department's logic, that state agencies and schools must allow a person who is biologically male, but who claims a female "gender identity," to use the female facilities.
What about the rights of persons who are biologically female, who identify as female, and who do not want to use the same facilities as biological males?
They do not factor into the Justice Department's argument.
Ultimately, this argument is not only about what is and is not true, but what government may and may not do.
This nation was founded on the correct belief -- even if it did not always live up to it -- that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that the basic purpose of government is to protect those rights. The United States justified its independence with an appeal to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
But now, progressively, our nation is being ripped loose from its mooring in natural law.
Forty-three years ago, seven members of the Supreme Court declared a "right" to kill an unborn child. Since then, tens of millions of babies have been aborted.
A year ago, five members of the Supreme Court declared a "right" for two people of the same sex to marry. Were there such a right, which there is not, it would mean children do not have a right to a mother -- or a father.
Currently, an eight-member Supreme Court is weighing whether the government can force Christians to act against their faith and cooperate in the distribution of abortifacient drugs that take innocent lives. Thus, could the freedom of conscience be curtailed in the pursuit of further diminishing the right to life.
If the case the Justice Department filed in North Carolina this week makes it to the Supreme Court, the underlying question before the court may be, as it is in the Justice Department's complaint: What is a man and what is a woman?
The laws of nature and nature's God answered that question a long time ago. But President Obama's Justice Department has a different opinion.
Of interest to SCOTUS ping list
Obviously, reality says that no man can redefine male and female.
But our courts think they are gods.
If the genders end up being redefined by the courts, then we will have to pay for birth control for EVERYONE, not just for women of child-bearing ages.
And certainly, all 18 year-olds should be registered with Selective Service. All premium rates for life and health insurance will need to be re-worked to unisex.
Gone will be the “Daddy-Daughter” dances. No more Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts. No education institutions will be allowed to enroll only students, who were born as male or female.
It is way past time for the adults to take back this country.
This is getting out of hand. This wasn’t an issue until people started making an issue out of it. Trans-whatevers have been using whatever restroom they wanted for a long time already. Most going unnoticed. Laws promoting or denying access have put this in the spotlight. They should just leave it be and stop making a spectacle out of it.
If soebarkah says it, it is so decreed.
It is very simple men are men, men are women, and crazy is crazy. Gender is :
“a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms”
Again the perverts are trying (desperately trying) to change the language in order to achieve their demented goals...
That's already happening.
That would be highly symbolic for the left, since it would mean that finally the biblical definition of man and woman would be eliminated. The left is fixated on destroying any influence that the Bible and human nature still have on life in this country.
The libs act like these freaks of nature make up 90% of the population.
The article talks about biological sex. In biology and human biology, there never has been just two biological sexes, male and female. The concept of there being only two sexes, male and female, is a social convention and is not a biological reality or a scientific reality.
I have always felt that the solution to all this confusion is to simply conclude and legally establish... that a man is a woman. Make sense? Of course not. It would be the perfect SCOTUS ruling and opinion for this day and age. Pure idiocy, apropos, and emblematic of the entire Obama era. Hoorah.
How long before the government forces, for example, Catholic hospitals to perform abortions and forces doctors and nurses to participate in abortions as part of their “training?” That would close a lot of hospitals and force some doctors and nurses to quit. That would empower the government to violate people’s conscience and it would close down a number of private healthcare providers.
After that, the government could say that churches that claim that abortion is wrong are violating a “civil right” and the government could try and close these churches down as “criminal enterprises.” You know the progressives are planning all this and more.
Just more proof that lawyers are idiots too.
If they can define CO2 as toxic to the environment they can do anything their super inflated egos tell them they can do. It scares me when I think where this country is headed.
They will force hospitals and doctors to do anything and everything the Gov’t tells them to do.
Bake a cake
Treat your daughter as a boy if child wants it that way
forced abortions
Forced sex change operations
And treat Christians as Nazis, which a Harvard professor is advocating right NOW:
What gets my goat about this is people are afraid to fight back. Believe me, the minute Caitlin Jenner shows up looking for a job and I say it requires a man to do that, Bruce is putting the Carhardts on.
Of course, the compulsion exhibited makes any real progress in dealing with real problems virtually impossible.
In an immutable trait can be overridden by feeeeelings (xx, xy)...
then ANY trait can be overridden by feeeelings.
black/white
ethnicity (where is everyone’s casino?)
skin color
how about lineage? everyone should be an aristocrat.
how about just calling EVERYONE senator?
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.