In order to satisfy or uplift less than one percent of one percent of the population, Hussein Soetoro “mandated” that schools must allow students who identify as a “gender” in opposition to their biology to use the facilities of their gender identity through Department of Education thuggery rules that would withhold money should schools not comply. This past winter, parents/families of girls in Illinois District 211 petitioned in court for an injunction that would prevent boys who identified as girls from using the toilet and changing facilities. The case has been batted back and forth a few times. However, a federal judge has ruled against the parents declaring “there is no constitutional right not to share restroom or locker rooms with transgender students.” What is even more interesting is the language the judge used in his final determination.According to the source article from the Washington Post:
In an 82-page report, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert sided against a group of students and parents who sought a preliminary injunction to force the girl to use the boys’ locker room or a private bathroom while the court moves forward with the case.
Gilbert wrote that a preliminary injunction was an “extraordinary remedy” and said the plaintiffs, who argued that the policy violated their parental and privacy rights, did not show they were likely to win the case on the merits.
“High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” Gilbert wrote.
“A transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms,” he continued. “So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”
The report now goes to U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso, who has the final say over whether to reject or grant the plaintiffs’ request to bar the student from the girls’ locker room while the case proceeds.
Here is a perfect example of a federal judge who does not know the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” One of these unnamed unalienable rights is the “right to privacy.”
The judges own ruling shows he is not using the Constitution by using a derogatory word, cisgender, made up by those on the left being termed “social justice warriors” in his ruling. Cisgender is not a word but a derogatory label. It should be left out of official proceedings.
This administration is operating under the impression that accommodating “transgender” individuals is covered under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funding. But, the administration never explains how is it discrimination when all students are required to follow the same rule.
The Washington Post continued:
In August, a federal judge in Texas temporarily froze the policy, saying the administration may have overstepped its authority and ruling that a legal challenge by a group of states was likely to succeed.
The same month, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a lawsuit by a transgender boy in Virginia who sued his local school board after it implemented a policy forcing students to use bathrooms that match the sex on their birth certificate. And earlier in the year, the Obama administration sued the state of North Carolina to block the state’s “bathroom bill,” which bans transgender people from using bathrooms that don’t correspond to their biological sex.
Attorney for the plaintiffs, Gary McCaleb, said “in a statement Thursday that the magistrate judge’s recommendation ‘threatens the dignity and privacy’ of students by forcing them to share a locker room with the transgender student, whom he called ‘a biological male’.”
McCaleb stated, “Young students should be not be forced into an intimate setting like a locker room with someone of the opposite sex. We are hopeful that the federal courts will ultimately decide in favor of the privacy rights of all students.”
Judge Gilbert brought up a point that resulted in the inability of the plaintiffs’ claim to prove harm that influenced his decision. Since 2013, the school in question has allowed transgender individuals to use the facilities corresponding to their “identified” gender, not necessarily what gender is listed on their birth certificate.
He wrote in his decision, “If Student Plaintiffs did not know they were using restrooms with transgender students during this three-year period, it is hard to say this is a conscience shocking policy. Alternatively, if some Student Plaintiffs were aware transgender students were using restrooms consistent with their gender identity during that time and did not complain about it, then it also is hard to say that state of affairs shocks the conscience.”
Reports indicated the transgender student had agreed to use a private changing stall in the girls’ locker room and the school had agreed to offer separate private changing stalls outside the locker room for students who were uncomfortable changing in the presence of someone of the opposite sex. The judge rejected claims of possible abuse by students while indicating students were free to use the alternatives provided by the school.
Either this judge has no children or does not understand children, if he has them, or general human behavior in the least. Teenagers and pre-teens are very curious — not only about their own bodies but the bodies of the opposite sex. Granted, it has been years since high school, but many can remember how some boys would talk about “sneaking” into the girls’ locker room to “take a peek” at the girls or a girl in particular. The same thing went for some of the girls. Are we to believe that teenage behavior has changed in forty years? What would prevent any student from accessing the opposite sex locker room on a “declaration” of being “transgender?”
Gilbert, in his decision, wrote the case was devoid of any “forced or involuntary exposure” of any student’s body to a member of the opposite sex or by a member of the opposite sex who identified as a gender in conflict with the sex recorded on the birth certificate.
Let’s look at this from a different perspective. Transgender individuals have probably been using the facilities corresponding to their perceived gender, not what is on their birth certificate, for many years now. These individuals have totally embraced their “perceived” gender, meaning one would not be able to identify this individual from other women or men while in the toilet facilities. And, these individuals have more than likely availed themselves of private changing areas as many other individuals. So, many men and women likely had no idea they might be sharing the facilities with an individual of the opposite sex because that individual dressed and looked the part. Because they embrace their perceived gender in totality, they behave, act, look, and engage in behavior based on that perceived gender. No one would either question their entry nor would one probably be able to distinguish these individuals under normal scrutiny as being a member of the opposite sex. However, the biology of sex being determined by DNA and chromosomes does not change based on one’s perception, how one acts or behaves, or any type of alteration physically through dress or surgical alteration.
What has caused the uproar is individuals claiming to be a sex in opposition of their biological DNA that continue to look the part of their biological gender using the facilities corresponding to their “perceived” gender on a “say so.” These types of individuals are not embracing their “perceived” gender nor acting, behaving, looking or engaging in behavior based on that perceived gender. And, we are not talking about adults in this case but teenage and pre-teen children who already struggle with body image due to changes in puberty and who are in the developmental stage of finding their own identity. Whether being male or female, children should be protected from undue stress caused by “policy” handed down based on changing a definition of a word.
This is every bit as much a protection of mental and emotional health for all students as physical safety from harm. However, this administration cares not about any of this regarding anyone much less children. Society implemented tools to protect individuals in many ways. The separate facilities for men/boys and women/girls continues to be one of those tools. Under some misguided thinking process, this safety tool is eroding fast. That misguided thinking process now ignores DNA and chromosomes as the sole determinants of sex and adds “mental perception” into the mix.
Doesn’t one find it ironic that the same administration who stands firm on “the science of climate change” would deny medical science on biological sex, not to mention Biblical creation of male and female? The hoax of climate change is supported by this administration based on manipulated data, science that cannot satisfy the scientific method, and inaccurate, unreliable computer models. Yet, medical science concerning biological sex that can satisfy the scientific method is denied in favor of “perception,” what one “thinks,” and what one “decides” as their biological sex. Perceptions can change. What one thinks can change. And, what one decides today can change tomorrow based on new information.
Requiring individuals to access public facilities corresponding to their biological sex is not discrimination since it applies to all individuals. This societal tool designed to protect all individuals is the most equitable because it is based on verifiable science and common sense. Allowing individuals who “perceive” themselves as the opposite sex to use the facilities of that opposite sex produces inequality and jeopardizes safety. It infringes on the individual unalienable right to privacy of others as well as jeopardizes the safety of the general public by individuals who would seek to use these changes to engage in nefarious activities.