The Unforeseen Consequences of Transgenderism

Determining one’s own sex or that of another used to be a simple matter.

First, there was the matter of appearance, whether a person looked like a male or looked like a female. If appearance produced some uncertainties, one could determine sex by examining a person’s birth certificate.

If appearance and a birth certificate produced uncertainties, the ultimate, absolute proof of sex was a person’s chromosomes; XX marked a female, and XY marked a male. Case closed.

But those old-fashioned, simple methods of identifying sex have changed. In fact, relying on those old tried-and-true methods of sex identification qualifies one for opprobrium, with the charge of being homophobic.

Today—independent of appearance, genitalia, birth certificate, and chromosomes—one is a male or female based on how one labels oneself.

This new liberty applies to not only sex but also race.

Rachel Dolezal, born Caucasian, chose to be a black person. By becoming a black person, she became the president of the Spokane, Washington, office of the NAACP and an instructor of Africana studies at Eastern Washington University.

As far as she is concerned, she’s still a black person now, and she has a new legal name, Nkechi Amare Diallo, which means “gift of God” in Ibo.

A notable beneficiary of racial fakery is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who claimed that she was of Cherokee Indian ancestry. That helped her land a $430,000 job for a year at diversity-hungry Harvard University as a professor of law.

If Diallo and Warren were not leftist, learned college professors and students would condemn their behavior as racial appropriation.

But let’s explore further the idea of freeing oneself from the oppression of biological determinism. There is no better testing ground than America’s colleges, which are at the forefront of transgenderism, for seeing how this might work.

How tolerant would college administrators be of conservative male students, if they said that they feel womanish, going into the ladies’ bathroom and showering facilities? Would these men, claiming to be women, be eligible for tryouts for the women’s basketball or field hockey team?

Suppose a college honored the right of its students to free themselves from biological determinism and allowed those with XY chromosomes to play on teams formerly designated as XX teams.

I would anticipate a problem competing with other colleges. An unenlightened women’s basketball team might refuse to play against a mixed-chromosome team whose starting five consists of 6-foot-6-inch, 200-pound XYers.

The NCAA should have a rule stating that refusal to play a mixed-chromosome team leads to forfeiture of the game. It’s no different from a team of white players refusing to play another because it has black players.

It’s not just college sports that would yield benefits for those escaping biological determinism. What about allowing XYers who claim they are women to compete in the Women’s International Boxing Association?

Then there are the Olympics. The men’s fastest 100-meter speed is 9.58 seconds. The women’s record is 10.49 seconds.

What about giving XY people a greater chance at winning the gold by permitting them to compete in the women’s event? They could qualify by just swearing that they feel womanish or suffer from gender dysphoria.

You say, “There you go, Williams, picking on colleges again!”

I applaud the fact that some colleges are taking a leadership role in fighting biological determinism. Barnard College President Debora Spar wrote:

There was no question that Barnard must reaffirm its mission as a college for women. And there was little debate that trans women should be eligible for admission to Barnard.

With that announcement, Barnard College joined a growing list of women’s colleges—along with Smith College, Mount Holyoke College, Mills College, and Simmons College—that have updated their admissions policies to take transgender women’s applications into consideration.

The question that remains is just how much equality these enlightened colleges will permit between XXers and XYers.

Will they sexually integrate all of their facilities? Or will they endeavor to develop the morally repugnant policy of “separate but equal”? (For more from the author of “The Unforeseen Consequences of Transgenderism” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Free_Weights (1)

Transgender Weightlifter Wins Women’s Competition

A transgender weightlifter who transitioned from male to female caused outrage after he won a female competition Sunday.

Laurel Hubbard, born a male, outperformed his female competitors in the Australian International competition, reports AU.News.

Hubbard lifted about 591 pounds, compared to runner-up Iuniarra Sipaia, who lifted approximately 572 pounds.

One weightlifter pointed out that Hubbard competing in the women’s division could be unfair.

(Editor’s note: read HERE about a recent public high school wrestling match in Texas where a trans “girl” unfairly won a 6A contest)

“We all deserve to be on an even playing field,” Deborah Acason, from the Australian Weightlifting Federation, told 1News Now. “It’s difficult when you believe that you’re not. If it’s not even, why are we doing the sport?” (Read more from “Transgender Weightlifter Wins Women’s Competition” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Man in the Women’s Room, and Why He Can Stay There

“He wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug … untouchable … doing absolutely nothing.” This would be weird enough in a men’s room, but he was doing it in a women’s room.

At Disneyland, of all places, whose women’s rooms are filled with young mothers with small children. Then, writes Kristin Quintrail, the man “did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles and vagina clear as day.”

Do you know where this kind of thing leads? It leads to families being pushed out of public spaces. It leads to giving a tiny minority what it wants by taking it away from the majority.

Transgressing Boundaries

The man, apparently a fairly large man, wasn’t a man “transitioning” to try to be a woman. The “very progressive” Quintrail would have been fine with that. He was a predator. His way of being a predator was to transgress a boundary — the women’s room door — so that he could intimidate women and their children.

“Everyone was visibly uncomfortable,” says Quintrail, who is writing for a blog called The Get Real Mom. “We were all trading looks and motioning our eyes over to him … like ‘what is he doing in here?’ Yet every single one of us was silent.”

They stayed silent, she says, because they all worried that he might respond by claiming to identify as a woman. Then (she believes) they would look like jerks. Just five years ago, the women in the room would have told him to leave, but not now. They can’t, because “We don’t know what gender is anymore.”

We must know, she insists. “Gender just can’t be a feeling,” she says at the end of the blog article. “There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison. … I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when there’s but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children’s genitals.”

Quintrail doesn’t seem to have thought of calling security, and I think we know why. Suppose security came and the man claimed to identify as a woman? Would the officers remove him anyway? Not likely. That way lies a p.r. nightmare. Disney does not like p.r. nightmares. Especially when the company makes such a big deal of having annual “gay days.”

There’s No Science

There has to be a science to it, says Quintrail. We need some objective way to tell men (however defined) from women if transgendered people can use the private space of their choice. She says this as someone “very progressive” who will comfortably share a women’s room with a man who believes he’s really a woman.

But what science can you have when the society and the law treat sex and gender as choices? You can’t have a science when the choices have no agreed outward signs.

The predator in the women’s room might claim to identify as a woman who likes to dress like a man. Who’s to say he’s not? He might say he stood in the women’s room because he felt safe there among other women. Who can deny it? Even a judge who thought the man was gaming the system for his own perverse reasons would have no legal grounds for telling him to stay out of women’s rooms.

This kind of thing makes even a restroom a contested space. It makes the classic “safe space” unsafe. Treating “gender” as choice makes some people powerless to guard that which they must guard, like husbands their wives, or mothers their children. It leaves Quintrail and the other women in that women’s room feeling they can’t eject a pervert who wants to watch them.

What Will a Father Do?

Imagine the father who sends his thirteen-year-old daughter into the women’s room and then sees a man go in. He knows he can’t call security. If he goes in, he can’t make the man leave. If he tries force, he’ll get arrested. The father has to accept that the women’s room his daughter uses may have a predatory male standing off to the side looking smug. Or worse, walking around and peering into the stalls. And there’s nothing he can do about it.

What will that father do? The only thing he can do. He’ll retreat from the public space and never come back to Disneyland, or anywhere else with similar policies. A space that his family should be able to enjoy has been taken away. It’s an amusement park, for heaven’s sake. But it’s no longer safe, not when a man can hang out in the women’s room and stare at the women and children.

If transgender laws continue to spread, more families will find themselves excluded from public places. That’s the inevitable practical result of enforcing an idea of sex and gender as personal choice. (For more from the author of “The Man in the Women’s Room, and Why He Can Stay There” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Menstruating Men and the Latest Examples of Transanity

Have you heard about Toni the Tampon who teaches children that men can get periods too? Or about the mother and son who are about to become father and daughter? What about the transgender pastor who teaches that God is transgender?

This morning, as I was planning to write this very article, I received three emails from three different friends in three different parts of the country, all with links to different news headlines on major news websites, all with one theme in common: radical transgender activism. In fact, the links were to the three stories I mentioned here. My reply to each person was the same: This will be included in my latest article!

Transanity at Our Door

You see, this is something knocking at our doors, not something we went looking for. This is something being reported in the NY Post and the Daily Mail, which are major news outlets, albeit with a touch of sensationalism. This is what our kids are dealing with in their schools, what’s coming their way (and ours) via Hollywood, what’s being debated from the White House down to the local courthouse.

That’s why I address these issues, and that’s why I’ll continue to sound the wake-up call to our nation: There is an all-out war on sexual difference (often referred to as “gender”), and if it wins the day, it will lead to societal chaos.

But first, my standard caveat. We’re not just dealing with issues, we’re dealing with people. Some of them have biological or chromosomal abnormalities and are classified as intersex, and do not fit conveniently into our simple male or female boxes. We should treat them with compassion and respect, helping them find wholeness, just as we would treat anyone else with a physical handicap or defect.

Others – perhaps the larger number and the more vocal – are not intersex and simply suffer from gender identity confusion (now called gender dysphoria, primarily due to political pressure put on the APA by transgender activists). They too deserve our compassion (who can imagine the pain they have lived with?), but compassion calls us to dig deeper and helps us get to the root cause of their struggles, with the goal being transformation from the inside out (rather than from the outside in).

So, I do not write to mock or to degrade others in their struggle. I write to say (in loud, bold terms): God has a better way!

Five Recent Examples of Transanity

Here, then, are 5 recent examples of transanity.

1) Dr. Susan Berry reports, “The author of a children’s coloring book has invented a character named ‘Toni the Tampon’ to instruct children that men can menstruate.

“Cass Clemmer, the author of The Adventures of Toni the Tampon, has been using her coloring book character to ‘destigmatize’ menstruation. Now, however, she also wants to ‘de-gender’ the female biological process and to persuade children that men get periods too.”

Note to Cass: Men do not get periods, because menstruation is the result of ovulation, when the ovaries release an egg for fertilization. As explained by the Mayo Clinic, “If ovulation takes place and the egg isn’t fertilized, the lining of the uterus sheds through the vagina. This is a menstrual period.”

Fact: A man doesn’t have a uterus or a vagina or ovaries or eggs, which is why men can’t menstruate. Toni the Tampon is hereby corrected!

And sorry, Toni, but saying that a woman (especially one who still has her female organs intact and still menstruates) who identifies as a man is now a man is like saying that a woman who dresses up as her team’s tiger mascot is actually a tiger. Not so!

2) An article on LGBTQ Nation announces, “Father & daughter both come out as transgender, will transition together.” So, this is about a man and his daughter who now want to become a woman and a boy, right? Not at all. It’s about a mother and her son who want to become a man and a girl, yet the article refers to them as “father and daughter.”

On the one hand, I would encourage Christian conservatives to read this article, since it forces us to look at people and not just issues, and it’s hard not to feel pain for these two as they share their stories.

It’s not like they’re perverted sinners engaging in all kinds of horrific acts. Rather, they both have struggled deeply with their gender identity, with the mother saying, “When I was younger I used to wish for cancer so I would have to get a mastectomy.”

But compassion would say, “Let’s find out why you have struggled so deeply with a being a woman,” (and to the son, “Let’s find out why you have struggled so deeply with a being a boy”). In contrast, confusion says, “The woman has become this child’s father because she no longer identifies as a woman, and the son has become her daughter because he no longer identifies as a boy.”

May God help this family.

3) The Christian Post reports that a transgender pastor who opposes Texas’s bathroom bill teaches that “God is transgender.”

This pastor argues, “In the beginning, God created humankind in God’s image. … So God is transgender. We’re all created in the image of what is holy and divine and sacred, and we should all be treated that way.”

I addressed this deeply mistaken notion last year in my article, “A Rabbi Claims That God Is Transgender.” But in short, Genesis 1 does not teach that God is transgender (because He creates human beings in His image, male and female), any more than it teaches that God has sexual body parts or that He physically procreates.

Rather, it teaches that the fullness of male and female distinctives are found in Him, which does not mean that God is not transgender. Rather, it means that He transcends gender. And so, while male pronouns are used to describe and refer to Him, and while He is called the heavenly Father (not Mother), He can be likened to a compassionate mother, because, as stated, as an eternal Spirit, He transcends gender categories.

More importantly – really, much more importantly when it comes to the bathroom controversies – in the beginning He created us as male and female and called us to procreate (“Be fruitful and multiply”), which only a distinct male and a distinct female can do. There is no ambiguity here, nor is there ambiguity regarding male and female distinctives throughout the entire Bible.

4) Over at College Fix, we learn that “U. Minnesota drops homecoming ‘King and Queen’ — replaces with genderless ‘Royals’.”

Yes, “The University of Minnesota has become the latest university to do away with the traditional Homecoming King and Queen titles and replace them with the gender-neutral ‘Royals’ term.

“Taking it one step further, University of Minnesota officials also point out that the winners don’t even have to be one biological male and one biological female, stating on its website: ‘“Royals”… can be any combination of any gender identity.”

This kind of cultural insanity is so absurd that simply repeating these words is enough to expose the madness.

But there’s more: “Campus officials called the change a move ‘toward gender inclusivity’ that promotes ‘a spirit of inclusion at the University of Minnesota.’”

This is not “a spirit of inclusion”; this is a spirit of confusion.

5) Finally, an article on Vice tells the story of “The Trans Women Who Become Lesbians After Years as Gay Men.” (The article, which contains offensive language, actually celebrates this, noting, “There aren’t many people who are fortunate enough to have lived their lives first as gay men and later as lesbian women.”)

So, this is the story of biological men, who then identified as women, but who discovered they were attracted to women, and who now identify as lesbians.

The better course of action would have been to identify as biological males (which they are) who are attracted to women, as the vast majority of biological males are. But no. These biological males who have normal attractions to women now identify as lesbians.

This is why these examples of “transanity,” and this is why I will continue to raise my voice. The madness must stop. God has a better way. (For more from the author of “Menstruating Men and the Latest Examples of Transanity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


My Local School Board May Begin Silencing Parents Over Transgender Agenda

In Fairfax, 10 parents have just three minutes each to give their views to the county school board each meeting.

Earning one of these coveted slots is like buying concert tickets: You get up early on the Monday before the meeting and click frantically, hoping to be among the first 10 when the school board opens its sign-up line.

Since the school board imposed its gender identity politics on unwilling Fairfax families nearly two years ago, it has heard from dozens of angry parents. More come forward every month.

For school board members on the receiving end of the discourse, this must be getting old. But that’s the price of freedom, right?

Maybe not. Parents have learned that bureaucrats on the Fairfax County School Board have had just about enough of this free speech, and are meeting to discuss how best to curtail it.

This week, board member Ryan McElveen, chief proponent of the transgender policy, is calling a meeting to discuss the public speaker process. Nothing good can come from that.

Last month, a citizen speaking before the Fairfax County School Board made the charge that nonresidents frequently appear at school board meetings—meaning people who do not reside in Fairfax County. He was referring to some who voiced criticism of school board action.

I’m a Fairfax County resident, and to my knowledge, all the speakers who have spoken out against the gender identity policies of the board have been Fairfax County residents. But if they want to require ID, I’m all for it.

But I wonder, do they also favor IDs for voting in Fairfax? Do you have to show proof of legal residency to receive school services? Those are good questions for the board, if I ever get the chance to ask them.

The gentleman who made the complaint claimed that Loudoun County residents were testifying in Fairfax County.

Perhaps he thought I was from Loudoun, since I testified before the Loudoun school board back in December. But I was speaking as a Fairfax County resident and as a sexual assault victim, to warn them that allowing men and boys into women’s and girls’ locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms is not only disrespectful, but dangerous.

Thankfully, Loudoun did not go the way of Fairfax.

I actually had to withdraw my daughter from her Fairfax County public elementary school over concerns for her personal safety and privacy. Her former school is currently allowing a biological boy to use the girls’ facilities, without any parental notification.

When Fairfax County School Board Chairman Sandy Evans says the transgender guidelines are “on hold,” she gives a false impression. The policy is being implemented right now, behind parents’ backs.

And now, a new speech policy against parents is being considered. This would affect parents who are not only constituents, but also the taxpayers who pay the school board’s salaries.

As a taxpayer, I am entitled to voice my concerns. I am a strong believer in giving both positive and negative feedback.

I called Fairfax County Interim Superintendent Steve Lockhard’s office this week to thank him for keeping schools open Wednesday—unlike our neighbor city, Alexandria, which closed schools for the leftist women’s protest, putting politics above children.

The Fairfax County School Board does not seem interested in listening to constituents who do not share their political views. When a single citizen makes the unfounded claim that non-Fairfax parents are speaking, McElveen shows deference and schedules a meeting to address it.

Yet when hundreds of parents and citizens with diverse cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds have gathered in one room to voice their concerns about adding “gender identity” to the so-called nondiscrimination policy, no meeting is ever called.

The school board hasn’t even shown us the courtesy and respect to acknowledge that we’ve been heard. All we’ve heard is their silence—and now they want to silence us?

The school board needs to develop some respect for parental input. Rather than shutting down citizens who would defend the privacy of their children, the Fairfax County School Board should make good on its commitment to openness, respect, and the democratic process. (For more from the author of “My Local School Board May Begin Silencing Parents Over Transgender Agenda” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Supreme Court’s Pass on Transgender Case Will Ignite Further Lawsuits

For the past few months, the legal community has been preparing for a grand showdown before the Supreme Court on student privacy rights.

The central question at hand: Must schools allow a student into sleeping facilities, locker rooms, and restrooms reserved for the opposite sex if that student subjectively identifies with that sex?

The prospects for that face-off, in the case of Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., grew dim a few weeks ago when the Trump administration rescinded an Obama-era directive that lay at the heart of that case.

The directive would have required the Gloucester County School Board in Virginia to allow Gavin Grimm, a female student who identifies as a male, to use the boys’ restroom. The Trump administration’s withdrawal of that Obama-era directive fundamentally altered the nature of the case.

As a result, earlier this week, the Supreme Court did what many expected and sent the Gloucester case back to the court of appeals. That move not only tees up the case for a ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it also kick-starts many similar cases that had been put on hold.

Those cases all revolve around one central issue. Gender identity advocates insist that the term “sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972—a statute that prohibits public schools from discriminating “on the basis of sex”—includes the altogether distinct notion of “gender identity.”

This argument is a stretch. Sex, after all, is fundamentally different from gender identity.

Sex is rooted in biological reality determined at birth by objective criteria like anatomy and chromosomes. But gender identity is based on subjective perceptions—the idea that a person’s status as male, female, or something in between depends on what he thinks about himself.

And nothing in Title IX’s congressional history or its regulations suggests that Congress had gender identity in mind when it used the word “sex.”

Nor is there any support in Title IX for the novel idea that federal law requires boys who identify as girls to share sleeping facilities, locker rooms, and restrooms with girls.

On the contrary, for over four decades Title IX and its regulations have explicitly said that schools may implement sex-specific access policies for these sorts of private facilities.

Ironically, gender identity advocates are taking a law intended to equalize educational opportunities for women and distorting it to deny them opportunities. Young girls who don’t want to share locker rooms with male students are now forced into uncomfortable school settings day in and day out, and female athletes are being required to compete against boys who identify as girls.

These developments mark a sad regression, not an advancement, in women’s rights.

Perhaps realizing that gender identity proponents face a tall task in making plausible that which is implausible, the Obama administration leant a helping hand. It issued decrees claiming that gender identity must be read into Title IX and that students must be allowed to use sex-specific facilities that correspond with their gender identity instead of their sex.

By doing so, President Barack Obama tilted the scales of the debate. Various legal doctrines like Chevron and Auer deference require courts to give special respect to the executive branch’s interpretation of the laws that it is charged with implementing.

With the Trump administration’s actions on Feb. 22, the executive’s thumb has now been lifted off the scale.

The Justice Department recognized that the Obama-era directives did not “contain extensive legal analysis,” “explain how the[ir] position is consistent with the express language of Title IX,” or give “due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.”

For these reasons, President Donald Trump did away with the Obama administration’s dictates.

Although gender identity advocates have lost the tremendous advantage of having the executive branch champion their cause, they will undoubtedly continue to press their position in court. And the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule in the Gloucester case reignites many cases that will give them occasion to do just that.

Students concerned about their privacy rights have filed a number of these cases—one in Illinois and another in Minnesota. They attend public schools that allow classmates of the opposite sex to share their locker rooms and restrooms, and they object to this violation of their dignity and privacy.

These cases will soon resume, and within no time, many more courts will decide whether federal law forces schools to allow boys who identify as girls to share locker rooms with female students.

Once those courts rule, advocates will again ask the Supreme Court to settle the issue once and for all. Should the court agree to do that, we’ll find ourselves exactly where we were just a few days ago. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court’s Pass on Transgender Case Will Ignite Further Lawsuits” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Respect_and_Equality_for_All_Trans_People_(4764133272)_(2) (2)

Feminists and Conservatives Link Arms to Confront Transgender Ideology

On Feb. 16, a rape survivor, a lesbian, a radical feminist, and a conservative activist gathered at The Heritage Foundation in support of a common cause.

As members of the Hands Across the Aisle Coalition, these unlikely allies have banded together to combat the increasingly anti-woman positions adopted by the transgender movement.

The event, which focused on the impact of laws and policies that privilege “gender identity” over biological sex, was hosted by Ryan T. Anderson, the Heritage Foundation’s William E. Simon senior research fellow.

Leading off the panel was Kaeley Triller Haver, whose past as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse drives her current work fighting to protect the safety and privacy of women and girls. She first encountered the push to allow men in women’s restrooms while on staff at her local YMCA.

As part of her job duties, she conducted regular sex offender screenings, and the results were disturbing, as she recounted:

Every single time that I would run one of these screenings, I would find somebody who’d infiltrated the system, because that’s what predators do—they prey, and they seek opportunity. And I recognized that this new policy that they were asking us to embrace and adopt was basically the equivalent of rolling out a welcome mat for any man who decided that he wanted to come in and access our spaces.

Haver recognized the transgender activists’ strategy of accusing those who oppose their agenda of being close-minded and unloving. Her abuser had used similar tactics to persuade her to compromise her personal boundaries, she said.

Emily Zinos, a mother of seven, was unable to attend the event, but her comments were read in her absence. Zinos faced this issue in one of her children’s schools. As part of the Ask Me First campaign, she advocates safety and privacy for all students.

She wrote:

What worries me most is that schools across the country are quashing debate, abandoning academic pursuits, and reducing themselves to pawns in a political movement whose claims are highly questionable, unscientific, and have been shown to harm children. Public schools have a duty to serve all children, but schools cannot serve children and a totalitarian ideology all at once.

Miriam Ben-Shalom, a longtime gay rights activist and the first lesbian U.S. service member to be reinstated after being discharged from the military under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” spoke next. She asked conservatives to differentiate between the gay and lesbian community and transgender activists, whose agenda is more about infringing women’s rights and safety than protecting those of transgender citizens.

She said:

It’s not about bathrooms. It is about bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s shelters, women’s jails, and women’s spaces, and the real issue here is male violence. That’s what it is, and that’s what we’re talking about here. If trans women were really women, they would understand that the issue is male violence and they would sit down with us and civilly work together to find an acceptable solution to this problem.

The question of public restrooms, locker rooms, and showers sparked an intense political battle last year across the nation, but particularly in North Carolina. (For more from the author of “Feminists and Conservatives Link Arms to Confront Transgender Ideology” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Texas Legislature to Consider Bill to Ensure ‘Public Safety’ in Bathrooms

Texas is taking measures to protect its citizens from laws that hinder “common sense and public safety” when it comes to transgender persons being allowed to use both men’s and women’s restrooms.

“This is a public safety issue,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican, said during a conference call with reporters Friday.

Legislation filed by Texas state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R-Brenham, seeks to ensure that men and women use separate bathrooms.

Kolkhorst said the bill, titled the Texas Privacy Act, will clarify who will be allowed to enter both men’s and women’s restrooms.

“I don’t view this bill as a transgender bill,” Kolkhorst said in the conference call. “It truly is about public safety … It is not against the law for a man to enter a woman’s restroom dressed looking like a man. There is nothing on the books here in Texas.”

The gender on a person’s birth certificate would determine which bathroom Texans could use.

“In Texas, there is a way to change your birth certificate and it is going before a district judge and presenting the date of either hormone therapy or the surgery and then the judge makes the decision that [the gender on] the birth certificate shall be changed,” Kolkhorst said.

Patrick said the bill is necessary because it is “common practice” that men and women use separate bathrooms.

“The people of Texas elected us to stand up for common decency, common sense, and public safety,” Patrick said in a statement. “This legislation codifies what has been common practice in Texas and everywhere else forever—that men and women should use separate, designated bathrooms.”

Patrick says the legislation has received bipartisan support and is viewed favorably by men and women, African-Americans, and Hispanics.

While ensuring that bathrooms remain separate for men and women, the bill also specifies that “no public school can institute a bathroom policy that allows boys to go in girls restrooms, showers, and locker rooms and girls to go in boys restrooms, showers, and locker rooms,” according to Patrick’s statement.

According to Patrick’s office, the hearing for the Texas Privacy Act is the first legislative hearing for privacy protection legislation following President Donald Trump’s revocation of President Barack Obama’s bathroom directive issued by the Justice and Education departments in May.

Obama’s directive allowed students identifying as transgender to be able to use the restroom that corresponded with their gender identity and mandated schools conform to the rule.

Trump rescinded the directive in late February, and a statement from the White House on bathroom usage specified that policy for those who identify as transgender should be decided by the states.

Opponents of the Texas bill say they are concerned that Kolkhorst’s legislation is too similar to the bathroom bill passed by North Carolina last March.

During a conference call with reporters, Patrick said that he does not believe the Texas Privacy Act will have adverse economic effects.

Critics of North Carolina’s bill claim the state lost out on economic opportunities because of the bill, CNN reports.

According to CNN, businesses chose not to expand because of the bill and the NBA moved its All-Star Game from Charlotte, North Carolina, to a location outside the state.

However, former North Carolina Commerce Secretary John Skvarla said North Carolina’s economy was not adversely affected, according to The Charlotte Observer.

“It hasn’t moved the needle one iota,” Skvarla said in October.

Patrick argued the Texas bill was different than the North Carolina bill.

“I think there has been significant misrepresentation in what happened in North Carolina,” Patrick said. “Our bill is not the North Carolina bill … Our bill is very narrow and it deals with public safety, keeping sexual predators pretending to be transgender people [from entering] adult bathrooms.”

Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that this bill is appropriate because it seeks to protect the dignity of all people.

“While we must be sensitive to the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of people who identify as transgender, that is not a reason to ignore the dignity, privacy, and safety concerns of everyone else,” Anderson said in an email to The Daily Signal.

The Texas Privacy Act hearing is scheduled for March 7 in the Texas Senate. (For more from the author of “Texas Legislature to Consider Bill to Ensure ‘Public Safety’ in Bathrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


PC Grammar Goon: This Supreme Court Clerk DEMANDED Petitioners Refer to a Girl as ‘He’

Within the next few weeks, the Supreme Court (which now decides every political issue and redefines immutable laws of nature) will be ruling on whether transgenderism is considered an inalienable right. However, it appears that the office of the “Clerk of the Supreme Court” — the “deep state” bureaucracy of the judiciary — has already decided that transgenderism is the law of the land.

The inimitable Ed Whelan of National Review has drawn attention to a recent letter sent by the Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk to two groups, who filed amicus briefs on behalf of sexual sanity, demanding they refer to a transgender girl as a “he.”

In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the family of Gavin Grimm, a girl who is unfortunately suffering from a mental disorder, is demanding that the local school allow her to use the male bathroom.

The fourth and sixth circuits have already redefined human sexuality through the 14th Amendment (adopted in 1868) and Title IX (adopted in 1972)! The school district appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, and the high court recently requested more briefs from both sides.

As is the case with all high-profile issues, groups on both sides filed amicus briefs in support for one of the litigants. When Liberty University and Professor John Eastman filed briefs, the Office of the Clerk sent back the following message:

It has come to the attention of this office that the cover of your amicus brief in this case identifies the respondent as “G.G., by her next friend and mother, Deirdre Grimm.” In fact, the caption for the case in this Court, as in the lower courts, identifies the respondent as “G.G., by his Next Friend and Mother, Deirdre Grimm.” (Emphasis added.) Under Rule 34, your cover is to reflect the caption of the case. Please ensure careful compliance with this requirement in this and other cases in the future. [emphasis added]

The current Office of the Clerk, which handles the flow of cases, proceedings, filings, and recordings (not to be confused with individual law clerks of Supreme Court justices) is run by Scott S. Harris. This particular letter was signed by one of the assistant clerks, Denise McNerney.

As Whelan notes, this move was likely triggered by the public complaint from a radical leftist writer at Slate Magazine. But why would the clerk’s office feel pressure from a random left-wing writer to enforce such a bizarre misinterpretation of a filing rule when such a move would signal the court’s bias on the underlying merits? It would be absurd enough for the court to get involved in such a decision to begin with, but it is especially illogical to take the transgender side of things as the default position before the case is even decided.

Later on, after Whelan made further inquiries, the clerk’s office admitted that there is no such rule forcing amici to use the case title listed in the court’s docket, just this clerk’s own personal view that “parties generally should use” the docketed case title.

Clearly, the prudent thing to do is to allow both sides to use either pronoun, but certainly not to make one (the anti-scientific term, by the way) the default position.

However, McNerney rushed to enforce her random guidance just in this case for obvious political reasons. In this case, McNerney violated her oath of office to “faithfully and impartially discharge” her duties (28 U.S. Code §951).

The court system is so far left, it has already decided to redefine the most immutable laws of nature. And this comes on the heels of another district judge’s decision (this time, in Pennsylvania) to codify transgenderism into the 14th Amendment.

Yup, there is no right to freedom of conscience, private property, or the Second Amendment, but somehow an amendment written in 1868 was intended to give someone the right to use a bathroom meant for the opposite sex.

As James F. Wilson — chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who oversaw the drafting of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — noted at the time, the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses were “establishing no new right, declaring no new principle,” but rather codified in order to reiterate and “to protect and enforce those which belong to every citizen.”

No new principle indeed! Had Wilson only known his amendment would lead to lawfare with the power to alter an X chromosome. (No doubt, this principle of transgenderism comes from the same legal right to immigrate.)

This case further exposes another uncomfortable reality for conservatives regarding the courts: Last year, I listed 12 reasons why the federal judiciary is irremediably broken. Grimm reveals a 13th. The “deep state” of the judiciary, much like the deep state of the executive branch, is full of leftist lawyers no matter who sits on the court. And this is true up and down the lower courts. But unlike the executive branch, the judiciary is wrongly regarded as wielding the power of the supreme law of the land.

Chief Justice Roberts should rebuke McNerney and other staff who seek to tip the balance to one side of a litigation. Moreover, Congress needs to reassert its authority over some of these practices. Remember, unlike with the executive branch where the president has full authority over personnel, the judicial branch staff is completely subject to statutory regulations placed by Congress. Contrary to popular thought, the judiciary is not wholly independent from Congress (and certainly not “supreme”).

Unless Justice Kennedy miraculous discovers his inner intellectual honesty, we know how this case will end. Grimm will be the transgender version of Obergefell in which the most immutable law of nature is redefined.

Republicans were appallingly silent after Obergefell, and nothing indicates they will respond more vociferously to Grimm. I have already laid out a plan for the other two branches to fight back against the redefining of sexuality here and here. The question is, “Will Congress continue to remain silent as unelected judges (and even unelected clerks) redefine marriage, sexuality, and the sovereignty of a nation?” (For more from the author of “PC Grammar Goon: This Supreme Court Clerk DEMANDED Petitioners Refer to a Girl as ‘He'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


School District Asks Supreme Court to Postpone Transgender Case Grimm v. Gloucester

The defendants in Grimm v. Gloucester have asked the Supreme Court to push the oral argument date back by at least a month, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. The Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments on March 28.

Gavin Grimm, a high school student in Gloucester County, Virginia is suing for the right to use the boys’ restroom. Grimm is a biological female who identifies as a male.

Defendants Want Trump to Weight In

The Gloucester County School Board asked the Court to halt consideration of the case so that the new presidential administration has an opportunity to offer input, according to the AP.

Barack Obama was president when Grimm’s complaint was first filed in 2015. In 2016, Obama issued a Dear Colleague letter to public schools around the nation making the same assertion as Grimm: that refusing to allow transgender students to use the restroom opposite their biological sex is the same as sex discrimination per Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

President Donald Trump rescinded Obama’s policy in another Dear Colleague letter last week. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said the issue was best left to states and local school districts.

Conservatives Want Gorsuch Confirmed Before Grimm Decided

As The Daily Signal reported last month, many conservatives hope that Neil Gorsuch, a demonstrably right-leaning judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, is confirmed in time to hear Grimm. If the Court agrees to the school board’s request, he very well could be — his confirmation hearing is set to begin March 20.

As the AP reported, the Supreme Court could hear Grimm’s case in March as planned or postpone it by one month or several. It could also send the case back to a lower court.

Other cases on the issue of transgender bathroom policies are pending in Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas, according to the AP. (For more from the author of “School District Asks Supreme Court to Postpone Transgender Case Grimm v. Gloucester” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.