Posts

My Local School Board May Begin Silencing Parents Over Transgender Agenda

/1 Comment/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

Feminists and Conservatives Link Arms to Confront Transgender Ideology

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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’

/0 Comments/in , /by

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

/0 Comments/in , /by

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.

I’m Sorry, but Caitlyn Jenner Is a Man Wearing a Dress

/0 Comments/in , , /by

I do not write these words lightly, and there is not an ounce of mockery or, God forbid, hatred in my heart when I say that Caitlyn Jenner is a man wearing a dress. I am simply speaking the plain and obvious truth, as politically incorrect as that truth might be right now. But with transgender issues dominating the news these days, and in light of Tucker Carlson’s epic takedown of Democratic leader Zac Petkanas on national TV last week (specifically, discussing gender-related questions), it appears that now is as good a time as ever to state some things clearly.

So then, to avoid all ambiguity: No, you do not get to choose your gender; no, gender is not determined by the level of your personal enlightenment (as Petkanas alleged); no, your gender does not change simply because you announce that it has changed; and no, it is not good science to allow people to change their sexual identity on their birth certificates. In fact, there is nothing scientific about that at all.

This being said, I do not minimize for a moment the very real struggle of precious little children who struggle deeply with their gender identity, nor do I deny that many children (and adults) report that their lives are more stable and fulfilled when they identify as the opposite of their biological sex.

I do not minimize the traumas through which Bruce Jenner (or others like him) has lived, nor do I claim to be able to relate to those traumas personally.

And I do not make a spiritual judgment about someone who struggles with their gender identity, as if this struggle somehow made them into the vilest of sinners. Why should that be the case?

Again, my goal is not to belittle or disparage, and as loudly and clearly as I can, I proclaim God’s love for all of you who identify as transgender, reminding each one that Jesus died for you just as He died for me and that God has a good and godly purpose for each of your lives.

You are not defective any more than I am defective, and every human being on the planet is broken in some way and in need of a Great Physician.

Caring Enough to Speak the Truth

But because I care enough about the transgender community to speak out, even though I’ll be branded a transphobe and bigot, I’m going to state things with clarity and conviction here, reminding us that the emperor has no clothes (as Carlson rightly did on Fox last week). And I’m going to encourage parents and policy makers, counselors and pastors, educators and activists, along with all those who care about their trans-identified friends and family that: 1) there is no settled science confirming transgender identity; 2) we still know very little about many operations of the brain, including those related to what is now called gender dysphoria (previously known as gender identity disorder, or GID); 3) studies continue to indicate that the vast majority of children who identify as transgender do not do so after puberty (even if many ultimately identify as gay); 4) there must be a better way than our current approach to treating gender dysphoria; 5) it is unfair to impose the struggles of less than 1 percent of the population on the rest of the population, especially on impressionable kids; and 6) gender distinctions should be celebrated and appreciated, rather than branded patriarchal or heterosexist or the like.

And while I’m at it, let me say this to CNN’s Chris Cuomo: Sir, it is not intolerant for a father not to want his daughter to see a boy’s penis at school. That’s called being a good dad.

I address these issues (and more) on this new video commentary, including some telling clips with Jenner and with Carlson and Pektanas, along with some shocking statements from Cuomo and from California public universities.

Please take a few minutes to watch and share the video (it’s less than 8 minutes), and then do three things: 1) pray for a fresh and real love for those who struggle with their gender identity; 2) reach out to those who identify as transgender and ask them sincerely to tell you their story; and 3) help them find wholeness in the Lord.

And remember: Caitlyn Jenner is no more a woman than Rachel Dolezal is black.

Those are the facts, and nothing more.

WATCH:

(For more from the author of “I’m Sorry, but Caitlyn Jenner Is a Man Wearing a Dress” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Girl Who Identifies as Male and Takes Testosterone Wins Girls Wrestling Championship

/0 Comments/in , /by

Mack Beggs, a girl who identifies as a male (what much of the media refer to as “transgender boy”), won the Texas’ 6A girls state wrestling championship Saturday, after coming under much controversy for taking testosterone injections.

Beggs took the championship with a handy 57-0, though two of those opponents forfeited.

Under Texas’ athletics rules, governed by the University Interscholastic League (UIL), students must compete according to the gender listed on their birth certificate. As a result, Beggs, who began taking testosterone in 2015, must compete with the women, even though the 17 year old wrestler has expressed the desire to compete against boys.

Despite Beggs stated desire to compete against boys, UIL deputy director Jamey Harrison noted that none of the athletes in this championship had requested to change divisions. (Read more from “Girl Who Identifies as Male and Takes Testosterone Wins Girls Wrestling Championship” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Has Reversed the Transgender Bathroom Mandate. Here’s How Moms Like Me Pushed the Fight.

/0 Comments/in , /by

As a woman and a mother, I am thrilled that the Trump administration has rescinded President Barack Obama’s unlawful transgender school policy regarding the use of showers, locker rooms, dorms, and bathrooms in public schools and universities.

President Donald Trump has returned the policymaking power back to parents and state and local officials.

Like many Americans, I was shocked by the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleague” letter threatening our nation’s schools with loss of federal funds unless they adopt radical gender identity policies. The Obama letter twisted Title IX—a law banning sex discrimination in education—and opened the door to a myriad of real dangers to women and girls, the very people Title IX was meant to help.

Wanting to protect my school-aged children, and also having been a victim of sexual assault, I initiated the “United We Stand” campaign last summer to generate calls to the White House respectfully requesting that Obama reverse course.

A decade ago, I worked in the correspondence office at the White House and learned firsthand that administrations take citizen communication very seriously.

Presidents need to hear from the people when they’ve done something wrong, but also when they’ve done something right. So last week, I called the White House comment line to relay my gratitude.

Trump’s decisiveness on this issue shows that he cares more about people than political correctness—that all our children deserve a safe and respectful learning environment, not just a very small minority, and that privacy and free speech are rights that American parents hold dear.

It also shows respect for the right of self-governance. An issue like bathroom policy is best determined at the local level, by the people closest to it—not by bureaucrats in Washington. The new guidance from the administration is both good policy and good governance.

But the fight is far from over, as there is no guarantee that local school boards will adopt sensible solutions unless they hear from concerned parents and students instead of just a vocal minority backed by well-funded outside activist groups.

In my local school district of Fairfax County, Virginia, parents are speaking out every other week asking our school board to reverse its transgender policy. We aren’t asking to “discriminate” against gender confused children, but to accommodate them with individual private facilities so that no one’s privacy is put at risk. We are merely asking for commonsense solutions for all students, not just a few.

Have you ever attended your local school board meeting? You will find they are democracy in action, but only if people make the effort to attend and voice their concerns.

Sadly, Trump is receiving a lot of flack for merely righting his predecessor’s wrong. While “just 28 percent of all Americans believe the federal government should be responsible for setting bathroom policies in elementary and secondary schools,” according to a recent poll, a vocal minority has dominated print and airwaves, and very likely the White House comment lines, giving the impression that the people are against Trump’s wise move.

The silent majority must no longer be silent. With Trump, we now have a president who is focused on remedying the lawlessness of the prior administration.

This mom has conveyed her support and gratitude. I hope others will follow. (For more from the author of “Trump Has Reversed the Transgender Bathroom Mandate. Here’s How Moms Like Me Pushed the Fight.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Returns Authority Over School Transgender Policies to States and Localities

/0 Comments/in , /by

On February 22, the Trump administration released a statement rescinding previous Obama administration guidance dealing with students who identify as transgender.

Contrary to almost all the news reporting on this story, the real question addressed by the new administration’s guidance is not (at least not directly), “Which restrooms or locker rooms should students who identify as transgender use?”

Instead, it is something much simpler — “Who gets to decide?”

The answer that President Trump’s administration has now given is also simple: “Not us. Not the federal government.”

Getting Title IX Right

The two Obama administration documents that have now been rescinded — a 2016 “Dear Colleague” letter to every school district in the country, and a lesser-known “opinion letter” issued January 2015 — asserted a specific interpretation of a specific federal law.

“Title IX” is common shorthand for “Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972” — a federal law which prohibited discrimination on the basis of “sex” in any school that receives federal funds (as all do).

The Obama administration argued that discrimination based on “sex” includes discrimination based on “gender identity;” and that failing to treat students in accord with their self-perceived “gender identity” (rather than their biological sex) in all school activities (including restroom and locker room assignments) constitutes such “discrimination.”

This position is legally untenable. Title IX was enacted by Congress, and signed into law by President Nixon, in 1972. It strains credulity to suggest that the legislative intent of Congress — 45 years ago — was to authorize biological males to use female facilities, and vice versa. The logical conclusion is that “sex” in Title IX is a reference only to one’s biological sex at birth.

If Congress wanted to expand the reach of Title IX to encompass “gender identity” as well as “sex,” Congress could amend the law to do so. Until now, they have chosen not to. No president simply has the authority under our Constitution to effect such an expansion unilaterally. President Trump’s decision to withdraw the Obama guidance should be welcomed by anyone who believes in limited government or in the rule of law — regardless of how they feel about transgender issues.

Legal Issues With “Gender Identity” Protection

Making “gender identity” a protected category under non-discrimination laws or policies would raise concerns beyond the question of bathrooms and locker rooms. Will staff be punished for inadvertently referring to a transgender student by the wrong, non-preferred, pronoun? Will fellow students have their freedom of speech or religion infringed upon, by being punished for expressing the view that God created human beings male and female, or that biological sex is a more valid indicator of maleness or femaleness than subjective “gender identity?”

The issue of sex-separated facilities or programs is an important one. Even future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, defending the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit sex discrimination under the law, wrote in the Washington Post in 1975 that “the equality principle” is compatible with having facilities separated on the basis of sex, declaring, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.”

Common sense, however, tells us that the reason we have separate facilities for men and women, boys and girls in the first place is not because their gender identities are different, but because their anatomy is different.

Privacy Needs

Court precedents on physical privacy have established that it is a right which includes the right not to expose one’s nude or semi-nude body to someone of the opposite biological sex, and similarly not to be exposed involuntarily to the nude or semi-nude body of someone of the opposite biological sex. The Obama guidelines would have cast this privacy right to the winds, in favor of an unrestricted preference for gender identity over biological sex.

Many observers express concern about the needs of students who identify as transgender — as they should. But what about the concerns of Kaeley Triller Haver — a rape survivor who showered in her underwear because of the trauma she had endured? What about the female student in Illinois who now wears her gym clothes to school under her regular clothes — and then puts the regular clothes back on over the gym clothes, without showering — in order to avoid exposing herself to a biological male who was given permission to use the girls’ locker room?

Providing single-user, gender-neutral restrooms or changing facilities is a reasonable accommodation that could protect everyone’s concern for privacy and safety — yet it has been rejected as discriminatory by transgender activists and the Obama administration.

The Trump administration policy will open the door for such accommodations to ensure that the legitimate needs and concerns of all students are met. This is far preferable to a “one-size-fits-all,” top-down solution imposed by the federal government. (For more from the author of “Trump Returns Authority Over School Transgender Policies to States and Localities” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.