. . .As it turns out, there are indeed public-policy consequences to the question of transgender pronouns. Those public-policy questions all revolve around a central issue: Can subjective perception trump objective observation? If the answer is yes, tyranny of the individual becomes the order of the day. We all must bow before the subjective wants, needs, and desires of people who require special protection from life’s realities. We must reeducate generations of people to ignore science in favor of feelings. We must strong-arm individuals into abandoning central planks of their morality in the name of sensitivity. . .

Meanwhile, Twitter announced this week that it would seek to ban those who “misgender” or “deadname” transgender people. In other words, if you note that Chelsea Manning or Caitlyn Jenner is a man, or if you use the names “Bradley” or “Bruce” with regard to the aforementioned transgender people, Twitter could ban you for “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs.” So you will abide by subjective self-definition, or you will be censored. Twitter recently banned a leftist feminist for merely noting that sex is biological and that men cannot become women.

It doesn’t stop there. As Walt Heyer of The Federalist reports, a Texas divorce case now pits a mother who dresses her six-year-old male child, James, as a girl and calls him “Luna” against James’s father, whom she is accusing of child abuse for refusing to treat James as a girl. Heyer reports, “She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight.” James, as it turns out, prefers being called James and being treated as a boy by his father. That’s not stopping Mom. Refusing to abide by the judgment of a six-year-old — or in this case, a six-year-old’s mom — could mean losing your child in a world where we treat sex as malleable.

There are real-world consequences to the deliberate rewriting of basic biology, and the substitution of subjectivity for objectivity. It means rewriting business operation, school curricula, medical treatment standards, censorship rules, and even parenting. Sympathy for those who suffer from gender dysphoria is obviously proper — no one wants transgender people harmed or targeted. But sympathy for a mental disorder should not trump either objective reality or competing priorities based on those objective realities. “The Emperor’s New Clothes” is not a story about the wonderful sensitivity of a population educated on the subjective desires of a ruler ensconced in sartorial self-definition. Falsehood crumbles in the light of day, no matter how sympathetic we are to those who wish to perpetuate it — unless force becomes the order of the day. (Read more from “The Real-World Consequences of Submitting to the Transgender Zeitgeist” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The controversy over forcing boys and girls to share restrooms in public schools may finally get a hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court, if the body agrees to a request by the pro-religious liberty firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

At issue is a complaint by four high school students in Boyertown, Pennsylvania who object to being forced to share restrooms and locker rooms with teens who “identify” as a member of the opposite sex. They argue that Boyertown Area School District is violating their privacy rights in the name of transgenderism.

The first complainant, identified as “Joel Doe,” says he was changing in a locker room when he unexpectedly encountered an undressed female student. He reported the October 2016 incident, but was told students could now choose their preferred locker rooms based on their subjective self-identification. Neither parents nor students were given advance notice of the change, according to ADF.

“I was sure they would tell the boy he was wrong for him to be in the girls’ bathroom, but they didn’t. They said this is the way things are going to be,” student Alexis Lightcap, who grew up in the foster system until she was eleven, recalled. “Instead of listening to my concerns, they made me feel like I was the problem for feeling uncomfortable, unsafe, and vulnerable with a boy in my bathroom.”

Regardless, in May a three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the students’ case after just twenty minutes of deliberation. During oral arguments, U.S. Circuit Judge Theodore McKee telegraphed the panel’s leanings by going so far as to admonish ADF attorney Randall Wenger for using “sex” and “opposite sex” instead of “transgender boy or girl,” because the latter were more “respectful” terms that “enhance[d] the communication.” (Read more from “Top Court Asked to Rule If Male Students Claiming to Be ‘Girls’ Can Use Girls’ Shower” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

While the migrant caravan may have largely dropped off the media radar after the election, it’s still coming, and it’s apparently a really bad place to be for gay and transgender people.

According to a recent story at BuzzFeed News, gay and transsexual migrants actually had to leave and go ahead of the caravan because of how they were treated. The report focuses on the journey a migrant named Christian had made and some of the things he experienced along the way:

“We went ahead of the main caravan because we put our lives at risk on the road,” Christian told BuzzFeed News. “My heart feels lighter now that we’re here, we’re so close.”

The gay 24-year-old from Guatemala said that someone threw a bottle at him during the caravan’s march north. When the group, which includes several transgender women, would try to hitchhike while traveling with the main caravan, drivers who were offering a lift to other members of the caravan would deny them rides or leave them stranded along desolate highways, Christian said.

In fact, things are so bad for migrants like him that BuzzFeed reports one immigration group shelled out money for his group to ride on their own separate buses, away from the rest of the caravan.

Much as with the demands for near-unrestricted immigration from the Middle East, here we have another situation where two common policy positions of those on the Left find themselves at odds.

Here’s the question: If the caravan is such a dangerous place for gay people and transsexuals, why are so many on the Left so keen to let thousands of people who may treat them this way into the country on specious (if not outright bogus) asylum claims?

Sure, the open-borders crowd would find any way they can to deflect and change the subject if any of these migrants were to get drunk, drive a car, and kill or maim an American citizen, but what happens if any of them starts throwing beer bottles at pride parades?

Will those who harbor these kinds of views actually be expected to (gasp!) assimilate? But then, since calls for immigrants to assimilate and change their ways are so often decried as xenophobic and racist these days, what’s a leftist to do?

One big truth in politics: Absurd policy positions only lead to further absurdities. (For more from the author of “Turns out the Caravan Is Reportedly a Bad Place for Gay and Trans People” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sixteen Canadian women have had human rights complaints filed against them by a male-to-female transgender individual for alleged “gender identity” discrimination after they refused to wax his male genitalia.

John Carpay, a lawyer and the president of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, is representing two of the women who are being targeted by the complainant, who is referred to only as “JY.” In accordance with an order from the BC Human Rights Tribunal, the transgender individual must be kept anonymous.

“In recent months, JY approached 16 Vancouver-area female estheticians who only serve women, requesting a ‘Brazilian’ bikini wax on his groin area,” revealed Carpay on Tuesday. “In spite of the fact that JY is able to obtain a Manzilian in Vancouver, JY has filed 16 complaints against these women at the BC Human Rights Tribunal, claiming discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity.'”

The female estheticians in question only serve women and do not offer so-called “Manzilians” — the male equivalent to a Brazilian wax. “The procedure for providing a man with a ‘Manzilian’ is quite different, using a different kind of wax and a different technique,” noted the lawyer. . .

According to the lawyer, JY said he was willing to withdraw his complaint against Poyer for $2,500. “If JY is demanding similar sums from the other 14 women, he stands to receive as much as $35,000 for dropping his human rights complaints,” noted Carpay. (Read more from “Transgender File Complaints Against 16 Women for Refusing to Wax His Male Genitalia” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.