web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > transgender rights

The definitions of “sex” and “gender identity” are heading to SCOTUS… sort of

Westlake Legal Group TransBathroom The definitions of “sex” and “gender identity” are heading to SCOTUS… sort of transgender rights transgender The Blog Supreme Court lawsuit Equality

For some time now, we’ve been waiting for a court case that could clear up some of the rather daunting questions arising from issues of transgender rights and how they intersect with traditional views on privacy and the segregation of the genders. A variety of these cases have produced a mixed bag of results in the lower courts and the Supreme Court has seemed reluctant to do more than nibble around the edges of the underlying questions. That may be about to change, though perhaps not for the better.

The Daily Signal has a good summary of such a case where oral arguments will be presented before the Supremes on October 8th. The case is R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case centers on Tom and Nancy Rost, who operate a family-owned funeral home in the Detroit area.

Six years ago, one of their male employees announced that he was transgender and planned to begin dressing as a woman at work. Tom reportedly agonized over the decision and the impact it might have on his female employees and, even more so, their grieving clients. In the end, he decided he couldn’t allow the employee to do that and declined the request. In short order, he was sued by the EEOC. And as the Daily Signal points out, it’s a decision that could have a dramatic impact on small businesses around the country.

Later, following the commission’s urging, a federal court of appeals effectively redefined the word “sex” in federal law to mean “gender identity.”

Enacted by Congress in 1964, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act has long protected women, along with racial and religious minorities, from unjust discrimination in the workplace.

Redefining the term “sex” in that law to mean “gender identity” would create chaotic, unworkable situations and unjustly punish business owners like Tom while destroying important gains women and girls have made over the past 50 years.

Indeed, Tom Rost’s case, in which Alliance Defending Freedom represents the funeral home, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Speaking as someone who has been digging into the broader aspects of this subject for some time now, I regret to say that this is probably just about the worst case you could pick to send to the Supreme Court, and not just because it looks likely to go against the defendants. The problems here are many, but the biggest one is the type of action that the employer is trying to engage in.

We’ve covered more transgender lawsuits here than I can count, but the big ones that have been of interest almost uniformly revolve around either issues of privacy or fairness, particularly in competitive sports. The former generally deal with public access to bathrooms, lockers, and showers while the latter focus on males identifying as females competing against actual women in sporting events. In all these cases, natural women and girls frequently come out on the losing end when they go before a judge.

In Harris Funeral Homes, while the issue of bathroom access comes up (and could be easily resolved) this primarily comes down to an employment opportunity question. What the owners have done is basically informed their employee that they can’t keep their job if they dress as the opposite sex. We shouldn’t be in the business of denying jobs to transgender workers, to begin with, and the court will probably read the case that way and find for the plaintiff.

Even worse, this case gives the Supremes an open invitation to ignore the larger, underlying questions we need answered and duck out of a sticky situation with a very narrow, tailored ruling. This case does nothing to address the question of whether or not “identifying” as the opposite gender actually makes you that other gender in the eyes of the law. It doesn’t force the justices to demand answers in terms of the “science” behind transgender claims. It doesn’t take into account the issues surrounding the natural physical advantages males have over females in competitive environments.

No, this case ignores all of that and allows the plaintiff to basically frame this as a question of whether or not the funeral home can force him to dress a certain way for work and fire him if he fails to comply. And of course, the answer to that question is no. It’s not a question of sloppy or inappropriate clothing. It’s gender-specific clothing. And as longs as the clothes are clean and professional-looking, you could no more fire a woman dressed in a suit, tie and trousers than you could a man wearing a gown. Nor should you.

What we need to see is one of these cases of men competing in women’s sports make it to the Supreme Court and attempt to force them to answer these question of whether or not these are actually women and how fair or unfair such competitions are. Don’t be shocked if the Supremes duck away from Harris Funeral Homes on those larger issues and treat this as an equal employment opportunity case. It’s what they love to do in the trickier social conflict cases (as well as with the Second Amendment) and they will almost certainly take that escape hatch here if it’s available.

The post The definitions of “sex” and “gender identity” are heading to SCOTUS… sort of appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group TransBathroom-300x159 The definitions of “sex” and “gender identity” are heading to SCOTUS… sort of transgender rights transgender The Blog Supreme Court lawsuit Equality   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Shouldn’t you listen to girls when they don’t want boys in their bathroom?

Westlake Legal Group TransBathroom Shouldn’t you listen to girls when they don’t want boys in their bathroom? transgender rights transgender The Blog showers locker room bathrooms bathroom policy

Listen to the women (or girls in this case)… unless they’re saying something that’s politically unpopular among liberals.

This is an interesting story that didn’t get much play in the mainstream media but took place recently in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Abraham Lincoln High School apparently instituted transgender agenda rules and declared that boys “identifying” as girls would be allowed to use the girls’ bathroom facilities. But in a rare act of defiance against this rising social justice tide, groups of the girls staged a walkout, demanding their right to privacy (not to mention physical safety) be protected. (LifeSiteNews)

Last week, the debate erupted again in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Two groups of students staged a walkout at Abraham Lincoln High School over bathroom privacy, with the protest being sparked by a girl who stated that her privacy was violated by a biological male who “recently began to identify as a girl” using the female bathroom. She was joined by about twenty other high school girls who left the school at 10:30 AM and began “chanting for privacy in restrooms, saying they don’t want boys transitioning into being girls to be in the restroom with them.”

It is worth noting that much of the transgender ideology is so new that if someone had predicted high school girls would be fighting to keep biological males out of their bathrooms ten years ago, LGBT activists would have accused those making these predictions of fearmongering, bigotry, and deceit. Now, of course, if you defend the right of young girls to be uncomfortable with penises in their bathrooms and change rooms, you are guilty of transphobia. Some trans activists have gone so far as to say that girls uncomfortable changing in the presence of biological boys need to get over their internalized transphobia.

Here’s the video of some local news coverage of the walkout, including interviews with students.

The response from the school thus far has been flat denial. The school’s principal claims that federal education policy matches policies put in place by the state of Iowa and they are required to allow this to take place.

So, as I mentioned at the top, what happened to “believe all women” in this debate? Or at least listen to the women and girls. It is not crazy or “transphobic” to expect that basic privacy rights be respected when it comes to school policy. Going through young adulthood is hard enough without having to deal with these sorts of confusing and intrusive exercises implemented from on high.

The country has definitely been going through a lot of changes and not all of them are for the better. In this case, we’re talking about madness. We claim to want to encourage young girls to go into the sciences, but then we send them to schools where they are told that centuries of established biological science is being thrown out the window and they’ll just have to get used to sharing their bathrooms, locker rooms and showers with “girls with penises.”

And you wonder why homeschooling is on the rise? Here’s a prime example for you.

The post Shouldn’t you listen to girls when they don’t want boys in their bathroom? appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group TransBathroom-300x159 Shouldn’t you listen to girls when they don’t want boys in their bathroom? transgender rights transgender The Blog showers locker room bathrooms bathroom policy   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com