7th Circuit codifies transgenderism into the Constitution

· June 5, 2017  
    Font Size A A A

Well, the political elites believe that it is settled science that the weather has permanently changed for the rest of time because of capitalism, but human sexuality is evidently not settled science. In fact, according to the courts, it is settled science for a man to be a woman.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest federal appeals court to codify transgenderism into law and the Constitution.

Although Obama’s executive mandates for transgender bathrooms have gone by the wayside (thanks to Attorney General Jeff Sessions overruling the liberal whims of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos), the courts are engaging in their own social transformation on behalf of the defeated Democrats.

In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, a unanimous opinion from the three-judge panel ordered a Wisconsin school district to allow a girl to use the boys’ bathroom in school. Following in the footsteps of the Sixth and Fourth Circuits, this Seventh Circuit panel (which included GOP-appointee Ilana Rovner) ruled that the 1972 Title IX education law and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause cover transgenderism as a protected class.

As the courts redefine our national sovereignty, rewrite election laws and redistricting in favor of Democrats, redefine criminal justice law for mass murderers, and mandate publicly funded abortions, they are using their self-acclaimed status as kings to redefine sexuality retroactive to laws and amendments codified long before the sexual-identity movement was in vogue.

In an emotional screed disguised as law, this opinion uses male pronouns to describe a woman with female parts. In any other era, these judges would have been deemed mentally unstable to serve on a bench. 

While refusing to recognize biological sex as immutable — or, even significant — the court contended that there is absolutely no disruption or privacy concerns over opposite sexes using the wrong bathrooms:

A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions.

The court then appealed to common sense to disregard any remaining privacy concerns as “conjecture and abstraction”!

Why is it I have a sneaking suspicion that when Title IX was drafted in 1972 (much less when the 14th Amendment was drafted in 1867), they completely understood the privacy concerns but would have never fathomed judges maniacally referring to a Y chromosome as an X chromosome?

Amazingly, the legal liberals are the ones with the hypocritical arguments, even according to their own twisted logic. How could this school district be guilty of violating equal protection and engaging in stereotyping for actually applying science equally, and not going along with the deliberate stereotyping requested by the plaintiff?

There is no greater stereotype than saying that a girl, despite being a girl, should be treated like a boy because she acts out in a “manly” way. The entire sexual-identity movement is built upon the very sex stereotypes they want to codify into law but also protect from discrimination.

This is part of a broader hypocrisy in which the transgender lobby is filing lawsuits to apply disability laws to gender-confused individuals — but, on the other hand, are suing on discrimination grounds for stereotyping and recognizing this “disability” as a disability and not as a natural phenomenon.

Either way, the courts will always reach the legal conclusion that best promotes the socially licentious political outcome .. even when the “jurisprudence” is contradictory.

Last year, the Fourth and Sixth Circuits said that transgenderism being codified into civil rights and the Constitution is “settled law,” demonstrating how irremediably broken the courts are. This is not just the Ninth Circuit; we have yet to find a single circuit willing to understand the most immutable laws of nature. Thus, it’s not surprising that almost every court is creating a right for Somalis to immigrate. If marriage and human sexuality are subjective, so are the borders of a nation.  

Although the Supreme Court punted the Fourth Circuit case (Grimm v. Gloucester County) because that one was built upon Obama’s obsolete transgender mandate, it is quite clear that another case will end up before the high court within the next year.

Given Justice Anthony Kennedy’s history on this issue — and his penchant for being influenced by growing momentum in the lower courts and the legal profession — it’s fairly safe to say we will be confronted with the transgender version of Obergefell in the near future.

The transgender case comes just two months after the Seventh Circuit codified sexual orientation into Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This circuit, like many others, is drifting more and more to the far left. A number of the GOP appointees, such as Richard Posner and Ilana Rovner, are among the worst offenders.

There are only two reliable originalists on the court (Michael Kanne and Diane Sykes). This is why it’s so important for Trump to immediately fill the two vacancies on the court with known originalists. Even more importantly, this is yet one more reason to make the courts less consequential by reforming their jurisdiction and scope of power

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.