Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Boys Should Not Be In Girls Bathrooms.

Appeals Court: Boys Who Think They're Girls Have A Constitutional Right To Pee Next To Girls

Photo by Giuseppe Ciccia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesLGBT
DECEMBER 20, 2016
3350210155 Comments12204
Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Constitution
 of the United States required schools to allow boys who believe they are girls
to use the girls’ restrooms. This would come as a shock to the people who
wrote the Constitution, but so is most leftist jurisprudence these days.
The case follows on a US District Court ruling in Ohio from September in
 which the court issued an order to Highland Local School District to open
 its girls’ bathrooms to boys who believe they are girls. That court wrote,
 “The court orders School District officials to treat Jane Doe as the girl she
 is, including referring to her by female pronouns and her female name and
allowing her to use the girls’ restroom at Highland Elementary School.” The
 judge, as Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review notes, invoked
the 14th Amendment, stating, “[A]s a tiny minority of the population, whose
 members are stigmatized for their gender non-conformity in a variety of
 settings, transgender people are a politically powerless minority group.”
VIDEOUK Supreme Court says Brexit case about law, not politics

The school, naturally, appealed.
And today, the Sixth Circuit turned down the appeal to stay the injunction.
 Why? First, they claim that it is sex stereotyping to force a boy to go to
 the boys’ bathroom – which is odd, given that the lower court held that
 the School district had to “treat Jane Doe as the girl she is,” which is
 obviously sex stereotyping. Second, they claim the school didn’t show
 any “irreparable” harm. Third, they claim that the eleven-year-old boy
 requires access to the girls’ bathroom:
Highland’s exclusion of Doe from the girls’ restrooms has already

had substantial and immediate adverse effects on the daily life

and well-being of an eleven-year-old child (i.e. multiple suicide

attempts prior to entry of the injunction). These are not distant or speculative injuries—staying the injunction would disrupt the

significant improvement in Doe’s health and well-being that has

resulted from the injunction, further confuse a young girl with

special needs who would no longer be allowed to use the girls’

restroom, and subject her to further irreparable harm.

That’s some pretty heft psychology from the court, given that there is no
 social science data that suggests transgender suicide rates link with bars
 on restroom use. In fact, there’s not even any solid social science data
showing that bullying causes increases in suicide rate (the Centers for
 Disease Control: “We don’t know if bullying directly causes suicide-related
 behavior”). There’s no evidence that discrimination even increases suicide
 rate (white suicide rates, for example, are far higher than black suicide rates
 despite different rates of discrimination). The most likely explanation for the
 suicidal behavior of the child at issue is that gender identity disorder is in
 fact a mental illness, and that such mental illness has high comorbidity for
 suicidality.
But the Court has an agenda to push, and they won’t let reality stand in the
 way. They conclude that the district court intervened to “protect Doe’s
 constitution and civil rights.” They apparently could not figure out whether
 girls have a civil right to be free of boys, even mentally ill boys, invading the
 most private areas of public life.
As Daniel Horowitz concludes:
More foundationally, how have we stooped to a point in judicial supremacy that the court can not only rewrite legislation, constitutions, history, and traditions, but can alter the most immutable laws of nature

and coerce their social transformation agenda on the states and

the other branches of government? 
How? The courts see themselves as instruments of goodness and kindness,
 not as instruments of law. Even the laws of nature must bow before their
preference for cosmic justice, imposed by man – or more specifically, by them.
None of this helps children who suffer from gender dysphoria, nor does it help
protect confused children or children who simply wish to be left in private with
members of their own biological sex when engaging in private biological
activities. But it makes leftists feel good about themselves. And that’s what
 the Constitution mandates, isn’t it?