Gender, politics, and equal protection under the law
Civil rights legislation always has its genesis in humanitarian principles: Protecting the weak, advocating for the voiceless, providing opportunities for the disenfranchised.
The Civil R i gh t s and Voting Rights acts were remedies for institutional and generational racism that blocked many minorities, primarily African Americans, from obtaining equal status with their fellow citizens. The Americans with Disabilities Act, which marked its 30th year in 2020, mandated that this country treat those with mental or physical conditions that made their lives more difficult to navigate with respect, honor, and dignity. More recently, there has been a slew of LGBT legislation that has attempted to situate members of those communities on equal or equivalent levels of rights and opportunities as their heterosexual and now “cisgender” brothers and sisters.
You might be wondering why I put “cis” in quotation marks. That’s because the issue of transgender rights, a controversial topic even among those in the gay and lesbian communities, has now barreled directly into another area of rights, and has threatened to encroach upon - if not entirely demolish - the protections erected in defense of women.
Title IX is landmark legislation that was passed to ensure that women would have the same opportunities as their male counterparts in high school and college athletics. It was passed in 1972 as part of the Education Amendments, and read as follows:
“No person in the United States shall, based on sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” While Title IX did not explicitly mention athletics, it’s come to be known for its impact on women and their participation in collegiate sports.
Fast forward a few decades. Whereas it was clear that Title IX would apply to women, it has become increasingly difficult to define what, exactly, qualifies as a “woman” or more specifically, a female. That is because the trans rights movement has made biological certainty less important than “identification.” So now we have biological men identifying as women, even though they were born with male gen
italia, and may in fact still have that genitalia. We have individuals who have all of the biological attributes of males, including their strength and innate athletic abilities, who present themselves as females.
Society is slowly (although not quickly enough for some) accommodating those who have a disconnect between their biological and psychological realities. And to the extent that we want to protect people from being persecuted, or discriminated against because of theA way they feel about themselves, that’s a good thing.
But what is not a good thing, and what is not acceptable, and what must stop, is the consistent and inexcusable discrimination of biological females in order to make trans women feel better about themselves. Over the past few years, there have been an increasfemales in women’s athletics. Her bill would clarify Title IX to limit protections to those who were born as biological women, and not extend to those who identify as such. According to Gabbard, “Our legislation protects Title IX’s original intent, which was based on the general biological distinction between men and women athletes based on sex. It is critical that the legacy of Title IX continues to ensure women and girls in sports have the opportunity to compete and excel on a level playing field.”
Gabbard is absolutely correct. We can’t eviscerate the protections afforded to one vulnerable group to advance the less than legitimate goals of another. Trans women and men should be protected against a host of ills and crimes, but they should not be able to appropriate a bill designed to protect an equally vulnerable group for spurious ing number of biological son who presents as a girl purposes. And it’s not just males who, after coming out but is really a boy can comabout gender politics. There as “female,” have demanded pete at an equitable level have been unfortunate ininclusion on women’s sports with actual girls. tersections and conf licts teams. This has put actual Of course, you are not when dealing with other females at a huge disadvansupposed to use the term sorts of civil rights legislatage, because there is no “actual” when dealing with tion where, in attempting to question and no doubt that gender these days. The advance the interests of one a biological male has cerevolved way of thinking is group of people, you end up tain innate advantages over that, as Cinderella sang in treading on the rights of anfemales. We can philosothe Rogers and Hammerother. Victims come in all phize all we want about “I stein musical, you can be shapes and sizes, and proam woman, hear me roar” whatever you want to be. So tecting some, sadly, harms and the legitimate observaaccording to this, if you beothers. I’m glad that at least tion that Ginger Rogers did lieve you are a girl, you are in this limited arena, a leg“everything Fred Astaire a girl. Belief becomes actuislator actually figured that did,out.onlybackwardsandinality.Andthat,myfriends, heels,” but ignoring the fact is a big problem (I was gond now I understand that testosterone provides ing to use another word but why Tulsi Gabbard never endurance and strength adits’ the Christmas season so made it through the privantages is magical thinkI’m being nice). maries. She made too much ing. Black magic, to be preTulsi Gabbard agrees sense. cise. with me. The Democratic
It’s all well and good to congresswoman from Haput your “personal prowaii and erstwhile presnouns” in your email idenidential candidate has tifiers so that the woke folk bucked her own party and know that you are as woke presented legislation which as they are, but it is quite anwould prevent biological other to pretend that a per- males from competing as