Four liberal judges demand school let female-to-male trannies use boys' facilities

Words are thought to have a "usual" meaning known to everyone familiar with a language.  And in a sane society--which the current U.S., under Democrat rule, is decidedly NOT--judges would interpret laws based on the ordinary meaning of words used therein.  

This doesn't seem to be a controversial statement, since allowing judges to re-define the words of a law to mean something other than their ordinary meaning would allow
any judge to change the thrust of a law by re-defining the words used in that law.

You'd think all judges would know this--especially if they've somehow been awarded a lifetime seat on a circuit court of appeals.  But no.

On December 30, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a Florida case in which a female-to-male transgender student sued the school district for refusing to allow her to use the boys' bathroom.

Now if you're not familiar with tranny lawsuits, the first wave claimed female-to-male trannies didn't feel "safe" using the boys' bathroom, so demanded that schools build 'em special bathrooms so they didn't have to use the girls'--since, y'know, they were definitely NOT girls.  Nope nope nope.  So you taxpayers gotta pay up to support our fantasy.

But this case inverted that: The school district had quickly caved to the DOE's Office of Tranny Equity and built single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms specifically for transgender students.  So in this case the tranny mafia spurned the special bathroom (arguing that it was too far away) and demanded their client be allowed to use the boys' bathroom--which earlier lawsuits had claimed would put the tranny at risk of harm.

The student's attorneys claimed the district's policy requiring students to use the bathroom matching their biological sex violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  See, requiring a biological girl to use the girls' bathroom just wasn't FAIR, comrade! 

Just kidding:  Obviously it says no such thing.  Instead the attorneys claimed their client was a male, so not being allowed to use the bathroom of her choice violated the equal-protection clause.

Now, the circuit court voted 7-4 in favor of the school district, but what's notable here is the "reasoning" used by the four liberal dissenting judges.  That reasoning hinges on either of two claims:  One is a claim that the student isn't a female but is in fact, in reality, male.  

Yes, two liberal female judges actually claimed that.  So: words mean what we Democrats say they mean, even if that contradicts all commonly-understood definitions of that word.  That's why "justice" Ketanji Brown-Jackson flatly refused to define "woman" during xer confirmation hearings--but was still confirmed despite being an obvious plant.

One imagines the Left readying similar arguments to re-define "American," "citizen," "discrimination" and "is."

The second is the claim that when congress drafted and passed the umpteenth amendment to the vaunted Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this time adding that no school could discriminate on the basis of "sex," what the lawmakers actually meant was "gender."

Since when the amendment was passed no one had ever tried to claim men could be women or vice versa, one can't prevail on that claim.  Moreover, to claim that today the term "sex" actually includes "gender" would make the amendment void, since that's not what the people who drafted it envisioned.

Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, and Jill Pryor each wrote dissenting opinions.

The court noted that the school district had provided single-stall, sex-neutral bathrooms to accommodate transgender students.  It also found that Title IX's use of the term "sex" meant biological sex.  The court correctly noted that if congress wanted to add “or gender identity” to the law that was up to congress, not the courts.

So here's Judge Jordan's reasoning in dissent:  It seems the school district shot itself in the foot by having an official policy that female-to-mail trannies could use the boys bathroom, but only if xer's "transition" was complete, AND (most important) had "documents saying the student was male."

Ahh, ze dokumentz!  Iff you haf ze right papahs, zere iss no problem!

Jordan argued that allowing that case, while refusing to allow the current student the same thing, despite not having completed "transition" or having "documents" wasn't a sufficient reason to bar the student in the current case.

Judge Wilson bought the tranny argument that it's impossible to determine even "biological sex" at birth, and that in any case "gender" is whatever the person claims to be. 

“Underlying this sex-assigned-at-matriculation bathroom policy is the presumption that biological sex is accurately determinable at birth and that it is a static or permanent biological determination. In other words, the policy presumes a student’s sex does not change. This presumption is both medically and scientifically flawed. After considering a more scientific and medical perspective on biological sex, it is clear that the bathroom policy’s refusal to accept updated medical documentation is discriminatory on the basis of sex.”

And astonishingly, the pyrsyn who wrote that is an actual judge on a high-level court.

Judge Jill Pryor claimed the accommodation of a gender neutral bathroom wasn't good enough:

"Each time [the student] needed to use the bathroom at his school, he was forced to endure a stigmatizing and humiliating walk of shame—past the boys’ bathrooms and into a single-stall “gender neutral” bathroom. The experience left him feeling unworthy.... The reason he was prevented from using the boys’ bathroom like other boys?   He is a transgender boy.

Seven pronoun lies in a single paragraph.

"The majority opinion concludes that a person’s gender identity has no bearing on this case...in disregard of the record evidence—evidence the majority does not contest—which demonstrates that gender identity is an immutable, biological component of a person’s sex.”

Hey Jill, y'say gender identity is "an immutable, biological component of a person's sex," eh?  So what about people who "transitioned" for a few years and then decided to de-transition?  Still say "immutable"?

The accommodation of the special bathroom for trannies makes this case particularly interesting for the Supreme Court.  Some argue that this amounts to a gender version of “separate but equal,” which the court rejected in 1954.

As noted earlier, much turns on whether the court defines “sex” as including "gender preference."  This case uses the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that discriminating on the basis of "gender identity" amounted to sexual discrimination.  However, the Court expressly stated that it was not ruling on that question.

But as you could guess, the biden-harris regime had its Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issue a decree that it would interpret Title IX’s use of the term "sex" to include both homosexuality and gender identity.

So...next up, Supreme Court.  And based on the court's 6-3 ruling in Bostock, chances are the court will DECREE that trannies can use any restroom and locker room they wish.

And next up: tranny lawsuit claiming "stares" from the boys  in the boys' restroom made them feel uncomfortable, and demanding that the only fair thing to do is have boys leave when a tranny wants to use the place.

If you don't think that's possible, you haven't been paying attention.