Read on Twitter
THREAD: Not even 24 hours into his presidency, Biden issued an executive order (EO) directing all federal agencies to essentially dismantle the sex-based rights/protections of women/girls. Even many protections for homosexuals are adversely affected. 1/25 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-preventing-and-combating-discrimination-on-basis-of-gender-identity-or-sexual-orientation/
While most of the media coverage has been abt sports/Title IX, *every federal statute* that prohibits sex-based discrimination is covered, incl the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is so despite the EO's discretionary, "consistent with applicable law", etc limiting language. 2/25
1. THE ISSUE. Enshrining “gender identity” into law directly conflicts with the sex-based rights of women, girls, & homosexuals. The sex-based nature of these protections means that biological sex is the basis upon which said rights/protections are structured & organized. 3/25
For example, spaces such as showers, locker rooms, prisons, & homeless/domestic violence/rape shelters, & activities like sports are separated by sex. Lesbians & gay men organize counseling/support groups, grants & scholarships, or social & dating spaces based upon the fact 4/25
we are homosexuals, meaning we are exclusively *same-sex* attracted. These rights/protections have varying legal foundations.
“Gender Identity”, however, posits that based on an amalgam of sexist stereotypes, we must treat individuals as if they are members of 5/25
“Gender Identity”, however, posits that based on an amalgam of sexist stereotypes, we must treat individuals as if they are members of 5/25
the opposite sex, disregarding their actual sex. The conflict is obvious. Men & boys who are transgender wld be authorized to enter spaces, participate in sporting activities, conduct intimate body searches, stay in shelters, etc *reserved for women & girls.* 6/25
Heterosexual males who are transgender, yet call themselves “lesbians,” (sic) wld have to be allowed into lesbian spaces, support groups, on lesbian dating apps, etc. In other words excluding men/boys from women’s/girls’ showers or a str8 man from a lesbian support group wld 7/25
be considered discrimination since these men/boys contend that their “gender identity” transforms them into women/girls. This is not only biologically false & offensive, but an outright assault on women's, girls' & homosexuals' sex-based rights. 8/25
2. BASES OF EO. Biden provides two main bases for the EO: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Bostock v. Clayton decision, & the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Neither is persuasive.
BOSTOCK. Biden, like many individuals, organizations, & lower courts, misapplies and 9/25
BOSTOCK. Biden, like many individuals, organizations, & lower courts, misapplies and 9/25
inappropriately expands Bostock's application. It is absolutely false that “[u]nder Bostock‘s reasoning, laws that prohibit sex discrimination . . . prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation. . . .” In the Bostock opinion, in response to 10/25
Justice Alito/the employers raising this exact issue of the Bostock ruling being inappropriately applied to other statutes, Justice Gorsuch writing for the majority stated “none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about 11/25
the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual 12/25
or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual ‘because of such individual’s sex.’” The Court could not have been clearer, yet Biden flouts the Court, ignores this clear language, & forges ahead erasing hard fought sex-based rights. 13/25
EQUAL PROTECTION. There has been no equal protection analysis by SCOTUS of “gender identity,” and lower federal courts that have analyzed the issue, again, consistently misapply Bostock in supporting their conclusions. Further, it should be noted that gender proponents 14/25
are not asking courts to eliminate having separate spaces for males & females, though that is the practical effect; they are demanding that we allow a subset of men & boys into our spaces, sports, etc b/c said men & boys have declared themselves women/girls. No. 15/25
A male who is transgender is a boy or man the same way a male who is tall or left-handed is a boy or man. Affinity for the arbitrary, sexist stereotypes assoc with women/girls, or a fervent desire to be a woman/girl does not change the fact they are *not* women/girls. 16/25
3. DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENTS. The EO discusses three main situations:
1-Children not having to worry about being denied access to “the restroom, locker room, or school sports.”
Clearly this completely disregards female children who now have to worry abt sharing spaces where 17/25
1-Children not having to worry about being denied access to “the restroom, locker room, or school sports.”
Clearly this completely disregards female children who now have to worry abt sharing spaces where 17/25
they are naked or in a state of undress with men/boys, & competing against boys in sports. Every transgender student is entitled to enter spaces or play sports *consistent with their sex;* but they are not entitled to violate the boundaries of fellow students & erase their 18/25
sex-based rights IOT affirm transgender students' desire to be the opposite sex. There is no point in having girls' locker rooms, showers, sports, etc if boys/men can enter them.
2-Adults not being fired b/c "how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." 19/25
2-Adults not being fired b/c "how they dress does not conform to sex-based stereotypes." 19/25
Hard agree. Whether or not a person dresses consistent with sexist stereotypes clearly shld not be a basis for firing, etc. But this misframes the issue. “Gender identity” is not about clothing; it is abt pretending ppl are the opposite sex based upon an amalgam of 20/25
sexist stereotypes, & allowing them to avail themselves of rights/protections belonging to the sex they *are not.* In the context of Title VII which is being referenced by this example, this has several adverse consequences, incl forcing women to share employee 21/25
locker rooms, showers, & other sex-separated spaces with men; allowing males to apply for positions *specifically restricted* to women via the bonafide occupational qualification (BFOQ) designation; etc.
3-Not being subjected to sex discrimination in housing/healthcare. 22/25
3-Not being subjected to sex discrimination in housing/healthcare. 22/25
Again, no issues with this in general. However, regarding housing for example, homeless shelters are often separated by *sex.* To that end, men who are transgender should be directed to the men’s shelter, and not be allowed access to womens' shelters. As for health care, 23/25
women & girls often request that a pap smear, rape kit, breast exam, etc be conducted by women. These kinds of requests wld now include men who, based on "gender identity," have declared themselves women. This obviously defeats the purpose of requesting a female. 24/25
I have apparently reached the character limit for a thread. Part II will address the EO's invoking of race, and provide some government contact details in support of recommended courses of action to challenge this EO. 25/25
