The trans movement enters its next phase

The 11th Circuit issued an opinion the other day on another trans case coming out of Florida, in which a trans person sued a school district for restricting access to bathrooms in schools on the basis of biological sex rather than self-declared gender. Most of the headlines focused on the fact that, contrary to similar cases in other circuits, the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of the school district, which makes it highly likely that the issue will finally have to be resolved by SCOTUS. But for me the most notable thing was one of the dissents, and how it substantiates the concerns that the ultimate goal of trans ideology is the elimination of the very concept of biological sex. There were 5 opinions issued apart from the majority ruling, including 1 concurrence and 4 separate dissents.

The most troubling dissent was by Judge Jill Pryor (joined in parts by Judge Rosenbaum).

Recall that at the beginning of the whole trans craze, less than 10 years ago, it was repeatedly asserted that gender as a concept was wholly distinct from sex. The two terms it was claimed, referred to two separate things. The simplistic explanation that was routinely trotted out was that sex is what is between your legs, and gender is what is between your ears. This claimed distinction had its own coherency problems, but at the very least it implicitly acknowledged the reality of the binary biological categories of male and female. There was a semantic game being played in attempting to divorce the concepts of “man” and “woman” from their biological underpinnings in “male” and “female”, but the biological notions of “male” and “female” were not themselves being challenged or changed. As trans ideology takes its next reality-obscuring step forward, it appears that is no longer true.

In her dissent, Pryor argues not that bathrooms separated by biological sex are unlawful, but rather that biological sex itself is determined by one’s “gender identity”, which means that when a transgender boy (ie a female who is claiming to be a boy) is denied the use of the boys bathroom, it can only be a result of “his” transgender status, because “he” is, in fact, a biological male. You may think I am joking, or misunderstanding, or making this up. I am not.

From Pryor’s opinion:

“To start, the majority opinion simply declares—without any basis—that a person’s “biological sex” is comprised solely of chro- mosomal structure and birth-assigned sex. So, the majority opinion concludes, a person’s gender identity has no bearing on this case about equal protection for a transgender boy. The majority opinion does so 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.

With the role of gender identity in determining biological sex thus obscured, the majority opinion next focuses on the wrong question: the legality of separating bathrooms by sex. Adams has consistently agreed throughout the pendency of this case—in the district court, on appeal, and during these en banc proceedings— that sex-separated bathrooms are lawful. He has never challenged the School District’s policy of having one set of bathrooms for girls and another set of bathrooms for boys. In fact, Adams’s case logi- cally depends upon the existence of sex-separated bathrooms. He— a transgender boy—wanted to use the boys’ restrooms at Nease High School and sought an injunction that would allow him to use the boys’ restrooms.”

This is a remarkable display of sophistry in several respects. but it is not Pryor’s alone. She cites and claims to be relying on “expert” testimony at the original trial in which a Dr. Ehrensaft claims that “external genitalia alone— the typical criterion for assigning sex at birth—[was] not an accurate proxy for a person’s sex” and that:

“[M]edical understanding recognizes that a person’s sex is comprised of a number of components including: chromosomal sex, gonadal sex, fetal hormonal sex (prenatal hormones produced by the gonads), internal morphologic sex (internal genitalia, i.e., ova- ries, uterus, testes), external morphological sex (ex- ternal genitalia, i.e., penis, clitoris, vulva), hypotha- lamic sex (i.e., sexual differentiations in brain devel- opment and structure), pubertal hormonal sex, neu- rological sex, and gender identity and role….When there is a divergence between these factors, neurological sex and related gender identity are the most important and determinative factors.”

Again, there is a lot of word salad and sophistry going on here, but read that one more time. It is saying, quite explicitly, that when a person’s “gender identity” diverges from biological sex-indicators, “medical understanding” is that “gender identity” is the determinative factor in establishing a person’s biological sex. Now, I don’t know how widespread this understanding actually is in the medical community, and I suspect it isn’t at all the common medical understanding (which would make the Dr.’s testimony border on perjury). But it is an indication that we are entering the next phase of the trans ideological war on objective reality, and its attempt to impose itself simply by redefining words and concepts.

The goal here is to essentially make it impossible to even talk about (and hence to think about) the historical understanding of the biological binary. Under the previous iteration of trans ideology and language, it was laborious but at least still possible to have a coherent discussion by using the words “male” and “female” where one would have in the past used “men/boys” and “women/girls”. However, if even the words “male” and “female” are going to be re-defined as being determined by “gender identity”, it will no longer be possible to have that discussion. And again, that is surely the whole point here, to make that discussion impossible.

Watch for this to start showing up more often in these cases.

%d bloggers like this: