Supreme Court Hears Cases About Redefining "Sex"
October 08, 2019
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases which could either advance the aims of the LGBT movement or preserve the rule of law. At issue is the meaning of discrimination on the basis of "sex" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The most common-sense understanding would be that "sex" means one's biological sex at birth, and "sex discrimination" means favoring men over women or women over men. However, LGBT activists are trying to persuade the Supreme Court that "discrimination" based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are also forms of "sex discrimination."
FRC's Sarah Perry and Meg Kilgannon (the latter speaking on behalf of the "Hands Across the Aisle" Coalition that has been opposing transgender policies in the Fairfax County, Virginia public schools) both addressed a rally outside the court that was organized by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF is representing a Michigan funeral home that declined to permit a biologically male employee to come to work dressed as a female. I also attended today's rally, which highlighted the coalition that has formed across ideological lines to defend women's safety and privacy, especially in private spaces such as showers, locker rooms, and domestic violence shelters. The coalition unites pro-family groups like FRC and Concerned Women for America with feminist groups like WOLF, the Women's Liberation Front.
Sarah Perry noted research showing a surprising overlap between diagnoses of autism and diagnoses of gender dysphoria, and argued that many young people struggling with autism are being mis-diagnosed as transgender. Meg Kilgannon, who was speaking when the parties came out of the court at the end of oral arguments, bluntly called out the "lies" of the transgender movement and urged listeners to stand up for the truth.
The rally in front of the iconic Supreme Court building had been delayed because the area was cleared for security reasons when a suspicious package was found. When demonstrators from both sides were permitted to return to the sidewalk in front of the court, those supporting the LGBT plaintiffs in the cases chanted, "This is what democracy looks like." The chant was ironic at best, given that (as with the redefinition of marriage) they were seeking from the Supreme Court a victory they have been unable to win through the democratic process. (Hecklers also did everything they could to drown out the rally in support of biological women, instead of permitting the open debate that should represent "what democracy looks like.") Legislatures can pass laws against "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" discrimination if they choose (although FRC believes such laws are unwise); but the fact that Congress and thirty states have declined to enact such legislation is no reason for the Supreme Court to do it for them.