“He created them male and female and blessed them and called them mankind in the day they were created.”
This passage of Scripture has defined what was formerly an obvious truth in all nations among all peoples of all creeds since the beginning of humankind. However, thanks to the left and the Obama administration—that was then; this is now. We used to have two genders: male and female. But now in what could be described as an astounding assault on nature itself, the policy agenda of this administration is morphing our gender assignments into three: male, female, and “what I identify as.”
President Obama and the United States Department of Justice have thrown into action a plan to recognize cross-dressing men as if they are women and presumably cross-dressing women (if there are any) as if they are men by re-interpreting the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
As reported by both the Associated Press and The Blaze, the United States Justice Department is now interpreting federal law to explicitly prohibit workplace discrimination against transgender people, according to a memo first released by former Attorney General Eric Holder.
That means the Justice Department will be able to bring legal claims on behalf of cross-dressing/transgender people who say they’ve been discriminated against by state and/or local public employers. The federal government also will no longer take the position that Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, which bans sex discrimination, does not protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of gender status. Not gender—gender status. What, exactly, is gender status? There used to be no questions about gender status. We were either one or the other. That was then; this is now.
The memo which was released at the end of 2014 is part of a broader Obama administration effort—the effort to introduce entirely new categories of gender status. Such as gender confused, gender unsure, gender transient, cisgender and other such ways of not declaring “I’m a man” or “I’m a woman,” but “I’m something else.”
The new position is not only thoroughly confusing, morally revolting and in defiance of all history, it’s also a reversal in position for the Justice Department itself. In 2006 the DOJ stated that Title VII did not cover discrimination based on gender status. That was then; this is now. For unexplained reasons what the DOJ saw as correct legal interpretation of our laws a few years ago has now pulled a complete 180 and shifted its view to the opposite end of the spectrum.
“The federal government’s approach to this issue has also evolved over time,” A.G. Holder wrote in the memo, saying his position was based on the “most straight forward reading of the law.”
Leaving the legalese and technical jargon behind, here’s the on-the-street reality of this change in policy and law: If you are an employer and one of your employees claims that he identifies as a woman, and you do not allow him to use the woman’s facilities or install special gender neutral facilities to specifically accommodate him, get ready to be sued. And not only could you be sued by that employee, you could also be sued by the federal government itself!
That gender-unsure/gender-confused/gender-cross-identifying/gender-transient man can run to the U.S. Department o ‘Justice, scream, “God made a mistake. He gave me a penis, but I’m not supposed to have one! I believe I’m a woman and they won’t let me take showers in the woman’s showers!” The United States government can take up his case, drag you and your company into court, force you to spend heaven knows how much to defend yourself, and in the end you’ll likely lose because the 1964 Civil Rights Act is one strong, enduring piece of precedent. Good luck beating it even in this re-interpreted form.
Of course this new reality opens the door to all kinds of possibilities via the path of unintended consequences. If we can identify as being another gender, well what else can we identify as? Race, nationality, tall, short, left-handed, Martian?
How long will it be until someone who is a Caucasian brings a discrimination suit against the United Negro College Fund for denial of a scholarship on the basis of “I identify as being black?” Yes, I may have light skin and my ancestors came from Finland, but I have been identifying as black for over 10 years, and as such, am fully eligible for scholarship status.” How long until one of our nation’s few remaining all-women universities are similarly sued on the same basis? “I identify as an eighteen-year-old girl, so let me in!”
Based on the DOJ’s new interpretation of the ‘64 Civil Rights Act, the federal government/Department of Justice itself would be compelled to carry such a suit. Think about this can of worms. Girl Scouts? Boy Scouts? How about “I identify as a Native America Indian. That reservation on the other side of town is making millions off of those casinos, and I demand (I am suing) to get my fair share of that money!” How and where are the lines here?
I know, I’m going to“identify as a billionaire. Boy it’s great being filthy rich!
He is a sought after speaker/presenter, and is also a renown author and columnist, contributing columns and editorials to the Colorado Springs Gazette and Colorado Common Sense News. He can also be read nationally on American Thinker, Allen B. West and the Tea Party News Network.