No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.
The story of Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board is a very sad fairytale. The question at the heart is, does a person’s feelings trump reality? Will the American people ignore the facts directly in front of them in favor of the delusion of a few? Do a person’s feelings supersede the law? Yes, a very Grimm fairytale indeed.
In a 2-1 opinion published by the Fourth Circuit, a very simple question was asked.
At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender.
When the judges are referring to Title IX in this context, they mean Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a).
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,
It seems simple enough. Title IX says no one shall be discriminated against under any education program or activity receiving federal funds because of their sex.
1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male, especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
c: the state of being male or female
Single-sex bathrooms are, by definition, based on sex, which is a physical attribute, as opposed to gender, which can be based on non-physical attributes.
a: SEX sense 1a the feminine gender
b: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
So, the question should be quite simple. Can a law that protects against discrimination based on sex be used to force schools to allow students to use bathrooms based on what they think is their gender?
At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender. We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes.
Notice, this court did not come to this decision based on the law but has decided to rewrite both the law and the dictionary based on the “growing consensus” of other courts.
Now a twenty-year-old college student, Plaintiff-Appellee Gavin Grimm has spent the past five years litigating against the Gloucester County School Board’s refusal to allow him as a transgender male to use the boys’ restrooms at Gloucester County High School.
Since I believe that language matters, I have to note that what the court calls a “transgender male” is a female who thinks her body is wrong. Since she has the reproductive organs of a female, by the definition of sex, she is a female.
Grimm’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called “biological sex,” is female, but his gender identity is male.
The linguistic legerdemain continues when the court referred to Grimm’s “birth-assigned sex.” It’s not her biological sex that’s “so-called,” but the term “birth-assigned” that’s a linguistic lie. No one on earth assigned a sex to Ms. Grimm; she was born that way. That she doesn’t like that she’s a girl doesn’t change the fact that she’s female.
Accommodation is NOT enough.
Beginning at the end of his freshman year, Grimm changed his first name to Gavin and expressed his male identity in all aspects of his life. After conversations with a school counselor and the high school principal, Gavin entered his sophomore year living fully as a boy.
Notice that Ms. Grimm changed her name, not her body. If all she has changed is her name, then she still has female reproductive organs. That means she’s a girl in boys’ clothing, but if she wants to live as a horse, but that does not make her one.
At first, the school allowed him to use the boy’s bathrooms. But once word got out, the Gloucester County School Board (the “Board”) faced intense backlash from parents, and ultimately adopted a policy under which students could only use restrooms matching their “biological gender.”
While the school didn’t seem to care that a girl was using the boy’s bathroom, it appears a significant number of parents did. This goes to show one of the most overlooked problems with our nation’s fascination with treating facts as inconvenient truths when it comes to sex. This court seems concerned with the “feelings” of Ms. Grimm, but shows absolutely no concern for the other students they want to forcibly impose Ms. Grimm’s delusion upon.
While the court doesn’t seem to care about the majority of students, the school board attempted to come to some reasonable accommodation.
The Board built single-stall restrooms as an “alternative” for students with “gender identity issues.” Grimm suffered from stigma, urinary tract infections from bathroom avoidance, and from suicidal thoughts that led to hospitalization.
In an effort to accommodate all sides, the school built single-stall restrooms. That way, Ms. Grimm, and anyone else with “gender identity issues” could use the restroom without infringing on the rights of the rest of the school. The court claims that Ms. Grimm “suffered from stigma” from using the single-stall restrooms. According to the opinion, that’s not exactly true:
Moreover, the single-stall restrooms made Grimm feel “stigmatized and isolated.”
In the opinion, not one example is given of someone stigmatizing Ms. Grimm for using the single-stall restroom. This court has placed the feelings of Ms. Grimm above both the law and the rights of the other students. And as for her unwillingness to use a restroom that did not “stigmatize” the other students leading to urinary tract infections, that was her choice. I’m not saying it was a wise choice, but the school did make a reasonable accommodation of Ms. Grimm’s desire to live as a boy. But this wasn’t good enough for her. She demanded that the school and everyone else not only accommodate her delusion, but embrace it as if her feelings could change reality itself. The fact that Ms. Grimm suffered from suicidal thoughts because she thought that her body was wrong shows this was not a physical problem but a mental one. However, rather than seeking assistance, Ms. Grimm has decided to sue the school board to force everyone else to join her in rejecting reality and substituting her preferences for science-based facts. In doing so, Ms. Grimm is claiming that her desire to impose her will on the rest of the world supersedes everyone else’s rights. She expects reality itself to bend to her wishes, and apparently does not care what damage must be done to make that happen. And the courts of Virginia agreed with her.
Nevertheless, he persevered in his transition; he underwent chest reconstruction surgery, received a state-court order stating that he is male, and amended his birth certificate to accurately reflect his gender. But when he provided the school with his new documentation, the Board refused to amend his school records.
In pursuit of this mental confusion, Ms. Grimm amputated her breasts and then got a court in Virginia to lie for her. Meanwhile, this order continued the lie by ordering the state to amend her birth certificate to “accurately reflect his gender.” First of all, the Commonwealth of Virginia does not record gender on birth certificates; it lists sex. And since, by dictionary definition, Ms. Grimm’s sex is female, the state court ordered the Virginia Department of Health to lie on an official state form. By conflating sex with gender, this court not only furthers the state-court lie but creates a lie of its own. And now, when the Gloucester County School Board refused to participate in the lie, they are taken to court and ordered to lie and infringe on the rights of the vast majority of its students by two judges who not only have a problem with the truth, they also have a problem following the law.
Ms. Grimm is claiming that by using scientifically provable facts, the Gloucester County School Board is violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Of course, violating the Equal Protection Clause is exactly what Ms. Grimm is asking the school board to do. The law clearly states that she cannot be discriminated against based on sex, but she wants the right to discriminate against boys who do not wish to use the bathroom in front of a girl. She also claims that not affirming her delusion that she is a boy constitutes discrimination based on sex, yet she is asking the school to discriminate against the boys who do not wish to share a bathroom with a girl. She is also claiming that the fact that the school board refused to lie for her also violates equal protection and Title IX. Not only has the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit committed a gross violation of their oaths and judicial ethics by placing their opinions above the law, but they also have themselves violated equal protection by applying Title IX differently based on the feelings of someone before their court.
By this point, there may be some of you wondering why I referred to the plaintiff as Ms. Grimm throughout this article. My intention is not to harm or shame her in any way. However, I do not think it is caring or helpful to perpetuate a lie simply to soothe someone’s feelings. I do not hold any animosity against Ms. Grimm, nor do I wish her ill no matter how she wishes to live her life.
If we live in a free country, then Ms. Grimm should be allowed to live her life as she sees fit until she infringes on the rights of others. So it’s Ms. Grimm’s infringement on the rights of others with which I have an issue. If she wishes to live her life based on how she feels, either she allows others to do so as well, or she is a liar and a hypocrite. By pretending objective truth does not exist and supporting her lie, we do not help Ms. Grimm. Rather we condemn her to a life of pain, suffering, and possibly more suicidal thoughts. This is not merely my opinion, but the results of studies of those who have gone through gender transition. Personally, I would rather see Ms. Grimm get the help she needs to live with the reality that she is a girl. If she wishes to dress like a boy and act like a boy, that’s her choice. Expecting the mutilation of her body to bring peace to her life, though, is a fool’s errand I would council Ms. Grimm against pursuing.
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.