One of the more insane ideas that has been pushed in the last few years is the idea that a person’s “gender identity,” who the feel that they are, is unchanging but that their biological sex has no relevance to who they are as a person. The left keeps pushing the idea that a person’s DNA does not have any influence on who they are, at least when it comes to whether they are male or female (or neither male nor female in the thinking of some of these people).
Of course, this denies basic biology and neurology and just serves to confuse the whole issue of a person’s identity. Some argue that this idea is being pushed in order to destabilize the concept of what constitutes the basic building block of any society, the family, so that the government can take that over. Other people argue that this is being pushed in order to confuse children to make those children easier to groom in order to abuse them.
Whatever the reason, this idea that a person’s gender identity is however they feel at the moment causes all kinds of confusion and chaos in our culture.
Sadly, leftist politicians try to push this on everyone instead of allowing people to be able to think for themselves. Because leftists are like this, it’s no surprise that our story today comes from liberal California. What is surprising, though, is the decision that came down in a court case which is so refreshingly rational and sane. Matthew Vadum writes,
A California appeals court struck down as unconstitutional a state law that penalized elder-care workers for using pronouns inconsistent with elderly long-term care patients’ claimed gender identity.
Gender identity is a disputed concept. A lack of linguistic clarity has clouded the issue in recent years as the concepts of sex and sexual identity, or gender, a politically and scientifically contentious concept whose definition isn’t universally agreed upon, have become difficult to separate. Despite the distinct meanings of the two words, many institutions and individuals use “gender” to mean biological sex, especially on fillable forms and documents.
Failing to use gender in its new meaning can be costly nowadays.
A New York human rights law banning gender identity discrimination imposes fines of up to $250,000 for failing to use a person’s preferred personal pronouns.
Social media giant Twitter bans users for “misgendering” or “deadnaming” transgender people, categorizing it as harassment and abuse. Deadnaming is referring to people by names they used before they changed their gender identity—for example, calling Caitlyn Jenner by that person’s birth name, Bruce Jenner.
Facebook reportedly recognizes at least 58 genders, allowing users to select which gender to use in their profile self-descriptions. Among them are Androgynous, Bigender, Cisgender, Gender Fluid, Genderqueer, Non-binary, Pangender, Trans, and Two-Spirit.
But in a rare legal defeat for the transgenderism movement, a ruling by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, 3rd Appellate District, sided with First Amendment speech protections over activists. The ruling by the three-judge panel was unanimous.
This ruling is refreshing to see and is absolutely the correct ruling in this case. There is no sane reason that “misgendering” someone should be a crime, and to try to make that a crime is a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Let’s hope that this court case is used to stop this foolishness in the rest of the nation, too.