A Congressional Rebuke To Obama's Bathroom Madness

I've spent a fair portion of time from Friday to now thinking about the Administration's "Dear Colleague" letter to American public school districts. Frankly, the departure from existing law and interpretation of law is not unexpected. Still, it is stunning, abrupt, and without justification in the relevant statutes (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments). Hoping for impeachment? Really? With a dead ambassador and you were lied to about the cause and Congress has done NOTHING to discipline the administration for the lies or for its failure to secure the Ambassador when security was needed? Of course, the involved government officers should be impeached and removed from office, but who are we kidding. The Republicans lack the stomach for a fight. The Republicans are all about meaningless gestures. So, I spent some time tonight assisting them with yet another meaningless gesture. I drafted a Joint Resolution of Congress disapproving the "Dear Colleague" letter. Here it is:

114th CONGRESS 

2D Session

 H.J. Res ___

Providing for congressional disapproval of the interpretation given to the statutory term “sex,” as that term, “sex,” it appears in Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681, as that interpretation is evidenced in certain guidance and a letter distributed to American public school districts by the United States Departments of Justice and Education on May 13, 2016. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 16, 2016

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the interpretation given to the statutory term “sex,” as that term, “sex,” it appears in Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681, as that interpretation is evidenced in certain guidance and a letter distributed to American public school districts by the United States Departments of Justice and Education on May 13, 2016. 

Whereas, on May 13, 2016, the Attorney General of the United States, by Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, and the Secretary of the Department of Education, by Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, jointly provided a “Dear Colleague” letter to every public school district in the United States of America; and, 

Whereas, in the “Dear Colleague” letter, certain “guidance and best practices” were proffered by the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, related to the federal civil rights laws of the United States, including Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681; and, 

Whereas, the “guidance and best practices” provided in said letter depend on interpretations of the statutory language of Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681, in particular the statutory term, “sex,” as that term appears in each statute; and,  

Whereas, the interpretation adopted by Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights of the Department of Justice, and by Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights of the Department of Education changes the meaning of the term “sex” from that intended by Congress in its enactment of the statutes and abruptly departs from the meaning of the term “sex” as interpreted by the Departments of Justice and Education under every previous administration preceding the current one, and lacks justification in the language of the statutes and the legislative history of the statutes; and, 

Whereas, the “Dear Colleague” letter raises the specter of disruption to school order and discipline, interferes with matters wholly within the purview of State and local educational authorities, contradicts and changes the meaning of congressionally derived terms, therefore be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

That Congress disapproves the interpretation given to the statutory term “sex,” as that term, “sex,” appears in Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681, as that interpretation is evidenced in certain guidance and a letter distributed to American public school districts by the United States Departments of Justice and Education on May 13, 2016; and be it further

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

That the interpretation given to the statutory term “sex,” as that term appears in Title 42 USC § 2000e-2 and Title 20 USC § 1681 shall have no force or effect.

************************************************** Now, that Joint Resolution could pass the House and the Senate in short order, even within a week. But, of course, a Representative would have to gather support, introduce it, and carry it through to completion. Even approved, it would die a death on the President's desk. It would then return to the House and the Senate for consideration of an override of a veto. Still, given this sort of activity is all one can count on the Republican leadership to offer, I wanted to put something out there for their consideration. If you think the House and Senate should sternly reprove the President, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, maybe you should pass this along to others, and to your elected Representatives.

The "Woman" "Fathers" a Son ... A Testicular Conundrum

The Obama administration's Friday letter -- from the Departments of Justice and Education to school districts around the Nation -- posits constructions of two anti-discrimination statutes, and on the basis of those constructions directs school districts that they must allow individuals to use toileting and showering facilities based on their self-perceived gender identity, rather than limiting access to such facilities based on sex.

Proponents of such actions appeal yet again to the struggle of African Americans for basic civil rights. That appeal should fall flat just as the unfounded interpretations of federal statutes by this administration do fall flat.

Race has been understood to be an immutable characteristic.

I suppose adventures, such as the social experimentation in "Black Like Me" are suggestive of a chameleon like quality to race, but the daily application of pancake or black face to change one's "race" suggests more the immutable character of race.

Sex, likewise, has been understood to be an immutable characteristic. It continues to be such. And, in fact, the transgender kerfuffle doesn't change that.

Take a child, growing up in a boy's body, that "feels" like she is a girl. Give her loving parents that accept this construct of her personality and support her long term goal of transitioning to life AS A WOMAN. The right hormone suppressive drugs are administered. She wears clothing that, in her construct of the feminine, accords with her image of the female. Eventually, at some advanced age, say, 24-25, she has modification surgery often called reassignment surgery. Because the doctors asked politely, she allowed her testes to be donated to science.

She now thinks of herself as a woman. She may, to some greater or lesser extent, resemble a woman.

Is she a woman?

Unbeknownst to her, her doctors transmit her testes to a reproductive research facility. They are part of a research protocol to develop donor testes for survivors of testicular cancer. Ultimately, "her" testes end up in the sack of a guy that thinks he's a guy. A successful transplant, "his" testes from "her" begin producing spermatozoa. He impregnates his wife. The wife gives birth to a son.

Was our misfortunate child a woman?

Does the genetics of it all escape you?

You think that Republicans are all over the bathroom issue? Why is it lost on you that this brouhaha began when the City of Charlotte amended its ordinances, added "gender identity" to its city antidiscrimination laws, and stripped away from private businesses the previous legal protection they had from discrimination.

I should the hell hope that Republicans are all over OVERTURNING the inane stupidities of progressive social engineers run amok.

And, no, Eisenhower was not demanding that a black kid that thought he was a white kid be treated like a white kid would be treated because, as this new movement seems to demand, Eisenhower insisted that the black/white boy's self-conception must be respected.

What Eisenhower, and the law, demand is that we recognize that treating governments treating people differently based on racial classifications violate the color blind Constitution.