With the proliferation of postmodern relativism, wherein there are no definitions and no objective truth because “it’s all a social construct!”, the “trans” deception has weasled its way into American consciousness, and it is attempting to weasel its way into our laws. However, with its inclusion-at-all-cost approach, the so-called “trans” community has created a problem for itself. This “group,” if it can be called that at all, is impossible to protect under the law.
In order for a group to be afforded special protections under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, traits that distinguish those who are members of the group from those who are not must exist. A category is circumscribed by clear boundaries, and “inclusivity” is its death knell.
Take the category of sex for example – there are two sexes, male and female, and they are easily distinguishable and simple to define. The definition of female is of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs. The definition of male is of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to produce relatively small, usually motile gametes which fertilize the eggs of a female. One’s membership in a particular sex category is objectively observable and immutable, meaning one’s sex cannot change over the course of one’s lifetime. It would be impossible to provide individuals with sex-based rights in the law if we did not have a way to identify and define the sexes. Further, the law would be impossible to uniformly apply if the definitions were ever-changing.
Contrast this with the ever-growing “trans umbrella,” whose members have no defining characteristic that binds them. What does it mean to be “trans”? Can anyone be “trans”? When does one become a part of the “trans” community? Can one opt in and out of the “trans umbrella” at will? The answers to these questions reveal both the inherent contradictions of the “trans” identity, and the practical impossibility of 14th Amendment protections.
“Being trans means different things to different people.”
“Only trans people can tell you what it means to be trans.”
“Yes, anyone can be trans. But cis people can’t be trans.”
“There are people that are trans and people that are not, but anyone and everyone has the opportunity to explore their “gender identity,” and that exploration may reveal that you’re trans.”
“Yes, anyone can theoretically opt in or out of the trans umbrella, but anyone who is truly trans would never opt out. Anyone who desists was never really trans.”
“If you say you’re trans, then you’re trans!”
The “trans” group is entirely reliant on the self reporting of its members for its existence. In other words, you know someone is “trans” because they say they are. This is all well and good for a club, but for purposes of the application of the law, it does not work. Objectively observable membership to a category does not rely upon your loud self proclamations - it means that no matter what you proclaim - your membership to that group remains the same.
It is essential that the law not bend to ideologues, who are attempting to recreate reality without stopping to consider that our legal system is limited by definitions - the law can only protect what exists. For purposes of the equal protection clause, identities that cannot be objectively identified are not valid.
Comments