Re: Defying 200+ Years of 1A Precedent, Federal Judge Rules XX Armbands Can be Banned

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

https://nhjournal.com/judge-rules-school-can-ban-xx-protests-over-males-in-girls-sports/

The Bow School District was acting within its authority to kick two soccer
dads out of a girls game for wearing pink XX wristbands as a silent protest
against biological males playing on girls' teams, a federal judge ruled
Monday.

You win the month. I'm not going to read anything more likely to make my
head explode any harder.

Let me address this directly.

"The message generally ascribed to the XX symbol, in a context
such as that presented here, can reasonably be understood as
directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women,"
[United States District Court Judge Steven] McAuliffe wrote.
"Because gender identities are characteristics of personal
identity that are 'unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted,' the
demeaning of which 'strikes a person at the core of his being,'
and because Bow school authorities reasonably interpreted the
symbols used by plaintiffs, in context, as conveying a demeaning
and harassing message, they properly interceded to protect
students from injuries likely to be suffered."

Let's set aside that I'm questioning how McAuliffe passed his
constitutional law class as a 1L, let alone graduated, passed the exam,
got admitted to the bar, and then appointed as a judge.

The transgender girl playing for the other team (Hey! That's NOT a double
entendre!) is not a party to this case, so it's not about the right of a
transgender girl not to be discriminated against in girls' sports. Instead,
it's about the right of third parties -- the school board and the athletic
conference it is a member of -- imposing transgender ideology upon the
sport itself not to be accused of discrimination themselves and putting
girls in harm's way when criticized by their parents. Somehow the judge
accepted the argument -- the school board's right not to be criticized
can be justified by the duty we have to protect a transgender girl from
feeling criticized (ignoring the duty to protect girls playing girls'
sports from an increased likelihood of trauma) -- as a sound basis for
his ruling.

But his ruling itself CONTRADICTS transgender ideology. According to
this ideology gender identity and characteristics are personal but NOT
"unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted". Transgender ideology claims
that gender, a related but separate concept than sex, is mutable!

If the boy in question wasn't competitive enough to play on the boys'
team for his school, then his gender identity ain't deeply rooted. but
mutable in order to be pandered to. That's irrelevant to the case as the
transgender girl wasn't a party. It's odd that the school board claimed
a duty to a play on the opposing team but no duty to protect the girls
from harm on the team it fielded.

I am now going to wander off into the wilderness to reconsider my place
in the modern world in which a judge allows a government to punish its
critics, denying them their liberties as Americans, and remain on the
bench.