In this day and age of “up being down, down being up” and “evil being good, good being evil,” there are times when common sense and the law prevails despite Obama and his ilk working to subvert all principles upon which this country was founded. According to The Daily Caller, “a federal district judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a lawsuit by a transgender student who wanted to use the men’s bathrooms and restrooms on the campus of the University of Pittsburgh in Johnstown.” The student who filed the lawsuit is Seamus Johnston.
Johnston was born female, but has identified herself as male. She changed her birth name in order to identify herself as male, which she presented to the University. The university accepted Johnston as male in all aspects except the ability to use the male facilities. There was no documentation to indicate Johnston had legally “changed” gender from female to male, such as a birth certificate, which the university requires. While a student, Johnston participated in gender identity therapy programs and took hormones to make her body appear more male. Johnston had at first used the male facilities without incident.
However, after enrolling in the men’s weight training course, officials at the campus ordered Johnston not to use the male facilities. Johnston did not comply. At a school disciplinary hearing, she was found guilty of “exhibiting disorderly, lewd, or indecent behavior” and for disregarding university directives. She was ultimately expelled for repeatedly violating the school’s order. Johnston filed suit against the school alleging a violation of civil rights from preventing her use of male restrooms and locker rooms.
The case wound up being presented before Judge Kim R. Gibson of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Gibson, a former president George W. Bush appointee, ruled on the case March 31st. Johnston lost on all five claims surrounding her desire to use male facilities against the tax-payer funded university when the judge dismissed her case.
According to Inside Higher Ed, “the judge rejected the idea that a transgender man who has not been recognized by legal authorities as having completed a gender transition could claim protection based on transgender status under federal anti-bias statutes.”
Gibson determined “separating students by sex based on biological considerations – which involves the physical differences between men and women – for restroom and locker room use simply does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.”
Inside Higher Ed reported Judge Gibson stated that Johnston’s “transgender status was not covered by either the Constitution’s-equal protection clause or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars sex discrimination by institutions receiving federal funds.” While the Department of Education possesses no judicial power, it has continually erroneously interpreted Title IX to apply to transgender individuals.
With regard to the equal-protection clause, Gibson writes that transgender status is not a “suspect class” under equal-protection review, so Pitt can prevail as long as is shows a “rational basis” for its actions. The university “explained that its policy is based on the need to ensure the privacy of its students to disrobe and shower outside of the presence of members of the opposite sex. This justification has been repeatedly upheld by courts,” Gibson writes.
With regard to Title IX, Gibson writes that “the plain language of Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity,” and thus rejects the claim.
The court also indicated that “sex stereotyping theory” didn’t work either. Johnston admitted the University officials “allowed her to present herself with ‘male gender identity in all material aspects, with the one exception of the University’s policy regarding bathroom and locker room usage.'”
School officials permitted Johnston to enroll in a men’s weight training course, accepted her name change to a male name, and changed her records to indicate the name change to male. In addition, the school offered Johnston the opportunity to use the unisex locker room available to sports referees since the male students had complained about her continued use of male locker rooms.
Naturally, Johnston was not satisfied.
The court concluded, “Plaintiff argues that Defendant treated him differently from other males because he was transgender. This contention is simply inconsistent with his other allegations that the University permitted him, without harassment or discrimination, to dress like a man, act like a man, change his name to reflect his male gender, and enroll in classes designated for males.”
Johnston has been no stranger to controversy prior to filing the lawsuit. Johnston and her partner, 56 year old Katherine Anne McCloskey, attempted a series of citizens’ arrests at the University Johnstown campus which failed. Johnston filmed while McCloskey attempted the arrests. Both had been the subject of an FBI investigation regarding bomb threats made at the main campus in Pittsburgh.
Here is a female student who “identifies” as male wanting to use male facilities while still being female; and did so against a university’s demand after she was “accommodated” in every other aspect. Her birth certificate lists her gender as female. The university and court proceedings even referred to her as “him, his or he” even when no evidence could be produced she had undergone surgery to actually change her gender.
This individual was born female, has female genitalia and should be prohibited from using male facilities just as an individual who was born male, has male genitalia should be prohibited from using female facilities. How many parents would want their male child sharing a locker room with a female who only identified as male? The same can be asked of parents with female children. A better question to ask is “how many of you would want to share a locker room or restroom facilities with a stranger who identified as someone not of their God-given gender?”
The University has it right in protecting the privacy of individuals during disrobing and showering in front of individuals of the opposite sex, as well as when using restroom facilities and has not violated any discrimination law. It is almost inconceivable that some individuals would assert some form of “equal protection” for gender identity. It would mean that anyone could “claim” the identity of the gender opposite theirs in order to gain access to designated male/female facilities to engage in lewd, indecent and criminal behavior. How would one tell if that individual was “transgender” because of “gender identity” or a pedophile, rapist, voyeur or pornographic peddler intent on doing harm? Simple, you can’t.
Male is male and female is female based on biological physical characteristics – not how one behaves, dresses, or “feels.” Males and females should have separate facilities to ensure privacy and safety when in public restroom and locker room facilities. Is it not a God-given unalienable right to feel safe and secure in our persons? And, let’s face facts here, who would be able to challenge a man entering a female restroom or locker room as to his “identified” gender if shared facilities were allowed to accommodate transgender individuals? Same with male facilities and women wanting to use them. Women wearing pants acting male and men wearing dresses acting female does not change biology.
There should be no issue here. If Johnston wants to mutilate her body through surgery to “change” from female to male, that is her choice. However, that will not change her biological gender. But, as with all things stemming from the Obama administration and the leftists desire to completely unravel our society, non-issues have been made issues to stir divisiveness and elevate certain proclaimed “classes” to protected status at the expense of everyone else, including our children.