Last week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Constitution of the United States required schools to allow boys who believe they are girls to use the girls’ restrooms. This would come as a shock to the people who wrote the Constitution, but so is most leftist jurisprudence these days.
The case follows on a US District Court ruling in Ohio from September in which the court issued an order to Highland Local School District to open its girls’ bathrooms to boys who believe they are girls. That court wrote, “The court orders School District officials to treat Jane Doe as the girl she is, including referring to her by female pronouns and her female name and allowing her to use the girls’ restroom at Highland Elementary School.” The judge, as Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review notes, invoked the 14th Amendment, stating, “[A]s a tiny minority of the population, whose members are stigmatized for their gender non-conformity in a variety of settings, transgender people are a politically powerless minority group.”
The school, naturally, appealed.
And today, the Sixth Circuit turned down the appeal to stay the injunction. Why? First, they claim that it is sex stereotyping to force a boy to go to the boys’ bathroom – which is odd, given that the lower court held that the School district had to “treat Jane Doe as the girl she is,” which is obviously sex stereotyping. Second, they claim the school didn’t show any “irreparable” harm. Third, they claim that the eleven-year-old boy requires access to the girls’ bathroom:
Highland’s exclusion of Doe from the girls’ restrooms has already had substantial and immediate adverse effects on the daily life and well-being of an eleven-year-old child (i.e. multiple suicide attempts prior to entry of the injunction). These are not distant or speculative injuries—staying the injunction would disrupt the significant improvement in Doe’s health and well-being that has resulted from the injunction, further confuse a young girl with special needs who would no longer be allowed to use the girls’ restroom, and subject her to further irreparable harm.
That’s some pretty heft psychology from the court, given that there is no social science data that suggests transgender suicide rates link with bars on restroom use. In fact, there’s not even any solid social science data showing that bullying causes increases in suicide rate (the Centers for Disease Control: “We don’t know if bullying directly causes suicide-related behavior”). There’s no evidence that discrimination even increases suicide rate (white suicide rates, for example, are far higher than black suicide rates despite different rates of discrimination). The most likely explanation for the suicidal behavior of the child at issue is that gender identity disorder is in fact a mental illness, and that such mental illness has high comorbidity for suicidality.
But the Court has an agenda to push, and they won’t let reality stand in the way. They conclude that the district court intervened to “protect Doe’s constitution and civil rights.” They apparently could not figure out whether girls have a civil right to be free of boys, even mentally ill boys, invading the most private areas of public life.
As Daniel Horowitz concludes:
More foundationally, how have we stooped to a point in judicial supremacy that the court can not only rewrite legislation, constitutions, history, and traditions, but can alter the most immutable laws of nature and coerce their social transformation agenda on the states and the other branches of government?
How? The courts see themselves as instruments of goodness and kindness, not as instruments of law. Even the laws of nature must bow before their preference for cosmic justice, imposed by man – or more specifically, by them. None of this helps children who suffer from gender dysphoria, nor does it help protect confused children or children who simply wish to be left in private with members of their own biological sex when engaging in private biological activities. But it makes leftists feel good about themselves. And that’s what the Constitution mandates, isn’t it?