In the discourse around LGBTI rights, we are often told that rights are not a zero-sum game, and that granting rights to one group of people will not have any effect on the rights of another.
We know this is not the case. In countries where marriage has been redefined, there has been a diminishment in the rights of parents with respect to the education and the raising of their children, the ability of businesses to trade, the chance for charities to operate, the allowance for judges to adjudicate, and more.
What is particularly striking is that some of the groups which are seeing their rights diminished are those who have had to fight for a long time to achieve equality.
A piece on Mercatornet summarises a recent US case which saw an unlikely but logical alliance between radical feminists and pro-family, Christian groups:
A lawsuit known as Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board is working its way through the courts in the United States. Gavin is a transgender high school student from a town in rural Virginia who has been pushing for three years to use male bathrooms. The case has become a cause célèbre for the transgender movement. Gavin was even given a spot on the op-ed pages of the New York Times to express his point of view.
One of the best amicus briefs about the issue comes from a surprising partnership: a group of radical feminists and a pro-family Christian organization. The Women’s Liberation Front and the Family Policy Alliance together argue that the transgender ideology will hurt women.
The case is an example of one of the major consequences in catering to ‘minority’ groups. As they grow, their enhanced ‘rights’ not only pose a threat to the silent majority, but also encroach upon the basic rights of other minority groups, such as women. In the case of Gavin, winning the case and redefining Title IX to include males who identify as women enables transgender ideology to take precedence over women’s rights throughout the United States.
As litigation continues, many feminists (who originally defended the transgender community) have begun to jump off the LGBTI bandwagon. And rightly so: the shift in policy from ‘biological sex’ to ‘gender identity’ will gravely impact the feminist agenda, not to mention women in general.
Their greatest concern is the loss of privacy and their increased risk of physical harm. Redefining the meaning of gender justifies any male walking into a woman’s restroom, as long as he ‘identifies’ as a woman.
This redefinition allows any man to justify his presence in any women- only space simply by uttering the magic words, “I identify as a woman”, subject only to the condition that male students “notif[y] the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records.”
But male faculty, administrators, other employees, and any other men who walk onto the campus of a Title IX institution do not have to notify anyone about anything; they can just show up in any women’s restroom, locker room, shower, or dormitory whenever they want.
Their next concern is that transgender agenda counteracts one of the biggest achievements of the early feminist movement: education for every woman. Women were initially able to apply for female-only scholarships, put in place to encourage women to receive a higher education. However, redefining marriage by extension redefined the rules around these scholarships, stunting their ability to achieve success because any man who identifies as female will be considered a viable applicant to any award or scholarship addressed to women. As we saw in 2016, the ‘Woman of the Year’ award was not given to a woman, but rather to Bruce Jenner, who identified as female earlier in the same year.
Last, but most certainly not least, is how the idea of womanhood changes:
Women’s immutable existence will be legally altered to include any man who wishes to be deemed a woman, for whatever reason, at whatever time and for however long it suits him.
Although the present situation has been created through a variety of influences, such as relativism, societal Marxism, and political correctness, the ultimate root of the problem lies in the United States’ redefinition of marriage. In uprooting this fundamental building block of society, they have uprooted the understanding and purpose of gender.
Is this the sort of situation we want for ourselves and our fellow Australians?