Here is a recent headline from The New York Times: “Trump Appears Set to Reverse Protections for Transgender Students.” From the story (parenthesis mine): “President Trump appears on the verge of reversing protections put in place by the Obama administration to stop discrimination against transgender students in schools, (unnamed) officials said Tuesday. Civil rights advocates said that the possible rollback of protections, which could come as soon as today (Feb. 22), would represent a major step backward after the enormous progress made by gay and transgender people in recent years.”
Here is a teachable moment. It is in the use of words. In this case, it is The New York Times trying to make something totally in line with law sound noxious. Look at “protections,” for example. In this case, “protections” is the new word for “regulations.” Whereas we always used to talk about “rules” and “regulations,” the new Democrat lexicon is that we are now supposed to talk about “protections.” This way after reading the story, you are supposed to say to yourself, “Oh, my God! That mean, nasty homophobe Trump is leaving transgender people unprotected.”
Here is another history lesson. This wordplay is not a new trick. It goes back to the Clinton Administration. There is a man, George Lakoff, and he was a wordsmith for the Democrat Party. The practice back then was to have Mr. Lakoff hold meetings with various Democratic leaders and talking heads to tell them what words to use in public.
Back to the present. This is the latest Democratic trick with the language to convince people to oppose the relaxation of burdensome regulations. These protections, I mean regulations, in many cases have been placed on individuals and businesses without having been passed as laws. What the bureaucracy does is they (Department of Justice, EPA, etc.) just issue these regulations and you cannot do anything about it unless you have a deep pocket and are willing to take on the government.
This latest controversy was not even a regulation. It was just a letter sent to school districts from the Justice Department and the Department of Education saying that if you do not let students use the restroom and locker room (the media always leaves out the locker room part) of the sex they identify with (not what they were born with), you can possibly lose government funding. All it took was a letter, a damn letter, to send shivers down the spineless backs of educrats.
How could they do this, you ask? Easy answer. In May 2016, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education together issued a letter and it expanded the scope of Title IX, and it required that federally funded schools, which is virtually every school from kindergarten through college, treat a student’s chosen gender identity as their sex. This letter carried with it a force of mandate because they put it into Title IX, which also means it has ramifications way beyond bathrooms.
The fact is that it was a stretch that they put it under Title IX. It could be argued whether transgenderism is choice. This discussion has yet to be settled, which is why neither the Justice Department nor Department of Education dared not give it to the bureaucrats nor let Congress debate it. They were doing what this administration has done time and time again, and which was roundly defeated in the last election: rule by fiat.
How many transgender people are there? Nationwide, it’s less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the population. For this, we are by letter (not regulation, not law)to upend common decency and allow young children to see naked opposite sexes in their locker room—OR ELSE!
So, what President Trump (I like the sound of that) has done, is NOT remove protections or regulations. All he has done is said is this is not a federal jurisdiction. It belongs to the states. This way, states where transgender population is higher than the national average can decide for themselves what the right thing to do is. Trump outlawed nothing! He just left it to the states.
So, in a state like New York, what President Trump did has no affect. Conversely, a state like Alaska does not endanger funding if it disagrees with either New York or the federal government. It is this simple; no more, no less.
This is what I say. What say you?