The transgender activist agenda went too far, but that shouldn't be the end
Last week's Supreme Court decision to uphold Tennessee's right to outlaw gender reassignment surgery for minors, a move made by more than two dozen states, marked the beginning of the end for the most extreme effort to reshape society under the banner of civil rights ever attempted. Parents on the high court voted 6-1 for the decision.
Only a decade ago, the T in LGBTQ took over the debate about how to accommodate those who identify in non-standard ways. The transgender issue was different than what had come before in that some of those who identified that way did not just want to be accepted into society without discrimination, but to fundamentally alter how Americans thought about sex and gender, reshape single sex spaces and activities, and change how the rest of society communicated even when no transgender person was present:
The overreach included:
A flexible definition of gender was to replace the traditional biological sex binary. Society was to accept that gender could change from day to day and go places that seemingly had nothing to do with sex. Women were to accept those who identify as women into locker rooms, bathrooms and women's sports even if the new occupants of the space had a penis and the testosterone that usually comes along with it. We were all supposed to share our pronouns before speeches, presentations, introductions and in emails so that those whose pronouns were not obvious would feel supported in sharing theirs. New words, such as Xe and Xir were introduced to our vocabulary, and others were used in new ways as sex was now 'assigned' at birth instead of observed, and referring to 'biological sex' was considered a slur.
In the wake of the transformation of public opinion after the Obergefell Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage, LGBTQ rights groups including GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign approached transgender issues with a confidence that bordered on arrogance.
They used social media to attempt to deplatform and stigmatize anyone who did not bow to the new elite consensus. Gang attacks on public figures who disagreed became common. People lost jobs, friendships and relationships with family members if they objected to any of the new practices or refused to accept people's identities that bordered on the absurd, like people who claimed their gender changed, day to day and even hour to hour.
Athletes like Riley Gaines and public figures like J.K Rowling, the British author of the Harry Potter novels, were branded TERFS – trans exclusive radical feminists – for fighting the changes. Both faced online mobs and lost friendships. Gaines had speaking engagements disrupted over her opinions. Rowling faced calls for her arrest after Scotland passed a broadly-worded hate-crimes law.
School districts in Washington state and elsewhere enacted policies that allow local schools to hide the gender transition of grade school children from parents, including new names, the use of different bathrooms and involvement in sports usually restricted to children of a different sex. In California, such a policy became state law, and local schools were sued by the state's Attorney General when they didn't comply.
In some jurisdictions, courts in a divorce case can weigh disagreement over a child's gender transition against a parent who refuses to recognize a new gender identity of a child of any age. That comes as the number of people identifying as transgender passed 1.5 million and the number of young people who identified as LGBTQ more than doubled, at some colleges passing 20% of students.
Business human resources departments embraced the movement, requiring ordinary workers to be trained on the new social theory. Business executives began to declare themselves 'allies.'
In medical care, the idea that a pubescent teen or even a girl 12 or younger could have her breasts surgically removed went from unheard of and unethical to standard practice taking place hundreds of times in less than a decade. Such 'gender affirming mastectomies' are up '13-fold' according to the National Institutes of Health. Groups of mental and physical health care providers like psychiatrists and pediatricians took the same positions as LGBTQ advocacy groups. Biden administration officials successfully lobbied an influential healthcare group to take all age restrictions out of its medical guidelines involving these procedures. .
It was insane. That fever has finally broken. Now that the extremists have been defeated in the court of public opinion where support for the transgender agenda has plummeted, at ballot boxes where Trump made transgender issues the pitch in his most successful campaign ad, and now at the Supreme Court where the 6-3 partisan divide was on display, we can try something different.
Even some activists, such as the only transgender member of Congress, Sarah McBride of Delaware, admit that the movement went too far.
Trans people shouldn't be punished for this overreach because most of them had little to do with it. I think there is little support for pushing transgender people back into the closet. For those of us who love a transgender person, that is simply unacceptable.
There is plenty of room for a more modest pitch from the transgender community to be free from discrimination in employment, jobs and housing; to be embraced in families and society without fear of harassment; to arrange their romantic lives as they see fit; and for people to treat their requests for verbal acceptance in terms of pronouns and new names as nothing more than being polite. It is not too much trouble to create spaces in sports and bathrooms where sex and gender don't matter.
If the LGBTQ lobby had started here, I doubt there would have been much controversy at all.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
43 minutes ago
- Axios
Behind the Curtain: Unprecedented new precedents
Through silence or vocal support, House and Senate Republicans are backing an extraordinary set of new precedents for presidential power they may come to regret if and when Democrats seize those same powers. Why it matters: New precedents are exhilarating when you're in power — and excruciating when you're not. Here are 10 new precedents, all set with minimal GOP dissent: Presidents can limit the classified information they share with lawmakers after bombing a foreign country without the approval of Congress. Presidents can usurp Congress's power to levy tariffs, provided they declare a national emergency. Presidents can unilaterally freeze spending approved by Congress, and dismantle or fire the heads of independent agencies established by law. Presidents can take control of a state's National Guard, even if the governor opposes it, and occupy the state for as long as said president wants. Presidents can accept gifts from foreign nations, as large as a $200 million plane, even if it's unclear whether said president gets to keep the plane at the end of the term. Presidents can actively profit from their time in office, including creating new currencies structured to allow foreign nationals to invest anonymously, benefiting said president. Presidents can try to browbeat the Federal Reserve into cutting interest rates, including by floating replacements for the Fed chair before their term is up. Presidents can direct the Justice Department to prosecute their political opponents and punish critics. These punishments can include stripping Secret Service protections, suing them and threatening imprisonment. Presidents can punish media companies, law firms and universities that don't share their viewpoints or values. Presidents can aggressively pardon supporters, including those who made large political donations as part of their bid for freedom. The strength of the case in said pardons is irrelevant. Between the lines: Friday's Supreme Court ruling limiting nationwide injunctions — a decision widely celebrated by Republicans — underscores the risks of partisan precedent-setting. Conservatives sped to the courts to block many of President Biden's signature policies — and succeeded. But taking those broad injunctions off the table now means they'll also be unavailable the next time a Democratic president pushes an aggressive agenda. That future president will be able to keep implementing even legally shaky policies — just as Trump now can. What to watch: Trump previewed some of those policies at a celebratory press conference on Friday, saying the Supreme Court's ruling cleared the way for executive actions that had been "wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis." They include ending birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, terminating funding for "sanctuary cities," suspending refugee resettlement, and blocking the use of federal funds for gender-affirming care. Axios Zachary Basu contributed reporting.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Republicans' mega-bill could make Americans hungry again
This is a large country, and people in different states embrace different customs, cultural preferences and political beliefs. But for all our diversity, every person in every state needs to eat. In recognition of this, America has long treated hunger as a national concern. Unfortunately, a little-understood provision in the budget reconciliation legislation speeding through Congress would change that. Within a few years of its passage, we would likely see a significant number of states with no family food assistance program at all for Americans unable to buy enough food. In the middle of the 20th century, the U.S. Department of Agriculture purchased surplus commodities from farms and distributed them to people in need, wherever they were. When this became unworkable, Congress began converting commodity distributions into food stamps that low-income households could spend in regular supermarkets to buy food for their families. President Richard Nixon saw the benefits of this program and pushed through legislation that made the Food Stamp Program nationwide. In the following decades, the Food Stamp Program was expanded to help more of the working poor and reduced when Congress was trying to cut the deficit. Some of its biggest supporters were Republicans like Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan.), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) as well as Rep. Bill Emerson (R-Mo.). As technology advanced, electronic debit cards replaced the old paper food stamps and the program changed its name to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. But even when Congress has felt the need to cut back on food stamps, it has never departed from the principle that hunger is a national concern. Budget cuts that took effect in New York also took effect in Arkansas. The pending reconciliation bill, however, would change that, making it likely that some of the states that most need food assistance would drop out completely. Both the House-passed bill and the one pending in the Senate would, for the first time, require states to contribute to the cost of food assistance benefits. The percentages in the two versions vary, but the hit would be large. If the final legislation requires states to pay 10 percent, the 10-year cost to states would be almost $90 billion. Poorer states would be especially hard-hit: Alabama would have to pay $1.64 billion, Arkansas would need to come up with $521 million and West Virginia would have to find $536 million in its budget. Because the provision prohibits the federal government from paying its share unless the state pays the required amount, states that are unwilling or unable to produce the required match would have to drop out of SNAP altogether. This is a real possibility. The Federal Reserve and many private forecasters are seeing signs that economic growth is slowing, with a full recession a distinct possibility. Even if we avoid a recession, a slowing economy will reduce states' revenues and drive up the number of people losing their jobs and needing food assistance. At a time when states will be cutting important programs and contemplating unwelcome tax increases just to keep their heads above water, few will have room to absorb tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of new costs to maintain existing food assistance programs. Once food assistance ceases to be available in some states for families regardless of need, we will have lost something important about what makes us a country. The consequences will be severe indeed. Copious research shows that children growing up with inadequate diets do worse in school and have lower lifetime earnings. As some states terminate federal food assistance, voices in neighboring states will advocate for dropping the program as well. Members of Congress from states lacking federal family food assistance will have little reason to support funding for a program operating only in other states. The effects will extend well beyond food assistance. SNAP, along with unemployment insurance, is one of our most important 'automatic stabilizers' that puts more money into the economy as the nation tips into a recession. This is crucial because Congress often takes months to enact stimulus legislation — or fails altogether. A shrunken SNAP will mean less effective stimulus to pull the country out of a downturn, and a SNAP that operates only in some states could contribute to an uneven recovery across the country. Indeed, because all states must balance their budgets even in recessions, declining revenues may force some states to drop out of SNAP at the very moment when families most need help and when the economy most needs a boost. No good reason exists for shifting the costs of SNAP benefits to states. States already spend large amounts to meet human needs ignored by the federal government and even more matching federal contributions for efforts such as Medicaid and child care subsidies. States' revenue streams are less efficient and far more vulnerable to regional and national economic downturns. Suddenly increasing states' costs in federal-state programs is precisely the kind of 'unfunded mandate' that prompted congressional Republicans to enact the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 and that led Republicans to criticize the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion. Dumping federal fiscal shortfalls on the states is antithetical to the values of federalism. It is a shameful practice contemplated by policymakers lacking the courage to get the federal government's own fiscal house in order. Congress should drop this cost-shifting provision altogether. At a very minimum, it should ensure that the federal share of food assistance benefits remain available even in states that are unwilling or unable to put up hundreds of millions of dollars of their own. David A. Super teaches at Georgetown Law.

Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
How the Parental Rights Movement Built to a Supreme Court Win
Spurred on by the perceived leftward drift of schools, conservative parents launched a movement to amass more power in public education. On Friday, the Supreme Court handed them a far-reaching victory. The ruling, in a case featuring parents who objected to LGBTQ-theme books introduced in elementary classrooms in a Maryland county, says parents can generally opt out of instruction that contradicts a child's religious upbringing.