Courts Continue War On Nature, Side With “Transgenders”


Either God Will Rule, Or The Sex Revolutionaries Will

By Darrell Dow

“Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman and a woman a man,” the political theorist Delolme declared, but then again, the British Parliament has nothing on the cosmic and god-like powers of American jurists.

In the event you were drowning in Flu Manchu disinformation and missed the news, in 2020, a range of federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, proclaimed that a person’s gender is not only self-declared and unrelated to biological reality but also protected by federal anti-discrimination statutes and the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution. 

The fruits of the assault on nature are beginning to show. Lower courts and school boards are doing what Parliament could not: declare that a man is a woman, and that a boy is a girl.


In Bostock v. Clayton County SCOTUS Chief John Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch sided with the court’s four leftist justices to extend workplace discrimination protections to homosexual and “transgender” employees. The justices ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibitions on discrimination based on “sex” extends to sexual orientation. 

Gorsuch purported to apply a straightforward textualist reading of the statute. Nevermind that in 1964, sodomy was illegal in 49 states and “transgenderism” was practically unknown.  Gorsuch conceded that “sex” in 1964 referred only to “biological distinctions between male and female.” But, he reasoned, “only the words on the page,” not the original intent of the legislators, “constitute the law adopted by Congress.”

Wrote Gorsuch:

An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

At the time, Gorsuch denied that Bostock would serve as a sweeping precedent and force gender equity on things like bathrooms and dress codes. “They say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today but none of these other laws are before us,” he wrote.  

But within months lower federal courts were citing Bostock as justification to overturn the policies of local school boards.  In Adams v. School Board of St. John’s County, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that “equal protection” requires a school to allow transgender “boys” to use the boys’ restroom.  

Adams, who had “transitioned” and changed “his” birth certificate, used the boys’ restroom for the first nine weeks of ninth grade, but after a complaint, administrators informed “him” that “he” could use only the girls’ restroom or a gender-neutral, single-stall restroom in the school office. The district had already adopted a policy for homosexual and sexually-confused students that included using “transgender” students’ preferred pronouns. But it declined to allow “transgender” students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their “gender identity.”

The 11th Circuit’s majority ruled the St. Johns school board’s policy was arbitrary and discriminatory because the district failed to accept Adams’ amended Florida birth certificate. It lists him as a boy, instead relying on the birth certificate provided at the time of his enrollment, which listed Adams as a girl.  

In another high-profile case, Grimm v. Gloucester, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court ruled that barring students from restrooms that match their “chosen gender” unconstitutionally violated Title IX of the U.S. Code.

“At the heart of this appeal is whether equal protection and Title IX can protect transgender students from school bathroom policies that prohibit them from affirming their gender,” Judge Henry Floyd wrote in the majority opinion. “We join a growing consensus of courts in holding that the answer is resoundingly yes.”

SCOTUS did not intervene.

You Will Obey

The next step was punishing those who affirm the reality of nature and making them conform to insanity.

On December 13, a a jury in Jackson County, Missouri, ruled that that a school district owes more than $4 million to a “male” transgender student, who sued for sex discrimination after being denied the use of boys’ restrooms and locker rooms. The jury found the Blue Springs school district, located in a suburb outside Kansas City, had discriminated against the student “based on his sex.” 

The girl registered a name change in 2010 and updated a birth certificate in 2014 to reflect her new name and “new gender.” The state recognized her as a boy, but the Delta Woods Middle School denied her use of the boys’ locker room because, well, she is a girl, and has a girl’s genitalia.  

Instead the school required the use of a single-person unisxex bathroom while the student participated on the football and track teams. The lawsuit alleged the student felt singled out due to the exclusion.  

In all likelihood, the persecution of Christian institutions will be the next step in this moral and legal jihad. Unchecked erotic liberty cannot exist side-by-side with freedom of association and religious liberty. The legal ammunition ostensibly created to prevent discrimination against blacks is now being fired against traditional institutions and nature itself to forge a new utopia  in the name of civil rights and human dignity.

What Are “Civil Rights?”

Let’s define civil rights briefly so as to follow the logic that is already playing itself out.  

Civil rights can be freedom rights, whereby individuals are free to act without legal coercion or the interference of the state (e.g., free assembly and free speech).  

Civil rights may also be defined as benefit rights, implying that a person has the “right” to receive something from others, such as the putative right of the disabled or elderly to receive welfare benefits, or the “right” to free health care and education.

A third possibility is that civil rights are non-discrimination rights; i.e., services cannot be denied based on an immutable characteristic (e.g., housing discrimination against blacks).

The first and third understanding of civil rights are connected. If you cannot legally discriminate it presupposes that the behavior is a freedom right. The law would contradict itself if it protected what it does not not allow.  

Theologian Greg Bahnsen foresaw the coming revolution writing prophetically on the subject of homosexuality in 1978. His comments about homosexuality  also apply today to transgenderism:  

If homosexuality should become a nondiscrimination right in society, it would be at the cost of depriving Christians (and others) of their right to shun contact with moral perversion. Now if someone feels that Christians are wrong to feel such aversion to practicing homosexuals and that, therefore, they must be compelled by civil law to refrain from discrimination, he will be imposing his own moral principle or conviction on them. Moreover, he will create a favored class of people who gain an unfair position in the job market, for by making his sexual perversion known, the homosexual is likely to be hired over other people, lest the employer be taken to court with a discrimination suit. He can justify taking Christian evangelists off the television and radio if they condemn homosexuality. He can sponsor federally funded programs that will advance through the public schools and libraries’ educational material exonerating homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle. He can present a different norm and example than that of heterosexual monogamy to school children, thus directing them toward ungodly attitudes and experimentation.

Exceptions notwithstanding, conservative clergy and Christian Elites, who believe that God whispers” about sexual sin, will offer little resistance  to the new arrangement. Long ago, they traded their spines and testicles for an MDiv., Th. M., or Ph. D and plaudits from  The New York Times. They will sacrifice the public presence of  Christianity on the altar of  their “witness,” and will be content to carve out space in pews, homes, and hearts to preserve the “gospel.” 

As for the rest of us, our governing elites  — not just the state, but corporations and the engines of education and culture shaping —  are implacably hostile to our Christian religion. We can create “parallel institutions” or put “county before country” as initial steps to fight back, but they will not withstand the current onslaught. The American Remnant must do the hard work of creating a new elite that will use power to displace the existing Ruling Class and stop the cultural and racial dispossession of the historic American people.

There is no neutrality and discrimination is inevitable. We will either be governed by the law of God or the whims of ideologues and fevered imaginations of revolutionaries. 

Darrell Dow, the author of Who Is My Neighbor: An Anthology In Natural Relations with Thomas Achord, is a contributor to American Remnant.

About the author

AR Editor

Add comment

By AR Editor

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By :