Have any suggestions for the other six questions, or how to improve these first four? Let WRATH know!
- Do you support the creation of a task force to evaluate the scientific merit and legal consequences of trans terminology?
For instance, “gender” is used in contradictory ways by trans advocates – sometimes to refer to biological sex; sometimes to refer to cultural expectations that differ for females and males; and sometimes to a strong feeling or belief an individual has about themselves. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act references “sex,” not “gender.” We believe that Title VII already protects transgender individuals (who nonconform to cultural expectations around biological sex). We believe that replacing “sex” with “gender” in laws, executive orders and judicial decisions erodes the rights of women (for example, our constitutional right to privacy). Therefore, the government MUST weigh any changes in legal terminology around biological sex against the potential (or actual) harm to women, and this process must be open to ALL viewpoints, not just that of trans advocates.
- Do you believe that biological sex is mutable? That is, can someone become a member of the opposite sex via “self-identification,” hormones, and/or surgery?
The simplest definition of woman is “adult human female,” and man “adult human male.” Women have a female reproductive system, and men a male reproductive system. Organ systems have functions, and the function of the reproductive system is to (1) produce viable gametes (eggs for females and sperm for males) and (2) viable offspring. This holds for all other sexually-reproducing species on Earth. No surgery or hormones will change an egg-producer into a sperm-producer, and vice versa. It is to be noted that some individuals have disorders of sexual development; others may have parts of their reproductive system removed due to disease; may never have children; etc. This does not negate the validity of the categories “female” and “male” for any species, including human.
- Do you support stronger government oversight and tighter rules regarding the “transitioning” of minors, if not the outright banning of “transition tracks” being prescribed for them by health care providers?
Those who advocate for putting minors on puberty blockers, reason that delaying puberty gives the minor and their parents “more time to decide” if transition is right for them. However, by delaying puberty, the minor in question is (1) deprived of natural postpubertal sexual feelings and attractions, and thereby are deprived of the opportunity to integrate those feelings and attractions into an adult identity; and (2) they are deprived of the natural process of individuation from parents that occurs concurrent with pubertal changes. WRATH believes that delaying puberty, rather than giving “more time to decide,” actually represents increased “sunk cost.” “Sunk cost,” a term from economics, refers to the tendency to make decisions based on how much time and money has already been invested in a certain trajectory, rather than deciding based on future outcomes, both positive and negative. For instance, a young woman may decide, after having started “transing” at the age of 8, to start taking cross-sex hormones at the age of 16, and anticipate hysterectomy and mastectomy in a few years, simply because she and her family have already invested 8 years in the trans trajectory, rather than consider the possibility, supported by a World Health Organization Study, that, simply, her sexual orientation is lesbian, a choice that requires NO surgery and NO lifelong hormone regimen.
- Can women legally be mandated to give up their constitutional right to privacy in women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, domestic violence shelters, and other similar spaces, simply because there is the possibility of a crime being committed by men against other men in men’s bathrooms?
WRATH can think of no other examples in jurisprudence where a protected class was expected to forfeit a constitutional right because an unprotected class feared assault by members of the same unprotected class. In a recent University of Pittsburgh case, the judge found that it was NOT discrimination for the university to ban a female student from a locker room used by male students. The judge reasoned that men, just like women, have a constitutionally-derived right to privacy, and do not have to be unclothed, either partially or completely, around members of the opposite sex. And yet laws are being passed around the country, allowing access to women’s bathrooms of any men who merely “self-identify” as women. WRATH does not believe any men should be allowed into women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, and so on, regardless of hormone regimen, surgery and/or “self-identification,” as none of these methods result in an actual change in biological sex.