A transgender “woman” sued the state of Idaho recently, claiming the state violated “her” free speech rights by declining “her” request to change the gender on “her” birth certificate. In truly Orwellian fashion, “she” complains that Idaho’s “stigmatizing refusal” to issue revised birth certificates is a violation of First Amendment rights because it “prevents transgender individuals from accurately expressing their gender,” and further violates their rights “to refrain from speaking by forcing them to disclose their transgender status and to identify with a gender that conflicts with who they are.”
A violation of free speech rights? I can say I’m a rainbow trout- or a Ford Mustang for that matter- but that doesn’t mean I am one. The “lady” in question has changed “her” name on “her” official identification and documents. The 28-year-old was born male in Hawaii, and claims that the Aloha State issued “her” a driver’s license that says “she’s” female, so “she” is gob-smacked that stuffy, old, intransigent Idaho’s Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics won’t change the gender listed on “her” birth certificate.
Bizarrely, “she” says that by refusing to issue these revised birth certificates, the state “subjects [transgender people] to discrimination, privacy invasions, harassment, humiliation, stigma and even violence.” Quite the opposite. “She” has very capably done much of that on “her” own.
Whether or not a person believes that sloughing off a body part here and adding one there later in life can somehow change the genetic code programming every cell in a person’s body, one’s birth certificate is a simple statement of fact. It would be a flat-out lie, requiring a forged document and the outright commitment of fraud to list someone as the opposite of the sex they obviously, clinically, physically are at the time of their birth. Penis? Check. Scrotum and testes? Check. It’s a girl!
So much for the scientific method.
Or is “she” trying to say that “she” somehow “knew,” before “she” was even born, while still in the womb, that “she” was “female?”
I wonder what would the pro-abortion crowd have to say about that?