“…she has reached a preordained conclusion and is reverse engineering it to find rational support for a fallacy. Doing so only provides irrationality.”This has all become excessively tedious. Excessively tedious because the starting point for many of the people who oppose transgender accommodations — mostly for children — don't accept the scientific fact that transgender people exist. This need to disassociate from science is not based on learned critical analysis. It is the product of religious faith. Faith has a place in our society but it has no place in shaping public policy. Faith is not a transparent substitute for an empirical scientific conclusion. In other words, you can choose to keep kosher but do not try to make the sale of pork and shellfish a crime.
According to Ms. Bachiochi:
[DOJ's] claim is that men and women are not most fundamentally human persons. Rather, they are minds unmoored from human bodies. But the law does not govern human minds; indeed, it cannot. The law governs human persons, who are always and everywhere embodied. And human bodies are always and everywhere sexed.Pseudo-intellectual bullshit which would possibly invalidate nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation. The Department of Justice accepts the consensus of social and medical science that gender doesn't always agree with chromosomes or genitalia. Moreover, in their simplistic quest to have a binary world of men and women in order to conform to scripture, Ms. Bachiochi and her ilk completely overlook the roughly 0.2% of our population that is intersex. In 20% of those cases gender cannot be determined from the individuals' chromosomes.
Willing ignorance on display:
Clearly, the most tragic casualties of this latest social experiment are the vulnerable boys, girls, men, and women undergoing medical “treatments” in an attempt to align their given bodies with their troubled minds. Perhaps the second greatest casualty is the rule of law itself. Law, after all, is comprised of language. Indeed, it is adherence to the meaning of language that makes the rule of law possible. Though one may have quibbles with Justice Scalia’s brand of originalism, the late justice’s view that the people of our constitutional republic are governed legitimately not by legislative intent or judicial sentiment, but by the public meaning of the language of a law at the time of its enactment, has force for precisely this reason: so that we are a people governed by law and not by men.Of course. It is all just pernicious “gender ideology” as the pope puts it. Throw some Scalia into the mix while you are at it for good measure. I only wish that they were similarly committed to Scalia's opinion for the majority in Employment Division v. Smith finding that there are no religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws. Torturing science and logic to create a world that conforms to ancient texts only makes smart people spectacularly stupid.
I am going to skip over a few thousand words. It is pointless to dwell on the drivel. If, at the outset of a scientific discourse, someone disclosed that they do not believe Newton's law of universal gravitation then I have no interest in critiquing their discussion of planetary motion. It would be intellectually futile to do so. Bachiochi doesn't accept the science regarding gender dysphoria. Why, then, should we be interested in observations based on dismissing medical fact? Thus we get expressly to Bachiochi's conclusion (which might reduce some palm-to-forehead collisions):
The current gender ideology is an error of the greatest magnitude, a threat to the rule of law, and a derailing of efforts to reshape society to come into accord with the givenness of our vulnerable, imperfect, and deeply sexed bodies. The modern debate about what women’s reproductive capacity means for the equality of the sexes has been raging since Susan B. Anthony picked up her pen. This debate ought to continue, undeterred by those who would reject the body—in all its goodness—from our law.Hmm. “Gender ideology.” Where have I heard that before? This is hyperbolic and overwrought to the point that Bachiochi defies rationality. Whether she, or the pope, like it or not transgender kids do exist. It is worth considering that there aren't a whole lot of them; probably between 0.1% and 0.3% of the schools they attend. This is about protecting those very vulnerable and fragile one or two children in a high school.
Ms. Bachiochi needs to get a grip on reality. Protecting these kids is neither the end of the world nor the demise of our legal system. She probably would not reach any of these conclusions were it not for her faith. Bachiochi has not asked a question and then used the scientific method to find answers. Rather, she has reached a preordained conclusion and is reverse engineering it to find rational support for a fallacy. Doing so only provides irrationality.