The Greatest Lie Part 11

Epstein was apoplectic: "It protects everyone: even non-citizens. Are you saying J'Noel has no Equal Protection rights at all. That we can deprive her of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

Alec retorted "No, but we can restrict her from exercising privileges that are specific to gender. At this point, she doesn't have a gender in the eyes of the law."

Epstein said "Reminds of that story, 'Man Without a Country.' 'Woman without a Gender': pretty barbaric for Twenty-First Century jurisprudence. Is that where we're going? To paraphrase my favorite movie, 'Toto, I think we must be in Kansas.'"

Mark rejoined "It's ridiculous and cruel to deny J'Noel any legal rights dependent on gender. Gender is her precious possession. Even the Kansas Court acknowledged her sacrifices. Can they really mean that in claiming her gender, she relinquished it?"

Peter retorted, "But the Court said it was up to the Kansas Legislature, not the Courts applying the Equal Protection, to defend her. And it hasn't, and shouldn't."

I argued "But you're argument goes far beyond that. You think that she shouldn't have a protected right to claim her gender. Why not?"

Alec answered "Because Equal Protection prevents discrimination based on attributes that the individual can't change. J'Noel chose to change her body and sexual identity. Therefore, she doesn't deserve to be protected."

Epstein summarized "So you can deny J'Noel all Equal Protection right: the right to work, to vote, to petition the government?"

Peter polished his glasses. "I don't propose to suspend all rights, I suppose, but certainly the privilege to assert legal entitlement where gender is an issue."

I dissected this position. "You believe the state can deny her the rights to assert, as a male or as a female, any legal right that's dependent on gender?"

Peter responded "Yes, because J'Noel really possesses neither the gender of a male or a female."