We are the most effective way to get your press release into the hands of reporters and news producers. Check out our client list.

Transgender Policy is Anti-Female & Not Supported by Federal Law

Contact: D.J. Espinosa, 702-427-3983

OPINION, March 3, 2016 /Christian Newswire/ -- The following is submitted by Dr. D.J. Espinosa:

    One of the hardest lessons I ever learned is that being female counts less than being male. I don't like it, I fight against it, and still, despite my having lived for more than half a century, this statement remains true. Added to the list of ways that males are favored over females in the United States, including unequal pay for equal work, is a federal policy that has only recently come to light. Under the policy imposed by the U.S. Department of Education in 2014, a biological male has the right to use a bathroom/locker room designated for biological females. No factual evidence of commitment, such as breast implants or hormone treatments, is needed for a male to gain access to an area not meant for biological males. Not required is consent by the biological females in those same rooms (also having no say in the matter are their parents).

    In setting this policy, the Department of Education is not following the law, it is creating it. Consider the ban on racial discrimination. It is barred by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, several Civil Rights Acts including the first in 1866, and numerous rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down state laws and actions that violate these mandates. Among the earliest are Strauder v. West Virginia (1879) and Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).

    Yet, there are no Amendments, no federal laws, and no rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court granting civil rights to the transgendered. Equally important is that this policy breaks state and local laws pertaining to peeping and exposure in order to accommodate biological males. The policy gives our biological female children no choice in our public schools. If biological females need to use facilities that require full or partial removal of clothing, they must do so knowing that a biological male can walk in on them at any time and can remain present for the entire time. The worst part is that neither the biological females nor their parents can do anything about it. In a world where biological females are subject to horrific violence at the hands of biological males, the fear that girls and women often feel in the presence of biological males should not be ignored. The U.S. Department of Education is, in sum, using our tax dollars to force biological females to be VISUALLY RAPED and depriving them of their right to say no to such action.

    Although not ideal, I would be less upset if those in the transgendered community would accept a gender neutral bathroom/locker room. The benefits of such a plan are twofold: no one would be forced to disrobe in front of, or near, a member of the opposite sex and those asserting themselves as transgendered would have a safe space (one that is free from harassment and intimidation). But no such compromise is being allowed under this policy. Biological males who define themselves as transgendered are demanding what all heterosexual males have long dreamed about – unfettered access to semi-nude and nude female bodies. And while I understand that males can self-identify as female, doing so does not alter male anatomy, does not change a person's sexual attraction away from females, and does not invalidate the civil rights of biological females. Moreover, basing national policy on the wants of biological males (who are seeking access to female facilities even though they can use gender neutral as well as male facilities) at the expense of biological females (who have no choice in facilities if they want to avoid biological males) is discriminatory. Equal protection does not entitle one group to more rights than another.

    The bottom line is that all lives matter. The needs of biological girls (regardless of age) should not be ignored to accommodate anyone. It makes no sense for someone to assert a civil right that does not exist (transgender protection) over one that does (the right of biological females to use sex-segregated bathrooms/locker rooms). This policy could not be more wrong no matter how well-intended. It is government overreach at its worst by protecting one group while victimizing another. We, all of us, deserve better.

    D.J. Espinosa is a retired tenured associate professor who received her doctorate in Sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. She has several publications and taught at Arizona State University, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, and University of Houston at Clear Lake. Among the courses she regularly taught are Race and the Law, Women and the Law, Law and Society, and Quantitative Methodology (statistics). Dr. Espinosa is currently finishing an e-book series designed to help students learn university-level statistics before enrolling in the actual course. She is also a loving mother and grandmother who values family, faith, and country.