Obergefell v. Hodges seems like a lifetime ago, but it was only six years ago that the Supreme Court made its 5-4 ruling effectively legalizing same-sex marriage. While gay rights activists cheered, many others were concerned about what the decision would lead to. At the time, the slippery slope argument that was being made suggested that the legalization of same-sex marriage would one day lead to the legalization of polygamy. While it’s debatable that this will happen anytime soon, the truth is, the slippery slope that we needed to be concerned with was that of the transgender movement.
One argument in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage was that if same-sex couples were able to get married, it would have no impact on your life whatsoever, even if you opposed same-sex marriage. This turned out to be untrue, of course—just ask Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Legalizing gay marriage turned out not to be enough. Same-sex couples have chosen to endorse social justice fascism to demand validation of their union from those who have religious objections to their lifestyle. This sense of entitlement—the notion that legalization is not enough, that validation is necessary—ultimately led us down the slippery slope and put us in the situation we are in today.
For example, boys are allowed to participate in girls’ sports in schools nationwide. The physical and biological advantages boys have over girls have been completely ignored to protect the feelings of these boys who “identify” as girls. Girls are now being forced to compete against boys in competitions and for scholarships. In the blink of an eye, girls who spent a lifetime training for athletic success saw their opportunities erased in the name of “diversity.” On top of that, their privacy has been violated as well, as these boys get to use the same bathrooms and locker rooms with the full support of the school system. This is also happening in private businesses. This summer, a Los Angeles spa made headlines after a man walked into a women’s changing area, exposing himself to the women and young girls inside. But the man said he identified as a woman and California law protects this behavior. The spa defended the man’s rights to act as he did. The liberal media similarly took his side.
This is what happens in the face of social justice fascism. People, businesses, and even governments no longer have the guts to stand up for common sense and human dignity out of fear of being called a bigot.
This nonsense is similarly sanctioned at the federal and state levels. Official forms now include gender identity and preferred pronoun options. And it keeps getting worse. This week, I was suspended from Twitter for stating the biological fact that Rachel Levine is a male. He may have grown his hair out and legally changed his name, but right down to his DNA, he is a man and always will be. Did this stop the Biden administration from declaring Levine the “first-ever female four-star admiral” of the U.S. Public Health Services (USPHS) Commissioned Corps? Instead of calling him the first “first transgender four-star admiral” or whatever, the Biden administration claimed that Levine is a female, not a “transgender woman.” It appears that the old line that sex and gender are different is no longer the left’s mantra. Now, we’re expected to accept the idea that a “transgender woman” is a female when he’s not even a woman.
This stuff matters because this isn’t about letting Levine or anyone else with gender dysphoria believe what they want to believe, and it doesn’t affect anyone less. It’s not enough for them to say they’re a woman when they’re a man (or vice versa); their delusion has to be validated by the rest of us. When a man exposes himself to women and young girls, we’re supposed to accept that as okay if he claims to be transgender.
Even language is becoming criminalized to accommodate the transgender movement.
In Canada, for example, Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, put “gender identity” and “gender expression” into Canada’s Human Rights Code and the hate crime category of its Criminal Code. However, according to legal expert Brenda Cossman, a law professor at the University of Toronto, it was unlikely that the law would cover the accidental misuse of preferred pronouns. Still, it might cover intentional “misgendering.”
“Would it cover the accidental misuse of a pronoun? I would say it’s very unlikely,” she said. “Would it cover a situation where an individual repeatedly, consistently refuses to use a person’s chosen pronoun? It might.”
And guess what? It has.
Did anyone predict any of this back in 2015 when Obergefell v. Hodges was decided? I don’t think so. At the time, the issue was how the ruling would eventually impact the institute of marriage rather than how it would empower the LGBTQ movement to uproot all societal norms and social mores.
In legalizing same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court gave the LGBTQ community an inch, and in response, they took a thousand miles.