Kerby Anderson

In this world of social media, we have come to expect to see outrageous and irresponsible comments on various websites. But we don’t expect to read them in the New York Times. I am talking about the headline, “Transgender Could be Defined Out of Existence By Trump Administration.” This isn’t even close to true. Let me explain. What started this was the news that the Trump administration was considering returning the understanding of a civil rights statute to its original definition. Unfortunately, in this world of hyperbole and hysteria, that was enough for the article to argue that it would literally “negate the humanity of people.” Both David French and John Stone street have talked about this in their commentaries, so you may have already heard about what is happening. But if you are not familiar with the reasons for this potential policy change, here is the history. Four years ago, the Obama administration changed the definition of sex in the Title IX sex discrimination statute to encompass transgender orientation. Mind you, this was not done as an act of Congress that rejected previous attempts to amend the statute. So the president used his pen to change it and then send out aggressive mandates. Perhaps the best known was the “Dear Colleague” letter sent to school districts mandating that schools accept a student’s preferred gender identity. The reaction from the New York Times was to argue that the attempt to return to the original definition of sex was dehumanizing and defining people out of existence. David French’s response was to remind us that transgender people did not flash into existence when the Obama administration changed the definition in Title IX. And they would not flash out of existence if the Trump administration returned to the traditional definition. We need more rational discussion when evaluating federal policies not all of this hyperbole and hysteria.