Writing in the Washington Post this week, Deputy Editorial Page Editor Ruth Marcus declares, “We’re at war over gender pronouns. Can’t we all just show some respect?” Marcus’s column chronicles a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejecting a prisoner’s request for a name change, as well as the inmate’s request to change the pronoun the court uses from “he” to “she.”
Marcus argues that the case can really be simplified to the following:
On this, Marcus misses the mark. She clearly fails to understand why many are rejecting demands to accommodate pronoun and name changes. It isn’t stubbornness based on anti-political correctness. It’s a refusal to remake our society’s understanding of sex and gender. It’s about precedent, a concept that can have serious consequences in the legal system.
Marcus writes:
In the latest case, Jett was an unsympathetic plaintiff who, in Duncan, faced a judge particularly unsympathetic to her plight. She pleaded guilty to attempted receipt of child pornography and was sentenced to 15 years in prison, a lengthy sentence that reflected an earlier state child-pornography offense.
For one, if the Left wants to win us over to their cause, it would behoove them to choose more sympathetic characters than child pornographers.
But the judge’s refusal to acknowledge a prisoner’s request for a different gender is not because of cruelty. It’s a matter of the domino effect of unintended consequences that such a “courtesy” could cause. If judges are required or informally browbeaten into accepting preferred pronouns, it’s an easy next step to say the state should then house the transgender inmate in female prisons or even pay for gender reassignment surgery. Marcus goes on:
Oh, please. Not accepting the request sends no signal whatsoever.
Marcus scoffs and goes on to cite the fact that Duncan argued against same-sex marriage when he was a lawyer in private practice as a way to suggest to liberal Washington Post readers that the judge is simply a bigot — implying that hate is the only explanation for his actions.
But Duncan’s involvement in the same-sex marriage debate is instructive. His absolute refusal to give an inch may be an instinct borne of that battle. Years ago, when the debate first surfaced, same-sex marriage advocates initially made modest claims regarding the cultural shifts that same-sex marriage would entail, but we have seen those goalposts shift significantly over time.
While we were once assured the goal was simply the right to marry, courts are now seeing suits against private businesses for refusing to participate in same-sex ceremonies. The now-famous Masterpiece Cakeshop run by a Christian baker in Colorado has been targeted multiple times by left-wing gay and transgender advocates who refuse to allow the religious owners to abstain from participating in their celebrations. And the liberal media has celebrated this anti-religious harassment.
For example, in their coverage of the case, the left-leaning New York Daily News went with the headline, “Notorious anti-gay Colorado cake baker sued for discrimination for third time.” It’s not enough that same-sex marriage is the law of the land — now its opponents are marked for ruination and decried as bigots by some of those liberals who once claimed they just wanted love to win.
In the aftermath of the same-sex marriage debate, we’ve come to learn that for many liberal gay and transgender activists, “live and let live” only goes one way. And so, as the second iteration of this culture war shifts the debate to gender pronouns, it’s no wonder that traditionalists worry that giving an inch today will push our society miles down the road.
Bethany Mandel (@bethanyshondark) is a stay-at-home and homeschooling mother of four and a freelance writer. She is an editor at Ricochet.com, a columnist at the Forward, and a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog.
