The 5/13/16 Dear Colleague letter of the DOJ & DOE re Student Transgender RIghts is Lawful

Pro does an overall excellent job of responding to the points I offered in my last argument. I agree with most of them and I agree with the policy being advanced by the Obama Administration. I could challenge her five points as being too generalized, inherently contradictory, and set up to end up at the same conclusion-- the DCL is lawful.. But even if successful it would be a very weak argument. With that in mind I am going to concede the debate to Pro and will probably forfeit the final round. Pro clearly has the stronger argument and I am just not able to counter it any further I will spend the remainder of this argument answering, clarifying, and commenting on several points in Pro's last argument. These may serve to strengthen her assertions more than they refute or weaken them. With regard to the counts on lack of adequate notice, arbitrary and capricious etc -- these are I think rather common allegations made in administrative law cases when a regulation is being challenged. Although such challenges are rarely successful when they are it is often on these grounds. I hope I am wrong but Pro may be a bit overconfident in dismissing their relevance. I do not believe it was merely by happenstance this case was filed in Texas and not in other places where it could have been filed. Pro cites with enthusiasm the recent 4th Circuit case which at this point is limited to the case being remanded to the District Court for trial. Over the last several years the 4th Circuit once a rabidly conservative court has become more moderate and even somewhat liberal. But Texas is not located in the 4th Circuit. It is located in the 5th Circuit still a notoriously right wing court and one which in recent months has demonstrated its hostility to immigrant rights, to women's reproductive rights, as well as in other matters. It would not be surprising if they sided with Texas on this matter of transgender rights. the 14th Amendment argument offered by opponents of transgender rights is a disingenuous one. The contention is based on several factors-- the primary one being that transgender people don't really exist except as men and women pretending to be or believing to be the opposite sex either because of a lifestyle choice, mental disorder, or some other variation of delusion or wishful thinking. Or and in addition to having some intent to commit sexual offenses. The argument essentially says the 14th Amendment equal protection clause is violated because the regulation as interpreted by the Obama Administration grants persons claiming to be transgender their choice of restroom but denies that choice to other men and women. It is sort of like a case some years ago where a court ruled it wasn't sex discrimination for an employer to fire pregnant women because the company policy also applied to pregnant men. That is a little off the topic perhaps. There is also the question of whether transgender people form a suspect or quasi suspect class. I do not believe gay and lesbians have achieved that status either even with the decision in the marriage equality case and other gay rights cases. Preserving that non-status goes to the plaintiffs citing the 14th Amendment in the way they do. Since the prejudicial claims about the nature and conduct of transgender people will ultimately be destroyed as were similar claims before about gays and lesbians, African Americans, and others before-- the question will come down to Who decides? This argument contends it is up to the legislative branches and not the executive or judicial branches to advance in this case transgender rights. Anyway those are a few thoughts as I see it. I hope you win the debate. Maybe a more skilled and knowledgeable debater with a more thorough knowledge and understanding of the law and one more honestly in disagreement with you could have done better but as it is I tried with what I had Thank you for bringing this topic up. If you are an advocate for transgender rights best wishes toward advancing the cause.