There is no rational basis

In law, we have different levels of scrutiny that judges apply to analyze matters like constitutional rights. Simply put, laws of greater magnitude must make more sense. Those which are the most restrictive or impactful must pass the highest standard, “strict scrutiny”. At the very bottom of the scale is “rational basis”. The legal industry is very much rooted in plain language and that term “rational basis” means exactly what it plainly says. To pass this bottom rung you must merely present ANY rational basis for the law. It can't be that aliens have come, but it can be one that that makes logical sense even if we all kind of know there are other more controlling reasons at play. I bring all of this up in the context of Daily Wire and Twitter/Elon today. Really more about the gender issue and transactivism itself…

DW announced it would stream their movie “What Is A Woman?” live on Twitter tonight. Apparently, they signed an agreement to do it and Twitter seemed gung-ho… until they saw the movie and then suddenly backed out. You can go browse DW pages and read all about it, so I don't need to get in the details. Elon later announced (kind of oddly and qualified) that it was a mistake/confusion and yes they could run it. So I went to watch it at 8 and this happened:

What I wrote to Elon in response to the above (not that I wrote it thinking he'd read it) was to ask why a man being referred to as a man (“misgendering”) is risen to some higher level of protection than me being called a white supremacist or bigot or fascist or grandma killer, and this stuff covers the platform. What is the rational basis?

I ask that even for forced or coerced pronouns more generally. What is the rational basis for why they are given higher protection? It's because someone with gender dysphoria (or as we more frequently have now in this Queer+ activism, people LARPing to be in the club - or really to escape not being in the outcast club which is white straight males and Christians) might have their feelings hurt if someone says they are a boy and they are a boy but they want to be told they are a girl instead? What?!? It doesn't even make sense when I write it. I don't care that the effeminate boy wants people to believe he's a girl or the masculine girl wants to act like a boy and take on a male name. I mean, you do you; if that's your carpe diem, have at it! But surely people not agreeing to go along with this charade does not warrant legal protection or soft-glove treatment in discourse by censoring.

It makes zero sense. Why are their feelings elevated in importance? It crushes people when they are called ugly when they think they're attractive. Many men suffer from Napolean Complex and are sensitive AF to being called short (I got attacked by one once at a bar, great story!). So what? Tough shit. Those people have to learn to deal with such criticism in life. And they know that. You don't hear short people calling for the censorship of films. So why is this one type of identity (this one form of confusion) uniquely treated?

Returning to those legal standards, to throttle speech should have to pass the highest of scrutiny. You should have to show a very compelling reason and why alternatives are not sufficient. Forced speech should fail all forms of review; it should never be allowed in any domain. And yet, here we are. My wife and mother-in-law who are devout Catholics can obtain no such relief when their faith is mocked or ridiculed on a film. Hell, the Dodgers just invited men who cross-dress as devils in nun outfits and openly satire Christianity back to their “Pride Night”. But if little Johnny over here wants to be Jenny, or the big fat hairy uncleanly slob of a young man at the gaming store wants to be called “they/them”, this one form of emotional sensitivity is anointed and blessed with protection? The kicker is that the sensitivity is based on something objectively false. A man is a man. A woman is a woman. No one is a ze or xer or zem. I don't have to play along with your fantasies nor accomodate your mental-health disorders. This notion (this dogma) cannot even pass rational basis. There isn't even a logical argument in support which doesn't require me to subscribe to the dogma itself. And yet this is being codified right before our eyes. Team Biden is adding gender ideology to Title IX. Men will be able to assert rights under federal law AS WOMEN by just claiming to be one. It's simply staggering.