News
Featured Image
Bathroom doorsShutterstock

AUSTIN, Texas (LifeSiteNews) – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is taking the Biden administration to court over an “unlawful” federal mandate which seeks to force businesses to concede on the use of sex-based bathrooms, dress codes, and pronouns as subjectively determined by employees, regardless of their actual sex. 

On September 20, Paxton filed a lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), its chairwoman Charlotte Burrows, and U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, petitioning the Northern District of Texas federal court for “declaratory and injunctive relief” from Burrows’ June 15 guidance. 

The guidance document outlined a requirement for employers “to allow exceptions from their generally applicable workplace policies on usage of bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers … dress codes, and pronoun usage, based on the subjective gender identities of their employees,” according to the lawsuit. 

In contrast, Paxton’s office released a statement declaring that “States have the sovereign right to enact their own policies regarding things such as bathroom usage,” characterizing the move by the EEOC as “an extreme federal overreach by the federal government.” 

Paxton himself added that “States should be able to choose protection of privacy for their employers over subjective views of gender, and this illegal guidance puts many women and children at risk.” 

“If the Biden Administration thinks they can force states to comply with their political agenda, my office will fight against their radical attempt at social change. These backdoor attempts to force businesses, including the State of Texas, to align with their beliefs is unacceptable,” the Texas Attorney General said. 

 

The 19-page lawsuit contends that Burrows’ guidance “misstates the law” regarding her interpretation of employers’ obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “increasing the scope of liability for the State in its capacity as an employer.”  

Paxton wrote that “Burrows did not even have authority to issue” the ruling, given that “Texas and its constituent agencies, including the Texas Department of Agriculture … have the sovereign right to set their own policies on bathroom usage, dress codes, and pronoun usage within their workplaces.” 

“The June 15 Guidance is invalid on its face,” the lawsuit reads.  

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Support Texas Dad risking everything to save his son from being "transitioned" into a girl
  Show Petition Text
9485 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 10000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

In 2019, LifePetitions launched a similar petition on behalf of Jeff Younger (the father) and his son James, asking for support and for the Texas state authorities to intervene in a unbelievable case in which the Dallas courts keep flip-flopping over which parent has parental rights and, ultimately, whether or not James must be forced to live as a girl and suffer the trauma of so-called gender "transitioning," as his mom believes he is a girl.

Incredibly, we now seem to be back at square one.

Jeff Younger currently has a gag order put on him, which prohibits him to speak out in defense of his son. But, because he has recently decided to ignore that order, to save his son from irreversible surgery, this brave Dad now faces possible arrest.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which does two things: 1) Supports Jeff Younger (again, the Dad) in his fight to save his son, James, from so-called gender "transitioning;" and, 2) Calls on Texas' Attorney General to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Mr. Younger.

CLICK HERE to WATCH the latest LifeSite interview with Jeff Younger. Hear about the latest developments with his son, as well as the real dangers of gender reassignment surgery and other “transititioning” methods.

Currently, even though he shares 50/50 parental rights to James, which has allowed him to stop the chemical castration of his son, Jeff’s ex-wife recently sued to have full parental rights and to "give her sole medical and psychological decision making."

Jeff is also being threatened with jail time from the gag order, which he believes was intentionally done to stop him from helping pass legislation in Texas to ban sex-change surgeries for minors.

Jeff says that the gag order "prohibits me from speaking on all manner of political topics. And I’m not even allowed to tell you in that gag order whether my son’s a boy or girl."

But Jeff is speaking out, no matter what, because of the real danger that his son is in if he undergoes "transition" surgery.

Indeed, so-called gender "transitions" present many unsafe effects, some desired, some undesired, though all dangerous for one's physical and mental health.

Puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones have not been proven safe. For example, the FDA has NOT approved Lupron and GnRH analogues for use in blocking puberty.

Risks associated with these pharmaceuticals include: low bone density, high blood pressure, weight gain, abnormal glucose tolerance, breast cancer, liver disease, thrombosis, and cardiovascular disease.

And, additional risks and potential harms include: 

For Males: Stunting of penile and testicular growth, sexual dysfunction, prevention of spermatogenesis, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

For Females: A menopause-like state, blockade of normal breast development, decreased blood flow to vagina and vulva, sexual dysfunction, thinning of vaginal epithelium, vaginal atrophy, prevention of menses/ovulation, and disruption of normal brain and bone development.

In other words, these medications can sterilize and cause medical harm to vulnerable, confused children.

And, the stunning part about this: studies show that 85% of gender confused children eventually become comfortable with the sex of their bodies.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which supports Jeff Younger, a Texas Dad, who is fighting to prevent his son, James, from being "turned into a girl." At the same time, we appeal to Texas State Attorney General, to intervene in this case and quash the gag order against Jeff.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Save James: Father risks arrest to save 9-year-old son from forced gender-transition': https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/save-james-father-risks-arrest-to-save-9-year-old-son-from-forced-gender-transition

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mommy-says-im-a-girl-a-fathers-final-chance-to-save-his-son-comes-in-court-in-october

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/6-year-old-boy-forced-to-live-as-a-girl-while-mom-threatens-dad-for-not-goi

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE DANGERS OF PUSHING GENDER IDEOLOGY ON CHILDREN:

Many eminent psychiatrists are now speaking against the faulty notion that sex is fluid and a matter of choice. In particular, they are concerned about the welfare of children and young people in this regard.

Dr Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins University, who has researched the occurrence of gender dysphoria for 40 years, has stated that the notion of gender fluidity "is doing much damage to families, adolescents, and children and should be confronted as an opinion without biological foundation wherever it emerges". [See more below.]

And, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) is definite about the promotion of transgenderism as being harmful public policy:

"Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: 'XY' and 'XX' are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived, either male or female…Conditioning children into believing that a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents…” [Read more below.]

Here is what Dr Paul McHugh said on this topic: https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/johns-hopkins-psychiatrist-transgendered-men-dont-become-women-they-become

This is the ACP statement on Gender Ideology: http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

About the medical risks associated with medical interventions to attempt to change the sex of the body: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/01/59422/

About some of the unconscionable practices some medical professionals are engaged in:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/testosterone-being-given-to-8-y-o-girls-age-lowered-from-13-doctors.html

https://www.christianpost.com/news/parents-of-gender-confused-kids-demand-investigation-govt-funded-study-puberty-blockers.html

  Hide Petition Text

Owing to the recent Bostock vs. Clayton County (2020) decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that employers violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by firing staff on the basis of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” the EEOC determined that employers can be justifiably asked to accommodate gender-confused individuals’ wish to dress in accordance with, and be referred to by, their preferred sexual identity. 

Accordingly, Burrows’ guidance declared that “[p]rohibiting a transgender person from dressing or presenting consistent with that person’s gender identity would constitute sex discrimination,” “that employers may not deny an employee equal access to a bathroom, locker room, or shower that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity;” and that “use of pronouns or names that are inconsistent with an individual’s gender identity” can be considered harassment.  

But according to Paxton’s lawsuit, the Bostock decision applies much more narrowly than Burrows presumes. The suit noted that “Bostock explicitly disclaimed that it was deciding whether ‘sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes’ would violate Title VI,” and that the case did not address the question of pronouns. 

Quoting directly from Bostock, the suit explained that the court did not establish “a new or otherwise separate protected class,” but rather “‘proceed[ed] on the assumption that ‘sex’ . . . refer[s] only to biological distinctions between male and female,’ and did not include ‘norms concerning gender identity.’” 

 Paxton further argued that the guidance comprises a “substantive violation” of both the First Amendment and 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

Specifically, the lawsuit emphasizes that Americans’ First Amendment rights are infringed by the EEOC’s attempt to require employers and their employees to use an individual’s preferred pronouns “based on subjective gender identity rather than biological sex.” As such, the lawsuit claims that “the June 15 Guidance unconstitutionally compels and restrains speech.” 

Additionally, regarding the 11th Amendment, the lawsuit claims that the EEOC has violated states’ rights by bringing forceable action against Texas for its opposition to an “unlawful” decree such as the “transgender” mandate. 

Consequently, Paxton, on behalf of the State of Texas, requested that the court “[d]eclare that the June 15 Guidance is unlawful; [v]acate the June 15 Guidance; [i]ssue preliminary injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from enforcing or implementing the June 15 Guidance,” as well to “[a]ward Texas the costs of this action and reasonable attorney’s fees.” 

LifeSiteNews contacted the EEOC for a response to the claims made against them in Paxton’s lawsuit, but its spokesman declined to comment. 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.