America is a great place in many ways, but a big part of what makes it great is the structure of the country's government; that is, how it was set up and intended to operate, as a constitutional republic, with federalism as a key principle: A federalist system has a central, or federal, government, with limited powers, and regional governments that handle other aspects of governing; in our case, state, county and municipal governments. In the case of the United States, the state governments were, under the Constitution, originally intended to do most of the heavy lifting of governance, with the federal government only handling those things that affect the nation as a whole: international trade, the military, and so on.
The great thing about our system of federalism is this: If someone is unhappy with the state they live in, they have 49 others to choose from.
That's the intent, anyway; unfortunately, some people see fit to just defy their state's laws and policies instead. In one such case, a Florida couple, who saw fit to allow their first-grade son to "transition," is now in defiance of Florida's 2021 Fairness in Women's Sports Act by keeping their child on the Monarch High School girls' volleyball team. Now, they are crying that their "daughter" has had her high school experience ruined.
One might question who is ultimately responsible for that.
Jessica Norton said her daughter was thriving at Monarch High School in suburban Fort Lauderdale before an anonymous tipster notified a Broward County school board member in November that the 16-year-old was playing on the girls varsity volleyball team in apparent violation of state law. The 2021 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act bars students who were born male from participating in girls sports.
That November tip launched a school district investigation that has led to Norton facing the possible loss of her job as a computer information specialist at Monarch because she allowed her daughter to play. Investigators also said she didn’t, as part of her job, change the child’s gender on school records back to “male” from “female,” as required by district policy.
As usual, I have some questions.
Did the Nortons know about the law? The law that was passed by the Florida legislature and signed by the governor, per Florida's constitution? It bends credulity beyond recognition to claim that they did not, and in any case, as the saying goes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Assuming they knew about the law, why did they defy it? This entire incident arose from one thing: They continued to keep their child on the girl's team in defiance of state law and also refused to change the child's sex back to "male" on school records, as per district policy; a district that, it is important to note, is Mrs. Norton's employer. So, she faces dismissal for deliberately defying her employer's policies? What about that is unfair or unreasonable?
See Related: Biden's Justice Department Goes After Whistleblowers to Protect Illegal Texas 'Gender Affirming' Clinic
This Is the Way: Trump Vows to Cut Funding to Schools Pushing Trans or CRT Messaging
Here's the Nortons' justification for their defying state law:
Norton’s child began taking puberty blockers at age 11 and takes estrogen but has not had gender-affirming surgery. Such procedures are rarely done on minors.
Her parents say she often sat on the bench for Monarch’s volleyball team and has no athletic advantages from being born male. When investigators asked Cecil to describe the child, he said, “She looks like a girl to me. ... she seems very small, very skinny.”
You can read the 2021 Fairness in Women's Sports Act here. It's not a long read, it's not couched in an excess of lawyerly language; and most importantly, there is no exception to the law if a child is "very small, very skinny."
This isn't an unfair or onerous law. Just the opposite; it's a law to ensure fairness, to make sure girls are competing on even footing, with other girls. There are no judgment calls; there is no mechanism for a school to evaluate one kid — one kid who has been chemically castrated, I would add — and say, "Oh, that kid is skinny and weak, so, OK."
Look, the Nortons' financial situation is not known and honestly is none of our business, but unless they are beset on all sides by financial problems, it seems reasonable that they could have relocated to a state with different policies, like, say, Massachusetts or California. That would seem to have been a better option than defying their home state's laws. But these are people who allowed a first-grader to "transition," which, honestly, makes one wonder about their judgment in the first place.
