The "Deer Test"
The "Deer Test"
Do legal ruling on "Trans-Rights" pass a simple test of logic?
I came across this clip of a little girl reasoning that if people can identify as deer, then we should be able to hunt them. It’s hilarious because it’s so absurd, and makes fun of the notion that people can choose their own identity. But upon further reflection, I think it’s genius…this girl just invented “The Deer Test”!
My initial reaction was to laugh as it reminded me of this parody article from World News Daily Report from a few years ago.
It’s such a ridiculous notion that it took a child’s mind to delve a little deeper into what’s going on here. But a little bit of critical thinking will prove that there’s essentially no difference between identifying as the opposite sex and identifying as a deer.
That clip alone wasn’t enough for me to come to this conclusion…incidentally I came across this article about a recent ruling that allows a trans-woman (biological man) to compete against biological females in USA Powerlifting.
You can see the court ruling here.
The court ruling that JayCee Cooper can participate as a woman is essentially based on the issue of “harm from separation and segregation” or basically discrimination:
“Cooper was discriminated against because of her sexual orientation and because of her sex.”
Small side note here. This ruling repeatedly cites a 2020 SCOTUS decision that was meant to basically extend civil rights legislation to cover the LGBTQ community. But that’s obviously not what it is being used for in this case. Thanks Neil Gorsuch…you walked right into that one!
So following this court decision, it is established that “identifying” as a woman is sufficient to qualify for the protections afforded by law against discrimination.
This means that under the law, this man is considered a woman. It doesn’t make sense to me but that’s what it means. You can’t be a man and be entitled to legal protections accorded to women.
So let’s look closer at what this legal decision establishes.
If law A is applicable only to a person B, and law A is applied to person C, then person C must be the same as a person B. In order for person C to legally become a person B, it was sufficient for person C to “identify” as a person B.
Therefore, a person’s right to “identify” as something else supersedes other considerations (like biology) under the law.
So if a person identifies as a deer, then by the court’s own logic that person is legally a deer. It might not be a biological deer, but that consideration obviously doesn’t matter.
Unfortunately deer do not have any particular rights and can be hunted during deer hunting season so it would not be illegal to shoot the deer that was born a biological human.
All I have done here is to take the court’s logic and apply it to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion such as the idea that you could legally hunt a human being.
That’s “The Deer Test” in a nutshell.
If the legal logic used by a court to adjudicate “Trans Rights” can lead to the legalized hunting of human beings then you have failed “The Deer Test”.
That little girl deserves a medal.
I always love seeing a Gummi post in my inbox!
"Sorry, officer, I identify as a foreign dignitary, therefore I have diplomatic immunity."
I imagine it's a scary time to be raising children.