Who'da thunk any of the above events would ever occur? But now that the issues have come up, let's find out if there is any justification for them. Politicians proudly say we live by "rule of law." What law denies the physical difference of a man and a woman? It would be a whopper, perhaps a constitutional provision that defines the legal relation between citizens and their government.
Comparing the origin of two conflicting ideas can help explore and explain the particulars of each.
People universally think the 14th amendment grants them citizenship. The 14th amendment was proposed as a way to settle the citizenship issue in that nowhere in the Constitution was citizenship defined. This is a lawyer trick. The constitution is what makes up, or constitutes, the government formed by the people. It is like a recipe for a cake; a recipe describes the constitution of the cake. Nowhere in the recipe is the maker of the cake described; the maker of the cake and the government is the author of the recipe and the constitution, there is no reason to define the baker or citizen in those documents. A kind of citizenship or authority pre-existed the writing of the Constitution. There must have been some description of what that citizen was prior to the 14th amendment.
A review of who exactly these citizens were and the authority by which they acted was found in the case of Dred Scott vs. Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857). Governments here were set up by and for White people. They acted in this family capacity when they created the several States and then later the united States of America. The Preamble to the Constitution uses the word posterity, descendants of one people. Children received their natural rights as an inheritance from this separate people. Natural means no intervening or contradictory thing of man has interfered with their status under "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God."
Congress all along chafed against Constitutional restrictions. The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The ultimate power was possessed by We, the People. If Congress could alter or substitute for who We, the People were, then it could get around these restrictions. Whoever defines citizenship controls what it means.
Congress imposed only one of several solutions to the slavery issue. Finding the 13th amendment (prohibiting slavery) and the Civil Rights Act (setting up national civil rights) insufficient and threatened in judicial proceedings, Congress proposed the 14th amendment to define citizenship, enshrine national civil rights, make it a controlling factor of law and make it extremely difficult to un-root by future legislators.
Congress could not make citizens like the original White state citizens, who received their citizenship by racial inheritance, nor did Congress want any more like those, but instead made a peculiar class of persons via the 14th amendment. Notice the word person has been substituted for people. The word rights is not mentioned but only privileges and immunities. Congress used the words subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States) and used the word reside which is only a transitory presence within a state. Congress intended to make a body politic which contrasts with that of the Preamble. Even though no outright denial of gender is made, the principle of contrived personhood makes everyone a uniform legal entity, regardless of sex, contrary to the natural order of man, woman and posterity found in the Preamble.
Courts include corporations as persons in the 14th amendment. What sex orientation is a corporation? Male? Female? Undefined? Prior to your attachment to the 14th amendment, the Preamble recognized you as one of the posterity which means male and female produced offspring, progeny to become the future inheritor citizens of the nation. By the 14th amendment, gender and legal status are unrelated.
Why can males compete against females in sports? There is only one kind of status in the 14th amendment, a person here is a legal contrivance. The only way corporations and what you think are people can be the same is if people are viewed as corporate entities, not the other way around. Corporations are not people, corporations are persons, persons are corporations. Prior to your attachment to the 14th amendment, your biological sex, gender and legal status were all the same thing, a male was a man and a female was a woman (womb-man). Now it’s not a matter of biological sex in sports but rather a legal status in sports; there is no relation of sex and gender. Man, woman or corporation, a person is a person is a person under the 14th amendment.
Some men identify as women and some women identify as men. More accurately, some sexes identify as gender neutral; this is the correct understanding of a person in law under the 14th amendment.
Argument is made that children have not yet reached the age of reason sufficient to make any sex-altering decision so this practice must be prohibited. But the basis for assiging any sex to the newly born is lacking in the 14th amendment so age, reason and informed consent are irrelevant. Sex alteration must proceed. Age or reasoning ability in the case of smoking, drinking, getting a tattoo, etc. is a different issue.
Perhaps the public should examine the legal concepts of natural Citizenship under the Preamble as compared to the legal contrivance of persons subject to the 14th amendment. This is also not the only problem the public has by its ignorance of other changes made to the Constitution for the U.S.A. and the Constitutions of the several States.
An incomplete understanding is no understanding.
A person according to the 14th amendment is a uniform legal entity, irregardless of living existence and irregardless of sex or gender. This contrasts with people according to the Preamble to the Constitution for the U.S.A. wherein posterity requires a man and woman to be recognized in that capacity to produce offspring, progeny, posterity, so the authority and purpose of that document continues in existence. Government's purpose was to recognize men and women in that capacity so the legitimacy and continuance of that government would continue. When the 14th amendment was supposedly proposed and ratified, and people accepted it and enrolled in programs pursuant to it, government's new role is to promote gender confusion, the fusion of man, woman and child into a genderless form. Without the supposed authority of the 14th amendment, according to the Preamble, government officials would be pulling the rug out from under their authority to exist if they promoted uniform gender identity.