It’s like Jerry Seinfeld’s “Soup Nazi,” shouting, “No soup for you,” at those who violated the restaurateur’s rules for ordering.
But in this instance, it’s the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shouting at public and private schools, camps, food pantries, and children’s residential homes – any organization that receives federal money for food programs.
“No school lunch program for you!” – unless you abide by our new policies privileging “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”
The USDA and Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) announced that it was redefining sex-based discrimination, in all its federal programs, to include these two broad, unscientific, ill-defined, subjective terms.
Where “sex discrimination” used to mean discrimination against someone because they were male or female, the USDA now includes discrimination on the basis of changeable characteristics like sexual identity, thoughts, feelings or actions.
“As a result [of this redefinition],” the announcement said, “state and local agencies, program operators and sponsors that receive funds from FNS must investigate allegations of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.”
“Those organizations must also update their non-discrimination policies and signage to include prohibitions against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation,” the USDA and FNS added.
Here’s what this means:
- Public, private and religious schools across the country take part in the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program. These schools must all develop policies that treat “transgender”-identified students as the opposite sex or as whatever “gender” they claim to be.
- Public and non-profit – including religious – residential childcare institutions also participate in these programs. If they refuse to hire a homosexual- or transgender-identified staff member, they could lose funding, even if this hiring would violate their religious beliefs.
- Residential summer camps or homes for children that participate in the Summer Food Service Program for Children must create policies affirming “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” – even if they are run by Christian organizations.
- Religious organizations sometimes work with the FNS to distribute food to senior citizens through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. They must bend to these policies.
- All the above-mentioned schools and organizations – and more, as the FNS runs 15 different “nutrition assistance programs” – must allow men who claim to be women into women’s restrooms, locker rooms and changing rooms.
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said in the announcement:
USDA is committed to administering all its programs with equity and fairness, and serving those in need with the highest dignity. A key step in advancing these principles is rooting out discrimination in any form – including discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity,”
But who is experiencing this discrimination? Vilsack did not cite any examples.
Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Deputy Under Secretary Stacy Dean said,
Whether you are grocery shopping, standing in line at the school cafeteria, or picking up food from a food bank, you should be able to do so without fear of discrimination. No one should be denied access to nutritious food simply because of who they are or how they identify.
But is this happening? The agency did not point to a single child or adult who was denied school lunches, breakfasts or supplemental food based on their sexual identity.
What store is turning away customers with money from the FNS’ Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? What child was denied access to the School Breakfast Program because of their “identity”?
The USDA pointed to President Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s problematic ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County as the basis for its decision.
The executive order directed every government agency to develop policies that included “gender identity or sexual orientation” in their sex discrimination policies. Bostock added these two terms to sex discrimination in employment.
What we’re seeing is the ripple effects, as the executive order is implemented in each agency, and as the Bostock decision is broadened beyond its original intent.
Disagree with this ideology? Then no school lunch or breakfast programs for you.
Related articles and resources:
Photo from Shutterstock.