by Patricia L. Dickson 11/6/15
The two transgender bathroom cases in the news this week brought out the usual proponents and opponents on the issue. The fallout from the outcomes of both cases reveals that the transgender advocates and their liberal cohorts expect opponents to disregard biology, throw caution to the wind, and play a game filled with unspoken assumptions.
In the first case, the Department of Education ruled that an Illinois school district discriminated against a transgender male student by not allowing him access to the female bathrooms and locker rooms. The government went so far as to order the Palatine-based Township High School District 211 to give this male student full access to girls’ locker rooms in the next month or lose federal funding.
One would think that any sane adult would see the danger in allowing a teenage boy to shower in a locker room with girls. However, the transgender advocates would have us assume that because this young boy claims that he is really a girl even though he is equipped with his God-given penis, he would not be aroused by the sight of naked teenage girls. Therefore, he could not possibly pose any threat to the girls.
Chris Cuomo had the following exchange about this case with his cohost Michaela Pereira on CNN:
MICHAELA PEREIRA: Issues of identity are so important. It’s so frustrating to me when people forget to talk to the student, the individual, about their own identity and how they identify, and keep them as part of the process instead of making sort of the, you know, “We can’t do this, we have to protect other people.” What about this person’s identity? it’s so important.
CHRIS CUOMO: It’s true, but it’s the identity at the risk of other kids’ privacy and safety. So you have parents who say-
PEREIRA: Why is safety an issue?
Just let that sink in. Are liberals so steeped in their ideology or so agenda-driven that they cannot see the danger in allowing boys in girls’ locker rooms?
The second case was Houston’s so-called Equal Rights Ordinance, also known as HERO. First of all, there was no need for this law to begin with. Everything that this law purports to protect is already protected in the federal Civil Rights Act. The only thing that is not covered in the federal equal rights act is allowing transgender people access to bathrooms of the opposite sex that they claim to identify with. Supporters of this law, including Mayor Annise Parker, tried to downplay the bathroom issue by focusing on what they called a broader law that protects against the discrimination of the specified groups covered in the ordinance. However, the citizens of Houston did not buy it and saw right through their attempts to slip their true agenda into law. Therefore, they voted it down.
Transgender advocates along with the liberal media fell back on the same tactics that they always use when they do not get their way. They call anyone who opposes their agenda a bigot. Never mind that the people of Houston voted for this lesbian mayor three times. Liberal writer Mark Joseph Stern wrote a scathing article in Slate alleging that people voted against HERO due to transphobia.
As soon as HERO’s fate was clear, many LGBTQ activists declared that it lost because of “hate.” I don’t think that’s quite right. To be sure, the campaign against HERO was infected with an astonishing amount of anti-trans obloquy and vitriol. But I suspect most people who voted against the ordinance did so not out of hate, but out of fear.
The fact that the Illinois school district and the parents fought back along with the citizens of Houston voting against HERO (the bathroom law) has restored some of my faith in American citizens. Maybe we can wrest the country out of the grip of liberal lunatics.
Patricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email