It would appear some people have had enough of the LGBQXYCRAZYNUTS agenda:
A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city’s lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters repealed ((by a two-to-one margin… — Jemison)) an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.
The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded, following a lengthy court fight, in putting the matter to a referendum.
Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents said the measure would allow men claiming to be women to enter women’s bathrooms and inflict harm, and that simple message — “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms” — was plastered on signs and emphasized in television and radio ads, turning the debate from one about equal rights to one about protecting women and girls from sexual predators.
A school district near Chicago, Palatine 211, provides numerous accommodations for transgender students. The district calls the students by requested names, honors selected gender (including allowing them to play on the sports teams of the gender they identify as belonging to), and permits them to use single-sex bathrooms, since stalls ensure privacy.
But the federal government has decided that the district is still guilty of violating Title IX, the law prohibiting sex-based discrimination, over certain locker room restrictions.
“District 211 is not excluding transgender students from their gender-identified locker room,” said district superintendent Daniel Cates in a statement. “Though our position has been inaccurately reported, a transgender student may use his or her gender-identified locker room simply by utilizing individual measures of privacy when changing clothes or taking showers.”
That’s unacceptable to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights…
In short, the Federal government won’t be happy until the school allows a very confused boy to be in a complete state of undress around similarly unclad girls without any privacy barriers involved.
If parents were doing this, we’d call it child abuse!
Since this is allegedly about ‘equal rights,’ why do the rights of teenage girls not to have to be around naked boys never come into this? I don’t care what “it” thinks it is, biology is biology (“you don’t want to be anti-science, do you?!”), and no amount even of cosmetic mutilation will remove that pesky Y chromosome. To borrow a phrase from our opponents, this law HAD to be overturned, “for the children.”
Two conclusions should be obvious from this:
- Leaving your kids in public, federally funded schools is now tantamount to parental malpractice (as the Instapundit has been saying for some time now). GET THEM OUT — NOW.
- The Federal Government is not only NOT representative of the people’s worldview and wishes, it is actively hostile to it… and should be delegitimized accordingly.
It would literally be a hell of a thing if the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back and winds up getting States and localities to actively resist federal power is the drive to defend daughters from indecent exposure at schools.
Then again, defending the virtue and honor of women (who themselves are willing to remain honorable and virtuous) has long been a hallmark of civilization… so maybe ours isn’t quite dead just yet. If nothing else, the escalation of nihilistic and barbaric behavior over the past couple decades is finally starting to generate a response. Let’s just hope and pray it isn’t too late.