A Few Questions Regarding Transgender Restroom Policies
I am normally not a superstitious person. But when the communications director of my school district forwarded a joint e-mail from the Departments of Justice and Education on Friday the 13th of May to all teachers in the district, a feeling came over me that this was not going to be a good day. Since this story is now over a month old, I’m not going to comment on the order itself. While I am choosing not to comment, I do have some questions that are worth asking and discussing.
First, why was the order given to just public high schools and not to public colleges that also receive federal funding? I thought that colleges, which strive to be more politically correct, would be more accepting of this policy than high schools where a higher percentage of students still live at home with a parent or guardian who is more likely to object to this policy. Then I realized that this administration that has thumbed its nose at the Constitution and the political left have many agendas they are constantly trying to advance. In the college setting, the agenda is to advance a rape culture on campuses across the nation, and allowing transgender men into women’s restrooms and locker rooms is, for now, a contradictory message. But don’t worry, you can expect the political left to push this agenda someday when it suits their evil purposes. The reason for this order to be put on high schools is the left has been quietly advancing the legalization of pedophilia. In their war against the one true God, they want to promote underage sexuality and they have displayed several examples to support this assertion. A follow up article written by a truly deviant water carrier at a North Carolina newspaper suggesting that high school girls get use to the presence of the male organ shows that the MSM is in lockstep with the political left’s condoning of sin. Also, at the beginning of the current administration, our new President created an office of Safe School Czar. Without confirmation from the Senate, a person was appointed who was a paid activist of the LGBT community. As a high school counselor, this person had suggested that an underage boy go back and learn from an older man who had accosted him at a bus station. Add to the fact that the political left has always been against abstinence education and you can see the agenda they are trying to advance. There are federal laws which state that porn sites must only use women who are 18 or above. Now our administration wants to violate this law by allowing any male, who identifies as a transgender for just a moment, to be in a room with our daughters during a vulnerable moment.
My second question is, how many women who identify as male will be entering male restrooms and locker rooms? In the month since this executive order was given and since a national retail company made the bad business decision of adapting this policy in their stores nationwide, I have heard hundreds of stories of predatory males putting on a dress or other feminine attire so they could violate women in a room that should be a place of sanctuary. I’m thankful that there are numerous credible news outlets that will report these stories that the MSM will not to advance and protect the agenda. However, as a public high school teacher and as a senior athlete who works out at a state university and competes at university facilities around the country at all levels, I have yet to hear of any female identifying as a male, or not, enter to the domain of a male restroom or locker room. If any such episodes have occurred, I invite people to enlighten me, but I would wager that these episodes pale in comparison to male violations.
My third question is, did our current lawless administration consider that there are predatory males who will look for any opportunity to violate a woman’s privacy in area that should be restricted to their gender? This was already an established problem around the country with many prosecutions of men who violated laws that protected women while in these locations. It is apparent the administration did not care to protect women when they are out in public. I would have expected this from our 42nd president. Again, which party is really at war with women?
My fourth question is, where was the demand for this policy? When the Supreme Court decided on Lawrence v. Texas, a justice wrote in the minority opinion that this would embolden the gay political movement to advocate for same-sex marriage. Since that was written in 2003 a battle of just over 10 years ensued where this fight was taken to the state court system or to state ballots. While the issue was often defeated at the ballot box, the political left and their ungodly allies would find a state judge who would overthrow the will of the people or their elected state legislature. The battle ensued until a small majority of the Supreme Court violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution just last year. But there was a long concerted effort in the fight for this issue. I don’t recall any battle in the nation fighting for transgenders to enter the restroom of their choice.
My fifth and final question is to every voter who voted for our present chief executive in 2008 & 2012. If he stated he would take this action as a candidate, would you have still voted for him?