Has the sexual integration agenda in public accommodations gone far enough?
On September 23, 2013, in my blog titled the “Wacky West,” I wrote that the Democrat-led California legislature passed Assembly Bill 1266, which allows any student to participate in public school programs and to access facilities like bathrooms in public schools based on the student’s sexual orientation. In other words, if a young high school boy identifies as a girl, as of January 1, 2014, he can use the girl’s restroom, shower, and the like. Who cares what the little girls in the bathroom stalls or showers think about an anatomically male student using the same facility; who cares that those little girls may be mortified, scared or even attacked. The state legislature has turned tolerance on its ear and lost its mind, I wrote. This is not about whether you support transgender issues or not. This is about common sense.
(Privacy for All Students, dubbed the “Transphobic Coalition,” responsible for collecting more than the 504,760 signatures required to send the bill to public referendum, filed a lawsuit to have nearly 130,000 rejected referendum signatures validated in order for AB 1266 to be placed on the November ballot for repeal.)
It was thought by many in California opposed to AB 1266 that such an insane legislation would not quickly spread beyond California. We were wrong.
Now, this insanity has reached the bathrooms of our federal government and the march to sexually integrate private facilities is in full stride masked under the guise of “diversity.”
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management:
“For a transitioning employee, this means that, once he or she has begun living and working full-time in the gender that reflects his or her gender identity, agencies should allow access to restrooms and (if provided to other employees) locker room facilities consistent with his or her gender identity. While a reasonable temporary compromise may be appropriate in some circumstances, transitioning employees should not be required to have undergone or to provide proof of any particular medical procedure (including gender reassignment surgery) in order to have access to facilities designated for use by a particular gender.”
For emphasis, I restate: “transitioning employees should not be required to have undergone or to provide proof of any particular medical procedure (including gender reassignment surgery) in order to have access to facilities designated for use by a particular gender.” In other words, all that is required is to say, “I am a man that is becoming a woman,” therefore, “let me in that woman’s locker room.” Really?
According to the Williams Institute, in 2011 the transgender community accounted for .30% of the entire U.S. population. So the concerted effort to accommodate those trapped in a very difficult transition of gender reassignment completely ignores the privacy of the other 99.7% of our nation. There are better ways to provide reasonable accommodations for the small percentage of those who are undergoing gender reassignment; let’s explore better ways to protect those who are not changing their sexual identity before the march to sexually integrate all the walls that protect private facilities is too far gone to ever reconstruct.
Photo credit: Intel Free Press (Creative Commons) – Some Rights Reserved
Marc Little is the author of The Prodigal Republican: Faith and Politics. His web site is The Prodigal Republican.