Search Box

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Best proof yet of society's insanity

The US Department Education's Office of Civil Rights has ordered the Palatine Illinois Township School District to allow a boy who identified as a girl to shower with the girls. Even after the Illinois school district relented and said it would be okay, but that the student should stay in a curtained off part of the girl's locker room, the Justice Department called this discrimination, and insisted he be allowed to shower in the communal area.

Strangely, this was all done in the name of Title IX, which was formulated to prevent discrimination against girls.

Is this fair to the girls?

Men who put cameras in women's locker rooms get sent to jail. But, if they want to be there themselves, that's evidently okay.

For decades now we've had the feminists tell us that men who stared at (clothed) women the wrong way are guilty of sexual harassment. That men who comment about women's looks are guilty of the same. And generally, that men who make women uncomfortable in any way are pigs.

But now the Obama administration -- which has done its best to promote the lie that one in five college women is sexually assaulted -- is forcing girls to parade around naked in front of a biological male.

I can't wait for the feminists to weigh in on this controversy.

What is to prevent a heterosexual guy from growing his hair long, claiming to identify with girls, and taking advantage of this policy? What would the girls have to say about this?

"I feel really uncomfortable with Mike, or Michelle as we're supposed to call him, staring at us all the time. I just put my clothes on as fast as I can."

"The thing is, if he says he's a girl, why does he have an erection, or at least half an erection, bobbing around all the time?"

"I was sort of creeped out when Michelle said we should get together for some hot girl on girl action sometime."

"Michelle spends forever in there changing. He's always taking his time tying and then 'accidentally' untying his shoelaces while looking up at our crotches."

"Why is he always offering to wash my back for me? I've never needed anyone to do that."

Granted, boys who actually think of themselves as girls have little interest in seeing naked females. And very few normal guys would actually go to the trouble of pretending to be transgender in order to gain access to the girl's locker room. But, all it would take would be one or two to turn this controversy on its head.

However, this kind of trespass could prove difficult to prosecute. After all, who's to say what's really going on inside someone's head? What exactly would the charge be? And, at least in high school, any prosecution would likely be of a minor anyway.

But this will undoubtedly spread beyond the high schools. In March of this year there was a report of a Planet Fitness revoking a woman's membership after she complained of a man in the women's locker room.

And what do we makeof those men who are transvestites but still heterosexual? This is a not uncommon sexual category. They'll potentially be in hog heaven under this new system. Will the government now get involved in determining who is merely a transvestite and who is a legitimate transgender?

And why have there been no cases of female-to-male transgenders wanting to use the men's locker room?

The simplest -- and fairest -- solution would be to make individual locker rooms available for those who, for whatever reason, want to change in privacy. Unfortunately, that wouldn't repeal biology enough to suit the Obama administration.


Anonymous said...

The liberals are at it again, imposing their will upon the American people.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
Some liberal/conservative arguments are arguable, i.e., tax rates and so on, but this one doesn't even seem to be that.

Anonymous said...

I've come to the conclusion that there are plenty of disordered people in governmental positions (from the top on down) who are running the country, some of them being certifiably loony. If I were a parent of a girl who had the boy in her class (and I could feasibly do so), I would consider homeschooling my daughter, but that's just me.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
I've never quite gotten home schooling, to tell the truth. It's an incredible amount of work for a parent to take on. And it means the child misses out on normal social interaction with other kids his or her age. But, given the situation described above, I understand how you feel.

Anonymous said...

There are homeschooling communities, so a home-schooled child doesn't necessarily lack when it comes to socializing with other kids his/her age. I have a friend who's high school aged daughter (she has anxiety issues) goes to the local high school in the morning and then spends her afternoons being home-schooled (she takes online classes). If my child were in a predominantly black public school (this was the case with my oldest child - he spent kindergarten in a predominantly black classroom. However, the next year, he attended a private school, spending first grade in a predominantly white classroom), homeschooling would be an avenue to consider.


Shaun F said...

Wow. A real case of the lunatics running the asylum. I guess in effect that's what one finds in Government. Sigh.....

Tompall said...

Of course, the solution will be the end of PE classes in school, along with lots of private, one commode bathrooms.

My sister teaches high school and tells me that the number of kids who get doctors to certify they are not medically OK for gym class is skyrocketing, even though the kids are perfectly normal looking.

John Craig said...

Tompall --
I wonder if part of the motivation of raids to skip gym class is so that they can save their energy for their primary sports. You'd think that if the kid does a sport it would be harder to get that medical "certification," but doctors are basically businessmen and will generally go along with an agenda as long as they're paid. As far as the motivation, It can't be the transgender issue since that's still quite rare.

Anonymous said...

Your misapprehension is laid bare by this line:

"Strangely, this was all done in the name of Title IX, which was formulated to prevent discrimination against girls."

There's nothing strange about it.

Title IX was a vehicle through which racial, sexual and all manner of privileges for specially-classed groups was codified de jure and de facto - from Affirmative action to the repeal of Free association for lower-class groups (well, one group anyway).

So was it conceived.

So was it enforced.

So will it continue to be.

Nobody had any illusions about what "Civil Rights", "Title IX" and "I Have a Dream" meant. And if you claim to, you're either lying or stupid.

Title IX is not a natural and immutable "law" like Gravity. It is a scribbling (a 'totem' more like it) written by despots for barbarians - the fact that anyone self-identifies as one of them is amusing - possibly even tragic at times. In reality, a "law" written by despots and interpreted by barbarians means whatever they choose it to mean.

This is why it is known among Men that guns in hand (actually, the human will and material means to fight) safeguard the rights of Men - not a 200 year-old piece of parchment, however sacred its inscriptions.

Hence, the reality of Title IX, not some pretentious "interpretation" as its adherents see it; from societal decay to the breakdown of institutions in the name of elevating priveleged groups. (The word "Gravity" can mean whatever barbarians choose it to mean, but they're still going to fall at ~9.81 m/s^2 from sea level)

Title IX mandates that the academic scores of Blacks must be raised/inflated, and that the scores of Whites be lowered/deflated - protests to the contrary (also known as "lies") notwithstanding.

Nobody cares what you say "Title IX" is "supposed" to do, including the Almighty God that some call "consequences".

In the same way that giving blacks schools, houses, and cities they neither built nor paid for ("integration"), so it is that whites must move out of their neighborhoods or face crime, murder, and censure.

This is what happened. Nobody cares what you say "should" have happened.

"Justified homicide" in any legal paradigm and as it applies to Title IX is the ultimate enforcement. The lesser enforcements of fines, litigation, denial of permissions/license to operate a business, etc, are often more prevalent, of course.

Prosecute blacks who gang-raped a white?

That violates Title IX as too many blacks are being unecessarily arrested.

Refuse to recruit blacks too dumb to change out superheterodyne amplifiers in the military?

That violates Title IX as too many whites are given "privileged" billets for demanding jobs in the Military.

Don't want to sell your house to a black with a criminal record and condemn your neighbor to lower property values?

That violates Title IX as too many blacks deserve homes that Whites build, furnish and maintain.

"But Wait!"

"What happened to establishing a case of 'Actus reus', let alone a case of 'Mens Rea'?"

"What happened to establishing a case of 'Causality'?"

"What happened to Law on an evidentiary basis?"

"F*ck that! What happened to the Rule of Law, period?"

If a person is asking this line of seemingly "reasonable" but inane questions because he thinks Title IX was meant to fight "discrimination" (whatever that means), then that person is either a fool or a charlatan. Neither deserves respect nor "fair hearing", merely a bullet to the head. Because of course, a motivated fool is a threat to himself and to those around him, while an enabled charlatan is a malignancy that must be excised.

Terrekain said...

"Best proof yet of society's insanity"

It's perfectly sane.

You're either clueless, or you're in on the scam.

John Craig said...

Anon --
I agree with you in spirit, but Title IX was really mostly about females in sports, and that's what it's been used for. The other things you're referring to have more to do with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme court decision on disparate impact. As far as how all of these things are being abused to stand justice on its head, you're absolutely right.

Technomad said...

Transsexuals do not belong in locker rooms. Nor do they belong in public restrooms. If they belong anywhere other than in Hell for all eternity, the place I would suggest is Arkham Asylum.

Anonymous said...

OK, confession time - I am a female-born transsexual who has spent nearly 10 years living 'stealth' as a man (I was trans before the SJWs thought it was cool). I use the men's facilities all the time and no one ever objects. Why would they object to a muscular, bearded person peeing through a penis at the urinal? I doubt the ladies would be too happy to see my dick or pectorals if I tried showering next to them.

But my case is different to this. Of course it isn't fair for a gender-dysphoric child to share facilities with the opposite biological sex. There are many ways to improve a trans child's life - let him/her have puberty blockers, access to hormones after 18, and surgery after 21. Punish other kids who bully them and give them access to counselling, if necessary. But there's no need to allow access to girl's showers whilst the child is still physically male, for the reasons you state. It wouldn't cost too much to build a separate, single-stall room that the child (and anyone else) could use. Most buildings have single-stall toilets for disabled people: that's what I used to use before physical transition.

Trans folk are forever under attack from people accusing us of trying to infringe on their rights/privacy. We don't want to hurt anyone: all we want is to feel comfortable in our own bodies. Most trans people prefer the idea of single-stalled facilities* because then we're guaranteed not to be yelled at or, worse, attacked (statistics^ show that trans people are more likely to be assaulted).



- Gethin

P.S. there are plenty of FTM transsexuals in men's locker rooms. You've seen them in there plenty of times, but don't notice because they look the same as everyone else in there (google Balian Buschbaum for an example of how 'normal' we look).

John Craig said...

Gethin --
Well that's a shock. Reading between the lines, I had gotten hints that you were somehow living on the fringes before (the way you described various friends and acquaintances), but I never would have guessed that you were a FTM. You're actually the exception to the high, narrow bell curve theory of female IQ's (you obviously had your high IQ before you transitioned) that you just mentioned in another comment.

Agreed, a separate stall/locker facility for gender dysphoric people would be best.

Just looked up Balian Buschbaum; yes, he looks good, and I'd never have guessed that he had been a female had I seen him in person, in the locker room or elsewhere. I'm sure that's true of other females with abnormally high testosterone levels as well. (If Martina Navratilova decided to transition now, she'd make a fairly normal-looking male as well. But I suspect that for every Balian Buschbaum, there are at least a couple Chaz Bonos. And I doubt that I've seen FTM's in the locker room "plenty of times," though I may have seen one or two and not noticed. (I've never been aware of any.)

Anyway, wow, difficult life, as you obviously know better than anyone. I have all sorts of nosy, small-minded questions I'll refrain from asking.