Locker Room Dilemma

The government of the United States of America expended a large measure of its dwindling credibility on insisting that an Illinois high school girls’ locker room accommodate a male.  The reason?  The male “identifies” as female.   His subjective identification with girls is thought to trump his DNA and his anatomy, and not just for himself, but for his entire school and school system.  (See, Mitch Smith and Monica Davey, U.S. Says Transgender Student Has Rights in the Locker Room, p. 1, New York Times, Nov. 3, 2015).

One Locker Room

Here’s a thought. From time immemorial it was believed that two locker rooms were enough.  One for boys, one for girls.  That’s discrimination, though, isn’t it?  Somewhere along the way we decided to discriminate between the sexes, requiring that they be separated for certain kinds of activities, like dressing and showering.

In this case, under pressure from transgender advocates, the school system tried to cater to the desires of a confused boy and his enabling advocates by providing a third locker room.  They were informed by our federal overseers that that wasn’t good enough, however.   They had moved in the wrong direction.  They had multiplied locker rooms beyond the two.   The boy (that is, his agenda-driven adult advocates) insisted there should only be two locker rooms, not three.

But wait.  That’s still discrimination, isn’t it?  Instead of discriminating between those who are boys vs. those who are girls by DNA and anatomy, it only means we’re to discriminate between those who are boys vs. those who are girls on the basis of their subjective sexual identity, instead.  That’s a redefinition of what “boy” and “girl” means, but it’s still discrimination between boys and girls.

If the problem is really discrimination, as your government maintains, the obvious solution is this:  just one locker room for everyone.  It’s the only non-discriminatory option.  What could go wrong?  (Cue parental laughter).

Eight Locker Rooms

If that doesn’t sit well for some odd reason, then we have to discriminate.  Here’s a kinder, gentler form of discrimination than what the benighted Illinois school district came up with.  With this solution, the boy in this situation is less likely to have his feelings hurt.  It would allow adolescent girls to avoid having to undress in front of persons who are male in DNA and anatomy — In case that matters to any of you throw-backs.

It will require eight locker rooms, however.  The possible number of sex identifications is two.  So far no one has dreamed up a new sex altogether, though inventing a new sex would be no weirder than what we have now.  If we stick with tired old conservative tradition and assume but two sexes, the possible number of sex-self-identifications is two:  male and female.  For each individual, there are three (again, so far) essential elements of sex identity.  Number one:  one’s self-identification.  Two:  one’s identification of attractive sex; that is, self- or opposite-sex.  Number three:  One’s physical, DNA-driven birth sex.  That’s three variables with two alternatives each; a total of 2-cubed combinations:  Eight.

Let’s have a locker room for each combination.  Problem solved.

Problem not solved

People seem to be irony-proof in today’s splotchy purple gender environment, so let’s switch to direct observation.  The point here is that if we were to consider the one-locker-room solution seriously, the immediate response (one hopes) would be an objection that girls should not have to undress in front of boys.  A moment’s consideration of a one-locker-room solution should tell us that it’s ridiculous.  But it’s ridiculous for the exact same reason as the government’s actual current position in the Illinois case:   Girls should not be expected to undress in front of persons who are boys by DNA and anatomy.

Don’t be misled.  This is the position of your United States government:  it mandates that boys (“transgendered,” but boys in DNA and anatomy) not be excluded from your daughter’s locker room, if she is in public school.  Please let this event be a mental marker for every new government expansion advancing a collapse in sex differentiation.  It’s not a neutral religion-free matter of equality or non-discrimination.  It is grotesque.  It is one forward step in a successively aggressive assault on our dignity as human beings.

Government-sponsored depravity usually proceeds in lapidary fashion:  tiny little incremental changes, so as not to alarm the bovine citizenry.  Once in a while the government and the secular wave of immorality lurches ahead a little too fast, and we raise our heads and get a glimpse of movement — the deliberate erosion of individual moral judgment.  This is one of those times.  But it’s only a matter of degree.  The more usual circumstance is that the assault occurs more gradually.  This locker room situation is laughable, but it won’t be in two or three years.  We’re expected to fold this into our new normal.  Remember that this is the official position of the federal government to which you pay your taxes, and which supposedly works for you.

Expect a modest roll-back, so that the next affront to your common sense and humanity will be a little less malodorous.  The next after that will be a relatively modest wavelet of cultural decline, designed to go relatively more unnoticed.  The end?  Who knows.  But it’s not about tolerance or equality or human flourishing.  It’s about sameness, and sameness in gutter deviancy.

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *