Under the Obama administration, American citizens suffered through the “edict” that anyone who identified as a gender other than what their chromosomes and physical attributes defined could use public restroom facilities in accordance with their “gender identity.” This reverberated into the school system where boys could use the girls’ facilities and vice versa depending on their gender declaration, not biology. Now that Trump has rescinded that federal edict, returning it to the States and/or people where it belongs, left liberals, such as Mara Keisling, are fit to be tied.
Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, stated, “This is about, should students be allowed to go to school; should they be treated respectfully.” Speaking to C-SPAN on Friday morning, Mara, or as it was born “Mark,” stated the controversy is not about restrooms at all.
If you watch the video at the source article linked above, one can watch “Mark” explain the position he holds.
“Locker rooms are part of being in school for many students and not for many other students; but, again, it’s not just the opportunity to scare people about trans-students. These are kids for gosh sakes. I don’t know what people think goes on in locker rooms but nobody likes to be naked in locker rooms. Nobody likes to … uh…. it’s just a red herring. It’s .. uh, this is about should students be allowed to go to school; should they be treated responsibly… I mean, respectfully.”
“Mark” hits the nail on the head against its own argument. “Nobody likes to be naked in locker rooms….” This would include school children, especially those going through puberty and experiencing body image issues, in female as well as male facilities. It’s even accurate when talking about adults. But, I digress. Despite recognizing this issue of a right to privacy, “Mark” still wants to mix boys and girls together if an individual student identifies as a gender in opposition to his/her biology. It is not about whether or not these types of students be allowed to go to school or being treated with respect. This is about ensuring the individual God-given unalienable right to privacy contained in the Ninth Amendment. Whether “Mark” wants to believe it or not, a student who is confused about their gender does not have the right to violate others’ rights. Moreover, no one has ever said that students experiencing confusion about their gender posed a “threat” to other students, with threat being defined as physical, mental, or emotional violation of another student.
“Schools since the 60s have tried to accommodate all kinds of students. You know we started with racial differences, then we went to physical ability differences and learning differences, and schools know, there’s lots of different kids now, and they try to make accommodations.”
Comparing the accommodation of students confused about their gender to civil rights movements is ludicrous. What accommodations had to be made for “racial differences?” Are we to garner from this statement that non-white individuals need accommodations to attend school? Are we to assume that white individuals need accommodations to attend school? To say that any individual needs “accommodation” based on racial difference is in itself racist. There is no way that allowing individuals who are gender confused to access the facilities of the opposite gender equals the civil rights movement.
In speaking to physical ability differences, yes, accommodations were made in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act to allow equal access for those individuals, which should have been done without any federal legislative interference. And, yes, school districts made accommodations for those with learning disabilities/differences in accordance with, again, federal legislative interference, which should not have had to be done from the federal legislative arm. Just as with the civil rights movement, these accommodation are in no way similar to allowing boys to access girls’ facilities and vice versa.
And, please, for the love of education, someone identify the “lots of different kids now” that were not present before. The “differences” among kids have been present all along. Those differences, however, were not brought to the forefront of society for political manipulation until now. “Mark” needs to explain how students of different genders sharing a locker room, based on mental confusion over gender, compares to the racial, physical disability and learning disability accommodations that occurred, which did not violate any other students’ individual God-given unalienable rights, but affirmed those rights regardless of race, physical ability or learning capacity.
“And now, almost every school in the country has trans kids in it. And I don’t think most Americans understand that, but there are hundreds of thousands of trans kids. And the only accommodation people have to make is putting aside their prejudices. Don’t say, ‘I am prejudiced, therefore, I believe my child is at risk. Your child is not at risk from a transgendered child. You are projecting your personal feelings on that. And, I know its going to just anger a lot of people. I don’t want to tell people ever, ever how to be parents, but don’t put your stuff on other people’s kids.”
Hundreds of thousands of trans kid across the republic, if that is accurate, versus millions of school children across the republic signals that gender confused children are a minority. Yet, “Mark” advocates for violation of the rights of millions of school children for a hundred thousand. One can think one is a gorilla, a baboon, a dog or a cat; however, chromosomes determine gender and species and those cannot be changed no matter what one thinks or how much one mutilates one’s body through surgery. And, whether “Mark” wants to acknowledge it or not, this has nothing to do with prejudice. It has to do with protecting the individual God-given right to privacy.
No one has claimed their child was “at risk from a transgendered child.” What those opposed to the issue of transgendered children sharing locker room and restroom facilities with those of the opposite gender have stated on multiple occasions is violation of the expectation of privacy from those of the opposite gender viewing individuals in various states and acts that are considered private. Interesting that “Mark” would not even touch on the issue of privacy; but, quickly jumped to call any opposition prejudiced.
And, yes, “Mark” is telling people how to parent by essentially stating, “If you don’t believe what I believe or support what I support, you are prejudiced and placing your prejudice on other people’s kids.” Moreover, “Mark” is negating the opposition of children who are not gender confused in sharing facilities with the opposite gender. When parents hear from their children the opposition to this, parents exercise their parental responsibility to advocate for the rights of their children and to keep their children safe, not from a threat posed by gender confused children, but, the innocence of their child from introduction to adult and political themes before the mental capacity to reconcile those are developed thoroughly.
According to CNSnews.com, “Mark” claimed “transgender people have been using the appropriate bathroom for years, until some conservative politicians in North Carolina ‘decided to make some political hay out of this’.”
It is probably true that gender confused individuals have been using the facilities in line with their mental gender identity. However, no one may have noticed due to the total embrace of that confusion resulting in the inability to be considered either male or female. But, this is more than likely concerning facilities outside schools. What has been seen in the media is individuals, school age children, who claim to be “transgender” but still maintain their appearance of their biological gender, advocating to use facilities in line with their mental gender confusion. The question remains — how to you distinguish between gender confused individuals and those individuals who want access to the opposite gender facilities to engage in voyeurism?
When I was in school, several boys would discuss, openly mind you, how to sneak into the girls locker rooms to “take a look” in hopes of seeing naked girls, often one in particular. Surely, boys have not changed so much that they do not contemplate doing this today. By instituting a policy to allow gender confused individuals to use the facilities of the opposite sex, it would open the door for boys seeking to “peep” a legitimate opportunity to access female facilities. The same goes for girls, as some girls, when I was in school, also talked about sneaking into the boys locker room to get a look-see at the jocks they coveted.
The public has already seen how this has played out in environments outside the school system. Yet, “Mark” does not address this; nor does anyone in the lamestream enemedia. And, the public has been witness to this situation in some school systems where an alternative was offered to the gender confused child, but that alternative was rejected. Granted, the alternative was a private area removed from the rest of the children; but, the schools were attempting to protect the right of privacy of students, which resulted in that alternative being blasted by these “transgender” activists.
Moreover, some view this as a violation of their religious beliefs concerning lascivious behavior. How is it that gender confused individuals accessing a facility in opposition to their biological gender transfer into a right that trumps religious rights? How does it transfer to a right at all? And, how is it that centuries and thousands of year of societal practice is now abnormal since the inauguration of one Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah?
It amounts to saying peeping toms have a “right” to engage in voyeurism. It amounts to saying one has a right to post naked photos of others on the internet. Both of these examples violates another individual’s right to privacy. And, yes, there can be a certain expectation of privacy in locker rooms and restroom facilities, not to mention the expectation of some amount of security in the public arena.
Unfortunately, this is one of those issues one can lay at the feet of the previous “rule” by the sodomite and his male “first lady.” And, it is the perfect example of why the framers did not include education or the school system as an enumerated power of the Congress or the executive in the Constitution. It is another reason for dismantling the unconstitutional federal Department of Education, returning the authority to the States or the people, respectively, as indicated in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution for the united States of America.