Illinois School Board to Let Biologically Male 'Transsexuals' Into Girls’ Locker Room - Seriously

P. Gardner Goldsmith | November 21, 2019
Font Size

As those who have read Luke: 23:34 in the Bible know, Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Something to keep in mind with this breaking story.

According to Tara Molina, of CBS Local 2, from Chicago, the Palatine-Schaumburg High School District 211 recently voted 5-2 to “give transgender students unrestricted access to locker rooms and restrooms.”

‘We believe it is time now to move forward with this policy, though we would not plan to implement it until the start of second semester in January,’ school district Supt. Dan Cates said before the vote.



And now, after the vote, teenage girls walking into the locker room will get to worry about what they’ll see or who will see them changing.

‘I do not want to see a transgender student naked in the locker room. I do not want a transgender student to see me naked in the locker room,” said one unidentified Palatine-Schaumburg student.

Columnist Matt Walsh covered the story as well, Tweeting video that shows an ecstatic, possibly “trans”, boy by the name Nova Maday celebrating the vote, and also shows a teenage girl named Julia Burca saying:

My privacy is being invaded. As a swimmer, I do change multiple times, naked, in front of the other students in the locker room.

Ms. Burca almost shed tears, but held it together to add:

I understand that the board has an obligation to all students, but I was hoping they would go about this in a different way that would also accommodate students such as myself.




So, once more, observers get to see a flashpoint issue apparently inspired by social justice warriors demanding that biologically male humans with mental disorders be admitted to a space reserved for biologically female students. All for the sake of “inclusion”, of course, and all overlooking the obvious questions such a move inspires, questions such as:

If a biologically adult male walks into the school and claims to “identify” as a female student, will he be allowed to stroll into the girls’ locker room and bathrooms?

How about a six-year-old boy visiting a sibling at the school?

The janitor?

Why have any distinction at all? After all, this is a public school, supported by tax money, so as a public place, aren’t they -- according to the perverse, childish, emotion-based-logic-empty psychobabble zeitgeist of contemporary America – supposed to be “inclusive” of “everyone”?

As noted by economists, this is precisely the degenerating problem when tax cash is used on something. Eventually, no one can control any limits to its use and everyone involved ends up fighting over the tax-supported resource.

The issue really isn’t that boys pretending to be girls will now be admitted into the girls’ locker room. That’s a manifestation – albeit frightening and in-your-face – of the deeper systemic issue, which is that taxpayers already ARE in those locker rooms. Their money paid for the building and pays for the upkeep, heating, and lighting of those spaces. As a result, each taxpayer has been involuntarily thrust into the rooms.

In fact, the catalyzing reason the Palatine-Schaumburg school district is in this mess is because, in 2015, a “trans” student brought the matter to the attention of the ever-lovin’ feds, who, as we all know, have the power to control local schools written right into Article 8,000,000.02, Section Puce, of the Bizarro World Constitution.

The issue goes back to 2015, when a transgender student only known as ‘Student A,’ and who identified as a girl and wanted to use the girls’ locker room, was not given unrestricted access. The federal Office of Civil Rights at the time said that was a violation of non-discrimination law and give the district 30 days to comply or else jeopardize its Title IX funding.

And Mr. Nova Maday brought a similar suit in 2017.

That Title IX funding? That’s Title IX of the, yeah, you got it, 1964 Civil Rights Act, revised in 1972. It’s the one pertaining to “equality in public education” for all women. And, regardless of whether one feels it’s only fair to allow women equal access to tax-funded educational establishments, it’s not really the purview of the feds.

Two things to note here are that the feds based this law on the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause, which stipulates:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And a comparison of the actual wording of the Amendment with how people misinterpret it today is illuminating. It tells us that many Americans no longer see the role of the state being “protection” of property and lives; they see it as “giving people things”.

Those things being poorly run schools, roads, sewers, and sundry other things that all should be provided in a competitive market, not through the expropriation of money from people against their will.

So, if people want “the public” to “provide” what should be provided through private, voluntary supply-and-demand exchange, and they want to force their neighbors to pay for it, they can expect that this will happen more and more often, as the tax-funded system exposes why it is unworkable and has already been such a failure for kids.

This isn’t the end. As long as the government forces everyone into the system, it’s just a road sign on the public ride to Gomorrah.