On Wednesday, the federal government declared itself fit for the madhouse by mandating that a Chicago high school allow a full biological male into the girls’ locker room for all purposes, including nudity. This biological male, the feds determined, was different because he thinks he is a female.
The feds have ruled that the presence of a twig-and-berries in the girls’ locker room has been mandated by Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Yes, ladies and gents and non-cisgenders: it turns out that the battle against sexism enshrined in the ill-written Title IX was actually intended to force underage young women to look at the penises and testicles of mentally ill boys.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights spent almost two years checking out the Township High School District 211 because of the transgender “girl.” He filed a complaint with the feds in 2013 after the school refused “unrestricted access” to the girls’ locker room. The district eventually agreed to allow the boy into the girls’ room so long as he used a privacy curtain while disrobing.
That wasn’t good enough. The feds determined that this still constituted discrimination. Why? As John Knight, director of the alphabet-soup LGBT and AIDS Project at the ACLU, stated, this was “blatant discrimination.” He explained (well, we think it’s a he, unless he identifies differently today):
It’s not voluntary; it’s mandatory for her. It’s one thing to say to all the girls, “You can choose if you want some extra privacy,” but it’s another thing to say, “You, and you alone, must use them.” That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as a girl.
Perhaps the district does not see “her” as a “girl” because “she” is not a she, a her, or a girl. Nonetheless, the Office for Civil Rights agreed, with Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon averring:
All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities – this is a basic civil right. Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.
The student is not female. But never mind that: the subjective opinion of a mentally ill person now governs a student body of some 12,000.
So here, in a nutshell, is the government’s new policy with regard to sex and sexuality among youngsters:
-If you’re a boy who shows a picture of your penis to a girl in your class, you have likely violated both federal child pornography laws as well as local sexual harassment laws. If this happens consistently in your school, the school has violated Title IX.
-If you’re a boy who says he’s a girl, the girl must be placed in position to see your penis and testicles. If the school does not allow this, the school has violated Title IX.
-If you’re an adult who sexually touches a child with the consent of the child, you have committed a crime, since children are incapable of consent.
-If you’re an adult who gives a child hormone therapy or surgery to prevent normal development of the genitals, with the consent of the child, you are a hero.
If this all makes sense to you, you should be working for the federal Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education.
This is what happens when a society loses its moral moorings. In its quest to destroy God, the left unhitched its wagon from eternal truths and, instead, decided to substitute its own idea of utopia. To reach that utopia – freedom from social expectations and standards – objectivity itself had to be destroyed, so as to avoid blame. Objective truth lost all meaning; only subjectivity mattered. Science became the enemy, since it establishes provable truths; it had to be quashed and quelled. Language became the enemy, since definitions exclude people and things not covered by those definitions; it had to be perverted and hijacked.
And so we now live through the looking glass, waiting for the next philosophically incoherent ruling from our masters of time and space. Or mistresses. Or whatever.
Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.
It’s War! Real Women vs. Dudes in Skirts
November 2, 2015 By J. Matt Barber
How’s this for a sign of the times? Glamour Magazine has now confirmed that it plans to award a man its highly coveted (or not so much) “Woman of the Year” award. While explaining this, er, groundbreaking decision, Glamour’s editor-in-chief, Cindi Leive, said, “There are so many different types of women in this world. We aren’t taking away from one by honoring another.” The newest “type of women,” as luck would have it for dudes in skirts everywhere, is, evidently, men. Referencing Bruce Jenner, the award’s intended recipient, Leive told WWD.com, “She [sic] identifies as a woman, period.”
And there you have it. In today’s Western culture, an upside-down progressitopia, subjective “identity” must always trump objective reality. “Tolerance” and “equality” demand so.
And so, on Nov. 9, this former Wheaties box-splashed men’s Olympic gold medalist will assume that manufactured alter ego he calls “Caitlyn,” don his pretty costume (an awkwardly broad-shouldered evening gown and size 13 Jimmy Choo pumps), grace the stage at New York’s Carnegie Hall and give a tearful acceptance speech in that Oak-Ridge-Boys-low “giddy up” voice – creating both joy and guilt-laden cognitive dissonance in the minds of his adoring, yet equally detached-from-reality, fans.
Glamour’s announcement is not sitting well with a number of women who possess actual girlie parts. Feminist icon Germaine Greer, for example, has weighed in on the controversy: “I’ve asked my doctor to give me long ears and liver spots, and I’m going to wear a brown coat, but that won’t turn me into a fu–ing cocker spaniel,” she observed with that distinctive sort of class, eloquence and femininity we’ve come to expect from many “progressive” women. “A man who gets his d–k chopped off is actually inflicting an extraordinary act of violence on himself,” she added.
Wait. Did I just agree with a radical feminist? This is truth. It’s crass and jarring in its delivery, but its truth just the same. Oh well, as they say, “Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.”
Anyway, this is not the first time Greer has taken issue with the “LGBT” lobby. “Nowadays we are all likely to meet people who think they are women, have women’s names, and feminine clothes and lots of eyeshadow, who seem to us to be some kind of ghastly parody, though it isn’t polite to say so,” she wrote in The Guardian in 2009. “We pretend that all the people passing for female really are,” she added. “Other delusions may be challenged, but not a man’s delusion that he is female.”
In her 1999 book, “The Whole Woman,” Greer similarly opined, “No so-called sex-change has ever begged for a uterus-and-ovaries transplant; if uterus-and-ovaries transplants were made mandatory for wannabe women they would disappear overnight. … The insistence that man-made women be accepted as women is the institutional expression of the mistaken conviction that women are defective males.”
Greer struck a similar tone last week while addressing Jenner’s pending Glamour award: “I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman,” she told BBC.
It’s at once pitiable, yet somehow gleefully entertaining to watch, as “progressive” piranhas, frothing about in that cesspit of stagnant toxicity called “political correctness,” devour one another alive. This latest feeding frenzy pits the competing special interests of radical feminism against “LGBT” extremism.
As a result, some leftist nutburgers are petitioning some other leftist nutburgers to cancel Greer’s upcoming lecture at Cardiff University. Petition organizers accuse her of “continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.” For the sake of those who don’t speak Progressivese, “misgendering” is a made-up word that identifies the process by which a sane person calls a man in a dress a “man in a dress,” and “transphobia,” another pretendoid (yes, I made that word up too), is a ham-fisted pejorative intended to shut that sane person the hell up.
Veteran journalist and anti-radical-feminist Robert Stacy McCain summarizes this war of the nutburgers better than I can: “The Competitive Victimhood Derby is ultimately a zero-sum game, you see. There can only be one winner, and the transgender claim to equal victimhood is rejected by radical feminists, who view this as an attempt to usurp their own categorical claim.
“It’s like a traffic jam on the Crazyville Road, where two politicized groups of wackjobs are compelled by the implicit logic of their arguments to fight each other for supremacy.”
Meanwhile, as this ferocious slap fight between real women and the men who wish they were rages on, rumors that Bon Appétit magazine likewise intends to honor a heroic Honeycrisp apple with its own “Orange of the Year” award remain yet unconfirmed.
Matt Barber is founder and editor-in-chief of BarbWire.com. He is an author, columnist, cultural analyst and an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. Having retired as an undefeated heavyweight professional boxer, Matt has taken his fight from the ring to the culture war. (Follow Matt on Twitter: @jmattbarber).