Township High School District 211 in suburban Chicago settled its ongoing dispute last week with the federal Department of Education (DoE)
writes
Benny Huang regarding the biologically male student who (in a story similar to the
Lila Perry melodrama) wants to use the girls’ changing room because he thinks he’s a she.
Though the school district had already substantially indulged the boy’s delusions it was until recently insisting that the boy use a “privacy curtain” when disrobing, a compromise which the student and the federal government found unconscionable.
The recent agreement reached between the school district and the feds
stipulates that “the school district will provide multiple changing
areas with privacy curtains, for the student and any others who want
privacy.” So now everyone gets a privacy curtain and it’s up to each
student whether to use it.
It should come as no surprise that the student and the ACLU still
aren’t happy with the resolution. Though the school district can now
claim that it’s providing all the “girls”—both real and imagined—equal
access to private changing areas, the transgender “girl’s” mere presence
in the locker room has precipitated a policy change that falls short of
full victory for transgender “rights.” Clearly, the school district is
still treating him as a different kind of girl—which he is, of course.
He’s a “girl” with a penis—a make-believe girl. “Girls” with penises
tend to be treated differently than girls without them and that makes
“girls” with penises feel marginalized. Boo hoo.
Just how did we reach this crescendo of madness? We “interpreted”
ourselves here, of course! There is no law on the books that requires
any school district to allow a boy access to the girls’ locker room no
matter how he “identifies.” The Obama Administration has nonetheless
conjured up a novel interpretation from an old and undeservedly
venerated law to achieve his policy goal.
… Separate locker rooms are in and of themselves sex
discriminatory—further proof that discrimination is not always bad and
that we all do it every day. Unless it’s the DoEt’s position 
that male
and female locker rooms should be integrated, they’re also supportive of
sex discrimination. But that’s not their position, nor is it the
student’s position or that of the ACLU. They support keeping boys out of
the girls’ room but they insist that the student in question is a girl
like any other and deserves to be treated as such. Anything less is a
violation of “her” rights under Title IX, they argue.
Except it isn’t. Title IX was never intended to shield gender
dysphoric people from reality. It addresses discrimination based on sex.
Even today, “sex” is understood to be assigned at birth as either male
or female, with “gender”—a much more fluid concept—being used to
describe how one feels about that reality.
… Nondiscrimination laws lend themselves to this kind of abuse. As I have
written in previous columns, I stand in opposition to all private sector
nondiscrimination laws. Granted, the aforementioned locker room
controversy is found completely within the realm of government so I will
also add that even public sector nondiscrimination laws should be
carefully considered, narrowly focused, and strictly adhered to.
Bureaucrats should not be allowed to get away with creative
(mis)interpretations that clearly depart from the spirit and the letter
of the law.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers an excellent example of a law
that was twisted after its passage into something very different than
what Americans were sold on.
… In the wrong person’s hands, nondiscrimination laws can be
“interpreted” to mean almost anything. They nearly always become
leviathans of big government—and probably not by accident.
