Thursday night, the school board of West Point High School in West Point, Virginia voted 5-0 to fire well-liked and well-respected French teacher (and Chicago Native) Peter Vlaming for his refusal to use incorrect pronouns when referring to a freshman girl who pretends to be a boy. Vlaming, a Christian, had agreed to use her newly adopted name and to avoid using pronouns as much as he could. Because of his faith, what he could not do is be complicit in a body- and soul-destroying fiction. According to the Virginia Gazette, the girl’s parents became angry “after an incident where the student was wearing virtual reality goggles and almost ran into a wall in the hallway and Vlaming shouted ‘don’t let her run into the wall.'” In his concern for the immediate safety of this girl, Vlaming accidentally used the correct pronoun, and the girl’s parents claimed “‘it is unhealthy for their child to remain in Vlaming’s class.'”

At the school board meeting, recently hired principal Jonathan Hochman made this astonishingly ignorant statement:

“I can’t think of a worse way to treat a child than what was happening. That was very threatening.”

The performance was stunning, as New Zealand weightlifter Laurel Hubbard absolutely smoked the competition, beating her nearest competitor, a Samoan woman, by nearly 20 kilograms. The only problem is that Laurel is a biological male, born Gavin, which is why a number of the competitors felt the competition was unfair.

But of course it’s unfair. Hubbard is a male, not a female, and even after months of hormone treatments, he still has unfair advantages over the other women, who sacrificed for years to make it to this elite level, only to lose to a man. How is that right?

As one woman tweeted in response to this news, “Imagine training for this your whole life, as a woman, only to have a known leader in men’s weightlifting take your title.”

When “Equality” Isn’t Fair

Gavin Hubbard had “previously competed at a national level in men’s weightlifting,” making it all the more absurd that he would now be competing against women, which is why his presence was “met with criticism from Australian competitors who believe a transgender athlete in the female weightlifting category was not an equal playing field.”

Not an equal playing field indeed — no more than it was an equal playing field when a female high school wrestler taking testosterone defeated all the other girls she wrestled against (she’s on hormone treatments as part of her “transitioning” to male) and no more than it was an equal playing field when a male-to-female mixed martial artist manhandled (literally) her female opponents.

After the wrestling competition, Patti Overstreet, the mother of another wrestler, said, “She’s standing there holding her head high like she’s the winner. She’s not winning. She’s cheating. It’s not equal. It’s never going to be equal.”

In response to this, cultural commentator Bill Muehlenberg wrote, “Nope, it sure ain’t equality, and it sure never will be. Trying to treat unequal things equally will always result in blatant, appalling inequality. And in the case of sports, it will result in more women being taken to hospital — if not the morgue.”

When it comes to the weightlifting competition, one of the other lifters said, “We all deserve to be on an even playing field. It’s difficult when you believe that you’re not. If it’s not even, why are we doing the sport?”

Exactly? Why compete at all? Why have men compete against men and women compete against women? Why have weight classes? Why not just throw everyone into the same competition and have the world’s strongest (or fastest) human — of either sex, in any weight class, at any distance, in any event? Why not blur all distinctions, if a man can now compete side by side with women?

Ridiculously, Phil Gifford, described as a prominent sports writer, said “Hubbard had every right to compete with the women after passing ‘straightforward’ hormone regulations.”

Specifically, he argued, “It’s testosterone levels which is a much more scientific way of measuring male gender, female gender than anything else that is currently known. And Lauren has passed all of those tests over the last 12 months.”

So, then, a man who had lowered testosterone levels but all the other physical advantages a male would have over other women should be allowed to compete with the ladies? Just a glance at the pictures in the news report, in which Hubbard dwarfs his competitors, would tell you that something is not fair here.

When the World Revolves Around Revolving Genders

But no, the whole world must revolve around the perceptions of those who identify as transgender, regardless of how it hurts others, regardless of how it inconveniences others, regardless of what new inequities it causes. As one trans activist asked me after a lengthy twitter interaction, “So where are we supposed to go to the bathroom?” — meaning that the social issue that mattered was the convenience of trans individuals. Any consideration of the needs of others was immaterial.

Not surprisingly, David Mills recently shared this report from a distressed mother who encountered a man in the ladies’ room at Disneyland: “He wasn’t even peeing, washing his hands or doing anything else that you’d do in a restroom. He was just standing off to the side looking smug … untouchable … doing absolutely nothing.”

As described by Kristin Quintrail, this man “did a lap around the restroom walking by all the stalls. You know, the stalls that have 1 inch gaps by all the doors hinges so you can most definitely see everyone with their pants around their ankles and vagina clear as day.”

As Mills explains, “The man, apparently a fairly large man, wasn’t a man ‘transitioning’ to try to be a woman. The ‘very progressive’ Quintrail would have been fine with that. He was a predator. His way of being a predator was to transgress a boundary — the women’s room door — so that he could intimidate women and their children.”

So, this was apparently a heterosexual predator, not a transgender male-to-female, yet none of the women had the courage to ask him to leave, fearing if they did “he might respond by claiming to identify as a woman.”

As some of us have warned for some time now, and as an increasing number of cases confirms as a real danger, when the law says that you can use the bathroom of your perceived gender, that opens the door to abuses such as this. After all, if the only criterion is who I perceive myself to be, who can argue with it?

Quintrail rightly exclaimed at the end of her blog article, “Gender just can’t be a feeling. There has to be science to it. DNA, genitals, amount of Sephora make up on your face, pick your poison. … I’m sorry it can’t just be a feeling when there’s but a mere suggestion of a door with a peep hole separating your eyes from my vagina or my children’s genitals.”

And the science needs to be better than the “science” being used in Olympic sports worldwide, which allowed for the totally unfair results in the recent, aforementioned weightlifting competition.

Time to Say “Enough”

Speaking of unfair, Neil Munro reported last week that, “Two women were kicked out of a homeless shelter to make room for a man because he said he is a transgender woman, according to a Canadian news report.

“The women objected when they were told they would have to share a bedroom and live in the shelter with the man, and so ‘both were asked to leave the shelter for good,’ said the TV reporter.”

One of the women, named Tracey, said, “I was uncomfortable with my roommate being transgender. He wants to become a woman, I mean that is his choice but when a man comes into a women’s shelter who still has a penis and genitals, he has more rights than we do.”

And that says it all: This man who identifies as a woman has more rights than the other women, and they have to leave to make room for him.

Can you join me in saying “Enough!”

Let’s continue to look for ways to help those struggling with gender identity confusion while protecting the rights of the rest of society. If enough of us raise our voices, positive change will come.

This article was originally posted at The Stream.

With Hollywood, academia at all levels, the mainstream media, the arts community, professional medical and mental health organizations, and increasing numbers of heretical faith leaders in the tank for sexual deviance, the hubris of homosexual and “trans” activists grows.

Read more here…

In an astonishing act of hubris, abrogation of local control over education, and obsequiousness to Barack Obama, Obama-handmaiden Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has filed a “friend of the court” brief” (i.e., an amicus curiae brief) begging for Illinois to be subject to Obama’s illegal command that public schools allow boys in girls’ restrooms and locker rooms and vice versa.

Following the “guidance” from Obama’s Department of Education via the Office for Civil Rights to integrate sexually all restrooms and locker rooms in government schools, eleven states led by Texas filed a lawsuit in late May requesting that an injunction be issued to stop the implementation of Obama’s “guidance.” This lawsuit includes a 1975 quote from current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that “‘[s]eparate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.’”

Then leftist attorneys general stepped in on behalf of not only their own states but all 50 states to insist on having the federal government rob citizens in every state of their right to decide if they want their local schools to have coed, sex-integrated restrooms and showers for children and teens.

The brief Madigan signed describes concerns of those states opposed to Obama’s diktat as “speculative and inaccurate claims of harm,” adding that “respecting the civil rights of transgender individuals will cause Plaintiffs no harm. Their allegations of safety risks are unsupported hyperbole.”

The sex of humans cannot change. Boys who wish they were girls remain unalterably boys no matter what chemical, surgical, or sartorial changes they make. And boys have no “civil right” to invade the private spaces of girls.

The suggestion by Madigan et al. that claims of harm are “speculative and inaccurate” requires a definition of “harm.” If “harm” is defined solely as physical assault, the risk is low and posed primarily by boys pretending to be girls. But certainly when boys have easy access to girls’ private facilities the risk is not nil.

Under the Obama diktat, all that’s required for a boy to use girls’ private facilities is his claim to be “transgender.” No parental confirmation needed. No medical diagnosis required. No treatment of any kind required. All that’s required is for a boy to claim that he is “trans” or “bi-gendered” or “gender-fluid,” which I guess means he can float fluidly between those binarily fixed facilities until such time as leftists complete their revolution to destroy all public recognition and accommodation of sex differences. On that day, all restrooms, locker rooms, shelters, and hospital rooms will be coed—and not just for those who reject their sex.

Moreover, not even a “medical” diagnosis of “gender dysphoria,” surgical mutilation, and cross-sex hormone doping can turn a boy into a girl or vice versa. And none of these alchemical protocols justify allowing objectively male or female students into opposite-sex facilities.

But harm is not limited merely to physical assault. Included in the concept of “harm” is the violation of modesty and privacy that takes place when unrelated persons of the opposite sex intrude into restrooms and locker rooms. It is likely that Orthodox Jews, Muslims, theologically orthodox Christians, and even some secularists would find these experiences harmful. For those who know that biological sex per se has profound meaning and is the source of feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy, seeing unrelated persons of the opposite sex partially or fully unclothed as well as being seen partially or fully unclothed by unrelated persons of the opposite sex constitutes harm.

Though it’s incomprehensible to morally deadened leftists, many—perhaps most—men and women prefer not to urinate or defecate in stalls with unrelated persons of the opposite sex doing the same in the stall next to them. These feelings of modesty derived from sex differences are the very reason we have separate restrooms in the first place. What possible difference should it make to girls if the boy in the stall next to them wishes he were a girl or not? Being forced to do their business with unrelated persons of the opposite sex in the neighboring stall also constitutes harm.

Madigan et al. are justifiably concerned about the safety of cross-dressing boys using sex-appropriate restrooms. Now that parents and administrators allow boys to wear lipstick, dresses, and Victoria Secret lingerie with their penises taped down to school, they have put these boys at risk in boys’ locker rooms and restrooms. But the solution to the problem leftist created must not include allowing these boys into girls’ restrooms or locker rooms, or to room with girls on overnight school-sponsored functions as Obama’s diktat requires.

The only reasonable accommodation of such tragically disordered thinking (or egregious rebellion) is single-occupancy facilities. If boys who wish they were girls have the purported right to use facilities with only girls, then surely girls have that right.

The federal government—largely controlled by liberals—has been gobbling up vast swaths of American cultural life, including the education of our children. In so doing, leftists are imposing their subjective and arguable assumptions about, among other things, sexuality on other people’s children as well as violating the 10th Amendment which makes clear that public education is the purview of states—not the federal government:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Liberals make the specious argument that federal intrusion with regard to sex-integrated restrooms and locker rooms is warranted just as it was warranted with regard to racial integration of schools. But that comparison is based on the absurd comparison of the behaviorally neutral condition of race to the disordered subjective desire to be the opposite sex accompanied by futile behavioral choices in the service of pretending to be the opposite sex. For an analogy to be sound, there must be points of correspondence between the analogues. What precisely are the points of correspondence between race and sex-rejection?

In order to impose his radical sexual revolution on our nation’s children, Obama—master violator of the Constitution and the separation of powers—is attempting to unilaterally and illegally change the definition of the word “sex” in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include the rhetorical contrivance “gender identity” (i.e., subjective feelings about one’s sex). And apparatchik Lisa Madigan is helping.

Parents, notify your school administrators and your children’s teachers that under no circumstances may your child or teen use restrooms or locker rooms with persons of the opposite sex, and under no circumstance is your child or teen to be required to use opposite-sex pronouns when referring to any student, staff, or faculty member.