Another feckless judicial decision from another feckless judge.

In a 15-page decision, Federal Judge Jorge Alonso—an Obama appointee—explained his reasoning for refusing to stop Township High School District 211’s co-ed restroom and locker room practices. District 211, the largest high school district in the state, includes Conant, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Palatine, and Schaumburg High Schools.

Fifty families are suing the district to overturn a policy that allows students who pretend to be the opposite sex to access opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms. The district decided that the feelings of students who want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students trump the feelings of  students who want to share private spaces with only persons of their same sex. No administrator or board member has explained why subjective, internal feelings about one’s sex rather than objective biological sex should determine private space-usage policy.

According to ABC News, Alonso “said courts have ‘correctly recognized’ that ‘federal protections against sex discrimination are substantially broader than based only on genitalia or chromosome.’”

What he’s saying is that laws pertaining to “sex” actually have no necessary connection to sex.

Alonso went on to cite Judge Ann Claire Williams of the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals who said this about a case in Wisconsin in which a teenage girl who masquerades as a boy fought successfully to use the boys’ restrooms:

A transgender student’s presence in the restroom provides no more of a risk to other students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student of the same biological sex who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing bodily functions.

Wow.

How can it be that we have judges so foolish or so depraved that they actually believe it is no greater an invasion of privacy for a teenage girl to see a male peer urinating than it would be for an “overly curious” boy to “sneak glances” at a male peer urinating?

Ubiquitous attorney John Knight, director of the ACLU of Illinois’ LGBT and HIV Project, made this egregiously dishonest statement:

‘Throughout this litigation, one thing remains clear: The groups who filed this case remain unable to demonstrate any harm to their clients resulting from sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students who they perceive as different,’… adding that judge ‘confirmed there is no constitutional right to refuse to share a restroom or locker room with students because they are transgender.’

First, the parents suing the district did not merely perceive the boy as different from girls. He actually is different from girls.

Second, no student has refused to share restrooms or locker rooms with students “because they are transgender.” Some objectively female students object to sharing restrooms and locker rooms with students because of their objective, immutable male biological sex. Knight knows that. He also knows—as do the two male students who have sued the district—that the sex of humans can never change.

Third, objectively male persons have no constitutional right to use restrooms and locker rooms designated for persons of the opposite sex.

Fourth, Knight failed to define “harm.” Many would argue that children and teens are harmed by teaching them through such restroom/locker room practices that biological sex has no intrinsic meaning relative to modesty and privacy.

They are harmed when the government through such radical practices desensitizes students to engaging in private activities like going to the bathroom, changing clothes, or showering in close proximity to unrelated persons of the opposite sex.

They are harmed by practices that teach them that their good and natural feelings of reluctance to share private spaces with opposite-sex students constitute ignorant, hateful bigotry.

And they are harmed when ignorant school administrators, board members, and activists like Knight implicitly teach a form of dualism, which holds that the human person is composed of body and mind–which in their view are severable–with the material body subordinate to the workings of the mind.

The harm done is spiritual, intellectual, emotional, psychological, and moral. The harm is no less real and serious even though it may not be measurable or demonstrable.

Vicki Wilson, one of the parents in the group suing District 211, expresses concern for all students, including those who don’t want to share private spaces with opposite-sex students:

This practice is happening all over Illinois and children are fearful of being labeled if they say anything since administrators have intimidated them into ignoring their own needs for basic privacy and dignity…. All children need to be considered and there is a very simple solution that many school IL board members are refusing to even consider: provide a changing space outside either the girls or the boys locker rooms for children who request it.

If, as the silly people in the photo below claim, “separate is not equal” when it comes to restrooms and locker rooms, then why should we maintain any sex-segregated restrooms and locker rooms anywhere? If, as the idiotic placards imply, separate restrooms and locker rooms for males and females are as unjust as separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites were, how can we possibly justify maintaining any separate spaces for males and females anywhere?

Either objective, immutable biological sex has intrinsic and profound meaning or it doesn’t. If it has intrinsic and profound meaning, then what District 211 is doing is pernicious. If, on the other hand, physical embodiment as male or female has no meaning, there remains no reason to maintain any sex-segregated spaces for anyone anywhere. If biological sex has no meaning relative to modesty and private spaces, then there is no reason to allow only “trans”-identifying boys in girls’ private spaces. Schools should permit “cisgender” (i.e., normal) boys in girls’ spaces as well. And if biological sex has no meaning, then co-ed private spaces should have no restrictions. After all, in the mixed up, muddled up, shook up world of “progressives,” wouldn’t separate showers for boys and girls be inherently unequal?

Lying seems to come naturally to Knight. He said this about the District 211 student (since graduated) that the ACLU of Illinois represented in 2015:

“What our client wants is not hard to understand. She wants to be accepted for who she is and to be treated with dignity and respect – like any other student.”

The student to whom Knight was referring was not asking to be accepted for “who she is.” The student was asking that others accept him as something he is not and never can be: a girl. He wants the whole world to pretend along with him. But there is no dignity in lies. Facilitating his disordered desires and delusional beliefs would represent an act of disrespect. School administrators, board members, and activists like Knight have put on a veneer of love, but it’s not real love. It’s an empty, fake, sickening, saccharine pseudo-love that enables them to feel good while doing evil. Real love is built on a foundation of truth.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Judge-Alonso-Worker-of-Lawlessness.mp3

---

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

Written by Teri Paulson

Well, it’s official: Our girls are now getting undressed in the presence of a boy (with complete male genitalia) in the girls’ locker room at William Fremd High School in Palatine, Illinois. The overwhelming majority of over four hundred community members who showed up for two nights in December to beg the school board to tell “transgender” activists NO were powerless against whatever it was that compelled D211 Superintendent Daniel Cates and  five out of seven members of our school board to enact “transgender” morality into policy. Here’s what I know: The school board’s decision had nothing to do with truth, righteousness, reason, or logic. Male genitalia and XY chromosomes are simply irrelevant details to these facilitators of our brave new world.

The problem was not a lack of good arguments. Between the two meetings, there were at least four hours of public comment. The overwhelming majority of the community respectfully and passionately articulated compelling arguments demonstrating reason, logic, and good old common sense. It has become abundantly clear that the five out of seven members of the school board who voted for this disgraceful decision would have betrayed the community regardless of the arguments. Theirs was a spiritual decision rooted in the rejection of God himself. They are enacting rules that disregard the Ruler. Because this is a spiritual problem, it needs to be addressed spiritually.

Where have all the shepherds gone?

According to the yellow pages and depending on how you define a church, there are thirty churches in Palatine alone, not to mention Schaumburg and Hoffman Estates. On both nights when we were debating whether or not it is a good idea to force teenage girls to undress in the presence of a boy, our spiritual leaders (with a couple of notable exceptions) were missing in action. If this is not a spiritual battle I don’t know what is. If our pastors and elders, whose supposed mission in life is to help us understand God and encourage us to obey him, didn’t show up as witnesses for his will at these meetings, what would they show up for?

Jesus spoke these words when he was here on earth. Draw your own conclusions as to their possible application:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. (John 10:11-13)

Where have all the shepherds gone?