Today Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, opined on the gravity of this situation on his daily radio show The Briefing. Mohler concluded his remarks by saying: “we have to recognize how front and center this must be in the 2016 presidential race, because as we have two opposing candidates eventually representing the two parties, this is going to be an issue that will be and must be at the center of public debate and of citizens making decisions about the vote.”
Following is the full transcript of The Briefing aired Nov 4:
Big news came yesterday, on the front page of the Chicago Tribune and coming also in terms of major media, such as the New York Times. Duaa Eldeib, reporter for the Chicago Tribune tells us, Illinois largest high school district violated federal law by barring a transgender student from using the girls locker room. Federal authorities concluded this on Monday. The United States Department of Education’s office for civil rights spent nearly two years investigating palatine-based Township high school District 211 and found,
“A preponderance of evidence”
That school officials did not comply with Title IX that is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.
This is a much larger story than may even at first appear. Because what’s actually at stake in this is something is going to reach eventually every school system and every community and it’s going to reach every family, it’s going to reach every neighborhood in terms of the expansion of the transgender revolution and we’re looking at a very significant intrusion, we’re looking at a very significant expansion of the transgender logic in this particular federal decision. What the Chicago Tribune tells us is that a young student who was born male but has identified for years as female has been allowed in this Chicago suburban school district to identify as a girl and be recognized as a girl, to have the name changed to that of a girl, has been allowed to use the girls restroom and to participate in girls athletics. But the entire issue came down to this, whether or not this student born male and still of course biologically male but identifying as a girl, would have unrestricted access to the girls locker room, including open changing areas and the United States Department of Education, its office for civil rights ruled yesterday after two years of investigation that the school district in Chicago, that is suburban Chicago, was going to have to allow this student, born male still of course biologically male, unrestricted access to the girls locker room, including common changing areas and shower areas.
Now to state the matter clearly here is the stunning reality, the United States Department of Education has now told this school district and of course the effect of this will not be limited to this one Chicago suburban school district, this is now nationwide in terms of its implications. The United States federal government has now ordered this school to allow a biological male, otherwise known as a boy, to have unrestricted access to the locker room for girls. This story is one that is going to get a lot of attention and it deserves a lot of attention and this points to something we’ve discussed so many times on The Briefing. The logic of the transgender revolution is like a universal acid. It’s like an acid that is so powerful it eats through the container that was meant to contain the acid. After eating through the container, it eats away at the table upon which the container was standing. After eating away the table, it eventually because of its power as an acid dissolves even the room in which the table was located. You continue the logic. That’s what has been set loose in the transgender revolution. There is no seeming stop to where the logic will now push and the internal moral contradictions of this movement are apparent as is the question of who is being protected and whose rights are now going to be respected. The word rights here, including the modern revolution and rights in which rights previously unknown and unknowable to human beings are now being enforced with the full power and authority of our federal bureaucracy and with the course of power that comes that federal government authority.
Here’s how the Chicago Tribune gives us the details,
“The student, who has identified as a girl for a number of years, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in late 2013 after she [you’ll note the pronoun she is being used here] was denied unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. District and federal officials negotiated for months, and a solution appeared imminent as recently as last week, when the district put up privacy curtains in the locker room.”
So let’s just pause here for moment. After two years of conversation this school district, said the way we’re going to solve this is not to bar this biological male from the girls locker room, but rather to put up privacy curtains and the school district was going to require this student to use those privacy curtains, but the federal government has said that requiring the student to use those curtains thus denying that student unrestricted access to the changing area and the showers was an infringement of the student’s constitutional rights. Daniel Cates, the superintendent of the school district there in Illinois, insists that his school district is complying with the law and with the Constitution and also with common sense. He said this,
“The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy.”
He then went on to say this and just imagine how stunningly controversial these words are now given the logic of this moral revolution in 2015. Here’s what he said,
“Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms — where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities — for a reason.”
We need to face squarely what we are confronting here. We are confronting the logic of the transgender revolution that says that teenagers ought to have the right to declare themselves to actually identify with the opposite sex in terms of the biological sex with which they were born, the opposite gender and then to demand, and here’s the stunning new word, unrestricted access even to public changing areas in terms of the girls and boys locker room and the showers. Now let’s just state the obvious. This means that according to this federal dictate, this school district is supposed to allow in open changing areas and in the showers and the locker rooms, in the girls changing area and in the girls shower area to allow someone who was biologically male to have unrestricted access. Now even before you confront the issue of just what constitutes someone recognized as being transgender and that’s confronted in terms of this policy, even when you try to follow the logic of the transgender revolution where is this now going to lead? This is an absolutely unworkable situation. Just how many parents are going to allow 14-year-old daughters to be in a room naked and changing and showering with someone who is clearly biologically male? We’re not talking here about something that is merely a gender construct in terms of a social reality, we’re talking about physical space and we’re talking about physical realities and we’re talking about a federal government that yesterday said that a school that does not allow a transgender student to have unrestricted access to the changing room of his or her choice is a school that is out of compliance with Title IX and that will have not only financial consequences for the school. But as the article in the Chicago Tribune and the similar article in the New York Times makes clear, there will be further legal ramifications as well.
To state the matter just about as clearly as it can be stated, a school district like this in a city like Chicago that receives millions and millions of dollars that require federal affirmation, cannot survive being found out of compliance with Title IX and so this is not merely a question of funding, this is a huge issue of federal coercion and it has got the attention of many people in Chicago, it deserves the attention of everyone in this nation because the question is how is this logic going to play out? Now just a matter of some time ago, we were being asked where’s the harm in terms of this moral revolution? Where is anyone else’s rights being infringed upon in terms of this moral revolution? And here’s where we see exactly where someone else’s rights are now being infringed. What about the rights of these 14, 15, 16 year old girls not to have someone who is clearly biologically male changing right in front of them? David French writing at National Review points out the incongruity on this as I’ve described it, these are conflict in moral absolutes when he writes this,
“Let me get this straight — if the school district allowed someone to post pictures of a nude man in a classroom, that would be blocked as sexual harassment, but if a nude boy changes next to women in a locker room, that’s equality? Apparently so [according to our Federal Government].”
David French then cites a statement from the ACLU that stated,
“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.”
That was said by John Knight, the director of the L.G.B.T. and H.I.V. Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, who was as attorney representing the student.
He went on to say,
“The district’s insistence on separating my client from other students is blatant discrimination. Rather than approaching this issue with sensitivity and dignity, the district has attempted to justify its conduct by challenging my client’s identity as a girl.”
Now let’s just imagine the leap of logic that is behind that statement. Here you have the ACLU attorney, saying that it is the district that is being blatantly insensitive and is denying human dignity by suggesting that the student is not a girl. Then David French writes,
“Identity as a girl?” This poor kid doesn’t have a chance. He’s surrounded by people who are indulging his mental challenges, lying to him — as social-justice warriors do — for the sake of a sexual revolutionary ideology so radical that it now even trumps the rights of girls to be free from involuntary exposure to male nudity at school. This won’t end well for the boy, for the girls in the school, or for the use of the law as a rational instrument of justice.”
That’s a profoundly accurate sentence, but we need to work backwards. First of all, he mentions the use of the law as a rational instrument of justice – that’s now how the law is being used here. The law is now being used as a blatant and very crude instrument of moral revolution. He then backs up and says it won’t end well for the boy or for the girls at the school and note those are categories that every previous generation of humanity understood, boys and girls, and now we’re being told that these categories are merely gender constructs and that they can be changed in terms of one’s perceived gender identity, but that doesn’t change what’s going to happen in the locker room when the students are not clothed, but rather changing. It’s not going to change the reality that is going to be all too apparent in the shower; it’s not going to change the reality in terms of the molecular identity of this child. It is not going to change the reality in terms of the skeletal structure that identifies this student as a male, no matter what legal issues may ensue, no matter what kind of radical theory may apply this is still a boy and not a girl.
But before leaving this issue we have to recognize how front and center this must be in the 2016 presidential race, because as we have two opposing candidates eventually representing the two parties, this is going to be an issue that will be and must be at the center of public debate and of citizens making decisions about the vote. Because it is virtually certain that it is impossible for the Democratic nominee not to support the entirety of this moral revolution, including this decision made by the Obama Administration’s Department of Education. It’s almost equally inconceivable to believe that a Republican presidential nominee would not oppose these very directives and remember, this comes from the administration. It all comes down to who serves as president of the United States and if nothing else, this story that comes from a suburban Chicago school district and, frankly, where Ground Zero is the girls locker room in one single high school, it illustrates what’s at stake on a far broader and more comprehensive landscape as the nation thinks of its decisions made in the upcoming election.
Source: The Briefing, November 4 2015