President Obama's Bathroom Edict is a Gift to the GOP in the 2016 Elections

       President Obama gave a windfall gift to the Republican Party in the 2016 elections when he issued an edict from the White House, much like a thunderbolt from Zeus on Mount Olympus, requiring all public schools to open their bathrooms and locker rooms to students who believe their gender is different than their anatomy would indicate.  

       This was an unnecessary war that he did not need to declare.  If his motive was to stimulate the political left to turn out and vote for the Democratic candidates, it was unnecessary.  The far left and the far right is not where the battle lies.  The upcoming election is going to be determined by those proclaiming to be independent, and what Rush Limbaugh refers to as the low information voter.  The low information voter does not refer to a person's intelligence, but rather they generally ignore political issues and have to become motivated to turn out and vote.  Requiring children to be on the forefront of the cutting edge of the transgender agenda is just what the doctor ordered in providing the necessary stimulus for the nonpolitical to become motivated.

       Most of us can remember back in 7th grade gym (now 6th grade with middle school) when you are for the first time going to be required to change clothes and shower with a group of your fellow students of the same gender.  That certainly required a considerable transition to become comfortable. I would suspect that may be even more traumatic for girls with the emphasis on appearance and body imperfections.  It will become a whole new ballgame to add the additional discomfort if one of your fellow students with which you are required to shower possesses genitalia that is different than the gender that is posted on the locker room door.  I would suspect that the transgender student will be even less enthusiastic about exercising the option granted by this mandate.  

       This is a case of the old saying, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I would suspect that school districts have had to deal with this issue for some years.  It is apparently handled discretely and below the radar.  If there were incidents of transgender students displaying genitalia that doesn't match the other occupants of the locker room, it likely would have caused considerable attention by the public and the media.  It may be handled by eliminating the requirement of gym for transgender students or the use of private bathrooms and showers reserved for teachers and coaches if available at the school.  

       To increase the political pressure, The U.S. Department of Justice released a statement of "guidance" that it was their legal opinion that failure to allow transgender children to use the bathroom of their choice was a Title IX violation of discrimination based upon sex.  This is a ridiculous interpretation of that federal law.  Similarly, the Dept. of Justice has sued the State of North Carolina alleging that a recently passed law requiring persons to use the public bathroom that matches their biological gender at birth violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law was in reaction to the passing of a city ordinance in the City of Charlotte that provided that a person can use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

       Such a restrictive reading of the discrimination laws would have the effect of eliminating all gender designation for public bathrooms.  Any other interpretation would require considerable legal gymnastics to say that a person who is biologically male and thinks that he is a male still cannot legally use the women's bathroom while a person that is biologically a male and thinks that he/she is a female can use any bathroom the person chooses.  It would then be purely a state of mind requirement which you could never prove.  The Department of Justice should not be used as a political pawn to intimidate the states and sway public political opinion.

       Besides the legal complications there are two glaring practical problems with allowing someone to use whatever public bathroom that matches their state of mind.  The first one involves a person that legitimately believes that they identify with the gender that is opposite of their biological sex.  If this person uses a bathroom of the opposite biological gender and the bathroom has closed stalls for the toilets, probably no one will know the difference.  That probably happens many times daily around the country.  But if that same person is using an open changing room and showers it is an entirely different story.

       About 15-20 years ago I was working out at the YMCA over the lunch hour.  A person came into the weight room and announced that there was an incident happening in the women's locker room.   A man had apparently been undressing in the women's locker and the police had been called out.  Later, after finishing the workout and on my way out of the building, I stopped and asked the desk clerk what was going on.  It was explained that a person that was anatomically a man was going through the transition to become a women.  The police found that the person had a letter from a doctor that explained that he/she was going through hormone treatments, but had not yet had surgery and it was time to start using the women's bathroom and locker room facilities.  This incident apparently caused quite a problem to the women that were using the locker room.  Someone was alarmed enough to call the police.  I don't know if there were any young girls present, but it was possible.  The bottom line is that to make a transgender person feel more comfortable about themselves, it was necessary to expect that a lot of women become very uncomfortable and they were just going to have to live with it.  I read a study that estimates that the transgender population in the United States is about .003.  That is the tail wagging the dog.  Isn't it more reasonable for the very small number effected to find other accommodations rather than the much larger number of .997 of the population?

       The second major problem with state of mind gender identification involves not the legitimate transgender person, but the one that improperly uses the policy for sexual purposes.  What would stop a flasher, child molester, or horny teenager pulling a prank undressing in the women's locker room and shower?  How do you disprove their allegation that they identify as a woman?  I am sure that proponents of transgender rights would oppose that it be limited to only those that had been surgically altered.  They would likely also oppose that a transgender person carry a medical card from a physician to verify that they were going through transitioning.  Otherwise it would be unenforcible.  Anyone could use either bathroom, locker room or showers and nothing could be done about it. 

       As crazy as this proposal sounds, it could get a lot nuttier.  The New York City Human Rights Commission has listed 31 types of gender identifications and imposes large penalties for businesses that fail to recognize the chosen gender.  Some of the self-declared categories provide for a fluid gender identity that may change frequently.  As the old candy bar commercial used to say, "sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't". This has high school prank written all over it.  One day the guys can demand access to the girls showers and then go back to the boys locker the next day, all under official sanction.  Just when you think the political left can't get any crazier, they outdo themselves.