Obama’s Coed Bathroom Madness

Written by:

Published on: May 16, 2016

President Obama’s done lost his mind. He’s just flushed the civil rights of men and women, boys and girls, to pee in peace and shower without having naked, sexually confused or sexually predatory members of the opposite sex ogling them, or intentionally exposing their genitalia for a cheap thrill.

Reports Fox News: “The Obama administration has sent a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students [meaning students pretending to be the opposite sex] to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate. …

“While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.”

The operative phrase here is, “does not have the force of law.” This is a cynical exercise in pure propaganda on the part of the Obama administration. The directive is entirely toothless and universally at odds with long-standing and unambiguous legislative intent and judicial interpretation of both Titles VII and IX of federal law.

It’s clearly in response to North Carolina’s federal lawsuit against the administration in defense of that state’s HB2 bathroom bill. “This is an attempt to unilaterally rewrite long-established federal civil rights laws in a manner that is wholly inconsistent with the intent of Congress and disregards decades of statutory interpretation by the courts,” notes North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory’s complaint.

School officials should, and must, ignore this absurd disinformation campaign. It’s nothing short of a frantic effort to curb the rising national tide of fierce opposition to genderless bathrooms, locker rooms and showering facilities.

“There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex,” claims Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

One small problem: Title VII clearly defines what is meant by “sex.” It was intended to bar discrimination against women (real women), and Lynch knows it: “The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes.”

As noted by former Assistant U.S. Attorney Frank Lipuma in the John Marshal Law Review, the “courts have defined ‘sex’ according to the traditional notions of biological sex.”

Even hard-left Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has acknowledged this indisputable fact for years, writing in the Washington Post, “Separate places to disrobe, sleep, perform personal bodily functions are permitted, in some situations required, by regard for individual privacy.” When you’ve moved to the left of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, there’s no left left.

Moreover, Congress has, without fail, rejected efforts to include “gender identity” or “sexual orientation” in federal law. It is abundantly clear that the lawmakers who drafted and passed Titles VII and IX never dreamed that “sex” might include a man laboring under the delusion that he’s a woman.

And so, true to form, Friday’s “guidance” letter represents but another desperate attempt by our despot-in-chief to circumvent the constitutional process through executive fiat.

This “gender identity” madness is “The Emperor’s New Clothes” meets George Orwell. We must all pretend, under penalty of law, that a man in a miniskirt is magically a woman, or face the wrath of “progressive” Big Brother (or is it Big Sister?)

I’m so confused!

Not only is the extremist “LGBT” agenda counter-constitutional, offensive and outrageous, it’s also extremely dangerous. There have already been dozens of instances wherein sexual predators have brazenly leveraged these “gender identity” and “sexual orientation” policies for their own perverted purposes. Consider, for example, the following. If it doesn’t make your blood boil, then you just might be a liberal:

Washington state, dateline 2012: Colleen is just like the girl next door. Well, sort of. Colleen has a penis. So, I guess, unless the girl next door has a penis, Coleen really isn’t much like her at all.

But that’s beside the point. In Washington you must, by law, pretend, along with Colleen, President Obama and Loretta Lynch, that, in the face of both reality and sanity, Colleen really is like the girl next door. This includes letting Colleen, who is actually a 47-year-old dude named Clay Scott Francis, lie naked and “sprawled out in a sauna exposing himself” to girls as young as 6-years-old. This really happened in the ladies locker room at Evergreen State College.

Slow down there, Dad. According to Washington state law, if you have a problem with Mr. Francis baring all to your baby girl, then you’re the problem. You’re a “transphobe” (“homophobia’s” evil twin). Deck this pervert for terrifying your first-grader and you’re off to jail while “Colleen” is off to the “Human Rights Campaign” for a commendation as the latest victim of an “anti-LGBT hate crime.”

Rosa Parks in drag, I guess.

It’s only fair, you see, because, as Clay, er, “Colleen,” complained, and as police agreed, this sicko was “discriminated against” when he was asked to leave on behalf of a terrorized 17-year-old girl. “This is not 1959 Alabama,” cried Francis. “We don’t call police for drinking from the wrong water fountain.”

On this, Francis, Loretta Lynch and the larger Obama administration are simpatico. They share this bizarre hostility toward objective biological reality and the safety and privacy rights of women and children.

And the farcical “civil rights” card is their ruse of choice.

“It was not so very long ago that states, including North Carolina, had other signs above restrooms, water fountains, and on public accommodations, keeping people out based on a distinction without a difference. We’ve moved beyond those dark days,” opined Lynch last week.

“Distinction without a difference?” Evidently AG Lynch skipped third-grade biology. Time for a “birds and bees” refresher at 1600 Pennsylvania. It remains unclear whether Mr. Francis drafted Lynch’s off-the-wall remarks himself.

Get that, my African-American friends? According to both the Obama administration and their ally, Clay Scott Francis, a beneficiary of “white privilege,” a man who, incidentally, identifies as a “transgender lesbian” (meaning he’s sexually attracted to females), to be told that you cannot sprawl naked and intentionally expose your manly bits to 6-year-old girls is no different from being relegated to a “colored only” water fountain.

What a tangled web of gender dysphoria and progressive pathology we weave. It is not “transphobia” to recognize that “transgender girls” are not real girls. It is an empirical, biological fact that “transgender girls” are not real girls. They are, have always been and always will be boys, no matter how deep-seated their sexual confusion.

This madness must stop.

Time to man up, America.

Don't forget to like SonsOfLibertyMedia.com on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of SonsOfLibertyMedia.com.
Check out Sons of Liberty Polls on LockerDome on LockerDome
Comment via Facebook
Comment via Disqus