© 2024 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Regardless Of The Law, I Can't Allow A Man To Enter A Bathroom With My Wife Or Daughter
Image source: Shutterstock

Regardless Of The Law, I Can't Allow A Man To Enter A Bathroom With My Wife Or Daughter

This isn't about being a "tough guy." It's just about a man having a certain responsibility to his wife and his daughters.

As civilization continues its slide into dementia, reading the headlines has become an almost psychedelic experience. While I peruse the latest news each morning I begin to think I might still be asleep and dreaming, or maybe somebody slipped Quaalude into my coffee, or maybe I'm finally going insane.


But then I splash some cold water on my face and realize, no, I'm very much awake, sober and sane. When the whole world is losing its mind, it becomes increasingly difficult for the few remaining lucid and rational people to cling onto theirs. It's like walking into a room where everyone is tripping on LSD and insisting there's a pink elephant riding a tricycle in the corner. Of course you know they're all high and babbling nonsense, but after a while you kind of want to see the pink elephant too, just so you won't feel so left out of the conversation.

Today's pink elephant is a story out of a federal appeals court in Virginia, which found that a high school in the state "discriminated" against a "transgender" student when it forced the teen girl to use the girl's bathroom. The court ruled that "transgender" kids should be covered under Title IX protections against "sex discrimination." The judges have now cleared the way for the girl to sue her school, and in the process the robed fools have, as Ryan Anderson points out, essentially declared that public schools don't have the right to provide separate bathrooms based on sex.

Image source: Shutterstock

As usual, the girl, who pretends to be a boy named "Gavin," had already been provided generous accommodations by the administration. They did far more than I would have done, granting her access to her very own private bathroom. They bent over backwards in every way they could, short of taking the signs off the doors and letting a bunch of hormonal teenagers decide which restroom and locker room they feel like using on any given day. But, predictably, that wasn't good enough. According to the girl and her lawyers and the Department of Education and now a federal appeals court, anything less than banning sex-segregated bathrooms constitutes a human rights violation.

The majority opinion in this case is as psychotic as you'd expect. It describes the situation by saying, “G.G.’s birth-assigned sex, or so-called ‘biological sex,' is female, but G.G.’s gender identity is male.”

Her "so-called biological sex?" This is a legal opinion written by a judge on a federal court and it treats with suspicion and contempt the very notion that biological sex exists. According to the legal analysis of these judges, the girl's "gender identity" - her feelings about her gender - are far more real, demonstrable, and scientific than her chromosomes, anatomy, and DNA. Like I said, psychotic. They might as well have written an opinion stating that the moon is made of Pop Rocks and every citizen has a right to fly there on a unicorn with Santa Claus and Big Foot. But even that would make more sense because at least the moon is real. "Gender identity," on the other hand, is not.

Now, I've already analyzed this "transgender" stuff a thousand ways to Sunday. And it feels somewhat pointless to constantly argue that biology is real and "transgenderism" is a fiction. Progressives, for the most part, already know this. Every progressive who today calls it a human rights abuse to segregate bathrooms, would not have, and did not, see it that way until their LGBT overlords pulled their leash and led them in that direction.

You may think I'm being too generous in assuming that most progressives aren't ridiculous enough to actuallybelieve in "transgenderism," but consider the fact that virtually none of these people would have put scare quotes around "biological sex" ten years ago, or even five years ago. I don't know anything about the radical judges behind the decision in Virginia, but I'm guessing they're grown adults who've lived most of their lives, and written most of their legal opinions, under the general impression that men are men and women are women. It's not like some great scientific breakthrough occurred last year finally proving it's just a coincidence that all 3.5 billion men in the world happen to have penises. Nothing happened to make "transgenderism" valid. This is just where their ideology has taken them. And that's how they see it: an ideological matter, not a scientific one.

This bathroom issue, and "transgenderism" more broadly, is a useful ideological vehicle for relativism. They pretend to buy into it because it advances their relativistic, hedonistic, self-idolizing agenda. It should also be noted that recognizing the biological reality of the sexes has become a "conservative" position - even worse, a "Christian" position - so liberals feel they have to disagree on principle. If enough of us made a point of affirming the laws of gravity, liberals would start denying it just to be on the opposite side. That's how conversations work in this country.

So in lieu of rehashing what we all already know, I'd like to make a more practical, logistical point:

Men who "live as women" can unfortunately already use their desired bathrooms. That's one of the many reasons why this whole issue is ludicrous. If you've really invested in the charade, nobody would know that you're a male in the women's room, or a female in the men's room. There has never really been anything stopping a man from dolling himself up like a woman and going into the women's room. All he has to do is commit to the role, and the rest of us will be none the wiser.

I must, then, assume that laws opening up the bathrooms to "transgenders" are primarily meant to protect men who don't make much of an effort to play the part of women. Men who are "women," but the women they're playing happen to be butch lesbians who dress like men. It's like if Robert De Niro played Meryl Streep pretending to be Robert De Niro. Very confusing.

But if it results in men who look like men - meaning, men who you can definitively tell are men - walking into the bathroom or locker room with our wives and daughters, then we non-gender confused men must decide how we will handle the situation.

The culture is going down the toilet in a hurry, so it probably behooves any man to determine how he might respond should he be in a position where he witnesses an obvious man trying to enter the facilities after his wife or daughter. Yes, I'm sure you never thought you'd have to game plan for such a scenario, but here we are, so let's figure it out.

I cannot tell you what to do, but, in my opinion, this would be a time where good men can ignore the law. It doesn't matter if the law allows the gender confused man to do what he is doing. It doesn't matter what an appeals court, or the Obama administration, or the ACLU, or anyone else says on the matter. The laws of man may say that a dude has a right to take his pants off in front of your wife, but the laws of nature, of decency, of morality, of common sense, all say the opposite. I would consider it my responsibility to enforce those laws, especially if my wife or my daughter's privacy, safety and dignity are at stake.

The politicians can do what they want, but as a man, I'm not just going to sit there and let another man walk into a room where I know my wife or daughter might be exposed. There is no way I could allow that to happen without trying to stop it.

If I can't tell it's a man, then there's nothing I can do. But progressivism's whole "theory" is that our outward appearance need not, and perhaps should not, conform to our gender. They undermine their own theory when "transgender" men go through enormous lengths to mimic the stereotypical outward appearance of a woman. Bruce Jenner cut bones off his face and squeezed himself into the most classically feminine outfits he could find for his Vanity Fair cover story. But if gender is just a social construct, why can't Bruce have a masculine nose and forehead, and wear traditionally masculine clothing, and grow a beard, and keep his penis, and have a flat chest, and still be a woman? Either that stuff is all meaningless or it isn't.

Progressives will realize their contradiction and, eventually, the only difference between a "transgender" man and a regular man will be that one calls himself a woman and the other does not. The clothing, the makeup, the operations - all of that stuff reinforces the very gender stereotypes "transgenderism" is meant to debunk. So, I think, in the not too distant future, you'll start to see more cases of men who look in every way like men waltzing into women's bathrooms and locker rooms. And that's when other men, particularly the husbands and fathers of the women being put at risk, will need to step up and put a stop to it.

This isn't about being a "tough guy." It's just about a man having a certain responsibility to his wife and his daughters. It's a shame that the law sometimes gets in the way of that responsibility. But whenever it does, the responsibility comes before the law. And as our society plunges deeper into this progressive psychosis, the law will become less and less relevant, and we will be less and less morally obligated to follow it.

To request Matt for a speaking engagement, email Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For all other comments and death wishes, email MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?