The Department of Education is very good at demonstrating why it shouldn't exist. It put on its most convincing display this week when it ruled -- you know, like a court, except it's not a court -- that Illinois' largest school district violated the "civil rights" of a gender-confused boy by not letting him use the girl's locker room. The school district now has 30 days to force underage females to change in front of the "transgender" student, or it will lose funding. Clearly, this is the role our Founders envisioned for the federal government.
I have a few points I'd like to make about this case. Let's go through them one by one.
1. Barack Obama is facilitating the sexual abuse of underage children.
This story is very similar to many others we've heard in recent months, but it sets itself apart somewhat because it's the first time President Obama's federal government has stepped in so definitively to coordinate the victimization of high school girls. And make no mistake, allowing a boy to change in front of girls, and requiring that girls change in front of him, is sexual abuse. The problem isn't simply that non-"transgender" predators can easily pretend to be "transgender" in order to gain access to the women's facilities -- although that does happen and it is a completely unavoidable outcome -- but that allowing any man of any persuasion to watch girls use the bathroom or change their clothes is appalling and exploitative. It doesn't matter if the man is "transgender" or regular gender or quasigender or nongender or gendergender. If he's a man, he doesn't belong there. Period.
It's not debatable. It's not a matter that can be discussed among intelligent grown ups. There exists not a single morally or intellectually sound justification for this madness. I am often accused of being too harsh and too absolutist in my pronouncements on issues. Whether my gorilla in a China shop approach is always appropriate is another matter, but in this case, with this sort of thing, when dealing with the mind-numbing lunacies of "transgender" propaganda, I think every opponent should be adopting a hard-line stance. This is wrong. It's demented. It's evil. It's dangerous. It's abusive. Every argument in favor should be dismissed as the blathering nonsense it so clearly is.
Lila Perry. Via Facebook.
Moreover, "transgenders" are men who struggle with mental illness and sexual perversion. Of all the men to permit in a girl's locker room, one might argue that "transgenders" ought to be last on the list. Remember Lila Perry, the male "transgender" Missouri high school student who demanded, and was granted, the right to change and use the toilet with girls? A look at his own social media postings reveal that he is attracted to females (and males), and enjoys taking pictures of himself simulating explicit sexual acts. What sort of parent wouldn't be concerned about a vulgar, hypersexual boy like that using the locker room with their daughter? What sort of government claims that a boy like that has a civil right to infringe on the privacy and security of girls?
The answers: neglectful parents and depraved, tyrannical governments.
2. The homosexual/transgender lobby can never be appeased.
This Illinois case is incredible considering how far the school district went to accommodate the deluded young man. Administrators first changed the pronouns on official school records to reflect whatever sex the "transgender" is pretending to be. That wasn't enough. They allowed boys to play on girl sports teams, needlessly endangering safety and providing an unfair advantage to the team with the cross dressing male. That wasn't enough. They let "transgenders" use the bathrooms of their choice. That wasn't enough. They even let the boy use the girl's locker room. The only stipulation -- the only attempt they made to offer the real girls some shred of privacy and decency -- was to ask the boy to change and shower behind privacy curtains, which they had specially installed for him. That wasn't enough.
The school, like most schools in the country, bent over backwards to grant enormous and unreasonable favors to a small and demanding branch of an already tiny demographic. They made girls give up their sport's teams, their bathrooms, and most of their privacy in the locker room, but the one single concession they asked of the boy was that he use a curtain. It still was not enough. It is never enough.
In liberalism, there is simply no demand that can be made, no requirement that can be expected, no line of distinction that can be drawn where "transgenders" and homosexuals are concerned. They must be given everything. Everything. And it's never enough.
This is what the marriage fight was all about. Many states had already offered homosexuals an arrangement that would carry all of the same legal benefits as marriage, just without the title. But it wasn't enough. Most homosexuals aren't even interested in monogamous relationships, but they wanted access to marriage -- marriage itself, not something close to it -- because, well, just because. Because it's never enough.
This also explains the fights over weddings cakes and photography and floral shops. Homosexuals can go basically anywhere and get a cake, or hire a photographer, or buy flowers, but if they encounter one business -- just one, in a sea of other businesses -- that wishes to refrain from being involved in gay "wedding" ceremonies, they must force it to comply or see that it is destroyed. It's not enough to simply go somewhere else. It's never enough.
3. The homosexual/transgender lobby dominates and controls liberalism.
It's really a remarkable thing. Liberalism is the prominent ideology in America, yet it is ultimately dominated by the most quantitatively insignificant group on the planet. Homosexuals are already a relatively rare breed, and "transgenders" are even more scarce. There are a handful of gender-confused people in this country, but their demands and desires trump everyone's, including even the desires of the feminists who used to rule the liberal roost.
(AP Photo/Danny Johnston)
Feminists are the matriarchs of modern liberalism, and now they are watching as their movement dies, not by the hands of conservative Christians, but by gay men in dresses. Men are now barging their way into the female ranks and claiming not only membership, but headship, and feminists are required to shut up and cooperate. A few weeks ago, Glamour magazine declared Bruce Jenner "Woman of the Year." Feminists were forced to applaud as a man was awarded the title of best woman. And most heroic woman. And most heralded, most admired, most womanly woman of all.
For years, feminists have insisted that they can do everything as well as men. Today, they must sit quietly while the gay lobby explains that, on the contrary, they can't even be women as well as men. The mainstream acceptance of radical feminist theory has been, up until this point, one of liberalism's great achievements. And now it's all been tossed out for the sake of a population that barely exists. If there is a war on women, this is where it's being waged.
4. With "transgenderism," the left has finally jumped the shark.
The phrase "jump the shark" comes from the infamous "Happy Days" episode where the Fonze dons a leather jacket and a pair of water skis and literally jumps over a shark. Now it's come to describe the moment where any TV show exhausts all of its plots and story arches and has to resort to ridiculous and desperate measures to keep its audience entertained. Often, when a show jumps the shark, it begins to undo previously established plot lines and betray the development of its characters, quickly becoming something entirely divorced from what it was back when it still had new ideas.
Once a show has done everything else, all that's left is jumping the shark. The question, then, is whether the viewers will abandon the show, or just keep watching anyway. If they stay, it will continue indefinitely, jumping new sharks every episode, and never going off air because its audience has made clear that it will accept whatever bunk the show dumps on them (see: "The Simpsons").
This is the situation liberalism is in at the present moment. Some might say it jumped the shark many years ago, back when it fought for and won the right to murder infant children, but that was actually the birth of modern liberalism. The invention of "transgenderism" could be its death, or its rebirth into something even more depraved and destructive and indestructible than it was before. The outcome remains to be seen.
Liberalism has run out of battle grounds. It's run out of things to say. But because it is, at its core, a deception, it cannot remain still. It must "progress," in the sense that it must always run left, even when it appears to have run out of room.
Compare this with Christianity. Traditional Christians have been making the same points, taking the same stands, saying the same things, teaching the same moral lessons, and fighting for the same values and the same truths for 2,000 years. Christianity is immovable because it is eternal. Christianity does not invent new causes, because its one and only cause has always been truth, and truth never changes. While the liberalism of today sounds significantly different from the liberalism of six years ago, the Christianity of today sounds exactly the same as the Christianity of 600 years ago or 1,000 years ago. Christians must defend the truth against new attacks, but the truth itself, that which is being defended, remains steady, present, and alive.
Liberalism has no truth at its foundation, so it can only keep moving. Christians live in a house built on rock, but liberals have no house at all. They are ideological nomads, wandering ever further into the abyss. With "transgenderism," there is some evidence that liberalism has wandered a bridge too far. Unlike some of their other ideas, they have absolutely no defense here. Not only does "transgender" propaganda undo many of their own positions, but it makes a proposition that can only be accepted by those already fully indoctrinated into the liberal religion.
Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Despite what they might say, there is no rational argument to support the notion that men can be women so long as they feel like women. There is no scientific proof. No evidence. Nothing. It's a total fantasy bearing no resemblance to reality whatsoever. To make matters worse for them, they can't even use their usual "well, maybe what we're saying is total hogwash, but it has nothing to do with you anyway" argument. After all, they're insisting that the we facilitate the "transgender" delusion by permitting penis-bearing men to de-robe in front of women, and that we participate in it by playing along and using the correct pronouns and even funding "gender reassignment surgery." They want all of us to take specific action to accommodate this group. It does, therefore, affect us.
They can't explain the argument, and they can't argue that their argument is of no concern to us. All they can do is present the concept as a matter of faith, and hope their fellow believers will follow along.
But not every liberal is a stage four liberal. Some are still out on the edges, only partially programmed. Hoisting this "transgender" stuff on them is like Scientology telling you about the galactic Lord Xenu the moment you walk in the building to ask for a brochure. Scientologists smartly wait to reveal the whole space lord shtick until their adherents have almost entirely bought into all of the requisite doctrines. Nominal Scientologists are still clear thinking enough to run for the hills the moment the Xenu myth is broached. Are nominal liberals clear thinking enough to run for the hills at the "transgender" myth?
That doesn't appear to be the case, although there have been some reassuring signs, like just this week when Houston voted down an ordinance that would have allowed cross dressing men to use women's public restrooms. But we're far from being able to call this a loss for liberalism. For one thing, the institutions -- government, academia, media -- have taken on "transgender acceptance" as their next great project. For another, the only reason liberals are fighting tooth and nail over where gender-confused boys use the potty is that they've already won every other contest. Finally, this is a generational play. Liberal baby boomers might resist the "transgender" fantasy, but in my generation, half of us are currently on board. Liberalism has won the majority of millennials over on nearly every point of their dogma, and on "transgenderism" -- their most incredible and preposterous -- they've already convinced half of us, and it only took, like, 12 seconds.
I struggle to be optimistic for the future.
5. Liberals are waging a war on reality.
Liberalism has officially severed itself from any semblance of reality, and indeed declared war upon it. If our culture cooperates; if we relent and concede that science is relative and human beings are gods who can choose their own biological makeup; if the left jumps over the shark and into the dark waters of full fledged insanity, and many in our society take the plunge right along with it, then there will be no stopping liberalism. It will have won the culture irreversibly.
If we willingly forfeit the definition of "man" and "woman," right after forfeiting the definition of marriage, and long after forfeiting the definition of human life, then we will have no basis left to oppose anything else liberalism tries to do. We will have given it everything, ceded its every demand, compromised on every single imaginable point, and that will be the end of it. All we'll be able to do, then, is sit and wait for our civilization to eat itself and collapse into dust.
We either draw a line here and make a final stand for objective truth -- declaring without equivocation that some things, like our sex, are real and absolute -- or else we give up and play along and tell ourselves that truth never mattered all that much anyway.
I have no real confidence that, as a culture, we'll choose truth. But if it's ever going to happen, now's the time. Liberals have made it clear that they intend to finally and categorically reject and outlaw reality itself. Now the question is: will the rest of us stand up and do anything about it?
I hope so. But unlike liberals, I'm a realist, so I'm praying but I'm not holding my breath.
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.