Must Young Girls Be Exposed To Deviants For “Social Justice”?

The Daily Signal’s James Gottry wonders why 18 girls are forced into a single stall bathroom for “liberty”

In recent years, a common refrain accompanying nearly every demand for newly invented “rights” has been: “It doesn’t affect you, so you can’t be against it.”

This claim—whether false or true, subjective or objective—has been played as the ultimate trump card.

I’ve long held the Classical Liberal position that if it doesn’t cause you actual harm, and being annoyed, angry, upset aren’t really harm, why do you care? But….

On Wednesday, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of high school students and parents, asking the court to strike down a Minnesota school district policy that empowers a male student to enter the girls’ locker room and disrobe.

Not surprisingly, many girls have been distressed by the actions of the male student, which include twerking, grinding, and other sexually explicit actions. The response of the district and other authorities to the concerns has been a collective yawn. (snip)

The pretense that such demands don’t affect the lives of others now has been abandoned, replaced by two options: (1) get over it and get in line; or (2) be pushed to the margins of society, losing your reputation—and possibly your career—in the process.

In version 2.0 of the New Regime, even if you can point to a direct, immediate, and significant intrusion on your life, your opinion is irrelevant (and perhaps bigoted) when compared to “social progress.”

Let’s get back to what brought this on. From the first link

According to the complaint, a transgender student in Duluth, Minnesota, was allowed to enter the girls’ locker room and would dance “in a sexually explicit manner—‘twerking,’ ‘grinding,’ and dancing like he was on a ‘stripper pole’ to songs with explicit lyrics, including ‘Milkshake’ by Kelis.”

“On another occasion,” the complaint noted, “a female student saw the male student lift his dress to reveal his underwear while ‘grinding’ to the music.”

From the second link

The school told girls who felt uncomfortable they should consider using a secondary locker room in the basement of the elementary school.

“Plaintiff B and nearly half the junior varsity squad changed in the secondary locker room in hope that their privacy would not be violated,” the lawsuit states.

Midway through the season, Plaintiff A was told she could use a vacant boys’ basketball locker room – for privacy. But it wasn’t long before the transgender student showed up in that locker room.

“One on such occasion, Student X walked into the boys’ basketball locker room while Girl Plaintiff A was in her underwear and removed his pants while he was near her and other girls who were also changing,” the lawsuit states. “This incident deeply upset Girl Plaintiff A. It signaled to her that there was no place in the school where she could preserve her privacy under the new policy.”

The girls have had this forced on them, and the school, rather than standing up for their liberty and privacy, took the side of the deluded boy who thinks he’s a girl. See, it’s apparently not OK to tell the gender confused to use a single stall bathroom, locker room, or changing room, because that’s mean and bigoted and stuff. But, it’s OK to force the actual biological girls out of their private domains into other rooms. If a non-gender confused boy had pulled these stunts, he would have probably been arrested. At a minimum, thrown out of that school. Leftists would be shaming him as a rapist and sexual predator, and they wouldn’t be that far off, now, would they?

This is where the rubber meets the road. People’s privacy rights are being delegitimatized for this push to allow the gender confused (and those pretending to be gender confused) to go wherever they want. If some feel that they are actually gender confused, fine. Accept an accommodation. That’s not what they want, nor what their enablers want. They want to force this deviancy on others, violating their rights.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Must Young Girls Be Exposed To Deviants For “Social Justice”?”

  1. john says:

    Teach you fist point out one isolated incident, but then later somehow you decicde to use that to make it ab all encompassing “they” please explain to us exactly who the “they” are. This is another example of the straw man argument. O fusing one example to epitomize an entire group. Please note that only 1/2 of those girls felt it necessary to leave.This does sort of remind us of how people acted when “negros” were first allowed into places. Perhaps what should be done is counseling for the transgendered male.
    She sunds like she needs help

  2. drowningpuppies says:


    This does sort of remind us of how people acted when “negros” were first allowed into places.

    The logical fallacy of a retard…

  3. Dana says:

    In a saner time, the father of Girl Plaintiff A would have “discussed” the violation of her privacy with Student X, and Student X would have seen the error of his ways.

  4. gitarcarver says:

    john stupidly opined:

    Please note that only 1/2 of those girls felt it necessary to leave.

    Quick john, please tell us how many people either in a hard number or as a percentage it takes for a business or group to have a sexual harassment claim made against it?

    Clearly you aren’t too good with numbers or the law.

  5. Liam Thomas says:

    SUE….everytime one of these kids pops in the bathroom or anyone pops in Targets bathroom….SUE……

    SUE NON STOP…..ITS THE LEFTIST PERFERRED METHOD OF GETTING SHIT DONE.

    SUE….SUE….SUE and dont stop until there is no school district or business that would touch this with a 100 foot pole.

  6. Jeffery says:

    dana proposes a violent resolution.

    If any student is twerking, grinding and making other sexually suggestive actions or comments they should be disciplined.

    It’s possible the complaints aren’t true. Do you think all complaints in a lawsuit are true?

  7. gitarcarver says:

    dana proposes a violent resolution.

    So Jeffery, you think that when a school abrogates their loco parentis responsibility, the parents of a child should just sit back and do nothing?

    It’s possible the complaints aren’t true. Do you think all complaints in a lawsuit are true?

    You are assuming that the school is investigating the complaints. They aren’t.

    The students say they are true and that meets the burden of proof within the school and law.

  8. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    dana proposes a violent resolution.

    Had this happened to my daughters, yes, I would have “discussed” this with Student X, Student X would have seen the error of his ways, and no prosecutor in this small town would take any action against me.

    yes, sometimes an ass-kicking is what is required.

  9. Jeffery says:

    As satisfying as it must be to deliver an ass-kicking to a transgender kid based on what other kids say, it’s still illegal vigilantism.

    In the kind of world you long for groups of guys would deliver good old fashioned ass-kicking to “others” for reported misdeeds. And no prosecutor in those small towns ever took any action against them.

  10. It’s possible the complaints aren’t true. Do you think all complaints in a lawsuit are true?

    Interesting. Suddenly, Jeff doesn’t want to believe the dozen+ girls who’ve been exposed to a deviant. That’s rather sexist.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9479 access attempts in the last 7 days.