On Friday, May 13, 2016, the Obama administration issued a directive to all public schools across the nation dictating policy as to the president’s novel interpretation of portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The letter interprets Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to include “gender identity.” To comply, all schools that receive any federal funding (read: all public schools) must give transgender students full access to the school bathrooms and locker rooms (including showers) of the opposite sex. The letter — which is non-binding, but implies the threat of lawsuits and withholding of federal funds — says:
A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy.
A presidential directive of this type would have been unimaginable even a few short years ago, much less a generation ago. Can anyone imagine the response if even president Clinton had tried this? Of course this shift did not happen in a vacuum. The last few years have seen the reconditioning of the American mind on a variety of related issues.
“Gender identity” is now undergoing the same policy transformation that Americans witnessed in the case of homosexual “marriage” in recent months. The similarities are astounding. In fact, when Obama ran for president, he said that he was “not in favor of gay marriage” since marriage is “a sacred union” between “a man and a woman,” because “God’s in the mix.” Then, four years later, he told ABC that he had “been going through an evolution on this issue,” and had concluded that “same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
The truth is, there was no “evolution,” just a revelation that the president had been lying all along to get elected for the purpose of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” as he promised during a campaign speech in 2008. This was revealed in a Democrat Party e-mail in April, in which Obama says that securing “the right of marriage equality … for every American, no matter who they love” is one of the reasons he “got into politics in the first place.”
As political winds have shifted, anyone holding the president’s previous position is now portrayed as “bigoted” and “homophobic,” as his statements in support of what is now called “traditional” marriage have been sent down the memory hole. That process has already begun in the case of “transgender” rights. Anyone who points out that a person who is confused about his or her external plumbing and believes they can “choose their gender” is suffering from a mental disorder is accused of being “bigoted” and “transphobic.” This, despite the fact that Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is a recognized diagnosis in the mental health profession. In one illustration of how fast this trend is shifting, the New York Times Health Guide — as of this writing — still contains a section referring to GID as a “rare disorder.” The New York Times says the “cause is unknown, but hormones in the womb, genes, social and environmental factors (such as parenting) may be involved.” The Times recommends therapy for those suffering from this mental disorder and states that even after sexual reassignment surgery, “identity problems may continue.”
It will likely only be a matter of time before that description is either changed or expunged from the New York Times’ website, but it is noteworthy that even as liberal a publication as the Times still recommends therapy for what is quickly becoming viewed as a “right” and a “choice,” and which the Obama administration is reinterpreting the Civil Rights Act to “protect.”
In fact, once “gender identity” is recognized as a right, it will likely be illegal to oppose it. Look at the cases of florists and bakers who have been dragged into court for refusing to provide their services at same-sex “weddings.”
There is a tipping point — a point of no return — for any society. Can a society survive the breakdown of morality in which girls shower with boys? Obama and his cohorts may soon find that this is a bridge too far for many Americans. Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick said Obama’s directive will have definite blowback. “This will be the end of public education — if this prevails,” he said, adding, “People will pull their kids out. Homeschooling will explode. Private schools will increase. School choice will pass.” How’s that for hope and change?
This article is an example of the exclusive content that's available only by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!