“The Inmates Have Taken Over the Asylum!”

“The Inmates Have Taken Over the Asylum!”

© David Burton 2016

Bathroom Edict

     Again, the Politically Correct elite are wreaking their inane stupidity upon the American people in contravention of common sense and to the detriment of the English language.

Example number 1: “Congress completed legislation last week that amends the vocabulary {in federal laws} in two acts, replacing ‘Negroes, Spanish-speaking, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts’ with ‘Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders, African-American, Hispanic, Native American, or Alaska Natives.’ The Bill now goes to the president for his signature.” (Ref. 1)

     Apparently our legislators have nothing better to do than reconstitute the English language according to the dictates of the Politically Correct (PC) liberal elite. They can’t pass a federal budget, but they can order the removal of perfectly good words from the common vernacular. Heaven forbid that a word might possibly offend someone.

Example number 2: The Obama administration has decided that transgender rights trump the rights of the overwhelming majority. “The Obama administration will order all US public schools to allow transgender students to access restrooms that match their identities in a move that escalates the national fight over LGBT rights that has erupted in response to North Carolina’s controversial ‘bathroom bill’.” (Ref. 2) Failure to comply with the administration’s directive means they risk the loss of federal funding if they do not comply.

     The government’s letter to the schools reads: “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.
     “The notice also makes clear that transgender students must have access to facilities ‘even in circumstances in which other students, parents or community members raise objections or concerns’.” (Ref. 2) What this means is that the rest of us, i.e., the vast majority, must remain a “silent and compliant majority”. In other words, the Obama administration is ordering us to keep our mouths shut and accept this executive decree! In days past, such a directive would have been called a "royal decree". This directive from the Obama Administration has been described by some as “a baseless and blatant overreach” of the power of the executive branxh of the U.S government.

     What we have is the Federal Government dictating to local school systems that they must let people decide to which bathrooms and which locker rooms they can have access. If I were a pedophile, I would be smiling all the way into the locker room and bathroom of my preference.

     Some (the vast majority) may be uncomfortable with it, but why let most people’s discomfort violate the perceived “civil rights” of transgender individuals? One estimate of the percentage of transgender individuals in the United States is 0.3% or roughly 333 non-transgender persons for every transgender individual. So, we are potentially discomforting 333 people to make one person perhaps feel somewhat more comfortable. What we are witnessing is the tyranny of the few over the majority. Perhaps a more apt analogy of what we have transpiring here in America is that of the inmates of the lunatic asylum taking over control of the asylum.

     In response to California’s transgender law that allows any K-12 student, who identifies his or her gender as something opposite of what his actual sex is, access to any bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams, one angry parent retorted that, “While trying to address a concern of less than 2 percent of the population, California is now forcibly violating the rights of the other 98 percent.” (Ref. 3)

     In one attempt at compromise, it was proposed that in addition to male and female bathroom facilities, family bathrooms, which are frequently available, could be used by all, male, female, and whatever. But this was ruled unacceptable.

     The Texas Attorney General summed up the views of many when he said, "If President Obama thinks he can bully Texas schools into allowing men to have open access to girls in bathrooms, he better prepare for yet another legal fight." (Ref. 4)

     The Obama administration’s meddling where it shouldn’t can easily open a veritable Pandora’s Box, e.g, that of women in sports. Women and men generally compete separately in sports for the apparently simple reason that men and women are physically different. In the past, there have been cases in Olympic competition where Russian women athletes were suspected of actually being men and competing unfairly against other women athletes. One of America’s first women marathon competitors related that, prior to an early women’s marathon, one of the medical staff reached down into the front of her shorts to verify that she was indeed a woman during the pre-race medical examination. Will the government now extend the reach of Title IX to require that transgender women – those who are psychologically women but are physically male – be allowed to compete against women – those who are psychologically women and are physically female? Where else will the Obama administration's misguided actions lead?

Example number 3: In another act of political correctness absurdity, President Drew Faust of Harvard University attempted to ban single-sex social clubs. “Harvard University . . . announced substantial changes to its approach toward single-sex social clubs that are designed to deter membership in Greek organizations and male-only secret societies along with the school's famous ‘final clubs.’
     “Beginning with entering freshman in 2017, any member of such organizations will be ineligible for leadership in other campus activities or sports teams and will be barred from fellowships like the Rhodes scholarship and the Marshall scholarship.” (Ref. 5)

     While the move was directed primarily at all-male fraternities, the edict also applies to all-female sororities. “Harvard has five female final clubs, which were all founded in the modern era. They would also be affected, and some are not happy with the changes.
     " ‘[F]emale clubs have tried to work with Harvard's administration to ensure that both men's and women's clubs transition safely and that women do not become collateral damage in the transition,’ leaders of the all-female Sabliere Society wrote to the Crimson. ‘Harvard has given us no indication it understands these concerns.’
     “Harvard's six all-male final clubs and five all-male fraternities are replete with famous alumni.
     “The iconic all-male Porcellian Club, founded in 1791 and often compared to Yale's Skull and Bones and Oxford's Bullingdon Club, sports Theodore Roosevelt as an alumnus. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a member of the all-male Fly Club. Publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes Jr. were members of the all-male A.D. Club.” (Ref. 5)

     So, the president of Harvard University is trying to do away with single sex sororities and fraternities. What ever happened to the right to associate with whomever one wished?

     Harvard’s move is beyond stupid – it is idiotic and counterproductive! Harvard’s edict ostensibly has the “specious goal of making the campus safe from sexual aggressiveness.
      - - -
     “For an institution that has regaled itself at every opportunity as the sine qua non of brilliance, freedom of choice and common sense in American education, this is perhaps the silliest of actions in a world of academe that is increasingly under assault from nearly every direction. No longer, it seems, will a Harvard man or woman have the right to freely choose their associates in a social living setting.
      - - -
     “Someone immediately pointed out that admitting women to these gender-select groups would do just the opposite of the intended consequences by giving the male members so inclined to predatory practices easier access. In other words, it would be like taking the chickens to the fox’s den.
     “Are they nuts?  . . .
      - - -
     “Sadly, Harvard will have lost something here. No longer will it be able to lay claim to being the bastion of free thought and association, defender of the right of man and woman to thrive in an atmosphere that gives them the liberty to bond with others they select on a gender-restrictive basis.” (Ref. 6)

     Harvard University’s action is just one more trampling of the rights of individuals under the tyranny of political correctness. Harvard’s ill-conceived action restricts an individual’s right to associate with whomever he or she chooses. Freedom of association is an individual and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights. Freedom of association has been a necessary feature of every democratic society.

     The United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government and the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech.[7] Apparently, academic freedom - at least at Harvard University - supersedes the American Constitutions and the Supreme Court.

     So, just who do you think is in charge of the insane asylum?

  1. Congress joins move way from using the term ‘Oriental’, Yanan Wang, Boston Sunday Globe, Page A10,
    15 May 2016.
  2. Obama orders public schools to allow transgender students access to restrooms, Sam Levin, theguardian,
    12 May 2016.
  3. TRANSGENDER RESTROOM LAW HUMILIATES THE 98%, Tim Donnelly, wnd.com, 15 August 2013.
  4. 5 States So Far Looking to Fight Obama's Transgender Bathroom Edict, Samuel Smith, The Christian Post,
    16 May 2016.
  5. Harvard Targets Single-Sex Student Clubs, Curt Mills, U.S. News, 6 May 2016.
  6. Harvard’s crackdown on single-sex clubs just silly, Dan K. Thomasson, Boston Herald, Page 19, 17 May 2016.
  7. Citizens United and the Paradox of "Corporate Speech": From Freedom of Association to Freedom of The Association, Wayne Batchis, 36 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 5, 2012.

  3 June 2016 {Article 252; Whatever_47}    
Go back to the top of the page