This week, the Maine Human Rights Commission moved to ban gender specific bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams in all public schools and even some private schools. That’s right. The girls’ room ain’t just for little girls anymore! Nor is the boys’ room only for little boys. Nor are locker rooms, showers, etc. That is, if the Maine Human Rights Commission gets its way. (Just as an aside, whenever I see the words “Human Rights” linked with “Commission” I get very nervous.)
Apparently, this issue really got going last year when the Commission ruled that, under the Maine Human Rights Act, a school had discriminated against a twelve-year-old boy who identified himself as a girl (they call it self-identifying), by denying him access to the girls’ bathroom. Now the Commission is looking to issue guidelines on how schools—including even pre-school and nursery schools—should adjust themselves in order to deal with this issue. Maine would be the first state to implement such guidelines. Not surprisingly, the Commission has drawn fire for this decision and has recently been compelled to back-pedal a bit, but the issue is not entirely a dead letter; it has merely been postponed.
I’m just curious, does a twelve year old have the mental and emotional (to say nothing of legal) capacity to sort out all the factors that go into whether he/she is a boy/girl? I’ve heard of adults making the transgender switch only to realize later on that they may have been a little too hasty (I think it’s called transgender regret). So I wonder about the parents of a mixed up child being so positively certain that their kid is this or that other gender. Something to think about and I wonder if the Commission did think about it. Also, while I am no doctor or school guidance counselor, I do know what it was like to be a kid in public school, and the Commission’s decision has “really bad idea” written all over it.
Oh well, just another example of progressives meddling with the culture. Even worse: Maine progressives meddling with the culture. If the Maine Human Rights Commission ever succeeds in pushing through its radical-progressive agenda, I sincerely hope that the old aphorism, “as Maine goes, so goes the nation,” proves to be no more than a fairy tale.
Tags: as Maine goes so goes the nation, bathroom, boys room, Culture, Ed Wood, Gem of the Week, gender, gender specific, girls room, glen or glenda, glenn, glenn or glenda, good schools gone bad, human rights, Johnny Depp, locker room, Maine, Maine Human Rights Commission, Maine progressives, meddling with culture, private schools, progressive, progressive policy, public schools, school sports teams, State of Maine, transgender, transgender guidelines, transgender issues, transgender regret
Culture Crusader 
April 18, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
“Progressives meddling with the culture”
1. I’m pretty sure that a lot of British loyalists described early American patriots in just about the same words.
2. You have a funny notion of culture.
April 18, 2010 at 11:23 pm |
You’re always getting everyone’s roles mixed up (and how appropriate you should do that in this post). The founders weren’t some closed-door government-sanctioned Commission saying this is the way we’re going to do things now (to wit: boys will be girls and girls will be boys). They were the representatives of the People (the colonials) who stood up against the governmental authority of Great Britain after a long train of abuses from that quarter. Not unlike ordinary Americans today are rising up against a continuing train of Progressive abuses of power in all areas: including the culture. Always remember one thing: It is only the government that has the real power to meddle in things, and they always do.
How is my “notion” of culture funnier than yours?
April 19, 2010 at 4:21 am |
Well who’s mixed up here? You said “progressives meddling with the culture” – which I think is a fair description of how you feel about the direction your country is going – I am merely pointing out that the same sentiment was likely directed at American patriots by British loyalists. And is really the sentiment faced by all people working towards change – in all societies. Always has been, always will be. Some of today’s progressives will one day feel that way about others with yet newer ideas. It’s the way of the world.
Notions of culture – again, I was merely pointing out that it made me chuckle to read that an argument on bathroom stalls is painted as a cultural one, Culture Crusader.
As for commissions, etc – I’m curious to know your thoughts on the House Un-American Activities Committee.
April 19, 2010 at 9:59 pm |
Sorry, but I think you are still the one who’s mixed up.
You seem to be operating under the false premise that all change equals progress, and therefore, is of intrinsic benefit to mankind; and that it is only a matter of time before those who resist change (like us benighted conservatives) begin to see the light and realize that they too need to embrace, as a good thing, the change that they once opposed.
You are correct in one thing: that change is almost always resisted. That is axiomatic. Humans are generally cautious, conservative animals and instinctively resist change. (Maybe that is nature’s way of telling us something). But change is often resisted (and viewed as meddling) for good reason. That is the case with Progressivism in America today. It was not the case in Colonial America of 1776.
To help you understand this, you need to pay attention to who the agent for change is in any particular situation. Think beyond simply: all change = progress = good for people. When it is the governmental authority forcing the people to do something, it is almost always bad. And the Progressive Movement in America is all about that: Government, not ordinary people, forcing change upon the governed. Progressivism, as a movement, has never been a good thing. Rather, it is more like a disease. A disease that eats away at the very foundation upon which the American house is built: the Constitution. It is not even a forward thinking movement (though it is cleverly disguised as one, including even the root of its name: Progress.) It is defined by a progression toward something, the question is toward what? Certainly it is not progress in any positive sense. It is, rather, a progression toward bigger, more powerful and more intrusive government. Looking back upon history, you could even say that it is not really a progression at all, but instead a regression. A regression back to a strong centralized authority. A regression back to despotism. I have used a quote in one of my earlier posts that I think is salient here:
–Attrib. to Scottish-born writer and lawyer, Alexander Tytler.
Finally, yes, changing boys rooms into girls rooms and vice versa, is definitely a meddling with the culture, to say the least!
PS. I will address your other comment seriatim.
April 19, 2010 at 10:04 pm |
As for the House Committee on Un-American activities, tell me who the change-agent is in that scenario and you will know what I think of them.
April 20, 2010 at 7:02 am
“Change-agent”? I have no clue what you mean by that, and it sounds suspiciously ‘liberal social studies degree’. But basically you’re saying that you’re only willing to reveal your opinion on a selected and isolated element of the House Un-American Activities Committee, which has a distinctly political whiff.
April 26, 2010 at 6:13 pm
What it means is the entity or individual who is instigating the change in question. If it is the government, then it is almost always double-plus-ungood (to put it language that you can understand).
April 20, 2010 at 6:56 am |
For starters, historical analysis from 200 years ago may sound profound a) because they wrote pompously b) because they saw everything in terms of grand, impersonal historical forces that dictate the world. Example: “The people go from bondage to spiritual truth to great courage…” sounds grand, but, pray tell, WTF does it mean? The fact is that once you actually bother to look beyond grand statements and examine the details of how past civilizations declined it turns out that the causes have been many and varied. By the by, do you know that most Roman history specialists now agree that one of the major causes of the decline of Rome was its reliance on military power to maintain a bloated empire? Alright, alright, that’s bypassing a lot details, of course, but that’s the gist of it anyway.
This thing about the majority always voting for whomever promises them the most benefits – again, sounds like it makes sense and easily plays on our general cynicism towards the electoral system, but is it true?
April 20, 2010 at 9:31 am |
Next up: I challenge you to point out an instance where I say or intimate that change is intrinsically good. Never said that, never thought it. I simply stated that change is the nature of things. I put it to you, Crusader, that you blindly believe that change is unnecessary since the US already has the perfect system set up by the founding fathers. What I am trying to point out are the contradictions, to which you seem oblivious, in stating that a system put in place by progressives 200 years ago should resist all change from progressives today – whatever ‘progressive’ may mean to you, I’m using it here in opposition to ‘conservative’, no need to get into endless arguments on the appropriateness of the notion of progress. And since you believe that change is unnecessary, unless it is change that will bring you back to 1776, you cannot possibly look objectively on change, because change, no matter how much you wish it would be, is never regressive. In the human realm, for better or for worse, it never returns things to a previous state – no matter how good cyclical theories may sound. So you see, I am not taking change to be good, I just acknowledge it.
May 11, 2010 at 6:05 pm |
[…] https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/gem-of-the-week-glen-or-glenda/ […]
June 24, 2010 at 5:15 pm |
[…] https://culturecrusader.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/gem-of-the-week-glen-or-glenda/ […]