Share This Article with a Friend!


How Liberal Transgender Ideology Has Warped The Right To Privacy

Alliance Defending Freedom
Liberals have launched countless lawsuits in their quest to expand the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. Among the rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is what has become known as the right to privacy.

Justice Louis Brandeis called it "the right to be left alone,” and from the concept of the right to privacy have flowed some good and a number of pernicious judicial decisions; Roe v. Wade making abortion legal was based on the right to privacy. So too are those decisions striking down prohibitions against homosexual conduct and those other decisions in which the government was, as one might put it, kicked out of the bedroom.

However, after decades of claiming that the right to privacy, particularly in matters of sexuality, trumps all other considerations it appears that the Far-Left ideology of transgenderism has finally pushed the liberal view of privacy to a conclusion of logical absurdity.

In Illinois, back in 2015, the School Directors of Township High School District 211 began following an Obama-era transgender policy permitting boys claiming to be female to use the girls’ bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms.

At some point after District 211 first allowed an allegedly “transgender” male student to use the girls’ restrooms, but before it allowed him to use the girls’ locker rooms, the “transgender” student used a girls’ locker room without specific prior permission.

A female student, who had been sexually assaulted previously, was exposed to the “transgender” student’s penis. District 211 failed to investigate or remediate the situation. Instead, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court by parents opposed to the school district’s policy, by December 2015, District 211 allowed the sexually male “transgender” student to access the girls’ locker rooms.

At first, the policy applied only to the individual identified in the lawsuit as Student A, who was required to change in private changing stations while in the girls’ locker rooms. However, on one or more occasions, according to the complaint, Student A failed to use a private changing station while changing.

Now here’s the beginning of the logical absurdity of the liberal definition of “privacy.”

The reason District 211 allowed sexually male Student A to use the girls’ locker rooms is because it was used by females. Had the girls’ locker rooms not been limited to females, District 211 would not have been able to affirm Student A’s preferred gender by allowing him also to use the girls’ locker rooms.

So, to make this perfectly clear: The school district was introducing a biological male into the previously “private” space of an objecting group of biological females to “affirm” the male’s “preferred gender.”

No wonder the parents of some of the girls sued.

But here’s where it gets even more absurd.

Judge Jorge Alonso of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, who is hearing the case, is allowing the lawsuit to proceed against the school district, however, according to reporting by Breitbart’s Dr. Susan Berry, the judge informed the girls, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), that, “[s]o far, the right not to be seen unclothed by the opposite sex is not on the Supreme Court’s list.”

The judge wrote according to Dr. Berry’s report:

The crux of this suit is that defendants seek to affirm the claimed genders of students by allowing male students who claim female gender to use privacy facilities (i.e., bathrooms and locker rooms) designated for use by the female sex and female students who claim male gender to use privacy facilities designated for the male sex … District 211 adopted the policy solely to affirm the claimed genders of those students claiming a gender different from their sex at birth.

Alonso continued, saying the school district has adopted the policy of allowing all transgender students to use the restrooms, locker rooms, and showers of their choice, while it insists all other students “must use the restrooms and locker rooms designated for their sex.”

“Before adopting the policy, District 211 did not investigate the reliability of the science underlying gender-affirmation treatments,” the judge wrote. “Nor did it make any effort to understand the impacts such a policy would have on students exposed to opposite-sex, same-gendered students in locker rooms and restrooms.”

The students, wrote Judge Alonso, “are at continual risk of encountering (and sometimes do encounter), without their consent, members of the opposite sex while disrobing, showering, urinating, defecating and while changing tampons and feminine napkins,” reported Dr. Berry.

The judge, according to Dr. Berry’s reporting, acknowledged the school district’s enforcement of the transgender policy has caused the students “embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, fear, apprehension, stress, degradation and loss of dignity.”

However, and here is the logical absurdity, Alonso threw out the students’ argument made in the case that they have the right to “bodily privacy,” saying that right refers to physically being touched by others, “not visual bodily privacy.”

Got that?

According to transgender ideology, now affirmed by a federal judge, you have no right to visual bodily privacy. Your nakedness, long believed, next to your thoughts, to be the ultimate private realm is no longer private and your “visual bodily privacy” must now give way to the demands of transgender ideology.

The case is Students and Parents for Privacy v. School Directors of Township High School District 211, No. 16 C 4945, in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division.

To fight the imposition of this absurd and degrading ideology please go the Alliance Defending Freedom website.

Share this

The judge should take his own advice

Would the judge appear naked in his courtroom? No? Why not? After all, he has NO right to visual privacy, and certainly no one is going to touch him in his courtroom. So? Goose-gander judge? If you believe it is not harmful to force little girls to be naked in front of young boys, YOU should have no problem exposing your own tender parts to public view.