Transgenderism – Violating Privacy Rights is NOT a Liberal Position

It is interesting in this era of gender fluidity, that the traditional liberal ideal of individuality is under siege from the most ironic of directions. Individualism, and the right to one’s own body, self-determination, and privacy stand at the core of any good classical liberal. But recent events at a high school in Palatine, Illinois are calling that into question.

You see, there happens to be a transgender student at that high school, an anatomical boy that now identifies as a girl. We’ll set aside the arguments for the plausibility of things (e.g. is “she” really a girl vs. it’s just a mental illness … if she told you she was really a goat, would you let her eat hay and live in a barn?) and assume “she” really is a girl “on the inside”. Nonetheless, “she” is anatomically a boy.

The interesting thing here is that the student has demanded the right to use the girl’s locker room. In short, the school tried to accommodate the student by allowing her access to the locker room, but requiring her to use private changing areas. They did so because many of the other girls had very real and legitimate privacy concerns about the issue. However, the Department of Education, under Title IX, stated that this arrangement violated the student’s civil rights, and threatened to pull the district’s federal funding.

Any classical liberal sees the conundrum here … both sides have a legitimate appeal to individual rights … the right to one student’s equality vs. other students’ privacy rights. The issue, clearly, is that we must find the balance between those two conflicting sets of rights.

However, this is NOT what the Department of Education did.


 

Rather, they decided that the rights of a group (transgenders) were more valid than the rights of another group, based purely on the Doctrine of the Minority. The doctrine of the minority, simply, is that we must hamstring the majority, or those better off or more capable, in order to enforce “equality”. To hell with the rights or aspirations of the majority. In true Harrison Bergeron fashion, we must re-engineer society as we see fit. It is identity politics at its worst …

And let us be clear, the idea that one’s group membership (whether it be racial, gender-based, sexual preference, etc.) trumps the needs/wants of the individual … that that individual’s identity, their experience, is subsumed within a homogenous identity of “the group” is a direct affront to individualism. A direct affront to individual rights. To individual self-determination. In short, to everything that Classical Liberalism stands for. It is NOT a liberal position.

Indeed, the push toward such collectivism is a hallmark in the radical departure of modern “Progressives” from classical liberalism.

And let’s not even get into why the Department of Education should be using Title IX to enforce civil rights in a litigious manner … is that not the purview of the Department of Justice? Moreover, using Title IX and the “threat of federal fund withdrawal” as a bludgeon to force others to act in ways they deem “socially appropriate”. Even when, as the recent vote in Houston (also this source) against allowing transgenders to use their non-anatomical bathroom showed, most people still value balancing the rights of everyone.

And lest we not forget the ACLU. I used to be a proud supporter of the ACLU … but apparently even they have no respect for the fact that ALL individuals have rights that should be respected. No, according to the new “progressive” ACLU, some people’s rights are more important than others. We used to have a word for that – Bigotry – but of course, this is “socially acceptable” bigotry. So that’s cool. Even the ACLU has turned its back on classical liberal principles … rejecting the Doctrine of Individualism for the aforementioned Doctrine of the Minority.


 

We should be clear, no one here is saying we should condone bullying or other such acts. Live and let live. But the reality is that an agreement that would balance the conflicting rights of different individuals was certainly within grasp. But that agreement was rejected and ridiculed by the so-called liberals in the Dept. of Education and ACLU. Or more like progressives in sheep’s clothing, perhaps. Instead, we likely will have an agreement that tramples the rights of many people. Simply because those people are not the right color, gender, or sexual preference. That is NOT a liberal position. In this case, they are normal heterosexual people without any gender dysphoria. Only, you know, like 95% of the population. But because Progressives see them only as “members of a group”, and a group that in their view is “privileged” … their individual rights are inconsequential, and at best secondary to the rights of other “groups”. My friends, this is NOT a liberal position.

Such is the consequence of the Progressive push to replace the classical liberal Doctrine of Individualism with the Doctrine of the Minority. It becomes a race to the bottom. Suddenly we are all thrust into some sort of “Oppression Olympics” … may the best victim win. But such a path is short-sighted. When we let the weak use their weakness as a form of power, we all become more impoverished for it. When we no longer respect true strength and skill, when we elevate others to the same status despite the lack thereof, we do not gain strength as a group. We gain mediocrity.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Transgenderism – Violating Privacy Rights is NOT a Liberal Position

  1. E-L says:

    “When we let the weak use their weakness as a form of power, we all become more impoverished for it.”–such a great sentiment that I quoted you somewhere, though, on a different topic. It’s a universally applicable truism.

    About this post..I don’t know where to begin. The recent stampede of people with Gender dysphoria, a psychological disorder, that came on the heels of the nation legalizing marriage between people of the same sex has not been a topic anyone within hearing range wants brought up because they are trained to know this will trigger another vitriolic rant on my part, and, because my general nature is typically to keep my thoughts and opinions to myself among other people, this topic is one of a handful that frees the beast of outrage and contempt.

    Society is not obligated to turn cartwheels nor change its common vernacular nor inconvenience 97% of its members by cosigning the bullshit of a few people with complex thinking disorders.

    If I see a company throwing its’ weight around to show its support of transgender ‘rights’ or levy sanctions against someone or some thing to force compliance or create fear of reprisal because the person or entity was identified as not being fully on board with the transgender program, I personally will never do business with them or their products/services, again. Ever. Ever. Ever.
    And, I will make a point of making a big, noisy, audacious fuss about it publicly because for some reason, this thinking disorder has become contagious. Normalizing a thinking disorder is itself symptomatic of having a thinking disorder.

    The inmates are running the asylum.

  2. CopperFox3c says:

    Yeah, very much agree. Actually in the last couple weeks the Chicago Public School system announced its system-wide Transgender policy where pretty much anyone can use whatever bathroom they want, depending on what gender they believe they are.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to hate on transgenders … I just really don’t see why everyone else has to change to accommodate them. And as I point out in my most recent post (http://www.illiberal-liberal.com/2016/05/the-politics-of-fragility/) right-wingers are already co-opting their language. The real threat here is to Classical Liberal principles.

Leave a Reply