The Death of Modesty

Barb Wire

The original context of providing “reasonable accommodation” had to do with the consideration of people with special needs so that they could enjoy the things the rest of us take for granted. The effort to accommodate included things like Braille language in elevators, and wheel chair ramps at intersections. Even though the cost to government and the business sector was incredibly high compared to the number of people who actually benefited from the law, not too many people complained because it seemed like the compassionate and right thing to do. This goal of accommodation has now reached its limit. It is past the boundaries of what is reasonable.

I can’t recall ever seeing a piece of legislation that made less sense and so violated the principles of common decency as AB1266 by San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano. This bill, signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, portends to accommodate people according to their perceived gender identity but it does so at the expense of the rest of the community. It invades and tramples on the innocence and privacy of our children.

There is no denying the fact that our society today is made up of heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, and the transgendered. We already have laws preventing discrimination and affording accommodation to the same. However, there is now another category called the “questioning”. This is a group of people who are not ready to make a decision to become transgendered by sex reassignment surgery. Some have made the decision to keep the gender identity they were born with and simply cross dress or who knows what! Nevertheless, if these individuals claim they relate to their perceived gender in contrast to their birth gender, they now have the right to go into a bathroom, shower, and locker room of their choice. Further, they can join the sports team of their choice regardless of their actual gender.

Anybody who is a parent is aghast to think of the real world consequences that will occur as a result of this idiotic legislation: the havoc and heartache, the outrage arising from the moral turpitude. What is a father and mother to think of their prepubescent or post-pubescent daughter being exposed to an intact male? How many mothers will allow their daughters to be on a sports team if it means changing and showering with boys? Other than suing on the basis of the right to privacy afforded by the California State Constitution, it will be difficult to defend our children lest we ourselves be charged with gender bias, discrimination, or perhaps even a hate crime.

Trending: The (IN)Equality Act: How We Got Here, and What We Do About It

Some children will no longer be able to use school facilities and compete on sports teams because their privacy, conscience and principles will be violated as a result of this intrusive assault on modesty and decency. The goal of accommodation, in this case, results in alienation and exclusion of others and will surely give rise to various forms of sexual abuse and violence. This legislation will cause more problems than it solves. It deserves to be rescinded and hopefully voters in California will get a chance to do just that this November.

First published in the Santa Barbara News Press

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.