California is governed by nincompoops: Evidence is AB 1266
Is it possible that California legislators could pass a law more absurd than AB 1266, authored by Democrat Tom Ammiano, 17th Assembly District, in San Francisco? The key provision is section 1, subsection f:
“A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
Assemblyman Ammiano identifies himself as an “LBGT activist.” That means that his “cause” trumps his duty to pass fair and equal legislation. Instead, the undocumented “gender” of children in our public schools, by this “law,” trumps anatomy and morality, which require that boys and girls be separated in their most intimate situations.
For those who have not been paying attention, or hoping that what they have read or heard in the mass media is trivial or even erroneous, this law permits what the sane people among us would call boys and girls to participate in activities of the opposite sex that entail sharing dressing rooms, showers and toilet facilities.
As Abraham Lincoln began his famous “House Divided Speech” in 1858, “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.” The nonsense at the heart of AB 1266 did not appear overnight. The so-called “sexual revolution” has reached its ultimate absurdity, affirming a conclusion completely at odds with what was believed to be its assumption, viz., that there are two sexes.
The designation LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual and Transgender) leaves common sense in the ashes. It is certainly at war with both classical and Biblical morality, without which what we call common sense would be merely common with no sense. But that’s not all. It is also anti-science, for there is no evidence whatsoever that there are more than two sexes.
A desire or an impulse is not an identity. A man’s desire for another man’s wife does not make him a “transmarried” person. A thief’s desire for someone else’s property does not make him “transpropertied.” The sexual revolution began with the desire to have sex with anyone of the opposite sex, preferably unmarried but not necessarily. Its primary exponents were men, not surprisingly, but the “women’s liberation” movement aimed at “equality” for the fairer sex. This required that both birth control and abortion be legalized. Finally, homosexuals also demanded “equality.” Now we told that sexuality itself must be abolished.
For a time, advocates or practitioners of homosexuality attempted to justify it by their insistence that a “gay gene” existed. Many people, easily snookered by pseudo-scientific claims, fell for this ploy, lest they be regarded by others as unenlightened or unscientific. But the claim turns out to be a fig leaf to be cast off when it’s no longer needed.
But we can’t ignore anatomy or DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Human beings are born either male or female, evidenced by different sexual organs but also at the moment of conception by male or female chromosomes.
People who still have common sense have already observed that this new public policy that permits a boy or girl to claim that he or she is “transgender” on the basis of no physical evidence whatsoever is testing the limits. Most likely, it will be boys who will claim, at least for a while, to be more “comfortable” with the opposite sex, voyeurs or worse who think nothing of invading girls’ privacy.
This disgusting legislation exemplifies the utter contempt which partisans for the latest development in the sexual revolution have for the rights and opinions of their fellow citizens. The stated object may be “concern” for children with strong impulses but the real object is to break down morality so that all appetites can be indulged. The only legitimate objection that can be made to on-campus fondling or fornication will be either that it is “unwanted” or “inappropriate,” but certainly not immoral.
Let all those decent people who ridicule religious believers think hard about what it takes to maintain public morality, now directly threatened among children by misguided and/or malevolent Democrat politicians. Who, except the godly, will man the ramparts against this madness? One hopes that ALL good citizens, who understand that self-government depends on self-control, will demand that AB1266 be repealed by a direct vote of the California electorate.
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of "Take Journalism Seriously: 'Objectivity' as a Partisan Cause" (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org