The New York Times reports today that the federal government is in conflict with a school district in Palatine, IL over the district’s treatment of a transgendered student:

“Federal Education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls locker room without restrictions.

Education officials said the decision was the first of its kind on the rights of transgender students, which are emerging as a new cultural battleground in the public schools across the country. In previous cases, federal officials had been able to reach settlements giving access to transgender students in similar situations. But in this instance, the school district in Palatine, Il, has not yet come to an agreement, prompting the federal government to threaten sanctions. The district, northwest of Chicago, has indicated a willingness to fight for its policy in court.”

The key phrase there, of course, is “without restrictions” (emphasis added). What, exactly, had the school district provided? The student, a physical boy who identifies as a girl, has been allowed to play on a girls’ sports team, and has been given access to the girls’ locker room, but has been required to shower and dress behind a curtain, out of sight of females in the same locker-room. Apparently, this is not good enough for the federal government. The government is demanding unfettered access without even the appearance of any differentiation between the transgendered athlete and others.

Think about all of that for a moment.

Many issues immediately present themselves.

I am sure many disagree, but it seems silly to allow a boy who identifies as a girl to play on a female sports team. Regardless of how we consider it, that athlete has significant physical advantages that make most sports unreasonable. This, by its nature, puts the physical females in an extraordinarily difficult position as they compete with what could be a much bigger, stronger, and faster opponent who has genetic advantages. Thought it may be absurd, do you want LeBron James playing on a girls’ basketball team? How, in any sense, is it fair for the girls?

Though it might be obvious, what about the girls in the locker room? Democrats have, to a degree, built their party around their ability to appeal to, and protect, women. Whenever any policy may have a negative impact on women, either real or imagined, we are told it is a “war on women.” Employers don’t want to pay for contraceptives or abortions through their health plans? War on women. Someone in the military may want to limit women in direct combat roles? War on Women. But…if we want to put a biological male in a locker room next to young women who may feel threatened, or at least uncomfortable, changing and showering next to a biological male? Well, that is simply something the young women will have to deal with according to the federal government.

I know that from a cubicle in Washington, D.C. this may all make philosophical sense. Government’s obligation is to be sensitive to the personal, felt needs of someone struggling with gender identification. That may be a discussion worth having, but such a policy does not consider the very real potential for either simple abuse or shenanigans. According to this policy, the student is a physical, genetic boy who has self-declared a gender of female. Let us assume that for this person, this is indeed a dramatic, personal struggle. At the same time, it may be possible, if not inevitable, that for some boys, this would be merely an opportunity to declare their gender to get access to the girls’ locker room. Will there be a process in place to distinguish between these kinds of cases? If so, how could it exist? Does it depend on if the boy has gone to counseling, or has a history, or has parents that could attest to a struggle? If that is the case, why are those factors relevant?

The assumption of this entire policy is that we, as individuals, have the right to declare, for ourselves, a gender. Attaching additional conditions, or external authorities, to the declaration appears to undermine the spirit and the law of such a thing. If no such process exists, what is to prevent behaviors that might range from tomfoolery to predatory assault?

Finally, this difference is a classic example of clashing orthodoxies, as Robert George termed it, between competing views of how we determine truth and recognize authority. Think of the different mindsets: for clarity, let’s call them the scientific approach, the individualistic approach, and the religious approach.

The scientist discovers truth through observations. The scientific method is paramount. The scientist sees, measures, and evaluates. With this mindset, the student at issue here is a biological and genetic boy. While he may feel differently, his feelings cannot counteract the simple science at work.

The religious approach looks to authority outside of the self. Religious people might look at the Bible as the Word of God. Others may look to tradition, history, or church authorities. They consult the collective wisdom of the ages. “God created them male and female” and it was good. For the religious, God’s design is the critical factor at work.

For the individualist, whatever feels most pressing is most important. The self is the ultimate standard of truth. The self dictates what is true regardless of how others may or may not arrive at similar conclusions. The most important value is neither objectivity, nor what supernatural authorities think, but what the self considers. Though sexuality may be biological, gender is socially constructed, a matter of preference, and preferences are what matters. More disturbingly, all others must kneel before those preferences and to be offended by them is discriminatory.

These worldviews are in constant collision with each other. This case is a textbook example of that collision. At the moment, the federal government’s agencies are seized by the individualistic approach. There is no sense of truth outside of the self. There is no responsibility even to balance competing matters of fairness between females who don’t want to shower with a naked boy and the transgendered boy. The “truth” is that the biological boy, who has declared as a girl, is the supreme authority that must be respected by all others.

What about the politics of the issue? I have not looked at polling, but I am assuming that majorities outside the DC to NY corridor, or in pockets of the West Coast, agree the government’s demands are simply unreasonable, bordering on dangerous. If I am right, Republicans should use this as a wedge issue against Democrats for the next year. They should force Democrats to defend these views or to repudiate them. Will Democrats be beholden to the radical left, that is really driving this agenda, or will they have to acknowledge the unpopularity of such measures?