The debate over “accommodations” has been raging in the education field for some time now. When do one person’s accommodations outweigh another person’s comforts or even their emotional needs and/or opportunities? School districts decided special needs students who required additional accommodations had the right to be in mainstreamed classrooms, even if that meant fewer opportunities for the other children. Many of these policies were announced with great fanfare but then were quietly amended or eliminated them due to the poor academic outcomes. (I might add many insisted that bringing in special needs students was going to strengthen and improve the other students, but that did not end up happening due to the increased demands on teachers and resources.)
Now the transgender debate seems to be mirroring the education debate. Instead of “equal” accommodations, the present thought is to have the “same” accommodations. This accommodation is being carried out regardless of the emotional needs and comforts of others, especially our young women.
What many do not know about the Obama Administration suit which sought to require schools to “respect” transgendered individuals choice of gender identity when it came to bathroom use, is that many of the schools had already installed individual bathrooms. Transgender students were already not required to use the boy’s room. They could use the individual bathrooms – as could anyone. If using the boy’s room made them feel uncomfortable, there was a great alternative. But the Obama administration sued and insisted that high schools give the transgender individuals the “same” bathrooms that the girls used. Meaning, despite very good accommodations, the girls had to allow these individuals with male genitals into their bathroom. Now it appears the Army has followed the “same” instead of “equal” philosophy. It means they are trading the emotional needs of one group, for the preference of another.
To equate this with other movements such as racial civil rights does not, in my opinion, hold up. Feeling uncomfortable with someone who has more or less pigment in their skin is not the same as being uncomfortable with someone with the opposite genitalia using your bathroom and showering with you.
I have a feeling the “same” rather than “equal” movement in the Army will not go well. But let’s be honest, there are fewer and fewer safe places for our young women. A highly sexualized world and porn-infused boys have already made this a relatively unsafe world for girls.
So here is a controversial thought:
What if we had a Biblical revival of the heart in our churches? What if Moms, together with help from Dads, made it their goal to train our children in a Biblical worldview and protect them from this over-sexualized, sinful world? And then what if our boys grew up to be men who in turn, protect the women and children so this Biblical training can continue?
How safe, physically and emotionally would our world be? My guess – much more.
But this would require us to accept that men and women have different positions. They are equal at the foot of the cross, equal in their value to God and men, equal in deserving and receiving protection and services from the church and government – but hold different positions. Different positions which help in the success of family and country.
Women protect the children, including the boys. Boys grow up to protect the women. Humm? Why is that so controversial? Is such a concept found in the Bible?
Why not read that Bible and find out?