A judge in Illinois has dealt another blow to parents seeking to protect the privacy of students in bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. This is a case which dates back to last winter when the families of girls in Illinois school District 211 went to court asking for an injunction against a new federal mandate saying that boys who “identify” as girls should be allowed in their toilet and changing facilities. That case has bounced back and forth a few times now, but the most recent ruling just came down and it went against the parents. A federal judge has ruled that there is no constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students and the wording of his ruling is rather jaw dropping. (Washington Post)

A federal magistrate judge recommended Tuesday that a transgender girl at the center of a lawsuit over restroom and locker room access be able to use the girls’ locker room at her Illinois high school, writing that the Constitution doesn’t protect students against having to share such facilities with their transgender peers.

In an 82-page report, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert sided against a group of students and parents who sought a preliminary injunction to force the girl to use the boys’ locker room or a private bathroom while the court moves forward with the case.

The case is one of many that challenge the Obama administration’s efforts to expand bathroom access for transgender students based on their gender identity rather than their birth certificates.

Having this case go in favor of the plaintiff wasn’t all that surprising since much rests on the judge you draw and which court you’re in. But in this case some of the wording in the ruling sounds like it came straight out of a Social Justice Warrior handbook. Observe the following:

“High school students do not have a constitutional right not to share restrooms or locker rooms with transgender students whose sex assigned at birth is different than theirs,” Gilbert wrote.

“A transgender person’s gender identity is an important factor to be considered in determining whether his or her needs, as well as those of cisgender people, can be accommodated in the course of allocating or regulating the use of restrooms and locker rooms,” he continued. “So, to frame the constitutional question in the sense of sex assigned at birth while ignoring gender identity frames it too narrowly.”

Yes, you read that correctly. “Cisgender” isn’t even a word, but it’s now in a federal court ruling. It’s a derogatory reference cooked up by the SJW to further separate people into pigeonholes and reinforce the idea that your biological makeup and DNA have no bearing on gender. This type of loaded language has no place in the courts, particularly since the Supremes have yet to weigh in on the subject.

It’s all part of a growing trend in the media, however. You may recall when a Charlotte newspaper declared that school age girls need to overcome their discomfort over seeing male genitals. The fact that many parents are rightly horrified by this is completely disregarded in SJW circles, but we are sadly seeing some judges taking these attitudes to heart.

It might be nice to hear the candidates take a firm position on this question before the election, particularly since one of them will be appointing Supreme Court Justices soon. Can someone with a Y chromosome and male genitals be a “girl” in the eyes of the law? And do school age girls need to “get over their discomfort” at seeing a penis in the school showers and locker rooms?