I wish they would notice the contradiction. They never notice the contradiction.

Illinois public school administrators tried to force a 13-year-old girl to change clothes in front of a biological male, in accordance with the district’s “inclusive” bathroom policy that allows transgender students to use whichever locker room corresponds with their chosen gender, the mother of the girl said at a Deerfield School District 109 School Board meeting on Thursday evening.

When Nicole Georgas’s 13-year-old daughter came home from Shepard Middle School on February 5, she was frightened and upset: A boy had been in the girl’s bathroom.

Georgas’s daughter was told by Deerfield administrators that because the male student identified as a female, he could use the girl’s locker room and bathroom, Georgas said. Although Georgas expressed to the school that the district was “in clear violation” of President Donald Trump’s recent executive order that restricts males from participating in female sports and using female changing rooms, her daughter’s teachers and principal reiterated that under direction from the district’s legal counsel, the male student could use whichever bathroom corresponded to his chosen gender.

The contradiction is obvious, right? By letting a boy use the girl’s locker room and bathroom, the administrators are preventing all the girls from using whichever bathroom corresponds to their chosen gender. They no longer have a girls’ bathroom so they can’t use the one that fits their gender. Why does what the boy wants matter more than what the girls need? Why is his correspondy bathroom so important while theirs doesn’t matter at all? One boy gets what he wants at the expense of who knows how many girls who lose what they need. They’re not even following their own damn rule.

Deerfield is “committed to inclusive practices that ensure equitable outcomes across educational environments for all students,” the district says on its website, and places priority on “identity development and equity best practices,” and ensuring “inclusion of diverse populations and perspectives.”

But it isn’t. It isn’t. It isn’t at all committed to inclusive practices that ensure equitable outcomes for all students. It’s committed to special luxury practices that ensure lopsided unfair outcomes for all students except that one kid who says he’s a girl. If it really gave a shit about all students, as opposed to giving a shit about looking on trend and superior, it would come up with a solution such as for instance building a couple of new locker rooms for pretend girls and pretend boys. Forcing tens or hundreds of female students to give up the right to stay clothed in the presence of boy students is not the progressive outcome the goonies think it is.