On May 22, the Texas House of Representatives approved an amendment to a school hazard preparedness bill, which would require schoolchildren to use restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities that correspond to their biological gender. Once this bill, or a similar version of it, likely clears the Texas State Senate, it is expected to be signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott.

As was to be expected, this “bathroom bill” has liberals up in arms. Representative Senfronia Thompson (D) assailed the bill as bigoted:

“I happened to be a part of this society during a period of time in this state and in this country when we had ‘separate but equal’ and I remember those days. You remember? Bathrooms: white, colored. Bathrooms divided us then and it divides us now and America has long recognized that separate but equal is not equal at all.”

And one school parent, whose son declared himself a female before entering first grade (!) (please also see here), expressed great fear for her child’s safety, now that the child may no longer be able to use the girls’ room:

“The second that gavel dropped, I just burst into tears. I don’t know how I’m going explain to her that people in Austin, our legislators, people who are in charge of keeping us safe, have intentionally put her and her friends in danger now.”

The fact that millions of girls across the state of Texas are presently unsafe due to biological males using girls’ restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities somehow did not seem to cross this parent’s mind. And so is it with all of these cases, in which the safety of the majority is disregarded in order to serve the agenda of the few.

Rep. Chris Paddie (R), who supports the bill, explained its intent:

“I think it’s absolutely about school safety… There is absolutely no intent -- and I would argue, nothing in this language discriminates against anyone. In fact it makes sure there are reasonable accommodations for all children.”    

I would argue further that it is not only an issue of school safety in the practical and simple sense, but that there are two additional and profound types of safety involved:

Transgenderism, previously known as Gender Identity Disorder, was categorized as a mental illness by the World Health Organization until December 2016, but has now been reclassified as “Gender Incongruence”. So too for homosexuality, which was classified as a mental illness until 1992 by the World Health Organization, and has since been declassified as such. In both cases, there was immense political pressure for the reclassifications; the fact that psychiatrists who were previously under no political pressure had historically always considered transgenderism and homosexuality as mental disorders speaks volumes.

According to the revised classifications, if one has a split personality, should he be deemed to have a disorder? Just like an individual with the personality of a woman and the body of a man is now considered to be a woman who just happens to be trapped in a male body, and is not considered to be “loco”, why should an individual who has two personalities not be considered to be two people who just happen to be trapped in one body? There is no end to the illogical conclusions mandated by politically correct, warped thinking. Such thinking has impacted psychiatry and other sciences in areas where political agendas abound.       

The Center for Disease Control reports an alarmingly high incidence of sexual violence within the homosexual and transgender community, especially by people’s own “partners”. This indicates a dangerous propensity on the part of many members of the “LGBT” crowd to commit sexual crimes. Read the statistics, and decide whether or not it is safe to allow transgender people the right to use restrooms, locker rooms, and changing facilities of their choosing. If anything, after studying this and other studies about intra-communal “LGBT” rape statistics, I submit that allowing these people into any mass-use locker rooms and changing facilities is a risky move, absent tight safeguards.

Hence, there is not only a safety issue relating to girls’ privacy being invaded by biological males who claim to really be females, but there are the far more acute issues at hand of (1) risk of sexual violence, and (2) sharing private facilities with people who have traditionally been regarded by psychiatric experts as mentally ill. Safety takes on a whole new meaning when honestly considering the facts on the ground and the risks posed by the “LGBT” community.

The 20th century Orthodox rabbinic sage, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (who was a primary mentor of my teachers), stated:

“A philosophy of [homo]sexualism is being preached throughout the Western world, to such an extent that a certain rabbi came to me and said, “How can we defend ourselves against it?” I told him, “Take out a Bible read the verse: ‘You shall not lie with a male as with a woman.’” (Leviticus 18:22) We are on the defensive, you understand. Why? And the same is true of abortion and so forth. 

“I can never predict what modern society will come up with. Everything is possible. The most abnormal, obnoxious, repellent ideas may be introduced in the form of legislation to Congress. And now, since it is modern to be liberal, it’s quite in vogue to be heretical, so any law can be adopted. The Supreme Court in America is the most unpredictable body. Did you see, did you read carefully, the decision about abortion? (Roe vs. Wade)

“There are no secular ethics; ethics are decreed by God, and man cannot legislate his own moral laws…

 “That is the basic reason why secular ethics has failed. Because the element of a Divine Statute is not understandable and not comprehensible to secular man. When everything is reduced to law that resonates with people’s own values, there is no morality.”​

When there is no morality, the wrath of God flares. When there is no morality, society degenerates from greatness to insignificance, or worse.

In my opinion, America has been exceptionally blessed due to its having been founded upon a sense of Biblical values. Unlike so much of Western Europe, in which atheism and immorality are the most popular social mores, America has maintained a semblance of sacred standards, of adherence to a Divine moral code. America accepted that morality comes from God, and the American people submitted to this axiom, even when it would have been easier to do whatever was most pleasurable.

Should this commitment to Divine morality be abandoned, all bets are off. Our last chance to send the correct and necessary message may very well occur in Texas. 

Avrohom Gordimer is a senior rabbinic fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, a public policy institute reflecting traditional Jewish thought.  He serves on the editorial board of Jewish Action magazine, is a staff writer for the Cross-Currents website, and is a frequent contributor to Israel National News and a host of other publications.  He is a member of the Rabbinical Council of America and the New York Bar, and he works as an account executive at a large Jewish organization based in Manhattan. The views expressed in the above article are solely those of the writer.