In part one of this article, we looked at a brief recently filed by 21 attorneys general from around the country.

The attorneys general are urging the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to strike down a commonsense Idaho law that would keep boys out of girls’ bathrooms, and among the brief’s signatories is Illinois’ own Kwame Raoul. One sentence in the brief stood out in particular, as it compared “transgender” youth to their “cisgender counterparts.”

We observed that the term “cisgender” is not a concession from the “transgender” advocates to acknowledge the rest of humanity, but rather a subtle way of forcing the rest of humanity into their own paradigm. As a mentor of mine will quickly point out, “cisgender” implies that your biological sex and your gender identity merely “happen to align”—instead of them being two inseparable aspects of the way God created you. If you are “cis,” your psychology is just the counterpart to someone who is “trans.” Objective categories of male and female are thus watered down to the point of irrelevance.

But there’s more in the brief to spark our attention and lead us further along this general theme. Its drafters anticipated the consequence of “transgenderism” that would cause many of us to be legitimately outraged—biological girls feeling uncomfortable or unsafe using a restroom that a biological boy is also using.

Yet, they reassure us with an example from Washington state:

“In Washington State, where school districts are required to ‘allow students to use the restroom that is consistent with their gender identity consistently asserted at school,’ schools must provide ‘[a]ny student—transgender or not—who has a need or desire for increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason,’ with ‘access to an alternative restroom (e.g., staff restroom, health office restroom)'” (p. 18 of the brief, citing p. 30 of this document).

In short, if real girls feel uncomfortable that boys who call themselves girls are using their restroom, then… the real girls can leave. Wait a minute—I smell a double standard. The whole argument for “transgender” access to bathrooms segregated according to sex is that not using the restroom reserved for your sex demeans you.

The authors of the brief are pretty clear about this: they even cite a study that “transgender” people who were barred from their preferred restrooms were about 40% more likely to commit suicide (see p. 11 of the brief)! We can read the implications right off the page: It’s not enough for the authors that a school could provide a separate all-gender bathroom next to the boys’ and girls’ rooms, one which a “transgender girl” may feel free to use if he doesn’t want to use the boys’ room.

Rather (as a mentor of mine observes), he must explicitly be allowed into the girls’ room in order to feel validated. Using the same facility is uplifting; using a separate facility is demeaning.

How ironic, then, that the brief turns around and advocates a segregated solution for all the real boys and girls who might feel uncomfortable! “If real boys and real girls feel uncomfortable that a ‘transgender’ boy or girl is in the bathroom with them, they can feel free to request to use… an alternative bathroom.”

And that isn’t demeaning?

A school decides to let biological boys into your daughter’s restroom, because if they use a different restroom they will feel demeaned. But your daughter naturally feels like she lacks privacy. So what can she do? She can “voluntarily” use a different restroom. Even though she’s the one living in accordance with God’s design for her—and, by the way, the way that humans have lived for all of history.

Even though she’s the one belonging to the sex painted on the door of the bathroom.

In short, these advocates acknowledge that there’s something about being in the same bathroom that validates someone as part of a group. And then they ignore that their “solution” for the genuine members of the group is to offer them the option to use a different bathroom. Funny how this new version of “separate but equal” is only demeaning sometimes.

This makes clear sense, however, if we remember the critical point we hammered out in part 1 of this discussion. “Transgender” ideology posits that all humans have a sex and a gender identity that are separable from each other; if you align, you’re “cis,” and if you don’t, you’re “trans.” See? They’re “counterparts” of each other (p. 8 of the brief uses that very word)!

And if they really are two counterpart categories, then it makes sense that—if one party is uncomfortable and the other doesn’t mind—the uncomfortable party seek special accommodation for herself and not burden anyone else with her own scruples.

The only problem is that “female” and “transgender female” are not two counterpart categories, any more so than a real hundred-dollar bill is the “counterpart” to a counterfeit. Truth is categorically superior to falsehood, not a counterpart to it.

When a legitimate girl feels uncomfortable because of a “transgender” girl’s presence in the restroom, the counterfeit must be shown the door. That affirms the natural dignity that comes from respecting one’s sex as God created it and reinforces it against falsehoods.

Treating falsehood as a “counterpart” to truth—as opposed to an entirely different (and deficient) entity—lends it the credence that only God’s truth deserves.