ABOVE: Windmill in Pella, Iowa (Photo: jerryhopman/iStock/Getty Images Plus)
BY SELWYN DUKE
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:
Forget indecent-exposure laws. If one disturbed mid-teen girl “identifies” as a boy and wants to walk around topless in front of actual boys and men, she must be allowed to. That’s what happened, too, at a city aquatic center in a small Iowa municipality — and it has created an uproar.
Moreover, the precedent set, now a second “transgender”-oriented incident has been reported at the same facility.
The scene of the scene was city-owned Pella Aquatic Center (PAC) in the Dutch, Christian Reformed city of Pella, known as America’s Dutch treasure (population approximately 10,000).
As The Iowa Standard’s Jacob Hall wrote June 26, the teen girl was allowed to parade about “topless and use the men’s locker rooms with grown men and boys of all ages, exposing her breasts because she identified as a male.”
“The incident happened on June 16,” he continued. “According to two people at the aquatic center, the incident did indeed happen and the aquatic center policy allows it to happen.”
“‘When brought to the facility’s attention, they explained there was nothing they could do,’” Hall reports one concerned Pella resident as saying. “‘That state law protects this biological female, allowing her to walk around indecently exposing herself to all the families enjoying the facility. The facility is afraid if they act and require her to cover herself, they will face legal backlash. I find it appalling that this would actually be state law.’”
It may be appalling, but it’s hardly inexplicable. Pella Mayor Don DeWaard, responding to a citizen at a special meeting held by the Pella City Council, said “that the facility adheres to a 2007 state law outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and there is no specific City Code or policy in place as it relates to the swimming facility,” reported KNIA-KRLS June 30.
Two-thousand-seven was the year that Democrats, already owning Iowa’s governorship, seized the state’s legislature as well. This gave them complete control of the government, allowing them to enact anything they wished.
It’s yet another example of something I often mention, Duke’s First Rule of Politics. To wit: “Under representative government, people do not get what they want.”
“They get what they vote for.”
The point is that Iowans no doubt didn’t want the MUSS (Made-up Sexual Status or “transgender”) policy in question; they surely voted for Democrats in 2006 based on meat-and-potato issues — e.g., economic matters. But we must always read the “fine print” in politics because voting for a party is a package deal. You may — if you’re lucky (or unlucky) — get what’s advertised and on the label, but you’ll surely get what’s on the hard-to-read list of ingredients.
Of course, the Republicans now control Iowa and can rescind the MUSS-insanity law in question if they, for once, can show that the business of conservatives isn’t just to conserve leftists’ mistakes. (In other words, don’t hold your breath waiting.)
The Pella-pool-prurience problem isn’t going away, either. Note that I spoke to Hall today, and he confirmed reports that two other MUSS-oriented individuals showed up at the PAC on July 2. They appeared to just be trying to “make a point,” he said, which would place them in the category of MUSS activists; also, there is a question as to whether or not they indecently exposed themselves.
Whatever the case, Hall also informed that the July 2 incident led to immediate employee resignations. This manpower shortage would explain, he stated, why the PAC announced July 3 that its outdoor pool would be closed that day — on a beautiful July 4 weekend.
What’s more, this isn’t Pella’s only MUSS problem. “There have also been several incidents where a biological female, with full biological genitalia, has tried urinating in the urinal, fully exposed, next to the boys in the boys’ bathrooms” at Pella High School, the aforementioned local resident told Hall. “Where does this stop? Am I going to have to worry if a man identifies as a gorilla and shows up at the store with nothing on, but because that’s what makes him feel normal, we’re supposed to accept that?”
The school district responded, claiming the urinal allegation is “not accurate.” Hall states, however, that multiple witnesses have said that girls are using the boys’ restroom at the High School.
For its part, the City of Pella doesn’t seem very sympathetic to residents concerned about propriety. It said in a statement that the “City has reviewed the [PAC] matter with legal counsel and no further action will be taken. The City considers this matter concluded.”
Of course, if the city fathers had greater principle and a bit more imagination, more might be left to the imagination at their pool. For example, here’s one possible workaround: Enact a local law stating that you must wear a top if you have mammary glands.
This should hardly be viewed as “discrimination” that violates state law. After all, the issue currently is that since men don’t have to wear tops and MUSS women identify as male, you’re engaging in illegal discrimination if you don’t treat them as you do “other” men. Delineation based on anatomy avoids this problem.
(This said, since Iowa law also bans “sex” discrimination, the mentality allowing the MUSS girl to go topless should dictate that all women could do likewise. Otherwise, a stricter dress standard is being applied to a “protected class,” females. This is a good reason to reconsider all anti-discrimination law.)
Yet if the Pella incident inspires enough controversy, what’s perhaps more likely is that all pool patrons, including men and boys, will be forced to cover their tops.
Regardless, stopgap measures won’t remedy root causes. In the comments on the PAC Facebook page, some respondents opposed to the PAC indecency nonetheless stress that they take no issue with people’s “identities.” But embracing this perspective is to lose the battle before it has even begun.
Remember that the “official” MUSS position is that if a woman identifies as a man (or vice versa), she is a man, is to be considered a man, and must be treated precisely as a man would — period. There is no compromise. This is what you’re enabling when you accept the MUSS premise.
The real solution is to understand that the MUSS agenda is unscientific (as I explained here), unhealthful for those it purports to help, and immoral. Compromise won’t help because insofar as normalizing the abnormal goes, you can’t accept just half a mental disorder.