Skip to content

Cross-dressing goes small town

Putting bitter for sweet

A boy in Dunnellon, Florida, who claims he’s homosexual recently asked permission from one of his school teachers to attend school wearing girl’s clothing.  The news reports say she discouraged him from doing so but allowed him classroom time to address his classmates and get their opinion on the subject.  The kids were all in favor of it.  Duh.

Next day, the boy showed up for school dressed as a girl complete with padding inserted for faux breasts.  After carefully refraining from passing any judgment on him, the principal asked him to go home.  That’s when things went bad.

A local talk radio liberal weighed in stating that he couldn’t see any justification for sending the boy home.  After all, he said, the dress code for the school required only that clothes be neat, clean, conservative (defined as covering buttocks, breasts, and genitals), and not disrupt school.  This boy’s clothing met those criteria.  The students had been all in favor of the boy doing this, so there was no disruption.  The only person raising a disruption was the principal.

And so it came to pass that the only place a liberal could find fault was in the one man who didn’t go along with perversion.  People who think darkness and light can peacefully coexist should ponder that.

Can’t avoid the blame game

Published reports provide no background for assessing this poor boy’s home life.  It’s just a question hanging there — how could parents let this happen?  The teacher who allegedly shifted the decision onto the students, if that’s actually true, should be globally acclaimed as a spineless fool.

The other students in the class, being kids, need a mature explanation of how and why their behavior was exceedingly wicked.  Encouraging a classmate to go public with his perversion is akin to seeing a suicidal man on a ledge and shouting for him to jump.  It’s a childish failure to comprehend the gravity of a situation.  But it’s no less shockingly evil.

To be as charitable as possible, I expect 16-year olds not to fully comprehend this, which is why I expect their teachers, parents, and preachers to explain it to them.  Such an explanation needed to have left the kids smiting the thigh (Je 31:19), shouting, “what have I done?” (Je 8:6) and sobbing with heartbreak at how they’ve betrayed a friend for a cheap stunt.  Instead, they’re left smirking with pubescent amusement at the sight of feckless adults scurrying around like somebody put a firecracker in their anthill.  Here, on the part of all the adults involved, is a colossal failure of leadership.

Now, to add a deeper crimson to Dunnellon’s public shame, the lawyers are getting involved yakking up their idiotic claptrap about the first amendment, as if that had anything to do with this at all.

Why are we failing at this?

In any public brouhaha involving serious moral degeneracy, the social context is one key to understanding why the players behave as they do.  Perversion has the upper hand at this point in American history.  Ancient traditions about male/female roles invariably lose any legal contest where a presumed right to perversion conflicts with a citizen’s freedom to act upon his disapproval of it.  Hence, if a landlord wishes not to rent to a gaggle of homosexuals claiming they’re a family, he finds he’s lost his property rights.  If a psychologist or marriage counselor advises homosexuals to repent of their perversion, he finds he can be sued for expressing professional opinions which contradict the state-received wisdom concerning homosexuals.  If a restaurant owner doesn’t want to hire homosexuals to serve his customers, he may find the government ordering him how to run his business — or taking it from him and giving it to his accuser.

What’s behind this is a legal system that aggressively enforces a practical atheism in all public matters.  No public official may discharge his office as if there’s a God.

The long term problem with compulsory governmental atheism is that excluding God from decision-making, by the same act, excludes all principled appeal to morality.  This is not a slippery slope.  It’s walking off a cliff.  Without a changeless moral standard to form the basis of public morality, we quickly discover there’s no firm basis for regulating anything.  Each new social and moral barrier, now standing merely out of cultural inertia, tips over at the slightest touch because it has no foundation.  Society morphs lawless.  And that’s the basic definition of anarchy.  The boy himself expressed it perfectly.  “Don’t judge other people for what they want to do,” he said.

After anarchy of course comes tyranny, because people cannot withstand chaos.  But a regulatory and enforcement power not moored to the law of God is the basic definition of tyranny.  That’s where this ship is headed.

Gathering momentum

The local radio liberal defending the perverted boy protested that cross dressing is no more offensive than girls dressing provocatively.  Since that’s permitted, he said, what would be the argument for forbidding the one and not the other?

The answer to this question requires only a moment’s reflection.  Compulsory atheism has been around for many decades.  Its corrosive effect starts at the surface and works deeper.  Back in the 1950s, the prominent social and moral barriers involved issues like manners and modesty.  When compulsory public atheism forbade appealing to God for a source of those standards, it was found that there remained no firm justification for them at all.  The once robust Christian virtue of modesty shriveled down to an impossibly vague wish for clothing not causing “disruption.”  It was the cultural equivalent of King Arthur whimpering, “please don’t hit me.”  Modesty as a cultural standard thus tipped over and has never been set upright again.  Dionysus rules; party naked.

Falling standards of modesty and cross-dressing are just two points along the same downward spiral.  Standards which would prevent cross-dressing were overturned for the exact same reason as modesty standards, namely, because rule makers permit no reference to God as a reason for something.

Question: Is there anyone stoopit enough to expect this process to end with the spectacle of a small town boy humiliating himself by coming to school dressed as a girl?  Will his triumphant but despicable classmates be content with just one round of bemused sniggers at an adult world so morally paralyzed it cannot render a reason to resist perversion?

Who knows where the de-God-ification process will take us?  I certainly don’t know.  It’s like trying to predict which way the crack will run in a windshield.  All I can tell you for sure is that it will eventually fall to pieces.  I’m forecasting the sniggers will stop then.


  1. Dad


    Posted on 31-Mar-09 at 19:02 pm | Permalink
  2. Gary Roberson

    A future democrat…

    Posted on 04-Apr-09 at 8:26 am | Permalink

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *