Last week, I wrote about the federal government strong-arming a school district into allowing a transgendered female high school student into the girls’ locker room.

At the same time this story broke, a few other newsworthy events involving the issue of transgenderism were happening down in Houston, Texas.

One involved a 6 year old whose insane and/or insanely stupid parents decided this child was mature enough to decide that she was suddenly a “he.” Day care workers were fired because they refused to go along with the insistence they refer to this girl as a boy.

Clearly, six year olds are mentally and emotionally developed enough to decide mature matters such as these.  My three year old just told me the other day he was a cat.  He even meowed just like one.  Maybe I should have taken him more seriously.

The bigger story in Houston was, of course, the overwhelming defeat of Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO) by the Houston voters.  Voters made it clear they were not comfortable with the way the ordinance was written, leaving the door open for too many issues.  The city is, by the way, being threatened with punishment for the voting outcome by activists urging a boycott of the city, including convincing the NFL to cancel their Houston Super Bowl plans in 2017.  That’s right, make those voters sorry for using reasoning and logic.  That’ll show ‘em.

Now, fresh off the heels of all this chaos in Houston, brews a storm three and a half hours north in Dallas.

The Dallas City Council has unanimously (in case you’ve forgotten, that means every single one of them actually agreed on this) approved an amendment to its anti-discrimination ordinance, similar to HERO.  But was it even needed?

“Chapter 46 of the Dallas City Code, which was passed in May 2002, makes it illegal to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation. The ordinance, which applies to everything from employment to housing, has defined sexual orientation as “an individual’s real or perceived orientation as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual or an individual’s real or perceived gender identity.” Which means that for 13 years, the transgender community has been protected in the city of Dallas.”

Despite this, the ordinance now adds “gender identity or expression” wherever it previously referred to sexual orientation, and protects from being denied “access to public spaces.”  Bathrooms certainly would be included in this.  But Lee Kleinman, a Dallas City Council Member, stated, “This is not a bathroom ordinance, it is an anti-discrimination ordinance.”

It’s really come down to a semantics game, hasn’t it?  This is a bathroom ordinance, it’s not a bathroom ordinance, whatever.  Notice nobody in support of this ordinance is saying this wouldn’t allow transgendered people into the bathroom of their perceived gender.  They’re merely redirecting to the politically correct narrative of saying it is “anti-discrimination.”  Because who could argue with that?  Only a bunch of bigoted rednecks in the South, obviously.

The point that Houston voters understood is this: an ordinance allowing transgendered people access to bathrooms of their choice will have unintended far-reaching consequences.  They voted accordingly.

Nobody is suggesting that transgendered people drink from separate water fountains, or have designated areas in open public spaces.  An argument could be made against that kind of discrimination if it were occurring. We are talking about a vulnerability issue that leaves this kind of ordinance open for others to take advantage of, something that is completely unlike a real civil rights violation. But it’s easier for advocates to minimize and dumb it down to an issue about “anti-discrimination,” because it puts those who oppose it on the defense of explaining why they’re not a bigot because they see a reasonable problem with allowing men with penises into women’s restrooms.

Why does this argument keep coming down to a bathroom, anyway?  Why not suggest a separate gender neutral bathroom to “protect” everyone’s rights, similar to California’s law?  Why is a germ-infested public toilet, of all things, the hard line in the sand for LGBT activists?  There were no recent events to base this new ordinance off of in Dallas, other than the fact that it’s the new trendy way to prove you’re super inclusive and diverse.

Patti Fink, of the city’s LGBT Task Force, says, “the transgender community believes they’re not included, because the definition of gender identity is stuffed into the definition of sexual orientation.”

Well, the transgender community also happens to believe men are women, and women are men, but by all means, let’s indulge their every whim.