The Wheaton Park District in Wheaton, Illinois plunged itself into some roiling, boiling hot water in the past two weeks via an email sent to community members from Director of Athletics and Facilities Daniel Novak in which he wrote,
At Wheaton Park District facilities, patrons may use the restroom/locker room that corresponds with their gender identity.
As a result of this statement, which conflicts with existing policy, the regularly scheduled park district board of commissioners meeting was a doozy. While neither the commissioners nor their smug attorney Phillip A. Leutkehans clarified anything, community members clarified much—and it was all good, very good.
(As an interesting aside, Leutkehans’ law partner is none other than the arrogant RINO Pat Brady, disgraced former Illinois Republican Party chairman who, before Illinois legalized same-sex “marriages,” skulked around Springfield secretly trying to convince Republicans to vote in favor of the law that recognizes non-marital unions as marriages. Once ousted from his position as chairman, the ACLU hired him to lobby Republicans to support same-sex faux-marriage.)
It restored my waning hope for America. It was a balm for the souls of anyone who cares about children, women, the health of the public square, privacy, families, and truth. It was the most encouraging and inspiring public event I’ve witnessed in a very long time.
A board member began the meeting by stating that existing board policy that prohibits anyone over age 5 from using opposite-sex facilities has not been changed, which, in light of Novak’s email, caused greater confusion.
The room was standing-room-only—for a park district board meeting—and scores of attendees spoke. Young and middle-aged moms and dads spoke. Grandparents spoke. Pastors, teachers, and mental health professionals spoke. A young mother who as a child experienced sexual abuse spoke. The comments were intelligent, winsome, courageous, moving, and unequivocal. Without exception, every speaker opposed the sexual integration of private spaces. And every comment was met with enthusiastic applause. I felt privileged and blessed to witness such an outpouring of wisdom and boldness.
Attendees, many of whom grew up in Wheaton and are now raising children in Wheaton, discussed physical safety; the origin, meaning, and immutability of biological sex; alternative accommodations for those experiencing gender dysphoria; the impossibility of guaranteeing women and children won’t be exposed to the genitalia of men in women’s locker rooms; the rights of women and children; issues for families with special needs children; the wrongfulness of complicity in lies/delusions; Abigail Shrier’s important book; and much more.
I addressed the impossibility of creating single occupancy spaces for gender-dysphoric persons to use. That option is vigorously opposed by “trans” cultists and their ideological allies. They want men and women who pretend to be the sex they are not to have unrestricted access to opposite-sex spaces. They refuse special accommodations. They refuse to be required to undress “discreetly.” They want to force all of society to treat them as if they were the sex they pretend to be. They seek to eradicate all public recognition of sex differences.
I also addressed that while the board has not changed formal policy, it seems there is a de facto practice change, which subordinates objective biological sex to “gender identity”—that is, to subjective, internal feelings about one’s maleness or femaleness—in determining private space usage. Such a change seems irrational and unjustifiable.
I asked the board to consider how they will respond to patrons who claim to “identify” as gender nonbinary, gender fluid, gender expansive, or agender.
I asked if women have an intrinsic right to be free of the presence of men in shared private spaces, and if they do have such a right, why should it matter to them how the men who seek to use women’s spaces feel about their male sex?
What most soured the otherwise inspiring evening was not just the impassive faces of board members. While mildly annoying, the impassivity of board members was expected.
What stuck in the craw of many attendees was the clearly communicated scorn of park district attorney Leutkehans who looked everywhere but at the speakers as if the whole event was beneath him and a waste of his time.
When the attendees were done speaking, Leutkehans deigned to look up as he repeatedly stated that the decades-long policy regarding locker room and restroom usage has not changed. Further, he asserted definitively that the park district’s practices have not changed either, which may have been a response to my statement. Leutkehans also said there has been no need to revisit policy, which I assume means no cross-sex impersonator has requested using opposite-sex locker rooms or restrooms at any Wheaton Park District facility. This then is the perfect time to establish and clearly communicate policy.
In light of the “trans” cult’s social construction of a doctrinaire, faith-based, anti-science ideology and imposition of it everywhere, every community should be pro-active in establishing policy rather than reactive.
Leutkehans’ angry assertions contributed nothing to clarity and raised yet more questions. Was Novak’s email false? Did he make a mistake? What made him think patrons may use locker rooms and restrooms in accordance with their “gender identity”? By whose authority did he make that statement in the email? Had someone in authority told him that? If so, exactly who told him that? If he spoke autonomously without asking anyone, will he be disciplined or fired? At 10:30 a.m. Thursday, the morning after the board meeting, I called one of the district pools and spoke to a lovely young woman named Claire in “admissions,” who told me that the “policy”—her word—is that patrons may use locker rooms and restrooms in accordance with their “gender identity.” She told me this information came from “Dan Novak.”
I then called her supervisor, Wheaton Park District Executive Director Mike Bernard, and left voicemail messages asking about the discrepancy between what Leutkehans said and what district employees are saying. I asked him to call me back. As of this writing, he has not returned my call.
There was one other annoying comment made by a commissioner who suggested that some in the community have been “stirring the pot” and using this issue for “political” purposes.
While “trans” activists and their ideological allies foist their nonsensical and destructive ideology on everyone everywhere—including in corporate America, the legacy press, locker rooms, restrooms, prisons, sports, and public schools—and while they ban and bowdlerize books, cancel speakers and ideas, censor words, and try to compel speech, they’re neither “stirring the pot” nor politicking. If conservatives respond, they are doing both.
Curiouser and curiouser.
Community members hope that at the next meeting, all confusion caused by district employees, board members, and Leutkehans will be cleared up. They hope locker room and restroom usage policy and practice will respect sexual embodiment. Further, the district needs to establish clear policy on sports participation.
Finally, in the interest of good community relations, the board of commissioners may want to send Phillip Leutkehans to a face- and body-language class before the next meeting.