Why do we make our restrooms and locker rooms private? Each of us performs a variety of necessary life functions in front of strangers every day.

We eat in public restaurants, we work in public offices, and as anyone who ever has been stranded in an airport can attest, we even sleep in public. There is no shame or embarrassment in doing such activities in front of complete strangers.

Yet when it comes to activities that involve a measure of undressing, we realize that most people are not comfortable doing them in public—and especially not in the presence of members of the opposite sex.

So as a society, we set apart designated areas—restrooms, locker rooms, showers, changing rooms—for individuals to perform these intimate activities. In other words, private facilities exist because privacy matters.

But according to the federal government and LGBT activists, the primary function of private facilities is not privacy; it is affirmation of a person’s gender identity.

And now the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a related case out of Virginia.

In December 2014, the Gloucester County School Board made what should have been an uncontroversial decision. In response to a request to use the boys’ restrooms from a female high school student who asserts that she is male, the school board adopted a policy stating that the girls’ and boys’ restrooms can be used only by students of the designated sex.

The school board concurrently made several single-stall, unisex restrooms available for anyone, including the self-described transgender student who was uncomfortable using the communal facilities at Gloucester High School.

The board otherwise allowed the student, Gavin Grimm, to live as a male, dress like a male, and use a male name and pronouns. And by offering accommodations, the school district guaranteed that Grimm would be afforded privacy—whether Grimm chose to use the single-stall facilities or the female communal restrooms with others of the female sex.

But Grimm, 17, rejected this solution. Relying upon guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, which for several years quietly had pushed the idea that schools must treat a student consistent with his or her gender identity, Grimm sued the school district.

The suit argues that under federal Title IX and its regulations, the school must affirm Grimm’s male gender identity by allowing use of the boys’ restrooms.

The lawsuit received immediate support from the Education and Justice departments, which ultimately issued the now infamous “Dear Colleague” letter in May 2016. In it, the departments threatened to strip federal funding from any school that does not use its locker rooms, showers, restrooms, and even overnight accommodation on school trips to affirm a student’s gender identity.

The Gloucester school board courageously stood against the full might of the federal government, recognizing that complying with Grimm’s demands would violate the constitutional privacy rights of other students, to whom the board owed a duty of care.

While the school board won in lower court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and found that the government’s re-interpretation of Title IX and its regulations should be given deference.

Under this re-interpretation, a law that allows schools to maintain separate locker rooms and restrooms on the basis of sex becomes one that orders schools to open up these facilities to anyone who asserts he or she is of the designated sex.

The school board immediately asked the Supreme Court to review the case.

On Friday, the high court accepted the case, and the implications of its eventual ruling likely will be historic and affect millions of schoolchildren across the country.

Two aspects of the case are noteworthy. First, the Supreme Court previously issued a stay, allowing the school board to maintain its policy that protects student privacy in communal facilities. The stay, which remains in effect, recognizes that there would be irreparable harm if students were suddenly forced to share locker rooms and restrooms with the opposite sex.

Second, the court declined to take up the issue of whether “Auer deference”—the legal doctrine relied upon by the federal government to claim that its nonbinding guidance interpreting Title IX have the force of law—should be overturned. Instead, the court will examine whether the interpretation itself is consistent with Title IX and should be given deference.

As a result, the privacy implications of the federal government’s lawless actions are likely to play a prominent role in the case.

And it is clear that the federal government’s interpretation of Title IX has no foothold in the law, whether one looks to the text of Title IX and its regulations (which authorize schools and colleges to maintain separate dorms, locker rooms, and restrooms on the basis of sex); the law’s legislative history (where concerns over privacy and safety were addressed by allowing sex-specific facilities); or subsequent court decisions interpreting the law (the overwhelming majority of which reject the claim that Title IX extends to gender identity or requires schools to affirm a student’s self-perceived gender).

Indeed, when you research the purpose of Title IX, it is apparent that Congress sought to affirm the equality of women by guaranteeing them equal access to educational opportunities.

One’s sex is irrelevant in the classroom or science lab. Yet by recognizing that sex-specific facilities are permissible when privacy is needed, Congress communicated that women are not disaffirmed as being equal to men nor denied equal educational opportunities by the commonsense recognition of biological differences and the need for privacy that those differences necessitate.

The same is true in the Gloucester County case. The school board has shown incredible compassion and accommodation to Gavin Grimm. Yet Grimm and the federal government are not seeking privacy or equal educational opportunities; Grimm is receiving both. Instead, they are demanding affirmation of Grimm’s decision to identify as a male.

But locker rooms and restrooms are not for affirmation; they are for privacy. And schools should remain free to put the privacy of their students above political agendas. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Enters Legal Battle Over Gender Identity and the Purpose of Restrooms” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Carolina’s legislative body passed a bill mandating a statewide policy banning individuals from using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex, as opposed to their opinion of their sex.

The law, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act, means people must use bathrooms and other public facilities where occupants can be in various stages of undress according to whether their sex chromosomes are XX, in the case of females, or XY, in the case of males.

The lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community claims that the use of biology to determine sex is oppressive and limits alternatives. I agree. I all but argued this in a column earlier this year titled “You Are What You Say You Are.”

Let’s look at some possible benefits of freeing oneself from the oppression of biological determinism.

Say that I am sentenced to a five-year prison term for bank fraud. Though confinement can never be pleasant, I’d find it far more tolerable if I could convince the judge that though biologically I have XY chromosomes, in my opinion I’m really a woman and thus my confinement should be in a female prison with a female cellmate.

For the court to fail to take my sexual opinion into consideration would violate our Constitution’s Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, I could say.

The Atlantic Coast Conference, the entire NCAA, and the NBA have threatened to remove important games and championships from North Carolina because of its law denying bathroom rights to males who feel as if they are females and females who feel as if they’re males.

I am wondering just how consistent they are.

Only a few college basketball players have the skills to make it onto a professional team, but most of these players have skills that exceed most players’ skills in the Women’s National Basketball Association.

What if a college basketball star were to claim to be transgender and go out for the WNBA? Would the self-righteous NBA leaders come out and support him if he were to be refused?

Aside from this gender question is the gross pay discrimination between the NBA and the WNBA.

NBA players such as LeBron James (nearly $23 million) and Carmelo Anthony (also close to $23 million) individually earn twice as much money annually than every single player in the WNBA combined. The WNBA minimum rookie salary is $37,950, and the top salary is $107,000.

I bet that if the NBA and WNBA were to permit transgenderism, salaries in women’s basketball would rise dramatically.

It’s not just basketball that would yield benefits for those with XY chromosomes. What about allowing transgender XY people to box women in the Women’s International Boxing Association?

Then there are the Olympics. The men’s fastest 100-meter speed is 9.58 seconds. The women’s record is 10.49. What about giving XY people a greater chance at winning the gold by permitting them to compete in the women’s event? They could qualify by just swearing that they feel womanish or have gender dysphoria.

President Barack Obama’s defense secretary, Ashton Carter, wants to promote sex equality in the nation’s military. I don’t think he’s serious.

The minimum fitness test requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is to be able to do 35 pushups, 47 situps, and a 2-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less.

A weak male soldier might simply claim that he feels feminine. That would mean he could pass the minimum fitness requirement by meeting the female minimums of 13 pushups, 47 situps, and a 19:42 2-mile run. To boot, he would get to reside in the women’s barracks and enjoy all the privileges attendant thereto.

For most of history, homosexuals were persecuted unfairly. They pleaded, “Get out of my bedroom. What consenting adults do is no one else’s business.”

I share that sentiment, and for the most part, homosexuals have won that objective. Had their early campaign against persecution included a demand that males be permitted to use women’s bathrooms, the persecution they suffered would have continued. (For more from the author of “When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The tides of North Carolina’s bathroom battle are starting to turn in favor Governor Pat McCrory’s administration, if statements made by various business owners and associations in the state are any indication.

According to a story at The Charlotte Observer, hospitality and tourism leaders, as well as the Charlotte Chamber, are urging state and local leaders to repeal the various ordinances and statutes that led to the current controversy in the first place.

“This is not about politics. This is not about who’s right and who’s wrong,” stated Vinay Patel, CEO of SREE Hotels and a board member of the North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association. “We’ve been caught in a crossfire. … We’re in a crisis, and this is the time to take action.”

While the effort from liberal organizations, individuals, and corporations from both within and outside the state has focused on pressuring McCrory and the Republican legislature to repeal HB2, what N.C. business leaders are calling for in this situation would actually be on the governor’s terms.

A McCrory spokesman said last week that state lawmakers would consider repealing HB2 if the Charlotte City Council — who originally started the controversy — would drop the ordinance that provoked it in the first place.

“For the last nine months, the governor has consistently said state legislation is only needed if the Charlotte ordinance remains in place,” spokesman Josh Ellis said last week, per the Observer.

“If the Charlotte City Council totally repeals the ordinance and then we can confirm there is support to repeal among the majority of state lawmakers … the governor will call a special session,” he continued. “It is the governor’s understanding that legislative leaders … agree with that assessment.”

The idea is, of course, not a popular one with the LGBT lobby, members of which still believe that McCrory should be the one to flinch — rather than have the state return to the status quo pre bellum.

“Repealing Charlotte’s ordinance would be a step backward for equality, inclusion and fairness,” stated Simone Bell, southern regional director for the gay rights group Lambda Legal.

“Nondiscrimination policies like Charlotte’s are good and necessary measures that protect the LGBT community,” Bell said in a statement, issued Sunday.

It’s unclear whether or not Monday’s meeting of the Charlotte City Council will yield any developments toward returning North Carolina to a state of pre-transgender bathroom normalcy, but McCrory’s example presents a big, fat, teachable moment for conservative lawmakers who end up besieged by cultural cronyism.

Several concerts, business projects and sports tournaments have been pulled from North Carolina, with concerns like “equality” frequently cited. However, the NBA’s supposed human rights concerns don’t stop it from playing in China; Paypal still does business in countries that execute gays; and the NCAA doesn’t believe in the traditional sexes, but still hasn’t merged its male and female leagues. But I digress.

Pat McCrory wasn’t the first governor to fall victim to these tactics over a common-sense provision in state law. Just look at what happened in Arizona, Indiana, and Georgia when those states tried to pass basic religious freedom laws. The LGBT lobby and their big business cronies swarmed the states in an Alinsky-esque effort to get the laws repealed. And in each situation, it worked.

Jan Brewer (R) of Arizona and Nathan Deal of Georgia (R) both vetoed their respective laws, while Indiana’s governor-turned-Trump-running-mate Mike Pence eventually signed into law a “compromise” that has drawn repeated criticism and serious concern from First Amendment advocates.

McCrory and GOP legislators in Raleigh have broken this mold so far, it would seem. Despite every single boycott effort imaginable, they’ve refused to cave to the Left’s public pressure and misinformation campaign. Now voices outside the administration — the very kind of people the cronies were trying to turn against the administration — are now calling for exactly the kind of situation the governor et al. wanted in the first place.

True to his state’s nickname from the start, McCrory has provided an example of what conservative leaders are capable of accomplishing if they’re simply willing to prudently expend political capital, ignore the demonizing, and stand up to those who prefer to push their agendas with lies and mafia-like tactics.

Now it’s on the Charlotte City Council to decide whether or not they want to call off what they started, or continue to blame Pat McCrory for taking a stand for safety and common sense in response. (For more from the author of “The Tides Are Turning in North Carolina Bathroom Fight” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.