A potential landmark case is brewing in Virginia where a transgender student has been told to use the bathroom of her biological gender, not her gender identity.

In 2014 a Virginia high school student began using the boys bathroom. Not a big deal until you realize that Gavin Grimm was born female and now identifies as male. The fact that Grimm started using the boys bathroom caused a stir in Gloucester County Virginia and a legal battle soon began.

The ACLU says that Grimm is being “stigmatized and isolated from the rest of his peers just because he is transgender.” Of course the ACLU was also disappointed with the recent court decision that will keep Grimm out of the boys bathroom.

What I find interesting is that the case came to light when parents of several kids at the school complained about Grimm using the boys bathroom. I can’t help but wonder how and why those parents learned of what was going on and decided to complain. Did their kids tell them what going on? Were they having conversations about a transgender person using the “wrong bathroom” with their kids? Were the kids uncomfortable with the situation?

You see, that’s the thing that I want to know how to resolve. If a transgender person wants to use the opposite bathroom, but doing so makes people uncomfortable, what then? Do we tell people to stop being uncomfortable just to appease a very small group of people? Why do the feelings of one-person matter more than the feelings of another? One person feels like a boy even though she is biologically a girl. But she “feels” like a boy and wants to use the boy’s bathroom. But doing so causes others to have negative feelings. Why are those negative feelings less valuable?

Up until now that is the message many have been sending. The feelings of people that are uncomfortable by the presence of a transgender person in the wrong bathroom don’t really matter. Because all that matters is the feelings of the transgender person. But that is so arbitrary that it is hard to take seriously. What happens when a grown woman simply feels more comfortable in the men’s bathroom? Do we support her “feelings” and let her in? If not, why?

I hate to use the “slippery slope” argument here, it seems overused, but it seems to apply. This could be a very slippery slope of creating laws and exceptions to laws based on feelings. This is especially clear when we see the feelings of two opposing parties in conflict with one another. If the basis for laws is simply how someone feels then it becomes the judgment of the person making the law that determines which feelings will be respected and which will be ignored. That is a problematic recipe for constructing laws.

What I want to lovingly communicate is that there is no such thing as a “transgender” person. A person is born either male or female and there is nothing that can be done to change that reality. You can dress like the opposite gender, you can have surgery to look more like the opposite gender, and you can use the opposite bathroom all day. But in the end, you cannot change the chromosomes that determine gender.

People claiming to be transgender are confused, and in need of mental health help. Creating laws to encourage their confusion is bad policy that puts others at risk. It gives perverted people a way to invade the privacy of others. It puts women and children at risk from predators. It’s bad policy.

The case of Gavin Grimm is on hold until the Supreme Court determines whether they will hear the case or not. For now, the school board’s decision to refuse to let a girl into the boy’s bathroom stands. This is a common sense decision that protects people. It doesn’t mean Grimm is dangerous. But others that would take advantage of such laws are dangerous.

The only way to insure protection for innocent people is to make laws based not on feelings, but on rational, logical arguments. Keeping biological genders in their respective bathrooms is rational, it’s logical.