Before anybody gets their panties in a twist, there was once a time when transgender folks* had a sense of humor.

And rather than fear and loathing, there was humor and acceptance. Sure, it didn’t mean you wanted your kid to be one, but exposure led to societal recognition and acceptance. Just not fast enough. And not seriously enough. And way too campy, because these were real people, not circus oddities.

The Supreme Court has granted cert for two of three issues raised in the Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. case. Buzzfeed and the Daily Kos call this “critical to transgender rights.” Why now? Why this case? The bureaucrats of the executive branch have forced the issue, by dictating to schools that they must make transgender rights preeminent in bathrooms, locker rooms and sleeping accommodations. And, once these rights are firmly established, all other conflicted issues will follow suit, as there is no rational basis for any other outcome.

Noah Feldman, of all people, has grasped the problem generated by Catherine Lhamon’s pushing her agenda too far, too fast and without regard to how various rights conflict.

If “sex” is defined by biological sex, then it wouldn’t be sex discrimination to require a transitioning transgender boy to use the girls’ room. But, in keeping with the view of the transgender-rights movement, the Department of Education issued guidelines interpreting the law and the regulation. The guidelines say that schools “generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”

There had been no issue as to the meaning of “sex” for decades, and indeed, the DoE regulations expressly provided that separate facilities for boys and girls were authorized, just in case any nutjob suggested otherwise. Until the DoE became that nutjob.

But the court said that the regulation is ambiguous because it doesn’t define “sex.” Although when the regulation was made, “sex” was largely defined biologically, identified gender is today one possible interpretation of “sex.” What is more, the court said, even a definition based on biological sex is ambiguous because it doesn’t clearly cover cases like those of biologically intersex persons or those who have already undergone sex-reassignment surgery.

Like the “living Constitution” itself, there is a belief system that accepts the premise that fixed definitions morph over time until they become unrecognizable from their origins. Sex is one such word, which has gone from whether one has certain genitalia to how one feels about it.**

Putting aside the problem with crafting laws based upon words that have a clear and unambiguous meaning at the time, which then become the target of interest groups dedicated to changing the meaning of the word in order to change the impact of the law, the question of whether sex, accepted as meaning the binary distinction between male and female in 1972 when Title IX was enacted, should be limited today is a fair question. But it’s a question to be decided by the branch of government that exists for that purpose rather than whatever pops into Lhamon’s head. Congress has rejected this interpretation, which advocates point to as proof that Congress should be excessed as failing to keep pace with their interests.

Since the issue has been forced, it has ended up before the Supreme Court, which has become the legislature of last resort. Feldman, who makes his politics clear, contends that the case has gotten ahead of itself.

For what it’s worth, I think that the 4th Circuit got it right, and that the Supreme Court doesn’t need to review this case: The term “sex” really is ambiguous seen in the light of contemporary debates about sex and gender. I acknowledge that it is a difficult case, legally speaking, and that my view is influenced by my moral sense that Grimm should be allowed to use a bathroom based on his own given reason that the court shouldn’t have taken the case: It’s too soon.

That this issue comes before the Supreme Court for determination, rather than being organically accepted, warms the cockles of transgender rights advocates, because they are right, even if all those hateful, evil people are too stupid to see it.

Attitudes on transgender rights also need time to evolve. True, in the last couple of years, we’ve had Caitlyn Jenner’s public transition, and films and TV shows like “The Danish Girl” and “Transparent.” But these media events, important as they are to changing attitudes and increasing recognition and equality for transgender people, don’t (yet) tell a full story of cultural change.

The point isn’t that it’s fair to make transgender people wait for equality. Rather, it’s that the movement for transgender rights could be damaged by moving too fast. The justices may not be quite ready to take a stand on the issue before it has percolated through the culture and the courts.

While there are certainly legal issues about the relative tensions raised by the introduction of transgender rights in education (and everywhere else), Feldman is right that this is not the time to make those “critical” decisions. As hard as the advocates pound, and as improperly as Lhamon has sought to ram it down the throats of schools, there will come a time when the culture will accept transgender folks as it has with gay marriage.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will deal with this case as an Auer problem, how much deference does a petty bureaucrat get to force her will upon America by writing an insipid letter. Whether it’s about transgender rights or sex with goats, the decision of whether a law that everyone acknowledges was intended for one purpose should be usurped for another should be left to the legislative branch to decide, not the executive or the judicial.

And maybe, once the cultural shift comes about and we accept as a fait accompli that transgender folks aren’t deviants to be hated and shunned, or fashion trends to trot out for celebrities who wear the latest style, their rights and concerns will fit naturally within our structure of conflicted rights and responsibilities.  Only then should law deal with whatever lingering legal issues remain, if any, and maybe, just maybe, we can all laugh about the days when everybody shrieked about their identity issues being the most dire problem facing America.

Today, this post will likely be viewed as hate speech toward transgender people, but that’s because we’ve lost all perspective and the ability to laugh at ourselves for being so self-righteous and uptight. That wasn’t always the case, and won’t be the case forever.

*My old pal, Cristian Farias, tells me that I often fail to use the latest social justice-acceptable words. This is true, but not out of malice. It’s just that I don’t check social media hourly to keep abreast of the words I’m allowed to use, leaving me perpetually behind the social justice curve. My bad. Instead, I’ve decided to take the Lenny Bruce route.

**There is the question of intersex persons, which is a red herring.