This seems to be the crux of the current issue -
Just who is complaining here - is it the students or is it the parents?
In the other thread we had on the issue a short while ago - it seemed that the individual concerned had just recently started some form of tranisition was still seen “as a boy” by many of the other students.
In my very inexpert opinion - it seems that how someone is seen is more relevant than what is being seen - i.e - the presence of a penis, vulva, breasts or not isn’t really the issue, but rather the behaviour of the individual.
Speaking for myself - having crossed over 40, I really don’t care who sees me naked anymore. And I really don’t particularly care who I see naked. At age 15 it would have been a big deal though to be naked infront of opposite sex classmates - as bad as it can be for same sex, to have opposite sex looking would have been worse.
That’s what it takes for what? You keep acting as if every school district has dealt with this or has clearly defined rules and procedures. They don’t. My point is that all those people worrying about boys scamming their way into girls locker rooms and everyone concerned with fairness, equality, and accommodation should address situations like this with all the information.
Are you suggesting this was a concern of mine? My point was that if you make the choice of a locker room binary, then there has to be some criteria upon which a school decides where a transgender student can go. Is is just based on the transgender student’s desires? Is it based on the recommendation of a doctor, counselor, or parent? Do we based it on the completion of transiting or on the start of hormone therapy?
The issue is that if you say one can take these steps to change from one gender to another, there should be some agreed upon point at which that change effectively occurs beyond someone just stating that is the case. Now I don’t say that to say that I think throngs of horny boys are going to be signing up for counseling or hormone therapy in order to game the system, but no regulation as debated as this is can exist and be respected when it’s based solely on individual preference.
But the school district doesn’t have to. All they have to rely upon is a diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist.
I was addressing what must be a question of many.
Although some in my community will differ with me, I believe that there must be a diagnosis after counseling as a critical part of any transgender accommodation in a school.
It’s been close to two decades since I’ve found myself in a public school’s locker room, but I don’t recall ever seeing anyone nude. If our class had included a biological female who was living as a man, I doubt I would’ve noticed.
It seems to me that young people these days are pretty open-minded when it comes to transgender issues, so if the girls are OK with letting this young person change with them, then I’d say that the opinions of their parents and/or the school authority figures aren’t nearly as relevant.
Not really. No complex policy can just be adjudicated based on doctor’s discretion alone. That’s not to say it’s shouldn’t be valued an considered, but what you suggest is not reasonable. You can’t even get extra time on the SAT solely based on a doctor’s diagnosis. There has to be a process, and part of that process should be some system that gives all stakeholders a chance to weigh in.
And yet you specfically quoted me and said:
So your explanation is clearly bullshit.
If there is disagreement within your own community why can’t you cut some of the people in this thread who are generally on you side some slack. While you can be an effective advocate, I really don’t think you appreciate how much of a disservice you do to your cause in threads like this when you make aggressive, unfocused, and condescending appeals.
More importantly, is there any evidence in this case that the student was diagnosed by a doctor prior to appealing to use the female locker room?
We’re not talking about a national examination, we’re talking about a relatively simple policy. The diagnosis of a doctor can set policy for how a student is treated with respect to other medical conditions, on a school by school basis sometimes. Plus, I have the advantage that unlike you, I actually work in this field and have seen the system work with my own eyes in school districts locally, and I’ve worked with the compliance attorneys and school administrators. And remotely with other school districts in Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, and other states.
No, because I post a lot on this subject I wanted to add something in general to admit that counselors are not foolproof. A general admission out of fairness. There’s no need to resort to calling me a liar.
Wow, “advice” couched in insults. Your sudden and mysterious concern for transgender advocacy is touching…really. :dubious:
While the article about the case in Illinois doesn’t say much about how the female students at the school feel, there was a similar case in Missouri in which hundreds of girls staged a walk-out protest over the matter. Plainly it is not the case that young people have one-hundred-percent decided to throw out the old rules about who can use what bathroom and locker room. Some girls still want a bathroom and locker room that is still just for girls, strictly defined as it was defined for previous generations, and are not happy to just have federal bureaucrats remove their right to that. And I do not blame them for doing so.
It’s high school. Fear and sex are their motivations for everything.
Ideally, we should have unisex locker rooms with multiple adult monitors. Since we’re talking about minors, I would allow them to change in one of the bathroom stalls (with doors) if they want.
Since we’re dealing with an unideal world and legacy school buildings - I would let the trans student change where he or she sees fit, and let anyone who has a problem with it change in the coaches’ office or the supply room or something. The trans student gets to change where he or she feels comfortable. The other students also get to change where they feel comfortable. The grown ups are inconvenienced, but whatever.
If the grown ups feel sufficiently inconvenienced, then they can raise the money for a Shy Persons’ locker room, for kids who don’t want anyone looking at them for whatever reason whatsoever.
Why do we have two separate locker rooms and bathrooms for the two genders? It’s because there are two separate genders and because tensions arise naturally and inevitably from the differences between those two genders. Do you believe that there should be any rules at all about who can change in what locker room?
I don’t think anyone said it had unanimous support. I said generally speaking the kids seem to get it.
…and white students staged walk outs in the 1950’s in Little Rock over racial integration which was ordered by Federal bureaucrats. So I assume you would have not blamed them either.
Ever considered the possibility that some girls might be made uncomfortable by being sent to the coaches’ office or supply room?
There seems to be a rather large disconnect on the issue of comfort. A transsexual student feels uncomfortable about changing in the boys’ locker room. Result: federal bureaucrats swoop in and force the district to allow the student to change in the girls’ locker room; even a separate locker room for that student is deemed unacceptable.
But a large number of high school girls feel uncomfortable about having a biological male in the girls’ locker room with them? Result: no federal action, no ACLU lawsuits, no one who cares about them being “comfortable” and “included”. Just a bunch of accusations that the girls are acting based on fear, are not open-minded, etc…
Why not just insist that the transsexual student should be open-minded enough to use the boys’ locker room?
Well that’s odd. Do civil rights, in your opinion, extend to gender identity?
And asking that the transgender student be “open minded” and use the boys locker room is actually pretty callous, and indicates that the heart of the matter is, you really don’t appear to believe her gender identity is legitimate in the first place. Because by your own statements it is also apparent you would never insist that an XX female change in the boys locker room.
History and tradition. We used to separate the girls from the boys in all sorts of areas. You only have to look to strict Muslim countries to see traditional gender separation rules in operation. We know that all along there have been gay boys and lesbians in the locker rooms for their respective genders, and it really hasn’t been a problem. I don’t have a problem with separate lockers rooms for boys and girls (as defined by their own long-term gender identification), but I don’t really have a problem with co-ed locker rooms either, as long as there is a place for people who wish to change in private.
Boys who want to sexually harass or assault girls are perfectly capable of doing so outside of the locker room. That type of behavior should not be tolerated anywhere. But do I think that letting transgender people use their preferred room is going to lead to anything other than bigots egged on by their parents feeling icky? No.
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question – what exactly is the bad thing that is going to happen if we allow people to use the locker room of the gender with which they identify? So far, all I’ve heard is that it will make people feel uncomfortable, which is no justification for bigotry.
What is it in human nature that will “cause problems” if you see a naked person of the opposite gender?
What problems are caused if the opposite gender sees you naked?
There’s no particular reason why bathrooms can’t be shared other than it’s not what we’re used to. Even with urinals, with a bank of urinals against one wall, and a bank of stalls against another - there’s nothing to be seen for the squeamish.
So it seems to come down to attitudes rather than bodies.
In one case you see a person with a male body being accepted as “one of the girls” - it doesn’t seem to be an issue. In that case, the presence of a penis seems irrelevant. Nobody is going to go crazy and be scarred for life by seeing one.
In another case, it seems to be that the transition is relatively recent and the girl is still seen as a boy in a dress. In which case the girls feel threatened and the presence of a penis is a problem. To put that problem purely down to bigotry on unacceptance seems a little unfair. To force the issue in such a situation also seems unfair.
Well, we already know that some of the other women in our locker rooms may be lesbians. And men already know that some of the other men in their locker rooms may be gay. Naively taking it for granted that gender-segregated locker rooms are spaces completely free of sexual attraction is pretty much a thing of the past, AFAICT.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And having been a teenage boy, if someone who physically looked like a girl changed beside me and got naked when I was, say, 13 years old, that would have been a big deal. And if I had been changing in front of someone who I later found out was biologically female, it might have done some psychological damage.
[/quote]
But you and I are olds from back in the day when images of opposite-sex genitalia weren’t ubiquitously available at the click of a button. It’s likely that we were way more easily shocked at the sight of PRIVATE PARTS than today’s youth are.
Sure, some people will undoubtedly be weirded out by the notion of sharing restrooms/locker rooms with transgender people, at least while the practice is still a new thing. But ISTM that if we’re going to respect the rights of transgender people, the first and most crucial part of that is respecting the fact that they are the gender they identify as. And that means that they can use the spaces designated for their self-identified gender.
(And of course, strictly speaking, nobody should be looking at anybody else’s genitalia in a locker room or restroom anyway, whatever their gender. Mind your own business and keep your eyes to yourself, and you won’t have to get all bothered about whether your neighbor has a penis or a vagina or any variation thereof.)
Your description is a little muddled: news reports say only that more than 100 students walked out. No data about how many of them were girls.
Many white people in the 1960’s still wanted bathrooms and locker rooms (and water fountains, and lunch counters, etc.) that were still just for white people, strictly defined as it was defined for previous generations in their segregated society, and they were not happy to just have federal bureaucrats remove their “right” to that.
Too bad.
Sincerely believing that “colored people are dirty and must stay away from the things that I touch”, or that “someone with a penis who claims to be a girl is an unnatural and possibly dangerous freak that I shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with”, does not entitle the believer to deny somebody else’s rights.
Yes. I’m not especially concerned about it. The way I’d set it up, they can’t keep someone else out of the group - but they can keep themselves out of the group. Either everyone changes together or shy persons can go off by themselves. But shy persons can’t keep other people out of the group. Shy persons can take themselves out of the group but they can’t ostracize someone else who wants to be part of the group, in my scheme.
Really, the only logical choice is either everyone changes together or everyone changes individually. Trying to have group changing room is always going to leave someone feeling out of place. I’d been fine with refitting the locker rooms to accommodate individual locker/shower stalls. It would solve all sorts of headaches.
Apologies for any confusion caused by my imprecise word choice. I only chose “peculiarity” to convey something that is uncommon, not shared by the majority of others.
Did a quick Google, suggesting .2-.3% of US adults are trans. That certainly is an attribute not shared by the vast majority of Americans. I warrant slightly more Americans are black, female, or of Italian heritage.
People keep saying things like: “kids are accepting”; “the students don’t mind.” Imagine at least the possibility that .2-.3% of the kids DO mind for whatever reason they and their families feel very legitimate - possibly religious, insecurity, shyness… If such people exist, are their concerns of no consideration?
In the provision of public services, I think there is some utility in considering the financial and other costs of accommodating extremely small groups. Public schools ought not be one-size-fits-all, but neither can they be all things to all people. If I were trans or the parent of a trans kid, this would likely be a big concern of mine. I’m not, so it isn’t.
Then you agree when I said the decision making process should not be SOLELY based on a doctor’s discretion.
Which again belies your point that a doctor’s diagnosis is the end all be all. Why exactly are you involved if all it does/should take is a doctor’s note?
I am pointing out how your justification was, at best, disingenuous.
Unsurprisingly, you declined to discuss this matter with the necessary maturity, objectivity, humility to make this worthwhile for me.
In your mind, do they extend unequivocally to every medical condition? Should every building and residence be required to have a wheelchair ramp or elevator? Should doctors have to operate on people with BIID? Why do you keep making this an all or nothing issue when almost ALL civil rights legislation is based on compromises to some extent.
The argument here is fundamentally different than the one for white lunch counters. One is saying segregation is bad whereas the argument here is that segregation is fine, but we need to make accommodations to allow individuals to move from one segregated group to another. I am not necessarily saying we shouldn’t do that, but the similarities are scant.
So are you saying there shouldn’t be any gender segregation?
This is an important point regarding accommodation. There are twice as many people with top secret clearances as there are transgender people. There are roughly 50% more people with schizophrenia than transgenderism. There are about as many people in prison for violent crimes. No, that fact alone doesn’t mean we can overlook basic human rights, but it should be part of the considerations.