Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interesting. It seems like a bit of an overreaction, because nothing says "You're not wanted" than 150 people staging a protest, but this is going to end the same way it's ended everywhere else.

Virtually every adjudicator has held that sexual identity is not based on physical characteristics, and that a bona fide identity as one gender is enough to be classified as that gender.

The question is: can a person decide their gender. I don't mean on a whim, but can a person make the statement "I'm a female" and hold others to it? The answer increasingly seems to be yes, they can.

 Frazzled wrote:
I haven't seen anything one way or the other. Its a sad situation all around.

It is, because when you read the link Whembly posted, its clear that people are use the Locker room issue to kind of get at a deeper fear and dislike of trans individuals:

“This needs to stop before it goes too far,” said Childs, who has a niece and a nephew who go to an elementary school in Hillsboro. “I’m not trying to be ignorant, but (the transgender student) is bringing it out in public for everybody else to deal with.”

Here, his problem is that the trans person is making everybody else "deal" with her gender. Which is true, but something we all do. Everybody has to deal with me being male, whether they like it or not.

I'm not insensitive to the issue here. I think it's natural to have a kneejerk, "rooster in the henhouse" type concern about a trans individual in the locker room. I'm not even sure to what extent we should allow minors to make identity choices. That all said, this seems pretty mean spirited over a fairly minor issue.

 Alex C wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not even sure to what extent we should allow minors to make identity choices.

Is it a choice?

Maybe declarations is a better term.

 whembly wrote:
I realize that trans issues a big thing now... but, where's the consideration for these other girls?

The question is, and I'm not being rhetorical, "how are they harmed?"

And I'm not sure. I've never been a high school girl, and I'm not sure to what extent they are harmed by this.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Do you see any potential issue with someone declaring themselves gender fluid and using either facility at will?

Yes, because any allowance that includes the words "at will" is going to be a nightmare.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I realize that trans issues a big thing now... but, where's the consideration for these other girls?

The question is, and I'm not being rhetorical, "how are they harmed?"

And I'm not sure. I've never been a high school girl, and I'm not sure to what extent they are harmed by this.

How are they not harmed. There are separate facilities for a reason. Like it or not he's still a bio he. Fix that and I can't see an issue.

That's not good enough. How, specifically, is a girl harmed by having a biologically male, but female identifying, individual in her locker room? I get that she might see a penis, but is that harmful?

The flip side is asking what harm there is in having a trans individual use a third, individual room, assuming it's properly constructed. (locker rooms tend to have showers)

Toss in the modern reality of homosexual students, and I'm curious what the harm is.

 whembly wrote:
This school is in a no win situation here and requiring a trans to use a unisex private bathroom is the best compromise here.

I somewhat agree, but only in practice.

In theory, I agree with the idea that making a transfemale use a unisex bathroom is a very public statement by the school that she isn't a girl. Toss in the bushels of baggage that tend to go with being trans, such as increased harassment, bullying, and sexual assault, its really crappy to be told that you're different and not really what you think you are.

In practice, I really hate when people make principled stands instead of taking a pretty decent compromise. (And yes, I'm checking my privilege) The student is making a legal case out of something that frankly, she could have dealt with. Now, the response by the student body, which is super crappy, makes me feel more sympathetic, but this isn't going to end well for anybody.

 whembly wrote:

If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.

But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?

I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.

 whembly wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 whembly wrote:

If we're all mature people... no, it's not harmful.

But, lemme ask you a questions: Do you believe that the trials and tribulations of normal girls are unique to boys? And vice versa?

I'm not sure what you're asking there, and you may have used the wrong term.

That the challenges of a genetic-girl growing up is different than the challenges of a genetic-male growing up?

Puberty is distinctly different...

Social Pressures is distinctly different...

Then add the additional challenges of being trans.

IMO, this isn't a case where the school is maliciously "segregating" a trans, ala Jim Crowisms.

That's all great. I totally get that.

What is the harm?

Look, I want to nip this in the bud. I don't want a wang chilling my a girl's locker room. But I've got plenty of evidence that denying a person their identity is harmful, so my question has to become: is there a harm to cis-women changing with a trans-woman?

 whembly wrote:
[
To answer you question: The Hilsboro girls seems to think so. Do they have any say?

They do, as long as there is a harm, and not simply a preference. It's not like teenagers ever exaggerate their problems or anything.

Look, I want to be on the side of the school. I want to say, "hey, we're sorry, but having you change with the girls won't work for us, because..." I just need the "because." I'll admit that I'm weirded out by transsexuality. It's icky. But I also know that it beats the alternative, which is having people live in an identity they don't relate to, which comes with a high psychological toll. I'm, through force of will alone, trying to be an ally to trans people. So I really can see both sides here.

What I'd like, is some tangible, actual reason to disallow a transwoman from changing in the girls locker room.

Can we also do something about the idea that anybody is supposed to "comfortable" while changing in a high school locker room?

I'm a biological male that identifies as a male, and it was not exactly a picnic for me.

 Frazzled wrote:

I'd say harm as I am not in a position to judge, and frankly I doubt any of us are.

And that's fair. The context of separate facilities, especially for bathrooms, makes sense because the plumbing is different.

The idea that there are anti-peeping laws makes sense, although I'm curious why its okay for a girl to change next to girls with vaginas, but not a girl with a penis.

 CptJake wrote:
It would seem asking the kid with a penis to change/shower with other kids with penises makes that one kid uncomfortable. Allowing the kid with a penis to change/shower with a bunch of kids with vaginas makes a bunch of kids uncomfortable.

Seems making it clear 'This is the shower room for kids with a penis, and this is the shower room for kids with a vagina' is not that hard to do. There are likely kids belonging in both rooms that, at this age, are uncomfortable with their bodies/bodies of others. At least keeping the body parts allowed in each room consistent is gonna help a lot more of them.

I think this is probably the clearest boiling down of the issue, with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity. You also have the reality that transwomen are sexually assaulted (by men) at a shockingly high rate, while transwomen do not sexually assault ciswomen very much at all.

 Crablezworth wrote:
It will help separate the van wilders/american pie types from those who are actually transexual.

I've seen this pop up a few times, and I'm shocked that it's not a joke.

Boys that decide to identify as women are 100% not doing it to try to sneak into the girls locker room. That's criminally dumb to think. "Yes, I want to wear uncomfortable clothes that don't fit right, get bullied, become a pariah, and have substantial mental health issues. But I'll get to see bewbs!"

Please.

Most transsexuals don't get surgery. Many use hormone therapy, but gender reassignment surgery isn't all that common, because the side effects and potential complications are horrible, and the upside is pretty marginal. (plastic surgeons are good, but not that good).

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
with the fairly major exception of not taking into account the students identity.

My hope would be a professional took a long hard look at said identity and judged it genuine though. My problem is giving everyone the benefit of the doubt out of fear or being made out to be the bad guy/bully/bigot. I also am suspicious of any teenage truly knowing who they are yet. For every self assured old soul you'll have some where it amy have been more of a phase. Confusion may seem cliche'd but speaking only for myself I didn't really know who I was until my early 20's.

I don't know much about child transsexuality. Okay, I don't know anything. But from everything I've seen, people generally don't come back from going Trans. it's usually a one way trip.

don't confuse it with dressing like a freak/goth/emo/glam/whatever kids are doing today. That can (and should) be a phase. But 16 year olds that think they're gay, or actually a woman? Probably are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tacking onto Crablezworth's point: would people's view changed if the student in question had seen a psychologist, who verified that gender reassignment was appropriate, and that being treated as a boy would be psychologically harmful?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Or, say boys stay in the boys room and girls stay in the girls room. People that got a problem with that can deal with it.

If I'm a bigot for saying that I am ok with that.

I think we're all okay with that. What's an issue is determining who is a boy, and who is a girl. An issue that is incredibly straight forward until you make the slightest bit of effort to look into it, and then it gets... complex. Particularly in a society that is increasingly aware of gender alignment being detached from physical manifestation.

 agnosto wrote:
So, basically, as a parent of a daughter who doesn't want his little girl exposed to physical manifestations of male genitalia at X age, I have no say in what happens. The student with boy parts gets to saunter through the changing/bathroom with his/her boy parts swinging in the breeze in the presence of my underage daughter. Yay, progress is so great. :(

As I'm sure you know, being a man yourself, you might have less say on when you're daughter's are exposed than you might desire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
How about we draw the line at the physical manifestation? That will cover 99.9999999999999% of situations.

What about people that are legally one gender, with the physical manifestations of another? If their driver's license says female, but they still have a penis, do they have to use the men's room?

 agnosto wrote:

Possibly, but ultimately I hope that it is her choice when she's ready and it's not school sponsored/endorsed/condoned/enforced when she's not.

Edit:
This is like the government and school saying, "We've decided it's high time your daughters saw and actual penis and we don't care if you disagree."

I think that's the best argument to be made here. I'm really not certain this is a question of harm as much as it is one of control (I mean, how is anybody hurt by seeing genitals?), but I think you can make the argument that this does cross some sort of line. I'd buy it.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well, I think that we probably shouldn't have that situation in the first place. You should only be legally a female once you have an actual vagina.

Interestingly, a significant minority of States disagree with you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_transsexualism_in_the_United_States#Birth_certificates

Only five states refuse to alter a person's birth certificate, while 18 states will alter a trans person's birth certificate without surgery.

. It would be better to get psychological counseling to accept that you are in fact a man/women and not a women/man.

Except the psychological community disagrees with you, pretty handily. Sure, some people can stay closeted, but most trans people benefit from transitioning. The medicine ain't on your side.

hink plastic surgery should be reserved for people who have their bodies destroyed in accidents or are disfigured in some way.

do as though wilt? I got no problems with it.

 agnosto wrote:
Another potential minefield is when religion becomes involved.
Islam;
Judaism;
Hinduism;
Buddhism
and even certain Christian sects strongly believe in gender separation.

So...which trumps which?

I thought about that one as well. Few fundamentalist religions could possibly have an actual stance on transgender people, as that wasn't something that really existed even 75 years ago. I wouldn't want to be the school district attorney dealing with a first amendment claim on it though.

My gut reaction is that religious taboos don't set policy in the long run. I think it would be easier to quietly reassign people to different class periods.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Respect and decency should be a two way street. Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way. No compromise is acceptable. You must accept everything about me on my terms or you are a bad person to be crushed.

Interestingly, that's more of less the mentality of every successful person I've encountered. I'm not sure it's much an aspect of victim culture, as it is former victims acting like winners.

So hundreds must be violated in their most private and vulnerable moments to make one a bit happier.

I'm going to call this, right here, the hyperbole of the day, if that's okay with everybody.

Reasonable compromise in the form of providing an additional neutral environment available to all is unacceptable, and to propose the same is to expose one's self as a monster. All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.

You're confusing moral weight with social value. Bigots are generally not second class citizens, if anything, they tend to received disproportionate respect and benefit from the state.

There's an argument to be made that a person that is a non-biological female should be treated fully as female. Other than "OMG a girl might see a penis" there seems to be no real harm to this, and it makes our society more inclusive of even those that are on the fringes. That's not a bad thing.

On the whole, I agree that the private bathroom isn't a terrible compromise. It's one year, it's high school, it's going to suck no matter what... get through it and move on. (This is usually where some would argue that I speak from privilege, which is undeniably true.)

What bugs me here is the same thing that bugs me with a lot of cases like this: the argument about a policy (where do trans people change) is very highly colored with plenty of thoughts about the merits and value of trans people. The hard part is sifting through the emotional reactions, and actually figuring out what makes the most sense.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You're trying to use science to create ethics, when science has nothing to do with ethics. That way leads to eugenics and genocide.

Whoah.. .what?

Science can tell us if being transgender is healthier than being closeted.

It can't tell us if people should be transgender, but any public policy that requires people to be less healthy probably isn't the best in the long run.

 d-usa wrote:
Pretending that "you are not a girl, now go to the restroom for 'things'" is a compromise is an interesting tactic.

Well, part of this is that we don't really have a good way to track when people switch, and any real threshold to show when a person is male or female. It's clearly not just a matter of declaration, but it's a fuzzy and grey subject. Plenty of people in this thread don't see transgender people as their identified gender unless there is surgery (or even then), so as a society, this isn't a terrible compromise. It's not a good one, but it's one that at least allows her some dignity.

Actually, this is exactly the sort of thing you want individual school districts determining on their own.

Assuming that the districts act in good faith, each school can adapt to local resources and needs.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


And can we get away from the "you disagree so you're a bigot/freak" nonsense?

Well, some of the opinions shared here are pretty closed minded. One person straight up said that he disagreed with the legal, medical, and social determinations that people can be trans.

Is that bigotry? I'm not sure it's worth using that term, but when your point clearly comes from a place of contempt for a class of people... should we call them on it?

And keep in mind that society changes fast. 20 years ago, it was almost unthinkable in most places that a gay person could be in the Scouts, or organized sports, or the military. Now, young men are sharing tents and showers with young gay men every day, and its... fine. Casual homophobia was completely okay then, and it's basically unthinkable now.

Is trans acceptance different enough to not go down the same road? I'm thinking no. I think the revulsion about sex change is natural, if only because most people have more fluid sexuality than gender identity. Kinsey found, and there's little reason to doubt, that few people are 100% straight. Essentially, the idea of homosexual sex is more relatable to most people than a gender switch. I think if we set up a poll: "Would you rather switch your gender or your sexual orientation" orientation would win by a country mile.

 Alex C wrote:
Doubtful, because "tolerant" people generally aren't tolerant of those with a different opinion.

This is one of those statements that sounds really clever and deep, but actually misses the point.

Tolerance of differences in identity are based on the idea that each person should be included in society, regardless of any identity they have. so, we should be tolerant of races, religions, disabilities, sexual orientations, etc. This is based on the idea that identity, even when not immutable, is a right. A person has the right to be who they are, and still be allowed in all aspects of society. Essentially, tolerance is based on the idea that all races, creeds, genders, etc. have the same value.

Tolerance of opinions is a different story. Opinions, or their more emotive relatives, beliefs, are not all the same in terms of value. There are areas where all opinions are valid (is Tom Brady better than Joe Montana), and there are areas where not all opinions are considered equally valid (Was Ryan Leaf a better quarterback than Peyton Manning).

In polite society, when the stakes are not particularly low, it is polite to allow all people their opinions. It is, in fact, a pretty big aspect of civility. Of course, civility has a pretty conservative (in the broadest, least political sense) streak to it, in that civility concedes that barring anything critical, the status quo is fine. After all, it's not particularly civil to question a person's status, or rights.

An opinion that, say, Transgender people aren't really their new gender, is an opinion. You have the right to say it. But its an opinion that many find offensive, others find inconsistent with their own experiences, and plenty of people find inconsistent with expert opinions and decades of evidence. It's a bad opinion. If you decide to wade into a debate with that opinion, be prepared to get smacked down.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
In this case specifically the transgender person was tolerated, was accepted into society and then that person wanted their 5 minutes of fame and fethed up the whole situation to make a big stink out of which bathroom he/she got to use. Tolerance means you TOLERATE it doesn't mean you have to kowtow to them.

Well, for starters, it's considered a big part of proper respect in any society to use the proper pronouns when discussing a person. She's a she, not a he/she.

Tolerance doesn't mean you stop kicking the gak of out them for being different. It means actually accepting them, for who they are, and who they present as.

Not allowing a female to use the female change room is intolerant. Whether it's justifiably intolerant is a different story. (Compare, for example, allowing a Jew to wear a skullcap despite a no-hats policy with disallowing a Sikh from bringing a dagger unto an airplane).

We're days into this discussion, and the absolute worst harm that anybody has come up with from allowing her to change with girls is that another girl might see a penis. Which seems at the outmost limits of what could be considered harmful to a high school aged woman. So, I don't see it as kowtowing, because it's not asking people to really put with much, other than her existence.

Now, I agree that she doubled down here, and made this a bigger mess than was needed, but that's also how you get social change.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Tolerating an opinion one perceives as bad is exactly what is being asked of these 200 individuals it would seem.

Except the opinion that transwomen, even pre-op, can change with ciswomen isn't a fringe, crazy opinion. it's a pretty well supported one, and its growing.

Remember, back in the mists of time, when we were discussing gay rights? Remember when society went berserk trying to explain that they tolerated gay people, they just didn't want them married, or in the military, or in the Boy Scouts, or really doing anything gay at all?

This is the same issue. It's a bit ickier, because trans status is less relatable, but since the Stonewall riots, the gay rights movement basically made the argument that they should be treated fully as people, despite their orientation. Mainstream society spent 45 years arguing that, no, gay rights had nothing to do with racial civil rights, and if we gave gay people rights this time society really would explode.

Has society exploded?

Look, I get that progress is scary. I don't envy people, that are none too sophisticated to begin with, being asked to comprehend issues like gender identity and whatnot. it's tough overcoming a lifetime of ingrained biases and prejudices. But we've done this before! We all been on this ride, with Black rights, women's rights, gay rights. We're getting there on immigration rights. What is considered almost unthinkably bizarre now will seem laughably regressive in a generation.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

And you wonder why we think your bigots. Because you continually make really stupid jokes about being trans. That has been rebutted multiple times.

You have the right to refuse to accept that a person wants to alter their gender. But making jokes about it? That's hateful, and frankly a sign of bigotry.

 Grey Templar wrote:
This is no joke dude.

We're talking about giving someone who isn't trans a free pass to enter the opposite sex bathroom. Because they can just claim they are trans and get away with it.

Except they can't. I mean, you know that, right? The woman in this case had been dressing and identifying as a woman for a year prior to this.

It's usually policy that a person outwardly identify as the transition gender for a while before anything official recognizes them.

The people doing this are liberals. Do you really think they wouldn't have a regulatory structure in place?

 CptJake wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So if I want to go into the womens locker room - all I gotta do is pretend to be trans for a few minutes? Nice to know.

Seems like it. And nobody can really demand any proof either.

Frankly no one should even ask if you are transgendered. It would be bigoted to question why you chose to use a locker room that does not seemingly match what is physically between your legs. Unless you break some law/sexually harass the other occupants they should just accept it.

I think in an institutional environment like a school, there's enough structure, given guidance counselors and the like, to facilitate some sort of oversight.

If nothing else, to prevent people from wearing drag one day and conducting a panty raid.