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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 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. :(

I dont know about you but I think I went through my entire time at school without exposing my junk when changing for sports/other things where you have to change. Or indeed seeing other people's Most English Parts. Even swimming

Working with (often vulnerable) men and women (I don't think I have seen any alternative gender identities), and having to see and interact with them, often in various states of undress, I understand the hang ups some people have about their personal space and how people of the same and other genders interact with it; it is natural to have reservations.

The point being that "physical sex" and gender identity can be extremely different in all sorts of ways; sexuality also rears its head.

Ultimately facilities should be gender appropriate; the gender that a person feels to be, and/or facilities should be appropriate to match the privicy requirements of the people who use them. One can mix genders and sexualities in facilities that offer appropriate privicy.

A coming together of all the genders and sexualities promotes understanding.

I played football so I lived pretty much every gag about towels and locker rooms. And really, my concern is with locker rooms because most female restrooms have stalls BUT some schools have removed stall doors for various reasons so my objection would be case by case I suppose.

Another factor of consideration is the age group. Generally high school students are afforded more privacy in restrooms and changing areas than middle and elementary age students; is there a line? I shiver at the thought of my daughter being 9 and confused about the girl in her bathroom with different parts. I'll be back, I need to go breathe into a paper bag.

 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.

I'm well aware of that. I can still think its wrong.

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?

Maybe 3 rooms is the way to go: 1 for "males", 1 for "females", and 1 for people who could care less who they're changing with...

 Goremaul wrote:
Maybe 3 rooms is the way to go: 1 for "males", 1 for "females", and 1 for people who could care less who they're changing with...

This sounds like the best solution. Of course it would be quite expensive to implement.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Goremaul wrote:
Maybe 3 rooms is the way to go: 1 for "males", 1 for "females", and 1 for people who could care less who they're changing with...

This sounds like the best solution. Of course it would be quite expensive to implement.

At least the US Public School systems are flush with the funds to do so.

They squander billions every year, whats putting in 50% more restrooms gonna do?

 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.

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

I would proffer the issue won't be gender, it would be wrong biological parts in the wrong area. islam, Hindu, and conservative Christianity can be EXTREMELY hardcore about such.

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.

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

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm well aware of that. I can still think its wrong.

Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm well aware of that. I can still think its wrong.

Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.

Evidence doesn't make something right or wrong. I think you are a little confused.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I'm well aware of that. I can still think its wrong.

Glad to see you can see the evidence, ignore it and spout rubbish all at the same time. If you keep on believing maybe one day it will be true!!!!1111pi.

Evidence doesn't make something right or wrong. I think you are a little confused.

This one sentence explains so much.

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

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Unfortunately certain members of the victim class don't see it that way.

Yes, the "white Christians" can be a tricky bunch, demanding special treatment and respect while not in any way realising they are not returning the favour.

No compromise is acceptable.

Not every compromise is acceptable. Or indeed even a compromise.

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

Strawman and appeal to emotion.

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.

It remains to be seen that the proposed compromise was reasonable. Certainly there are many issues with providing a segregated changing and toileting area for people that some people don't feel belong in with other groups. There are many potential solutions and compromises possible in these types of situations; some better than others. Suggesting one does not make you a monster (appeal to emotion); stacking the suggestion and argument to unduely harm one or more of the involved parties makes you a monster, as does utterly refusing to inform yourself of the situation.

All must conform in thought, word and deed. Those who do not should be second class citizens at best.

So sayeth the LORD!

Oh, wait...

(Strawman, hyperbole and appeal to emotion).

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.

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.

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

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

 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.

Riiight. In the same way that guns lead to killing people I guess?

And religion leads to peace and harmony and flowers and fluffy bunnies?

 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:

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.

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

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

Wait don't get uppity. I think the entire state of California just mandated that as a concession for persons of different unsure persuasions. SouthPark even had an awesome episode about it.

 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.

 Polonius wrote:

 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.

And can we get away from the "you disagree so you're a bigot/freak" nonsense? As in the above, one reason for the push for three rooms (Houston municipal has that I think now too) is that it offers a safe place to avoid discrimination and potential physical assault issues.

Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

 Frazzled wrote:
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".

Something that Lila needs to learn.

 Polonius wrote:

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.

I don't think characterizing 150 people who take issue as simply "hyperbole" helps. Likely because it's only as simple as judging every single one of those girls as small minded xenophobic bigots. If we plan on transcending binaries we have to assume some spectrum/gradient to why these girls take issue.

The more I educate myself on trans issues, the more I realize it's just socio-political minefield of everyone assuming the worst, myself included.

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".

Something that Lila needs to learn.

I'm not aware of her calling people who are not doing this "bigots"...

I think a third room should be an option, but it should not be mandatory IMO and then you can still end up with fights about who goes to the third bathroom as well.

I also agree that there are lots of grey areas. Do you take everyone that declares as x/y at face value? Do you start when people start to transition (although not all people choose to transition)? Do you go by when people are diagnosed (do trans people get diagnosed with gender identity disorder)? Do you go by surgery, which would exclude minors?

I do think that court is going to be the best way to resolve instead of having thousands of districts make up their own rules.

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".

Something that Lila needs to learn.

Find me any teenager willing to compromise or be unselfish.

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Look, there's no good way here, its all grey. And before anyone calls me a bigot, they should realize the person they're calling that has opened up his house-and the implicit promise of safety that entails- to someone in this situation.

Realising the difficulty of the situation, examining the evidence and "solutions"/solutions developed to deal with similar issues, and working towards acceptable compromise is pretty much the opposite of "bigot".

Something that Lila needs to learn.

Find me any teenager willing to compromise or be unselfish.

That's true for both sides of this, for sure.