Dept of Education declares that school must allow boy to shower with girls

[Tamas]

So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?

[Josquius]

So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?

I'm not lobbying for it at all, it's the way things have always been. The only difference is these days there is the potential for someone to request this be changed.

[Malthus]

Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".

The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".

In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.

"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."

Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against. 

I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.

[Tamas]

So just to make it clear: you are lobbying for state authorities evaluating and determining people's genders and then forcing those people to adhere to a set of limits based on this state-determined gender?

I'm not lobbying for it at all, it's the way things have always been. The only difference is these days there is the potential for someone to request this be changed.

Precisely.

You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.

[Valmy]

Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".

The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".

In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.

"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."

Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against. 

I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.

It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.

Glad I am not running a school.

[Josquius]

Precisely.

You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.

And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.

[Tamas]

Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".

The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".

In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.

"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."

Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against. 

I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.

How do you make sure that only transgender people visit transgender bathrooms? And what if somebody born male identifies as female, and do not wishes to share a bathroom with biological females who identify as males?

Also, would you extend this to biological females who identify as males, or the lack of clearly visible biological "clue" of their transgender nature makes this unnecessary? If you do want transgender biological females to use transgender bathrooms, how do you wish to enforce this rule?

[Tamas]

Precisely.

You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.

And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.

What if the complaint is rejected?

[Josquius]

Precisely.

You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.

And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.

What if the complaint is rejected?

Then its up to them. Do they listen to the psychologists who say they are merely confused and not actually transgender?
Do they keep going as they are and try again?

IIRC trans people usually do have to live as the other gender on their own for a while before they're granted the legal rights that go with it. Rejections are common.

[Malthus]

It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.

Glad I am not running a school.

Agreed - I think eventually something has to give way, and that something, IMO, ought to be the notion that there are only two possible gender identities, and that if you aren't in category "A", you must be in category "B". It will be difficult though. In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!

[Tamas]

Precisely.

You are arguing that one's own definition of their own gender is irrelevant, and it is the outside world that should determine in it for them, just like it has always been. Except for the possibility to file a complaint.

And once that complaint has been processed and approved then the outside world has determined that they are legally a different gender and entitled to all the rights that go with this.

What if the complaint is rejected?

Then its up to them. Do they listen to the psychologists who say they are merely confused and not actually transgender?
Do they keep going as they are and try again?

IIRC trans people usually do have to live as the other gender on their own for a while before they're granted the legal rights that go with it. Rejections are common.

So you are fine with the authorities denying people their right to live as their true gender then, if the authorities find that is warranted?

[Valmy]

It is complicated isn't it? The righteousness of everybody involved makes it more difficult. And of course if some of the other girls or their parents have any concerns well they are calling for the violation of human rights so that makes it difficult to find a compromise.

Glad I am not running a school.

Agreed - I think eventually something has to give way, and that something, IMO, ought to be the notion that there are only two possible gender identities, and that if you aren't in category "A", you must be in category "B". It will be difficult though. In other cultures there have always been more than two, but not in ours!

Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.

I guess the number of genders is not really the issue but rather that they are not as distinct as we make it. There can remain two so long as they are fluid and flexible enough to incorporate almost everybody, that way our cultural traditions can be allowed to accommodate, what might make it easier to find widespread acceptance. A sort of 'big tent' genderism.

[Malthus]

Strikes me that this issue is that people insist on being either one gender or another - when the reality is that some are "trans". That includes the people who identify as "trans".

The position taken in this case is that requiring these people to shower in separate facilities is a human rights abuse, rather than "reasonable accommodation".

In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student's rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls' facilities, the letter said.

"All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right," Catherine Lhamon, the Education Department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls' locker room."

Thing is, this flies somewhat in the face of reality - namely, that this person, although they are 'female', have 'male' genitals. While this remains the case, insisting that they are for all purposes and under all circumstances a "girl", including in the locker room where everyone gets naked, will not work, because the other "girls" will, without doubt, notice the difference. Nor will forcing the student to use the boy's facilities work, because these boys will, without doubt, notice that this student dresses and identifies as a girl. Thus, private facilities looks like reasonable accommodation - but that is just what was ruled against. 

I'm not sure why this is a big deal: increasingly we find separate washroom facilities to (say) accommodate people in wheelchairs, without insisting that every single facility be wheelchair-accessible.

How do you make sure that only transgender people visit transgender bathrooms? And what if somebody born male identifies as female, and do not wishes to share a bathroom with biological females who identify as males?

Also, would you extend this to biological females who identify as males, or the lack of clearly visible biological "clue" of their transgender nature makes this unnecessary? If you do want transgender biological females to use transgender bathrooms, how do you wish to enforce this rule?

I don't think it will be a significant problem, if these are individual facilities that are being provided. The "rule" would be pretty simple: those whose physical attributes match their gender use the appropriate gendered facilities, as they have always done; those who, for whatever reason, find a mis-match, or for any other reason (such as crippling shyness) cannot or don't want to use the common facilities, use the individual ones.

Same as right now with the extra-wide wheelchair stalls in washrooms. They are there for wheelchairs to use but others use them as well - like the morbidly obese. It works out without any need for supervision, because the actual number of people in wheelchairs is pretty small (and I suspect the actual number of the transgendered is even smaller). In our office we have the obligatory extra-large facilities, and I don't think and actual wheelchairs have ever used them - but they get used nonetheless.

[Malthus]

Alright but that has nothing to do with this scenario. The only people involved here are the ones who identify with one of the two possible gender identities. Even if we made a few more I presume these trans-girls would still be trans-girls.

Yes, and that is exactly the problem - the trans-girl in question (and the administrative authorities) are insisting that her identification with one of the two possible categories is a human right that is violated by "special" treatment, presumably because this singles her out as "different".

Thing is, she *is* "different". No amount of pretending is going to make a person with a dick into a "girl" for all purposes, just the same as every other girl born without one. Anyone looking at her naked (like in a locker room) will know, at once, that she is "different". 

This isn't the school's fault, it is the fault of cruel nature, that evidently gave her a mind that didn't match her body. To my mind, it makes less sense to pretend it isn't so, and makes more sense to accommodate that difference by admitting that not everyone fits neatly into "a" or "b".

[viper37]

I don't see anything remotely bigoted about the belief that guy guys will try to take advantage of this.

Nor is it moronic to think so.  After all, the only objective way to prevent it would be to create a test of female identification.  I presume the plaintiff in this case was not given one.

Of course a rather impartial test would be if the dude gets a woodie in the shower, but at that it's already mission accomplished.

I figure that if you pretend to be transgendered, then you have to at least cross-dress, no?
Basically, if a straight boy is willing to dress as a girl to attend school and then get in the girl's shower, than the ridicule might be worst than the gratification he would get.