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

[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?

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.

What I am getting at is that basically, what you are doing, is drawing a line at a level of sensibility, and creating extra rules to accomodate it, but then you stop and refuse to accomodate similar additional sensibilities, on account of that being unnecessary.

Now you may be right, but I'd like to point out that your position isn't different from the position of "have two bathrooms based on biological gender and that's it case closed" And in a more general theoretical sense from the position of "gender is based on genetics and while you are free to dress as you wish and have sex with whatever gender you wish, as far as the law is concerned your gender is based on your genetics".

The latter, BTW, seeming the most sensible approach considering all these complications arising from all the different kind of trans/cross/cis/etc gendered identities out there.

[crazy canuck]

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.

I think if the captain of the basketball team announced that he was going to dress up as a girl and claim gender-female status so he can go shower with the girls basketball team, he would not get any ridicule at all.

Sure, but everyone would know its a joke/scam/weird Yi like attempt to get sexual gratification.

[Malthus]

What I am getting at is that basically, what you are doing, is drawing a line at a level of sensibility, and creating extra rules to accomodate it, but then you stop and refuse to accomodate similar additional sensibilities, on account of that being unnecessary.

I didn't think I was doing that.

Now you may be right, but I'd like to point out that your position isn't different from the position of "have two bathrooms based on biological gender and that's it case closed" And in a more general theoretical sense from the position of "gender is based on genetics and while you are free to dress as you wish and have sex with whatever gender you wish, as far as the law is concerned your gender is based on your genetics".

The latter, BTW, seeming the most sensible approach considering all these complications arising from all the different kind of trans/cross/cis/etc gendered identities out there.

I think my position is to avoid the multiple problems involved with this situation by offering an accommodation to anyone who, for whatever reason, finds that the traditional communal bathroom/locker-room set-up doesn't work well - trans, the very shy, anyone with special requirements. 

Such accommodation wouldn't be all that difficult, because for other reasons separate facilities are already not unusual. For example, separate washrooms for wheelchair access.

[crazy canuck]

Btw here is the Vancouver School Board policy regarding the same issue.

a.The use of washrooms and change rooms by trans* students shall be assessed on a case-by-case basis with the goals of maximizing the student's social integration, ensuring the student's safety and comfort, minimizing stigmatization and providing equal opportunity to participate in physical education classes and sports.
b.Trans* students shall have access to the washroom and change room that corresponds to their gender identity. Students who desire increased privacy will be provided with a reasonable alternative washroom and/or changing area. Any alternative arrangement will be provided in a way that protects the student's ability to keep their trans* status confidential.
c.The decision with regard to washroom and change room use shall be made in consultation with the trans* student.
d.The Board will strive to make available single stall gender-neutral washrooms at all school locations and worksites

[Martinus]

Sounds pretty reasonable.

[crazy canuck]

Sounds pretty reasonable.

It didn't cause much controversy here when it was introduced.  The main controversy was a companion policy that the school would not inform parents if a child self identified as Trans if the child wished to keep that information private.  I have mixed feelings about that.  As a parent I would want to know so that I could support my child appropriately.  But I can see the other side of the argument that a child might be fearful of what a parent might do if the information was shared.

[DGuller]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

  Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.

[Tamas]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

  Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.

this is what I tried to point out in this thread

[crazy canuck]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

  Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.

this is what I tried to point out in this thread

What all of you have demonstrated is a lack of understanding of what it means to be trans.  I don't pretend to understand it fully myself but I can understand the need for appropriate accommodation for a transgendered person similar to what Malthus has been arguing and the sort of guidelines developed by the Vancouver School Board posted above.

[Martinus]

Sounds pretty reasonable.

It didn't cause much controversy here when it was introduced.  The main controversy was a companion policy that the school would not inform parents if a child self identified as Trans if the child wished to keep that information private.  I have mixed feelings about that.  As a parent I would want to know so that I could support my child appropriately.  But I can see the other side of the argument that a child might be fearful of what a parent might do if the information was shared.

Yeah - I am fairly sure that a child would not want to hide this from a supportive parent anyway - unfortunately, a lot of people are assholes.

[Martinus]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?

[Martinus]

Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?

[garbon]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

  Nonsense like this is discrediting the concept of tolerance.

this is what I tried to point out in this thread

What all of you have demonstrated is a lack of understanding of what it means to be trans.  I don't pretend to understand it fully myself but I can understand the need for appropriate accommodation for a transgendered person similar to what Malthus has been arguing and the sort of guidelines developed by the Vancouver School Board posted above.

Pretty much a rather shameful display here on Languish.

[DGuller]

Ok, let me ask a question to Tamas, Yi, Josephus, DGuller and the rest of the crowd here - do you guys question the objective existence of transgenderism as something that is inborn and "incurable"?

No.

[Valmy]

I think this is liberalism gone mad. The basic rule should be: Got a dick, shower with boys. He MAY feel uncomfortable, but what about the girls having to shower with a boy?

Why not educate the girls that the child is not a boy, and therefore they should not feel uncomfortable, instead?

Somehow I don't think the Department of Education has this kind of authority to rule on society wide standards.