HS girls stage a walkout as trans teen uses girls bathroom (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

No. We're talking about a guy with a #### wanting to use the ladies locker room at school.

This argument will eventually go the way of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." It will be a joke, laughed about by the next generation as narrow-minded, and so comical as to not even be offensive.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

 

[Instinctive]

I disagree with a lot of what Henry Ford is posting, but I just can't bring myself to care who I'm sharing a restroom with, and I'm not really convinced that it's all that reasonable for other people to care.

This is the perspective from a mature adult... Think about it from a high school girls point of view.

Do you think high schoolers are born with shame and awkwardness around naked-ness? Or do you think perhaps we indoctrinate them into it with things like separate locker rooms and the like?

Not sure where you're going with this... I think high school girls are at a stage in life where they understand nudity, and a group of them not wanting to share a locker room with someone born a boy is perfectly normal. This has nothing to do with what adults say and more to do with instinct.

It has everything to do with what adults say.

Nobody is born being awkward or ashamed of nudity. it is a learned behavior. The solution here is not to **** around with bathrooms and locker rooms and wondering who we need to accommodate and how much...the solution is to change a rather dumb cultural norm. It's a much larger shift, of course, but if we as a society stopped freaking out about nudity and teaching our children that it is a bad thing that needs to be avoided at all costs, then we have no problem.

It's not an instinct in any way, shape, or form. To say that it is one is either completely disingenuous or kind of dumb.

The religious folks have every right to want to prevent public nudity.

Yeah, they do. I didn't say they didn't. I said that it's dumb. I said that in an ideal world, they wouldn't care. But I never said they lacked the right to care about it. One of the most important things we hold dear is the freedom for lots of people to think and believe lots of rather stupid things.

You're attacking a straw man, and it changes absolutely nothing that I have said. HTH.

 

[T J]

No. We're talking about a guy with a #### wanting to use the ladies locker room at school.

This argument will eventually go the way of "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." It will be a joke, laughed about by the next generation as narrow-minded, and so comical as to not even be offensive.

You're wrong, yet again. This argument will hold weight timelessly.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Don't bother with the economic reasons why someone offering public accommodations might fear losing customers, or why a business might accommodate its employees to attract better employees, but why the state would be so interested.

Because the whims of people with mental disorders don't get to make public policy decisions. We have a simple physiologically based definition of male and female called sex. It is simple and applicable in 99.9999% of situations. Use it and stop wasting everyone's time trying to accommodate people with delusional disorders.

While I think some of this post is harsh, I agree 100% with the bold.

Same

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

Having usage based on either sex or gender will have this issue, as I've said. I don't see why going one way or the other would be easier or harder, other than the feelings involved.

 

[Henry Ford]

Maybe you should think about why those exist in the first place. Chances are you havent...

I give up. Please tell me the rational reasons for separate restrooms based on sex as opposed to gender and how it is different from separate facilities based on race.

Don't bother with the economic reasons why someone offering public accommodations might fear losing customers, or why a business might accommodate its employees to attract better employees, but why the state would be so interested.

Because the whims of people with mental disorders don't get to make public policy decisions. We have a simple physiologically based definition of male and female called sex. It is simple and applicable in 99.9999% of situations. Use it and stop wasting everyone's time trying to accommodate people with delusional disorders.

Uh, no. The physiologically-based definition of sex is not applicable to 99.9999% of births.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

Having usage based on either sex or gender will have this issue, as I've said. I don't see why going one way or the other would be easier or harder, other than the feelings involved.

Only because we've already determined how to deal with it based on gender. And the system is in place.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

All of those people should be able to pick whatever locker room they want, regardless of the privacy concerns of the other folks who have no other option?

To clarify, it sounds like you're just arguing in favor of co-ed locker rooms. Like I've said before, I don't have any personal problem with that, but I don't expect to see that kind of societal change in my lifetime, nor do I care much about it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

All of those people should be able to pick whatever locker room they want, regardless of the privacy concerns of the other folks who have no other option?

To clarify, it sounds like you're just arguing in favor of co-ed locker rooms. Like I've said before, I don't have any personal problem with that, but I don't expect to see that kind of societal change in my lifetime, nor do I care much about it.

I'm not arguing in favor of "co-ed" locker rooms, I'm explaining to you that we currently have gender-based - not sex-based - locker rooms. "All of those people" currently do choose a locker room to use, they just usually choose the one corresponding to what you think is their birth sex. Maybe they think it's their birth sex. That doesn't mean it is.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Your decimal seems confused.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000411.htm

It's not. Look up late-onset, which alone is as many as 1 in every 66 individuals.

 

[Hang 10]

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia can affect both boys and girls. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not arguing in favor of "co-ed" locker rooms, I'm explaining to you that we currently have gender-based - not sex-based - locker rooms. "All of those people" currently do choose a locker room to use, they just usually choose the one corresponding to what you think is their birth sex. Maybe they think it's their birth sex. That doesn't mean it is.

Maybe, although I think that would be news to the overwhelming majority of folks and would result in a change in the law if it were brought to light. Regardless, a lot of us are arguing that that shouldn't be the case, so it's question-begging to respond that it is.

 

[Henry Ford]

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia can affect both boys and girls. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

Yes. Which is how you differentiate with late-onset.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not arguing in favor of "co-ed" locker rooms, I'm explaining to you that we currently have gender-based - not sex-based - locker rooms. "All of those people" currently do choose a locker room to use, they just usually choose the one corresponding to what you think is their birth sex. Maybe they think it's their birth sex. That doesn't mean it is.

Maybe, although I think that would be news to the overwhelming majority of folks and would result in a change in the law if it were brought to light. Regardless, a lot of us are arguing that that shouldn't be the case, so it's question-begging to respond that it is.

Except that a lot of folks are arguing that it actually is currently based on sex. It isn't.

To those of you arguing that it should be, I've asked how you would keep in/out everyone you want to, what you'll do with intersex people, and provide a compelling reason why transgender people can't be in there if you allow some people to choose.

 

[Henry Ford]

And it's certainly worth noting that there are clinical arguments about what actually fits the definition of intersex. But no school of thought on that thinks that 99.9999% of people are biologically "male" or "female" as opposed to intersex.

And, of course, if clinicians can't agree on who's intersex and who's not.... seems like a pretty tough way to define who's allowed to use the bathroom.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

To those of you arguing that it should be, I've asked how you would keep in/out everyone you want to, what you'll do with intersex people, and provide a compelling reason why transgender people can't be in there if you allow some people to choose.

Right, but I'm not seeing why this is difficult.

Biologically male = men's locker room

Biologically female = women's locker room

Intersex, transgender, etc. = case by case basis. In some cases, this might mean using the locker room of one's biological sex. In other cases, it might mean private or gender-neutral rooms. In no case would it mean invading the privacy of others in the interest of placating the outlier.

None of this is difficult. We do it now in cases that have nothing to do with sexuality. I remember an extremely obese kid in my high school who got to change in private because he was embarrassed to undress in front others. Schools can and do make these sort of accommodations when appropriate. No big deal.

The state interest is pretty obvious -- personal privacy. That's why we have facilities separated by sex/gender now.

 

[Henry Ford]

To those of you arguing that it should be, I've asked how you would keep in/out everyone you want to, what you'll do with intersex people, and provide a compelling reason why transgender people can't be in there if you allow some people to choose.

Right, but I'm not seeing why this is difficult.

Biologically male = men's locker room

Biologically female = women's locker room

Intersex, transgender, etc. = case by case basis. In some cases, this might mean using the locker room of one's biological sex. In other cases, it might mean private or gender-neutral rooms. In no case would it mean invading the privacy of others in the interest of placating the outlier.

None of this is difficult. We do it now in cases that have nothing to do with sexuality. I remember an extremely obese kid in my high school who got to change in private because he was embarrassed to undress in front others. Schools can and do make these sort of accommodations when appropriate. No big deal.

The state interest is pretty obvious -- personal privacy. That's why we have facilities separated by sex/gender now.

With you on all of the bolded.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

Having usage based on either sex or gender will have this issue, as I've said. I don't see why going one way or the other would be easier or harder, other than the feelings involved.

Only because we've already determined how to deal with it based on gender. And the system is in place.

Is that seriously how it all began? When historically where the first men's and women's rooms made? I would think they would have been made based on sex and not gender, as gender seems to be more of a recent thing (historically).

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

Having usage based on either sex or gender will have this issue, as I've said. I don't see why going one way or the other would be easier or harder, other than the feelings involved.

Only because we've already determined how to deal with it based on gender. And the system is in place.

Is that seriously how it all began? When historically where the first men's and women's rooms made? I would think they would have been made based on sex and not gender, as gender seems to be more of a recent thing (historically).

We may have thought it was based on sex, but we didn't know ####-all about sex. It turns out that the characteristics we were using are primarily a socially-constructed idea of gender. Male/female bathrooms have existed since long before we had any idea of the true gamut of biological possibilities with respect to sex, which is why we made it male/female. We were probably stoning people to death as devils who were born intersex at the time.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

It doesn't change it. It's included in many clinicians' definitions of an intersex person.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

It doesn't change it. It's included in many clinicians' definitions of an intersex person.

So now the person is both their birth sex as well as intersex?

Also, the guy who gets his weiner cut off somehow, how has his sex changed? He's still a male? He's obviously not automatically a female? He can continue to use his birth sex (if in fact his sex has somehow changed).

 

[The Football Freak]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

It is hard to find difinitive numbers, but the numbers put out by this intersex organization seem to be quoted by a number of other sources. They also seem to be fairly valid and footnoted.

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

I am a strong supporter of gay rights, but I'm unsure on this issue, so find the discussion interesting.

 

[Black Box]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Your decimal seems confused.

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000411.htm

It's not. Look up late-onset, which alone is as many as 1 in every 66 individuals.

Just skimming, but it seems that the late-onset variety presents as more advanced signs of the sex of the child, not as ambiguous sex organs.

 

[D-Day]

So basically this is going to end up as the student that thinks he is a girl will be able to change in the girls locker room. Then the school will then need to provide an area for the girls who are uncomfortable with the student a place to change... perhaps a private changing room... the very one that the school had set aside for the one student who thinks he is a girl to use.

This of course will start the issue that the one student who thinks he is a girl should be able to use the private changing area that the other girls are using.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

It is hard to find difinitive numbers, but the numbers put out by this intersex organization seem to be quoted by a number of other sources. They also seem to be fairly valid and footnoted.

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

I am a strong supporter of gay rights, but I'm unsure on this issue, so find the discussion interesting.

The number there is:

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

My question is, would this particular student fall into either of these categories? I mean, there is no question his body (physically) doesn't differ from the standard male, right? His mind may and does, but not his body. Or am I thinking about that wrong?

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

It doesn't change it. It's included in many clinicians' definitions of an intersex person.

So now the person is both their birth sex as well as intersex?

Also, the guy who gets his weiner cut off somehow, how has his sex changed? He's still a male? He's obviously not automatically a female? He can continue to use his birth sex (if in fact his sex has somehow changed).

It hasn't. That example was back when the basic definition of "who can use the bathroom" was still being stated by the other side of this discussion as "whoever has a penis."

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

It is hard to find difinitive numbers, but the numbers put out by this intersex organization seem to be quoted by a number of other sources. They also seem to be fairly valid and footnoted.

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

I am a strong supporter of gay rights, but I'm unsure on this issue, so find the discussion interesting.

The number there is:

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearanceone or two in 1,000 births

My question is, would this particular student fall into either of these categories? I mean, there is no question his body (physically) doesn't differ from the standard male, right? His mind may and does, but not his body. Or am I thinking about that wrong?

I don't know if this person fits into that category at all - again, this person might not know. The determination of male/female vs. intersex involves chromosomal issues, hormonal issues, and internal organ issues that this person may have no idea about. Certainly the gym coaches don't.

 

[Zow]

So basically this is going to end up as the student that thinks he is a girl will be able to change in the girls locker room. Then the school will then need to provide an area for the girls who are uncomfortable with the student a place to change... perhaps a private changing room... the very one that the school had set aside for the one student who thinks he is a girl to use.

This of course will start the issue that the one student who thinks he is a girl should be able to use the private changing area that the other girls are using.

Why would they have to do that?

 

[Henry Ford]

So basically this is going to end up as the student that thinks he is a girl will be able to change in the girls locker room. Then the school will then need to provide an area for the girls who are uncomfortable with the student a place to change... perhaps a private changing room... the very one that the school had set aside for the one student who thinks he is a girl to use.

This of course will start the issue that the one student who thinks he is a girl should be able to use the private changing area that the other girls are using.

Why would they have to do that?

I think we're back to "girls have an inalienable right to never be in a locker room with a penis" again.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

Having usage based on either sex or gender will have this issue, as I've said. I don't see why going one way or the other would be easier or harder, other than the feelings involved.

Only because we've already determined how to deal with it based on gender. And the system is in place.

Is that seriously how it all began? When historically where the first men's and women's rooms made? I would think they would have been made based on sex and not gender, as gender seems to be more of a recent thing (historically).

We may have thought it was based on sex, but we didn't know ####-all about sex. It turns out that the characteristics we were using are primarily a socially-constructed idea of gender. Male/female bathrooms have existed since long before we had any idea of the true gamut of biological possibilities with respect to sex, which is why we made it male/female. We were probably stoning people to death as devils who were born intersex at the time.

Which cemetery did we put them in, male, female, witch's? Look at us now, still discussing witch they are.

 

[D-Day]

So basically this is going to end up as the student that thinks he is a girl will be able to change in the girls locker room. Then the school will then need to provide an area for the girls who are uncomfortable with the student a place to change... perhaps a private changing room... the very one that the school had set aside for the one student who thinks he is a girl to use.

This of course will start the issue that the one student who thinks he is a girl should be able to use the private changing area that the other girls are using.

Why would they have to do that?

I think we're back to "girls have an inalienable right to never be in a locker room with a penis" again.

Why does the penis have an inalienable right to be in the company of minor children?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sounds to me like Quasimodo ought to be quarantined at his home or the nearest bell tower, at least until we can confirm he is not contagious and/or intersex.

 

[Daywalker]

Can't wait to tie this with the whole epidemic of rape at college.

 

[matttyl]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

It doesn't change it. It's included in many clinicians' definitions of an intersex person.

So now the person is both their birth sex as well as intersex?

Also, the guy who gets his weiner cut off somehow, how has his sex changed? He's still a male? He's obviously not automatically a female? He can continue to use his birth sex (if in fact his sex has somehow changed).

It hasn't. That example was back when the basic definition of "who can use the bathroom" was still being stated by the other side of this discussion as "whoever has a penis."

How about we use "whoever doesn't have a ######"?

 

[matttyl]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

 

[Henry Ford]

Again, what would be so wrong with classifying bathroom use on sex rather than on gender? This person could biologically still use a urinal, correct?

I haven't looked under her skirt, but I'd imagine so. 17 years old is too young to have the surgery. But again, if you're going to define bathroom usage - or locker room usage - by sex and not gender, you're going to have to come up with a definition of sex that includes only the people you want in and excludes only the people you want out. And you have to find a way to determine what to do with people who don't fit either definition, and come up with a compelling reason that they get to use one bathroom or the other and other people don't.

You keep saying this as if it's some sort of fatal flaw in the "let's go by sex" standard. As others have pointed out, 999 times out of 1000 there is no issue whatsoever with this standard -- males use the men's locker room and females use the women's locker room, and everybody is happy. The problem cases that you've raised -- hermaphrodites, males who lost their genitalia in an accident, etc. -- are very rare, When those situations come up, it's usually difficult for reasonable people of good will to come up with solutions that everybody can live with. "Forcing females to share a locker room with males" is generally not within the realm of what people would consider a reasonable work-around.

Except there is. You guys seem to be under the impression that intersex people are some magical unicorn that only happens once in a thousand years. Something like 1.5% of people have adrenal hyperplasia alone, whether classic congenital or late-onset congenital.

Which doesn't automatically change a person's sex.

It doesn't change it. It's included in many clinicians' definitions of an intersex person.

So now the person is both their birth sex as well as intersex?

Also, the guy who gets his weiner cut off somehow, how has his sex changed? He's still a male? He's obviously not automatically a female? He can continue to use his birth sex (if in fact his sex has somehow changed).

It hasn't. That example was back when the basic definition of "who can use the bathroom" was still being stated by the other side of this discussion as "whoever has a penis."

How about we use "whoever doesn't have a ######"?

I feel like we're going in circles. You ever feel that way?

 

[D-Day]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

Well, thank god we are discussing things that are not the outliers. Just to check, the people only feel like vomiting, but not actually vomit. If people actually vomit, that would be an environmental hazard and the school would have a duty to make sure the spread of disease would not occur. Now, if we are talking about "feeling like vomiting" the the school could make arrangements for either the student to change elsewhere, or have the other students that have issues change elsewhere.

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

Riddle me this... A thirty-ish year old man, for some reason thinks he is a 15 year old girl that should be going to school. He wears a wig and dresses in that damn sexy Catholic School Girl white top, plaid skirt and the Tucker + Tate shoes with the canvas upper and lining with a rubber sole (extra description for Arizona Ron). He even says "like" waaaaaay too much. Does he get to go to school and change in the girls locker room?

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

I think in this case the child wouldn't be going to school. I think that qualifying as a sick day.....

Nah, constant skin condition. Can't be helped. Always activated. Looks awful.

Well, thank god we are discussing things that are not the outliers. Just to check, the people only feel like vomiting, but not actually vomit. If people actually vomit, that would be an environmental hazard and the school would have a duty to make sure the spread of disease would not occur. Now, if we are talking about "feeling like vomiting" the the school could make arrangements for either the student to change elsewhere, or have the other students that have issues change elsewhere.

Now I am sure you will bring the argument back to "what if this was just because the one student was black and the other students feel X." Totally different situation. Normal people do not feel sick because of another person's skin color.

Riddle me this... A thirty-ish year old man, for some reason thinks he is a 15 year old girl that should be going to school. He wears a wig and dresses in that damn sexy Catholic School Girl white top, plaid skirt and the Tucker + Tate shoes with the canvas upper and lining with a rubber sole (extra description for Arizona Ron). He even says "like" waaaaaay too much. Does he get to go to school and change in the girls locker room?

First, if there's a relevant distinction between something making someone "want" to vomit and "feel" like vomiting, I apologize for being confusing. It wasn't my intent.

Second, the relevant distinction in your example is that the 30-year-old man thinks he's 15. If he were a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 30-year-old woman, well, then yes he should be able to use a women's locker room, but not the high school locker room. If he's a 30-year-old man who thinks he's a 15-year-old boy or girl, he's not entitled to go to the school or change in either locker room. That's a reasonable distinction for the State to make between who is and who isn't allowed to use facilities.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

(Edit: To clarify, you haven't really given a good answer as to why the first part is unreasonable either. HS kids -- college students too for that matter -- are generally pretty uncomfortable around naked people of their own sex, to say nothing of naked people of the opposite sex).

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis."

But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis."

But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

(Edit: To clarify, you haven't really given a good answer as to why the first part is unreasonable either. HS kids -- college students too for that matter -- are generally pretty uncomfortable around naked people of their own sex, to say nothing of naked people of the opposite sex).

I don't have to give you an answer as to why it's "unreasonable" to be uncomfortable. I don't think it's unreasonable to be uncomfortable. I think it's unreasonable to react to that uncomfortable feeling by barring this kid from the locker room.

 

[Henry Ford]

Let's try this:

Let's say someone in the boys' locker room had a horrible skin condition - makes his back break out in awful, pustule-filled boils that make anyone who looks at them want to vomit. Literally vomit. Doctors, nurses, members of the opposite sex, and any boys/men in a locker room with him. Does he have the right to use the locker room? And in so doing, is he interfering with other people's right to not be upset and/or vomit by being in there?

Sure, he has the right to use the locker room. And yes, to answer the next question, the other kids in the locker room need to toughen up a little and have some empathy for the poor kid. You can make the same argument about amputees, the obese, etc.

Most people feel that that sort of issue is significantly different from privacy issues related to sexuality. You surely realize this. Is that rational in some platonic sense? Probably not. Theoretically, I should not have any problem showering in a room full of women -- or to push the analogy in a more uncomfortable direction, a room full of young girls or young boys -- but most people do. The objection that people have is partly what they might see (a penis!) but also an objection to being seen. You keep ignoring the second part.

I'm not ignoring it, but it works the same way - what's the right related to "not being seen"? You have to finish the sentence - an objection to "being seen by someone with a penis."

But that's not the promise of a "girls' locker room" based on gender. It's to "not be seen by someone who doesn't present herself as a girl." Penis is irrelevant. Because a "boy" is going to make them uncomfortable with or without one. And there are people who live as "girls" who we've already established may use the women's facilities whether or not they have a penis. For instance, if they have both a penis and a ######/vulva.

We have traditionally put this together as "the right not to be ogled." But there are lesbians in a locker room, right? Statistically, probably in this locker room. What is their right to not be ogled by lesbians? And this transgender student has been living as a person attracted only to males since puberty? Why are lesbians allowed in the locker room, but not this person? If your only objection is "because this person has a penis" then I don't see the relevance other than "it makes high school girls uncomfortable." And that's not a good enough reason to discriminate against someone.

If there's one thing this thread has demonstrated, it's that you are way out on the fringes on this one. People are, in fact, especially uncomfortable being viewed in a state of undress by someone with the other variety of genitalia. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they very clearly are.

I make no argument about whether people are uncomfortable. I have no doubt that people are uncomfortable, and in fact I might be uncomfortable. But my being uncomfortable doesn't give me any reason to violate Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Being uncomfortable is close to irrelevant to the question of whether they have a right to exclude.