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

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Good point on separate but equal clearly not being a working solution. Article in OP stated that student had access to gender neutral locker room but refused to use it, saying because he identified as girl he should be able to use the girls bathroom.Given all the subjectivity pointed out regarding intent (prurient or no) in this question, if I am a school administrator I see two choices:

1. Piss off everyone and say that the school will have no policy regarding gender in locker rooms, and that everyone should act in their own best interests. This would put burden on transg student to prove no prurient intent if they are sued by a student claiming mental anguish or some other harm caused by the transg student changing in the locker room. Essentially neither the unaltered and transg pops receive any protection via school building policies.

2. Go by equipment: Until a trans student actually becomes transgender via surgery to remove the outward gender-identifying bits, they have to stick to their own gender-determined restroom. This opens up the school to immediate discrimination lawsuits that will ultimately dictate an appeal to Supreme Court to determine how exactly the 40-something different codified gender identities are protected under the equal protection clause relating to gender.

If I am an admin I remove myself from this cluster#### of our own creation and go with option 1, let the courts decide case-by-case.

3. Go by gender, like we have been and like the DoJ and DoE are saying we should.

That doesn't deal with gender-questioning and the other 30-some odd varieties of identification that don't fall into male and female. So what happens there? What about my friend who switches as he pleases what gender he identifies as?If identity is the only determination, then we have to allow for those that are not certain as to what their identity is AND the fact that this could change at really any interval.

So you either legislate away any right to avoid seeing the genitalia of the opposite gender (as you can not simply classify people as male or female anymore), or you go by equipment.

I don't understand what you're talking about with respect to legislating away the right to avoid seeing opposite gender genitalia. You don't have that right and you've never had that right.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Interesting. A school can ban you from wearing Yoga Pants but not from using the opposite sex restroom.

 

[DoubleG]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

The first two groups don't have mental disorders that includes body mutilation. They're clearly not right in mind. Not a valid comparison. Men use men's room. Women use the women's room.

A transgender is a transgender. Why would they use a room exclusively for women? Obviously we can look the other way but when somebody else's mental disorder and body mutilation effects others we can't state it as "normal".

Bobby's has Tourette's and it's slowing down the other students. Common sense says we remove Bobby.

Now imagine Bobby declares himself transgender and uses the girls locker room.

####!

 

[Clifford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

Does this not prove that classifying access by gender is basically impossible?

 

[Eminence]

It's funny how those who go by natures rules and suppose to be so accommodating for the freaks out there. Sorry you're wired wrong, that's not anybody else's burden but their own.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

Does this not prove that classifying access by gender is basically impossible?

Is it impossible to classify people by religion?

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Sorry - but you are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples. Nice try though. Typically your points are more logical than this.

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

 

[DoubleG]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

Does this not prove that classifying access by gender is basically impossible?

Is it impossible to classify people by religion?

Classic straw man. Please stop. You make less sense with every post. It was a simple question that you refuse to answer.

 

[Henry Ford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

Does this not prove that classifying access by gender is basically impossible?

Is it impossible to classify people by religion?

Classic straw man. Please stop. You make less sense with every post. It was a simple question that you refuse to answer.

If you read the last 30 pages, I've answered all of these questions repeatedly. This is just the most recent go-around.

 

[Clifford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Good point on separate but equal clearly not being a working solution. Article in OP stated that student had access to gender neutral locker room but refused to use it, saying because he identified as girl he should be able to use the girls bathroom.Given all the subjectivity pointed out regarding intent (prurient or no) in this question, if I am a school administrator I see two choices:

1. Piss off everyone and say that the school will have no policy regarding gender in locker rooms, and that everyone should act in their own best interests. This would put burden on transg student to prove no prurient intent if they are sued by a student claiming mental anguish or some other harm caused by the transg student changing in the locker room. Essentially neither the unaltered and transg pops receive any protection via school building policies.

2. Go by equipment: Until a trans student actually becomes transgender via surgery to remove the outward gender-identifying bits, they have to stick to their own gender-determined restroom. This opens up the school to immediate discrimination lawsuits that will ultimately dictate an appeal to Supreme Court to determine how exactly the 40-something different codified gender identities are protected under the equal protection clause relating to gender.

If I am an admin I remove myself from this cluster#### of our own creation and go with option 1, let the courts decide case-by-case.

3. Go by gender, like we have been and like the DoJ and DoE are saying we should.

That doesn't deal with gender-questioning and the other 30-some odd varieties of identification that don't fall into male and female. So what happens there? What about my friend who switches as he pleases what gender he identifies as?If identity is the only determination, then we have to allow for those that are not certain as to what their identity is AND the fact that this could change at really any interval.

So you either legislate away any right to avoid seeing the genitalia of the opposite gender (as you can not simply classify people as male or female anymore), or you go by equipment.

I don't understand what you're talking about with respect to legislating away the right to avoid seeing opposite gender genitalia. You don't have that right and you've never had that right.

Sorry, I am not speaking well here. I realize no one has that "right".

What I mean is you can't classify a locker room as exclusively male or exclusively female without discriminating against gender-questioning, right?

What I really mean is protect students from being subjected to an experience that a court may well decide is indecent exposure.

In a world where gender is solely classified by a subjective mental state we call "identity" and not physiology, would it not be reasonable to recognize the multiple varieties of non-male/non-female identity as legitimate states of identity? And would it not then be reasonable to assume that one of these varieties might on Monday identify as male, and on Tuesday identify as female? Would we not be under the same compulsion to not discriminate to these groups by denying access to the bathroom they identify with?

If that is the case, it seems it would at least be plausible to defend anyone entering a locker room of the other physiological gender and using it unless you could prove prurient interest/intent.

The main point I am getting to is this transformation of society will not stop at males becoming females and vice versa. If we are going to move away from physiology and to identity as the primary arbiter of what you are and what locker room you belong in, we have to prepare for a situation where there might not be a gender identity as a binary value.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Can we say liberally 90% of the population are OK with their biological gender? If so, why is it not common sense for those with the mental problem to have to deal with their mental problem the way every other person with a disorder does?

By posting their uncensored and critically unexamined thoughts in the FFA?

 

[DoubleG]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Sorry - but you are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples. Nice try though. Typically your points are more logical than this.

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well.

The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

 

[Clifford]

http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=31193

Pretty good state by state list of public nudity laws.

Again, though, the locker room changes things substantially. The expectation is substantially different regarding nudity, especially when you use current gender identity understandings.

A reasonable person is expected to know the law. The law allows people born as women to be men and vice versa. I'd say it's tough to claim that a reasonable person would have an expectation of freedom from exposure to a transgender body in a locker room.

So unless a third designation of transgender is created, legally the second anyone gets their driver's license changed they become the other gender?

State by state. As to when someone is "legally" the other gender, may as well ask when someone is "legally" a Christian.

Does this not prove that classifying access by gender is basically impossible?

Is it impossible to classify people by religion?

In terms of sexual organs and the potential personal harm by exposure to them, yes (IMO). See latest, maybe I am explaining myself better.

 

[bigbottom]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

 

[bigbottom]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

Not really staking out a position on this, but I am questioning the basis for the distinction being drawn.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

It won't matter too much longer. The Republicans will straighten this mess up.

In all seriousness I would like to see this brought up during one of the debates.

 

[Clifford]

Not really (I know this question is for HF) but I'm betting it simply comes down to whether their rights of equal protection are being violated or not. IF the tg student is officially denied access by the school. Any school that doesn't have a team of high-paid lawyers twiddling their thumbs will want to avoid doing that as it is now an insta-sue situation.

What is more interesting is whether a suit against the TG student by another student claiming indecent exposure and personal harm (likely mental anguish) could win in court, and where the appeals would go.

If a student can win in court on such a claim, it would seem that there is a major flaw in our system that prevents preventing the TG student from entering, but does not prevent someone from claiming harm and redress in court.

Imagine a 10-y-o girl telling a jury that since being confronted with a 13-y-o penis she has not been able to sleep and has nightmares about penises.

Its a fascinating legal question. Personally I think Americans are about as backwards as you get in the first world regarding nudity and no one should give a ####, but knowing how litigious our society is I can't see this not happening as the next step.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

Not really staking out a position on this, but I am questioning the basis for the distinction being drawn.

I know. This is the problem though. Do you/us side with the one or the many. As of now the law protects the one and not the many.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Not really staking out a position on this, but I am questioning the basis for the distinction being drawn.

That is what I was getting at too. He defined the ability to use the bathroom of a gender one identifies with as a civil right IIRC.

 

[Parrothead]

Not really (I know this question is for HF) but I'm betting it simply comes down to whether their rights of equal protection are being violated or not. IF the tg student is officially denied access by the school. Any school that doesn't have a team of high-paid lawyers twiddling their thumbs will want to avoid doing that as it is now an insta-sue situation.

What is more interesting is whether a suit against the TG student by another student claiming indecent exposure and personal harm (likely mental anguish) could win in court, and where the appeals would go.

If a student can win in court on such a claim, it would seem that there is a major flaw in our system that prevents preventing the TG student from entering, but does not prevent someone from claiming harm and redress in court.

Imagine a 10-y-o girl telling a jury that since being confronted with a 13-y-o penis she has not been able to sleep and has nightmares about penises.

Its a fascinating legal question. Personally I think Americans are about as backwards as you get in the first world regarding nudity and no one should give a ####, but knowing how litigious our society is I can't see this not happening as the next step.

now imagine this 10 year old girl is Muslim and says it goes against her religion to see penises.. would she have a suit?

 

[Clifford]

I think clearly you can't base it on what makes someone else uncomfortable, but you can also make a case that the civil rights amendments don't really deal with questions of exposure to sexual organs of the opposite gender, which in some cases may conflict with laws dealing with indecent exposure.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

As a threshold matter, I think you should provide evidence that your characterization of the majority is correct. Once again, let's take the case of a person born with male genitalia but who identifies as female. Shelia looks like a woman. Sheila dresses like a woman. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Sheila has no intention of showing you or anyone else in a public bathroom, Sheila's genitalia. Now, why is it so obvious that the majority will be more bothered if Sheila uses the ladies' room?

 

[Clifford]

Not really (I know this question is for HF) but I'm betting it simply comes down to whether their rights of equal protection are being violated or not. IF the tg student is officially denied access by the school. Any school that doesn't have a team of high-paid lawyers twiddling their thumbs will want to avoid doing that as it is now an insta-sue situation.

What is more interesting is whether a suit against the TG student by another student claiming indecent exposure and personal harm (likely mental anguish) could win in court, and where the appeals would go.

If a student can win in court on such a claim, it would seem that there is a major flaw in our system that prevents preventing the TG student from entering, but does not prevent someone from claiming harm and redress in court.

Imagine a 10-y-o girl telling a jury that since being confronted with a 13-y-o penis she has not been able to sleep and has nightmares about penises.

Its a fascinating legal question. Personally I think Americans are about as backwards as you get in the first world regarding nudity and no one should give a ####, but knowing how litigious our society is I can't see this not happening as the next step.

now imagine this 10 year old girl is Muslim and says it goes against her religion to see penises.. would she have a suit?

Not sure if that changes the equation or not - but given the Hobby Lobby decision and the Kim Davis ruling we seem to be establishing that no one should be compelled to violate their religious beliefs in the execution of a public function.

The law is all over the place on this stuff right now. Easiest thing to be would be to nullify all laws of religious exception and further clarify that no law gives you the right to never be offended by the actions of another person barring physical contact. Of course that means we can all run around wagging our penises at everyone.

No easy solution here that's for sure. And no one has weighed in on the non-male/non-female identity question.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

So a generic statement of matters, not arguing gender, or its meaning or definitions in relations to biology; is that the transgendered person suffers anguish in their personal perception based upon societal categories which impose access restrictions to facilities they would prefer to use. If there is a denial of rights it is the denial to use subjectively preferred facilities out of essentially equal facilities. They are not concerned with the nature, quality, or similarity of the facility so much as who is perceived by others as appropriate for access to share that facility.

Those opposed note that their perception of appropriate facility use includes that they will be harmed, subjectively, if they are not provided the ability to determine with whom they share essentially equal facilities.

 

[Clifford]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

As a threshold matter, I think you should provide evidence that your characterization of the majority is correct. Once again, let's take the case of a person born with male genitalia but who identifies as female. Shelia looks like a woman. Sheila dresses like a woman. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Sheila has no intention of showing you or anyone else in a public bathroom, Sheila's genitalia. Now, why is it so obvious that the majority will be more bothered if Sheila uses the ladies' room?

Right, we also have to deal with the future state that advances will make it virtually impossible to tell someone who has undergone surgical transformation from a natural-born gender. I think this becomes a no-harm, no-foul case by case again.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortable

I don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

As a threshold matter, I think you should provide evidence that your characterization of the majority is correct. Once again, let's take the case of a person born with male genitalia but who identifies as female. Shelia looks like a woman. Sheila dresses like a woman. For the sake of argument, let's assume that Sheila has no intention of showing you or anyone else in a public bathroom, Sheila's genitalia. Now, why is it so obvious that the majority will be more bothered if Sheila uses the ladies' room?

Well if Shelia were Sheila before she started school it probably wouldn't be a problem. But if Shelia was actually Steve until she got into high school, now more than likely that is going to be a problem. If Steve came to a new school and didn't know a soul and started the school year as Shelia, probably not a problem. But if one of the other girls gets a glimpse of Shelia's d**k, now we have a problem again.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So a generic statement of matters, not arguing gender, or its meaning or definitions in relations to biology; is that the transgendered person suffers anguish in their personal perception based upon societal categories which impose access restrictions to facilities they would prefer to use. If there is a denial of rights it is the denial to use subjectively preferred facilities out of essentially equal facilities. They are not concerned with the nature, quality, or similarity of the facility so much as who is perceived by others as appropriate for access to share that facility.

Those opposed note that their perception of appropriate facility use includes that they will be harmed, subjectively, if they are not provided the ability to determine with whom they share essentially equal facilities.

Here is how I would state it. There probably isn't a rule that we can have that won't cause someone discomfort. Let's say we have three options: 1) Transgender student uses public bathroom of his or her birth sex ); 2)Transgender student uses pubic bathroom corresponding to his or her gender identity (but any student may use gender neutral restroom nurse's office); 3) Transgender student must use gender neutral restroom in the nurse's office. Assuming everyone is aware that a transgender student is using public restrooms, someone is likely to feel discomfort whether we build a law based on biology or on subjective gender identity. But of our options, options 1 and 3 ensure that the transgender student will feel discomfort, either by being forced to act against his or her gender identity or by being singled out to use the gender neutral restroom.

I think its fair to argue that the laws on the books and our cases on gender discrimination haven't evolved to the point whether that constitutes illegal discrimination under the law yet. They may have, but I just haven't studied the cases enough to know yet. But the actual effect of the policies and the distinctions they make are very clear. Only the second choice presents a policy that doesn't single out a specific group to feel the discomfort.

 

[Clifford]

Which is why, though incomplete, I think equipment is the best arbiter of who pisses where. Identity will only lead to more complications and fewer answers. If a girl who does not want to see a penis sees one in a place that she has to be in at school, she could reasonably sue penis-owner and school with a good shot to win or get a nice settlement out of court.

No matter what happens it seems lawyers win in all situations. Why the hell did I not go to law school?

 

[Clifford]

So a generic statement of matters, not arguing gender, or its meaning or definitions in relations to biology; is that the transgendered person suffers anguish in their personal perception based upon societal categories which impose access restrictions to facilities they would prefer to use. If there is a denial of rights it is the denial to use subjectively preferred facilities out of essentially equal facilities. They are not concerned with the nature, quality, or similarity of the facility so much as who is perceived by others as appropriate for access to share that facility.

Those opposed note that their perception of appropriate facility use includes that they will be harmed, subjectively, if they are not provided the ability to determine with whom they share essentially equal facilities.

Here is how I would state it. There probably isn't a rule that we can have that won't cause someone discomfort. Let's say we have three options: 1) Transgender student uses public bathroom of his or her birth sex ); 2)Transgender student uses pubic bathroom corresponding to his or her gender identity (but any student may use gender neutral restroom nurse's office); 3) Transgender student must use gender neutral restroom in the nurse's office. Assuming everyone is aware that a transgender student is using public restrooms, someone is likely to feel discomfort whether we build a law based on biology or on subjective gender identity. But of our options, options 1 and 3 ensure that the transgender student will feel discomfort, either by being forced to act against his or her gender identity or by being singled out to use the gender neutral restroom.

I think its fair to argue that the laws on the books and our cases on gender discrimination haven't evolved to the point whether that constitutes illegal discrimination under the law yet. They may have, but I just haven't studied the cases enough to know yet. But the actual effect of the policies and the distinctions they make are very clear. Only the second choice presents a policy that doesn't single out a specific group to feel the discomfort.

Doesn't option 2 single out every single student who walked out in protest to feel discomfort?

 

[CBusAlex]

now imagine this 10 year old girl is Muslim and says it goes against her religion to see penises.. would she have a suit?

I'd imagine this suit would go about as well as if a Muslim demanded that all the girls wear burkas during class because it's against his religion to see them uncovered.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Which is why, though incomplete, I think equipment is the best arbiter of who pisses where. Identity will only lead to more complications and fewer answers. If a girl who does not want to see a penis sees one in a place that she has to be in at school, she could reasonably sue penis-owner and school with a good shot to win or get a nice settlement out of court.

No matter what happens it seems lawyers win in all situations. Why the hell did I not go to law school?

I'm not sure where you got this. What would be the basis of the claim? Intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress? That seems unlikely. She certainly couldn't sue the penis-owner if he's complying with the school's rules, so that leaves only the school. The school could very easily argue that there's no negligence because what you call the "equipment" rule would likely produce far more distress, as both I and RHE have explained several times.

 

[fantasycurse42]

So a generic statement of matters, not arguing gender, or its meaning or definitions in relations to biology; is that the transgendered person suffers anguish in their personal perception based upon societal categories which impose access restrictions to facilities they would prefer to use. If there is a denial of rights it is the denial to use subjectively preferred facilities out of essentially equal facilities. They are not concerned with the nature, quality, or similarity of the facility so much as who is perceived by others as appropriate for access to share that facility.

Those opposed note that their perception of appropriate facility use includes that they will be harmed, subjectively, if they are not provided the ability to determine with whom they share essentially equal facilities.

Here is how I would state it. There probably isn't a rule that we can have that won't cause someone discomfort. Let's say we have three options: 1) Transgender student uses public bathroom of his or her birth sex ); 2)Transgender student uses pubic bathroom corresponding to his or her gender identity (but any student may use gender neutral restroom nurse's office); 3) Transgender student must use gender neutral restroom in the nurse's office. Assuming everyone is aware that a transgender student is using public restrooms, someone is likely to feel discomfort whether we build a law based on biology or on subjective gender identity. But of our options, options 1 and 3 ensure that the transgender student will feel discomfort, either by being forced to act against his or her gender identity or by being singled out to use the gender neutral restroom.

I think its fair to argue that the laws on the books and our cases on gender discrimination haven't evolved to the point whether that constitutes illegal discrimination under the law yet. They may have, but I just haven't studied the cases enough to know yet. But the actual effect of the policies and the distinctions they make are very clear. Only the second choice presents a policy that doesn't single out a specific group to feel the discomfort.

This is opinion. As evidenced by a walkout last month, possibly an incorrect one

 

[Clifford]

Replying to TF

Exactly what you said. Against the school if policy is explicit allowing TG in locker room of identity, against student if no policy explicit allowing TG in locker room they identify with.

If the judge/jury buy that seeing a penis is a legitimate cause for emotional distress, it would seem that it would naturally fall to penis owner or school for fault depending on policy of school, no?

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Lets be frank here. If the fact that a guy can walk around high school in a dress and apparently not be uncomfortable (otherwise why would he do it). Why all of a sudden is he uncomfortable about where he undresses or pisses?

 

[CBusAlex]

Lets be frank here. If the fact that a guy can walk around high school in a dress and apparently not be uncomfortable (otherwise why would he do it). Why all of a sudden is he uncomfortable about where he undresses or pisses?

Is it your contention that anyone who can walk around in a dress should be comfortable undressing in a men's locker room?

 

[Clifford]

If we are being frank let's just acknowledge that at most expansive estimates this affects .3% of the population ad possibly far fewer people (30k since 1936). But I don't think this has anything to do with common sense. It has to do with the law.

Since the Social Security Administration started in 1936, 135,367 people have changed their name to one of the opposite gender, and 30,006 also changed their sex accordingly, the study found. Of Americans who participated in the 2010 census, 89,667 had changed their names and 21,833 had also changed their sex.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Lets be frank here. If the fact that a guy can walk around high school in a dress and apparently not be uncomfortable (otherwise why would he do it). Why all of a sudden is he uncomfortable about where he undresses or pisses?

Is it your contention that anyone who can walk around in a dress should be comfortable undressing in a men's locker room?

No its my contention if you are a teenage boy and everybody knows it and you can walk around in a dress without discomfort you should be able to undress in the boys locker room without discomfort.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Replying to TF

Exactly what you said. Against the school if policy is explicit allowing TG in locker room of identity, against student if no policy explicit allowing TG in locker room they identify with.

If the judge/jury buy that seeing a penis is a legitimate cause for emotional distress, it would seem that it would naturally fall to penis owner or school for fault depending on policy of school, no?

It would have to also find that the infliction of emotional distress is negligent. It's hard to imagine such a finding if the opposite policy (assignment based on equipment) would likely inflect greater emotional distress). Also most states require the emotional distress to be so harmful that there are physical symptoms. Despite what people think you can't just sue someone claiming that your feelings were hurt or you were upset by something and have a decent chance at recovery.

 

[CBusAlex]

Lets be frank here. If the fact that a guy can walk around high school in a dress and apparently not be uncomfortable (otherwise why would he do it). Why all of a sudden is he uncomfortable about where he undresses or pisses?

Is it your contention that anyone who can walk around in a dress should be comfortable undressing in a men's locker room?

No its my contention if you are a teenage boy and everybody knows it and you can walk around in a dress without discomfort you should be able to undress in the boys locker room without discomfort.

And yet, this doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe that should give you cause to examine your underlying assumptions.

ETA: Do you think having a penis makes dresses less comfortable? Maybe a little, but you can still wear supportive undergarments under there.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

So a generic statement of matters, not arguing gender, or its meaning or definitions in relations to biology; is that the transgendered person suffers anguish in their personal perception based upon societal categories which impose access restrictions to facilities they would prefer to use. If there is a denial of rights it is the denial to use subjectively preferred facilities out of essentially equal facilities. They are not concerned with the nature, quality, or similarity of the facility so much as who is perceived by others as appropriate for access to share that facility.

Those opposed note that their perception of appropriate facility use includes that they will be harmed, subjectively, if they are not provided the ability to determine with whom they share essentially equal facilities.

Here is how I would state it. There probably isn't a rule that we can have that won't cause someone discomfort. Let's say we have three options: 1) Transgender student uses public bathroom of his or her birth sex ); 2)Transgender student uses pubic bathroom corresponding to his or her gender identity (but any student may use gender neutral restroom nurse's office); 3) Transgender student must use gender neutral restroom in the nurse's office. Assuming everyone is aware that a transgender student is using public restrooms, someone is likely to feel discomfort whether we build a law based on biology or on subjective gender identity. But of our options, options 1 and 3 ensure that the transgender student will feel discomfort, either by being forced to act against his or her gender identity or by being singled out to use the gender neutral restroom.

I think its fair to argue that the laws on the books and our cases on gender discrimination haven't evolved to the point whether that constitutes illegal discrimination under the law yet. They may have, but I just haven't studied the cases enough to know yet. But the actual effect of the policies and the distinctions they make are very clear. Only the second choice presents a policy that doesn't single out a specific group to feel the discomfort.

Doesn't option 2 single out every single student who walked out in protest to feel discomfort?

You're begging the question. Cisgendered students may feel discomfort whether a transgender student uses either bathroom. There is no additional class to look at before hand that allows you to predict how that will shake out. You seem to be arguing that the relevant discrimination is between those experiencing discomfort or those not experiencing discomfort. That's a post hoc distinction.

In the G.G. case, the record was pretty clear that having Gavin (born a girl and with female genitalia) in the girl's bathroom was uncomfortable to some female students. They didn't stage a walkout, but if they had, we'd have the same argument about the policy discriminating against them. The only option that seems assured to cause no discomfort among cisgendered teens is to force transgender teens to use a private bathroom. But that policy is assured of causing the transgender student discomfort.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

So you are at school for a parent teacher conference and your 5 year old daughter goes into the girls room while you stand outside and wait. Couple of minutes later some 40 year old dude/dad walks in behind her what's your play.

 

[fantasycurse42]

You're begging the question. Cisgendered students may feel discomfort whether a transgender student uses either bathroom. There is no additional class to look at before hand that allows you to predict how that will shake out. You seem to be arguing that the relevant discrimination is between those experiencing discomfort or those not experiencing discomfort. That's a post hoc distinction.

In the G.G. case, the record was pretty clear that having Gavin (born a girl and with female genitalia) in the girl's bathroom was uncomfortable to some female students. They didn't stage a walkout, but if they had, we'd have the same argument about the policy discriminating against them. The only option that seems assured to cause no discomfort among cisgendered teens is to force transgender teens to use a private bathroom. But that policy is assured of causing the transgender student discomfort.

You didn't respond to my last comment, even though it was direct and concise, however you sort of addressed it here. In response to this, you can cause discomfort to one student, or to 100's of students, this is basically what the decision comes down to. You can never make everyone happy, impossible. Using the gender neutral facilities is a fair enough option, since you can accommodate the individual or the masses, in most situations it is the masses. It is unfortunate, but the transgender student is the outlier.

A lesson I learned at a really young age that never gets old; LIFE IS NOT FAIR

 

[TobiasFunke]

So you are at school for a parent teacher conference and your 5 year old daughter goes into the girls room while you stand outside and wait. Couple of minutes later some 40 year old dude/dad walks in behind her what's your play.

Now you're coming around. This is exactly why a "bathroom usage based on equipment" rule is bad. Welcome aboard!

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem could VERY EASILY be solved by having a gender neutral locker room on campus.

The problem is that, of course, that's "discrimination." To me, this reveals the real motive behind these kind of cases. They aren't interested in the problem being resolved unless it's 100% on their terms, namely upset the status quo. So you are fine if everyone else is uncomfortable as long as you get what you want. To me that's not nice and the ones that are always preaching about tolerance can't seem to understand or "tolerate" the other point of view.

"I'm uncomfortable" isn't the assertion of a right. "I'm being discriminated against" is. I tolerate your being uncomfortable. I don't have to tolerate discrimination."Why can't gay people just be happy with civil unions?"

"Why can't black people just use their own water fountains?"

"Why can't transgender people just use their own bathroom?"

Sorry - but you are comparing apples, oranges and pineapples. Nice try though. Typically your points are more logical than this.

It requires that you accept that a transgender woman is a woman. If you don't accept that, it's not going to make sense. It's also going to be a rough couple decades for you. Sorry.

Your response makes no sense. You are trying to draw false correlations amongst 3 very different cases. It's a typical logic trap. No one takes issue with the fact that your second example is clearly racist and discrimination. But then you try to incorrectly (although indirectly) parallel the argument in questions 1 and 3. Question 1 is, to many, a religious as well as legal question that has numerous tax, insurance and a myriad of other financial implications and facets to it as well. The third case (and the point of this thread) is not nearly as clear cut as point 2 - nor nearly as "loaded" as 1. To attempt to lump the 3 together is extremely disingenuous (and, as mentioned, a logical fallacy) - and I think you know that.

No, the logical fallacy is in attempting to argue against something I'm not arguing.Separate but equal is unsupportable under the law. That's the only point of the argument I made.

 

[Henry Ford]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortableI don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

No, the basis for the right is equal protection and treatment under the law. The lack of equal treatment makes people uncomfortable, but that's a byproduct, not a cognizable cause of action or a right. It may be why someone chooses to assert the right, but it isn't the basis of it.

 

[Clifford]

Replying to TF

Exactly what you said. Against the school if policy is explicit allowing TG in locker room of identity, against student if no policy explicit allowing TG in locker room they identify with.

If the judge/jury buy that seeing a penis is a legitimate cause for emotional distress, it would seem that it would naturally fall to penis owner or school for fault depending on policy of school, no?

It would have to also find that the infliction of emotional distress is negligent. It's hard to imagine such a finding if the opposite policy (assignment based on equipment) would likely inflect greater emotional distress). Also most states require the emotional distress to be so harmful that there are physical symptoms. Despite what people think you can't just sue someone claiming that your feelings were hurt or you were upset by something and have a decent chance at recovery.

Is fatigue resulting from loss of sleep considered a physical symptom? And would it not be easy to prove that assignment based on equipment would inflict far less emotional distress simply by number of people affected?

Negligent: either the school failed to create policies that protected this girl from emotional distress while attending school, or the student neglected to follow school rules. In either case, one party would be negligent no?

I don't like it, but there are some children raised in families that are sheltered/religious to the degree that seeing the genitalia of the opposite sex may very well cause real emotional damage. Do these kids not have redress under our courts if they are harmed by the willful act of another individual? Especially if the school has an equipment-based bathroom/locker room?

 

[Henry Ford]

And the reason I "downplay" the feelings of a teenage girl about what makes her upset or uncomfortableI don't really have to finish that sentence when we are talking about using her feelings to deny equal rights to someone, right?

If it was just her feelings, maybe... If it is her feelings along with 98% of the other girls, then wrong.

I don't care if 99.99999% of teenage girls think something should be outlawed, that's not a reason to deny someone's civil rights.

So you're saying you care more about one person feeling like they haven't been wronged than the other 9,999,999 people.

No, I care about people's actual rights, and I don't put someone feeling uncomfortable or unhappy at the same level as another person's civil rights. You don't have the right to not like stuff, and not liking stuff isn't as important as equal rights.

Isn't the entire issue all about what makes a person uncomfortable? Boiled down to its essence, isn't the primary reason why we want to accommodate the high school student born as a male with male parts but who identifies as a female by letting the student use the girls' locker room because the student would be uncomfortable using the boys' locker room? Isn't that the basis for why they should have that right?

What about the others (majority) that would be uncomfortable by the presence of the one? What about their rights?

Not really staking out a position on this, but I am questioning the basis for the distinction being drawn.

Because one is based on a cognizable right, and one is based solely on "ick, I don't like that."

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You're begging the question. Cisgendered students may feel discomfort whether a transgender student uses either bathroom. There is no additional class to look at before hand that allows you to predict how that will shake out. You seem to be arguing that the relevant discrimination is between those experiencing discomfort or those not experiencing discomfort. That's a post hoc distinction.

In the G.G. case, the record was pretty clear that having Gavin (born a girl and with female genitalia) in the girl's bathroom was uncomfortable to some female students. They didn't stage a walkout, but if they had, we'd have the same argument about the policy discriminating against them. The only option that seems assured to cause no discomfort among cisgendered teens is to force transgender teens to use a private bathroom. But that policy is assured of causing the transgender student discomfort.

You didn't respond to my last comment, even though it was direct and concise, however you sort of addressed it here. In response to this, you can cause discomfort to one student, or to 100's of students, this is basically what the decision comes down to. You can never make everyone happy, impossible. Using the gender neutral facilities is a fair enough option, since you can accommodate the individual or the masses, in most situations it is the masses. It is unfortunate, but the transgender student is the outlier.

A lesson I learned at a really young age that never gets old; LIFE IS NOT FAIR

I completely addressed it. Perhaps I need to bold it for you so it's clear to you. Forcing a transgender male to use the female's restroom has every bit as much potential to cause discomfort to 100s of students (females who feel icky using the bathroom next to someone who looks like a dude) as allowing a transgender male to use the male's bathroom.

Take Ditka's hypothetical with the young daughter and the 40 year old dude in the bathroom. How are we determining the guy is a dude? Are we asking him to drop trou before going in the bathroom? Presumably we're assuming it's because the guy looks like a dude. Well if that dude is actually a transgender male, he's actually following your preferred policy by following your daughter into the bathroom. After all, he has a ######. Unless you want get in the genital inspection business, I'm not sure your policy is going to give parents more comfort in that situation.

 

[Clifford]

I still want to hear how those in favor of gender identity as the arbiter propose to deal with gender-neutral/questioning non-binary identifications.

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day or does the school have to build bathrooms with a big ? on the door?