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

[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.

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?

The thing that has to be "willful" is inflicting the distress, not the rule that inflicts the distress. That is, they have to show that someone else did something with the purpose of inflicting the distress, not that they did something that happened to inflict distress. Even if the claim is negligent infliction, they have to show negligence, and my guess is that's hard to show if a different policy would result in more distress, which RHE and I have argued repeatedly is the case and nobody has really claimed otherwise.

 

[Henry Ford]

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.

Ding.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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?

Are you under the impression that there are students that choose to present themselves as male or female on a day to day basis in the same way they decide whether to wear a blue t shirt or a red button down?

If it makes people feel better, I'm sure administrators won't be required to open the ladies' room the second Sam asks to be called Samantha.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Ding.

You sure?

 

[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?

The thing that has to be "willful" is inflicting the distress, not the rule that inflicts the distress. That is, they have to show that someone else did something with the purpose of inflicting the distress, not that they did something that happened to inflict distress. Even if the claim is negligent infliction, they have to show negligence, and my guess is that's hard to show if a different policy would result in more distress, which RHE and I have argued repeatedly is the case and nobody has really claimed otherwise.

TG violating school policy is willful, but then can turn around and sue school. God what a freaking mess this is.

 

[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?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

I know a person who does this, and yes that is how his/her gender identity works.

Also there's the list of 40-some classifications, most of which don't fit with four different classifications. It's not binary, and it can be a matter of choice. At least that's my understanding.

 

[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.

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?

The thing that has to be "willful" is inflicting the distress, not the rule that inflicts the distress. That is, they have to show that someone else did something with the purpose of inflicting the distress, not that they did something that happened to inflict distress. Even if the claim is negligent infliction, they have to show negligence, and my guess is that's hard to show if a different policy would result in more distress, which RHE and I have argued repeatedly is the case and nobody has really claimed otherwise.

TG violating school policy is willful, but then can turn around and sue school. God what a freaking mess this is.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. They just won't recover. How would a transgender recover against the school unless there's an anti-discrimination statute in place, in which case the school wouldn't have the policy anyway?

I don't see the mess here at all. All that's required is a little tolerance and common sense.

 

[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?

Are you under the impression that there are students that choose to present themselves as male or female on a day to day basis in the same way they decide whether to wear a blue t shirt or a red button down?

If it makes people feel better, I'm sure administrators won't be required to open the ladies' room the second Sam asks to be called Samantha.

Again, I think you guys should dig a little on this. It is not binary and yes it can change at will.

Honestly I am kind of surprised to be getting these responses from the two of you who seem so on top of these questions. Just go to FB, edit your information and choose custom on gender. Type in gend

I got Gender-Fluid, Gender-Neutral, and Gender-Variant among others.

 

[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?

The thing that has to be "willful" is inflicting the distress, not the rule that inflicts the distress. That is, they have to show that someone else did something with the purpose of inflicting the distress, not that they did something that happened to inflict distress. Even if the claim is negligent infliction, they have to show negligence, and my guess is that's hard to show if a different policy would result in more distress, which RHE and I have argued repeatedly is the case and nobody has really claimed otherwise.

TG violating school policy is willful, but then can turn around and sue school. God what a freaking mess this is.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. They just won't recover. How would a transgender recover against the school unless there's an anti-discrimination statute in place, in which case the school wouldn't have the policy anyway?

I don't see the mess here at all. All that's required is a little tolerance and common sense.

Common sense is hey we are all people, let's try and accept each other for who we are and live together.

If you expect that to happen in today's America...

 

[dparker713]

So has this question been answered and I just missed it: Don't non-transgender girls have the right to have access to a locker room where penises, even ones attached to transgender boys who identify as girls, are forbidden? Seems to me that as adults we should honor that, especially considering that some girls may be reluctant to speak up for fear of being seen as insensitive or politically incorrect. If I understand the recent ruling (and likely don't) I believe such a common sense right, in my opinion, does not exist anymore.

I don't believe that "right" ever existed.

You seem to have an oddly narrow view of the right to privacy.

You seem to have a view of the right to privacy that's oddly dependent on the shape of a person's genitals.

I think its rather reasonable to expect a limited right to privacy in any changing area that's not in a prison or lockup.

There is a reasonable expectation of limited privacy. It doesn't include right to privacy from other girls, even if their birth certificates don't acknowledge that they're girls.It does include an expectation of privacy from webcams. Like all public restrooms do.

At least you're finally admitting that there is a right to privacy in this situation.

 

[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.

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?

The thing that has to be "willful" is inflicting the distress, not the rule that inflicts the distress. That is, they have to show that someone else did something with the purpose of inflicting the distress, not that they did something that happened to inflict distress. Even if the claim is negligent infliction, they have to show negligence, and my guess is that's hard to show if a different policy would result in more distress, which RHE and I have argued repeatedly is the case and nobody has really claimed otherwise.

TG violating school policy is willful, but then can turn around and sue school. God what a freaking mess this is.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. They just won't recover. How would a transgender recover against the school unless there's an anti-discrimination statute in place, in which case the school wouldn't have the policy anyway?

I don't see the mess here at all. All that's required is a little tolerance and common sense.

Common sense is hey we are all people, let's try and accept each other for who we are and live together.

If you expect that to happen in today's America...

Except that it seems to be much more prevalent than you seem to think. You seem to be under the impression that everyone can sue everyone because of a transgender bathroom "mess" but I don't think that's the case at all. And the reason for that is that both tort law and criminal statutes governing indecent exposure allow for a much greater application of common sense than you are suggesting.

 

[Clifford]

Good to hear, admittedly I don't know #### about it. Just seems that jury trials can often go in directions we don't expect.

 

[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

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.

As mentioned, above, you kind of addressed it No need to be snark, but whatever floats your boat. Luckily the world is of my viewpoint on this topic, and not even close to yours. Reading more into the title ix discussion from yesterday, that appears to be a big blow in the G.G. case, and it certainly might make it all the way to the SCOTUS, but as of now, a judge has just shut it down for the time being. You can talk about all of the appeals and steps in the process, but it is off to a shaky start in that one.

I'm not reading his hypotheticals, and I don't give a #### about public bathrooms to be honest, and in practice there aren't many ways to enforce it. I'm an adult and can handle an individual with a vagin a that looks and identifies as a male taking a dump in a stall next to the urinal I'm using. I'm discussing children in schools, plain and simple.

My argument goes back to an entire group of girls who have stated as clearly as possible by walking out; "We are uncomfortable with this student changing here"... You, HF, and the lawyers of the world could give two ####s about this group of children and their feelings simply bc it infringes on the feelings of one individual (or as HF puts it, this individuals civil rights... Even though they are being provided a facility anyways). In practice, you are putting 1 over 200 in this case, which is flat out wrong IMO.

 

[CBusAlex]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

 

[DoubleG]

Ding.

You sure?

Nice - now you've got it! Always answer Henry Ford's posts with a question - never an actual answer...just like he does.

 

[Clifford]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

 

[DoubleG]

Physical attributes make more sense from the very specific "practicality" aspect of things.

You gotta pee? If you have a #### use the urinal. If you don't have a ####, go in the ladies room - they have more seating. Next question.

 

[DoubleG]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

But yes, sarcasm and silliness aside this is sadly, logically consistent.

 

[Clifford]

Honestly I am not being silly or sarcastic. Thinking this is binary male or female doesn't acknowledge the current reality of what gender identity really means. It is about choice and not about "this is what I was born to be."

 

[DoubleG]

Clifford - I didn't mean to suggest you were being silly or sarcastic. I was. I agree with your point - the issue is, of course, that it is completely unworkable in reality as a solution.

 

[Clifford]

Then you definitely get my point.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

I know a person who does this, and yes that is how his/her gender identity works.Also there's the list of 40-some classifications, most of which don't fit with four different classifications. It's not binary, and it can be a matter of choice. At least that's my understanding.

Oh, gotcha. Does he or she change what pronouns he or she uses on a daily basis, too? How does he or she handle restroom use?

 

[Henry Ford]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

Why is that a problem? I mean, if this person genuinely lives as a particular gender on a rapid-cycling basis, I guess that's the life he or she will be living.

 

[Henry Ford]

Clifford - I didn't mean to suggest you were being silly or sarcastic. I was. I agree with your point - the issue is, of course, that it is completely unworkable in reality as a solution.

Why is that unworkable?

 

[Henry Ford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

 

[CBusAlex]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

It seems like you think this is somehow an absurd position to take. Is it? I'll admit that I haven't given it a whole lot of thought.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, but there will be people, Alex. People using bathrooms all willy-nilly.

 

[Clifford]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

Why is that a problem? I mean, if this person genuinely lives as a particular gender on a rapid-cycling basis, I guess that's the life he or she will be living.

It's only a problem if people have a problem with being in the same locker room as someone who has different genitalia than they do.

It's not a problem if everyone is comfortable being in a locker room as someone who has different genitalia than they do.

 

[Clifford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

 

[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?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

I know a person who does this, and yes that is how his/her gender identity works.Also there's the list of 40-some classifications, most of which don't fit with four different classifications. It's not binary, and it can be a matter of choice. At least that's my understanding.

Oh, gotcha. Does he or she change what pronouns he or she uses on a daily basis, too? How does he or she handle restroom use?

Not sure. I only interact with him/her in a bar setting and occasionally at large parties. I just call him/her Van and the bar he/she works at already has single-use, unisex bathrooms.

I am not close enough to Van to really feel comfortable digging into how he/she handles his/her gender identity. I have just seen times where he is obviously taking hormone therapy and wearing makeup and feminine clothing, and other times where he is not doing any of those things. And it does vary.

 

[Henry Ford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

I'm not actually assuming this. I'm basing it on a bunch of experience and research, and while the general determination these days - especially among transgender people - is that gender is a fluid, non-binary concept, the vast majority of transgender people in their daily lives live as either male or female an overwhelming majority of the time. It's the way we as a society have been set up, and it's why people undergo lifestyle changes when they become transgender.

And either way, the fact that we currently have people with both female and male genitalia using restrooms and locker rooms seems to suggest we can come to some sort of understanding as to how to live with people who subscribe to both (or neither) gender roles.

 

[ghostguy123]

Assuming that you're asking how I feel about high school girls voting on whether a transgender teen gets to have her rights at the school... No. Why would I care if high school girls voted to take away someone's rights?

This comes back to the premise of this one student having more rights than the extremely overwhelming majority.

No. Having the exact same rights.

I cant use both male and female bathrooms why should they be able to. Incorrect, not the same rights.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I have heard plenty of argumentation on penises appearing in the girls room and the potential discomfort engendered thereby. There is a corollary, having the transgendered with penis, if they are out, or if their identity is known, appear in the boys room might also make the boys uncomfortable, presuming adolescent boys with developing sexuality might be discomforted by something a few standard deviations from the norm (a safe assumption, I believe, given that grown ups in this thread seem discomforted.)

I'm leaning to the side that discomfort might have to be a teachable moment. As Henry has argued, rights over perceptions of ickiness. Seems there is no avoiding emotional discomfort no matter what we do. It seems then that we should champion logic, reason, education, and consistency of law, discomfort be damned. Maybe that discomfort is like a wound healing, a sign that healing is occurring, growth and regeneration are happening.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Well, but there will be people, Alex. People using bathrooms all willy-nilly.

Their Willies will become nil after surgery.

 

[ghostguy123]

Assuming that you're asking how I feel about high school girls voting on whether a transgender teen gets to have her rights at the school... No. Why would I care if high school girls voted to take away someone's rights?

This comes back to the premise of this one student having more rights than the extremely overwhelming majority.

What rights are being taken away from the overwhelming majority?

The right to privacy.

This, however, is correct.

 

[Henry Ford]

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?

Sorry, I appear to have been missing this. You're positing a person who has determined the gender he or she is in a daily basis? And you have some belief that that's how gender identity works?

I know a person who does this, and yes that is how his/her gender identity works.Also there's the list of 40-some classifications, most of which don't fit with four different classifications. It's not binary, and it can be a matter of choice. At least that's my understanding.

Oh, gotcha. Does he or she change what pronouns he or she uses on a daily basis, too? How does he or she handle restroom use?

Not sure. I only interact with him/her in a bar setting and occasionally at large parties. I just call him/her Van and the bar he/she works at already has single-use, unisex bathrooms.

I am not close enough to Van to really feel comfortable digging into how he/she handles his/her gender identity. I have just seen times where he is obviously taking hormone therapy and wearing makeup and feminine clothing, and other times where he is not doing any of those things. And it does vary.

That... doesn't actually make any sense.

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, but there will be people, Alex. People using bathrooms all willy-nilly.

Their Willies will become nil after surgery.

Only about a third of transgender people have such a surgery.

 

[Clifford]

Does the questioning student go into whichever locker room they identify with that day

Sure.

If identity is the primary arbiter then this is the only consistent answer.

It seems like you think this is somehow an absurd position to take. Is it? I'll admit that I haven't given it a whole lot of thought.

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What remains workable to me is that you base it on equipment since there is no situation where everyone will be comfortable, and everyone deal with a little discomfort (which is good for us BTW). This would at least avoid the possibility of lawsuits based on indecent exposure, which TF thinks is a bit of a herring but I could totally see a 12-person jury finding for plaintiff on basis of emotional distress, especially when we are talking kids.

IOW, change nothing, and everyone get ready for a new normal that will challenge our outdated problems with the human body and human sexuality.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's not that I don't understand what you mean by "obviously taking hormone therapy," although I don't, but starting and stopping a years-long hormone replacement therapy system intended to transition gender isn't actually something you can just do. A doctor being a party to that would be opening him or herself up to a serious malpractice suit, and in violation of a number of standards related to hormone replacement therapy.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Maybe our children will be more accepting of change than we are. Their beliefs not being crystalized, or perhaps encrusted would be a better phrase.

Is the expression I have sometimes heard, "that a child shall lead them", a Christian expression?

 

[Clifford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

I'm not actually assuming this. I'm basing it on a bunch of experience and research, and while the general determination these days - especially among transgender people - is that gender is a fluid, non-binary concept, the vast majority of transgender people in their daily lives live as either male or female an overwhelming majority of the time. It's the way we as a society have been set up, and it's why people undergo lifestyle changes when they become transgender.

And either way, the fact that we currently have people with both female and male genitalia using restrooms and locker rooms seems to suggest we can come to some sort of understanding as to how to live with people who subscribe to both (or neither) gender roles.

If you are already advocating changing societal norms to accomodate what could reasonably be called an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people I fail to see how adapting those changes to further accomodate a smaller population is anything but a logical extension of this line of thinking.

 

[CBusAlex]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

 

[Clifford]

It's not that I don't understand what you mean by "obviously taking hormone therapy," although I don't, but starting and stopping a years-long hormone replacement therapy system intended to transition gender isn't actually something you can just do. A doctor being a party to that would be opening him or herself up to a serious malpractice suit, and in violation of a number of standards related to hormone replacement therapy.

Just telling you what is easily observable. He had buds, then he didn't, and a while later they popped up again. I didn't check to see if it was actual buds or stuffing. Again, not that close and would not be comfortable doing that.

 

[Henry Ford]

"We shouldn't scrap our policy because of a small percentage of people who are transgender" just became "we shouldn't allow transgender bathroom rights because of an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people who cycle their gender back and forth on a daily basis."

Why are you assuming so much about this portion of the TG community? It was important enough to elicit a 40+ classification list for Facebook. Obviously the TG community considers allowing for choice and fluidity of that choice to be pretty important. And it just so happens the only truly TG person I know falls into that category.

I'm not actually assuming this. I'm basing it on a bunch of experience and research, and while the general determination these days - especially among transgender people - is that gender is a fluid, non-binary concept, the vast majority of transgender people in their daily lives live as either male or female an overwhelming majority of the time. It's the way we as a society have been set up, and it's why people undergo lifestyle changes when they become transgender.

And either way, the fact that we currently have people with both female and male genitalia using restrooms and locker rooms seems to suggest we can come to some sort of understanding as to how to live with people who subscribe to both (or neither) gender roles.

If you are already advocating changing societal norms to accomodate what could reasonably be called an unbelievably miniscule percentage of people I fail to see how adapting those changes to further accomodate a smaller population is anything but a logical extension of this line of thinking.

I'm not. I'm advocating forcing state actors to recognize that gender isn't what an elementary school student from Louisiana thinks gender is, and that they already base bathroom and locker room usage on gender. Which means I'm actually advocating for the status quo, just no one realizes it.

 

[Clifford]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's not that I don't understand what you mean by "obviously taking hormone therapy," although I don't, but starting and stopping a years-long hormone replacement therapy system intended to transition gender isn't actually something you can just do. A doctor being a party to that would be opening him or herself up to a serious malpractice suit, and in violation of a number of standards related to hormone replacement therapy.

Just telling you what is easily observable. He had buds, then he didn't, and a while later they popped up again. I didn't check to see if it was actual buds or stuffing. Again, not that close and would not be comfortable doing that.

I would put money on stuffing in that instance. A doctor could lose his license for what you're talking about.

A conversation about gender might be interesting with your friend Van. There's a pretty strong chance he or she really does have a single identifying gender, and you just don't know it because you haven't discussed it. I find most people are pretty open to the discussion, especially if you're genuinely interested.

 

[dparker713]

At this point, I just can't understand why as a society we allow for children to take hormones to change their gender, but we outlaw the surgery until 18. While not permanent, it seems the decision to take the hormones would have long lasting psychological effects. If the policy to outlaw the surgery is due to maturity/puberty issues, I've no idea why the hormone treatment is allowed.

 

[Henry Ford]

At first I found the whole argument absurd. Then I got really interested based on HF's postings. But the more I followed it seemed to only account for people who have made a definite one-time switch and did not account for those who don't solidly identify with one gender or the other.

What's the difference between someone who identifies as a gender all the time or only part-time that's not accounted for?

Only the line that seemed to be drawn by someone committing to a single gender and therefore "belonging" in that gender's locker room. If the commitment aspect is irrelevant then there is no difference.

That's the thing - the commitment aspect isn't irrelevant. It may change, but transgender identity is partially defined by an enduring identification with a non-birth-sex gender. That's why your friend is an interesting case, if, in fact, he or she identifies with different genders on a daily basis. But I don't really hear evidence of transgenderism so much as transvestism at this point.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's not that I don't understand what you mean by "obviously taking hormone therapy," although I don't, but starting and stopping a years-long hormone replacement therapy system intended to transition gender isn't actually something you can just do. A doctor being a party to that would be opening him or herself up to a serious malpractice suit, and in violation of a number of standards related to hormone replacement therapy.

You've researched more than I have, but what research I've done is consistent with yours. LA County accommodates thousands of transgender students. When their administrator says that students don't fluidly adopt different gender identities day to day, I'm inclined to trust her experience.

. In any case, there are great lawyers on both sides, so if that's going to be a sticking point, I'm sure someone will be able to present record evidence of it. In the meantime, I'm not really all that worried about addressing Clifford's concern because I'm not sure that it isn't entirely hypothetical