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

[Henry Ford]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

They do fit neatly. They're men and women.There is a reason to respect one and not the other. It's so you don't create an underclass of "not really men and women" in public.

Actually yes, I do see what you're saying. You're talking me back into a male/female-only breakdown.

And then my question, as always, is how you're going to decide who gets to use the restroom given the realities of male/female biological definitions. And intersex people.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

OK, I do understand you. But I do think you're misunderstanding how transgender people perceive their gender. They don't perceive of themselves as "other." So, in most cases (not all), an "other" category really isn't an accommodation for them. It's frankly an accommodation for us (the cisgendered). For them, its a bathroom ghetto that they are forced to use.

EDIT: Ah, I see you understand. Nevermind.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

OK, I do understand you. But I do think you're misunderstanding how transgender people perceive their gender. They don't perceive of themselves as "other." So, in most cases (not all), an "other" category really isn't an accommodation for them. It's frankly an accommodation for us (the cisgendered). For them, its a bathroom ghetto that they are forced to use.

EDIT: Ah, I see you understand. Nevermind.

No, I think you're right. That's what I was getting at. Please just disregard this line.

I think you and HF are making an interesting argument and I'm just engaging with it in this thread. My mind isn't made up on TG-related topics and I think I benefit from bouncing ideas around.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm not sure I understand your classification scheme, though. Transgender isn't a gender. It's just a description for people whose gender identity does not align with their birth sex. Classifying by male, female, transgender would be like classifying by male, female, and Catholic.

Yes, I anticipated this and should have addressed it the first time.

For whatever reason, a very large number of people are uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with people of a different biological sex. To reiterate, I don't share that view, but it's commonly held. I agree with HF that the male/female breakdown doesn't work well once you recognize that male <> man and female <> woman. But the sex breakdown is still relevant to most people even if it no longer aligns with the way we talk about gender. So we still allow a bathroom for females and a bathroom for males, because that's how our current social privacy concerns break out. For people who don't feel that they comfortably fit into either of those assignments, we provide a third alternative.

It seems to me that this sort of arrangement does the least violence to anybody, given current social preferences. If you want to tell me that male/female thing is stupid, I will agree with you. No problem. But the overwhelming majority of folks who support men/women restrooms I think really mean male/female, and if there's no special reason to respect one but not the other. The important thing is to provide accommodation for folks who don't fit neatly.

OK, I do understand you. But I do think you're misunderstanding how transgender people perceive their gender. They don't perceive of themselves as "other." So, in most cases (not all), an "other" category really isn't an accommodation for them. It's frankly an accommodation for us (the cisgendered). For them, its a bathroom ghetto that they are forced to use.

EDIT: Ah, I see you understand. Nevermind.

No, I think you're right. That's what I was getting at. Please just disregard this line.

I think you and HF are making an interesting argument and I'm just engaging with it in this thread. My mind isn't made up on TG-related topics and I think I benefit from bouncing ideas around.

You're my favorite type of person to discuss issues like this with.

 

[ghostguy123]

Make the neutral bathroom really nice, and then the non transgender male and females will feel it is unfair they have to use inferior bathrooms.

 

[ghostguy123]

HF still didnt respond to my pretty clear comment to him on this. Maybe a page or two back. Where ya at HF?

 

[boots11234]

HF still didnt respond to my pretty clear comment to him on this. Maybe a page or two back. Where ya at HF?

Maybe he's busy trying to figure out what bathroom to use???

 

[bigbottom]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' 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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.You have no idea what sex lots of people are, biological sex isnt binary, and most intersex people don't even know they are intersex.

 

[Henry Ford]

Also, it's fun to be back here at this part of the discussion. Again. It's like coming home.

 

[bigbottom]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.

Again, you're focusing on the right rather than the basis for the right. Why would a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female be harmed by having to use the boys' locker room consistent with the student's biological sex?

 

[Henry Ford]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.

Again, you're focusing on the right rather than the basis for the right. Why would a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female be harmed by having to use the boys' locker room consistent with the student's biological sex?

Because the person is a girl and is being treated unequally compared to other girls with respect to being allowed to use a restroom facility. Do you believe there isn't a harm for you personally to not be allowed to use the men's room?

 

[bigbottom]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.

Again, you're focusing on the right rather than the basis for the right. Why would a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female be harmed by having to use the boys' locker room consistent with the student's biological sex?

Because the person is a girl and is being treated unequally compared to other girls with respect to being allowed to use a restroom facility. Do you believe there isn't a harm for you personally to not be allowed to use the men's room?

Do I get to use the women's restroom? If so, the only harm I suffer is the uncomfortableness of using the women's restroom. That's precisely my point.

 

[Henry Ford]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.

Again, you're focusing on the right rather than the basis for the right. Why would a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female be harmed by having to use the boys' locker room consistent with the student's biological sex?

Because the person is a girl and is being treated unequally compared to other girls with respect to being allowed to use a restroom facility. Do you believe there isn't a harm for you personally to not be allowed to use the men's room?

Do I get to use the women's restroom? If so, the only harm I suffer is the uncomfortableness of using the women's restroom. That's precisely my point.

And, again, the issue is not whether both parties are uncomfortable, it's whether any party has a right not to be made uncomfortable in a given scenario. One of the parties at issue has a right at issue. The other does not.Furthermore, I guess you could categorize loss of civil rights - or really any harm whatsoever other than specific damages - as being made uncomfortable by this description.

Broken leg? Made uncomfortable. Bystander claim for for watching your child die? Made uncomfortable. Stigma associated with institutionally sanctioned discrimination? Made uncomfortable.

Being made uncomfortable in specific ways we don't allow under the law and being made merely uncomfortable are not equal harms. At least not under the law either of us practice.

 

[dparker713]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

 

[Henry Ford]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We already use the system I'm advocating, we just aren't acknowledging it. We use gender - a socially constructed binary system - already, not sex. I know this because there's no intersex restroom for people who aren't male or female based on biological definition, yet everyone's allowed to use restrooms.

If you want to base things on sex, it's going to be insanely complicated. Primarily because not everyone knows his or her biological sex, nor does it really matter.

 

[Henry Ford]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

 

[Henry Ford]

18.45% of FBG's are lunatics

Just updating, 20.91%

 

[dparker713]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We already use the system I'm advocating, we just aren't acknowledging it.We use gender - a socially constructed binary system - already, not sex. I know this because there's no intersex restroom for people who aren't male or female based on biological definition, yet everyone's allowed to use restrooms.

If you want to base things on sex, it's going to be insanely complicated. Primarily because not everyone knows his or her biological sex, nor does it really matter.

The only way your argument holds is if no one identifies with neither gender.

Besides, even then its a canard. All classification systems have outliers.

Plus, while it may not fit into the technical terminology of the field, I think its fairly easy to establish that the segregation is primarily based upon genitalia, which is sometimes complicated - but again, outliers.

 

[dparker713]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

 

[Henry Ford]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We already use the system I'm advocating, we just aren't acknowledging it.We use gender - a socially constructed binary system - already, not sex. I know this because there's no intersex restroom for people who aren't male or female based on biological definition, yet everyone's allowed to use restrooms.

If you want to base things on sex, it's going to be insanely complicated. Primarily because not everyone knows his or her biological sex, nor does it really matter.

The only way your argument holds is if no one identifies with neither gender.

Besides, even then its a canard. All classification systems have outliers.

Plus, while it may not fit into the technical terminology of the field, I think its fairly easy to establish that the segregation is primarily based upon genitalia, which is sometimes complicated - but again, outliers.

Okay so you're going to base it on genitalia in the future? Whose job will it be to check genitalia?

 

[bigbottom]

Being made uncomfortable in specific ways we don't allow under the law and being made merely uncomfortable are not equal harms. At least not under the law either of us practice.

Precisely. And that's why I was questioning the categorical way in which you were drawing the distinction. Being uncomfortable is a justifiable basis for recognizing rights in certain circumstances.

In Texas, there is no recognized right for a student born a male with male parts to use the girls' locker room because the student identifies as female. The reason for advocating for this right is because the discomfort that the student will experience in being forced to use the boys' locker room (together with the discomfort experienced by the boys who use that locker room) is more deserving of recognition than the discomfort experienced by the girls who share the locker room with that student. I can get on board with that.

 

[Henry Ford]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

 

[dparker713]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We already use the system I'm advocating, we just aren't acknowledging it.We use gender - a socially constructed binary system - already, not sex. I know this because there's no intersex restroom for people who aren't male or female based on biological definition, yet everyone's allowed to use restrooms.

If you want to base things on sex, it's going to be insanely complicated. Primarily because not everyone knows his or her biological sex, nor does it really matter.

The only way your argument holds is if no one identifies with neither gender.

Besides, even then its a canard. All classification systems have outliers.

Plus, while it may not fit into the technical terminology of the field, I think its fairly easy to establish that the segregation is primarily based upon genitalia, which is sometimes complicated - but again, outliers.

Okay so you're going to base it on genitalia in the future? Whose job will it be to check genitalia?

The cops. You know, if a compliant is filed. Kinda like how its always been.

You've already stated that your preferred classification is reliant primarily upon the subjective determination of each individual, so how are you going to check that? An in depth question and answer session with a trained social worker at each bathroom entrance?

 

[Henry Ford]

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."

I think that's begging the question. Why should we recognize the right of a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female to use the girls' locker room?

Because bathroom use is defined by gender, not biological sex.

Again, you're focusing on the right rather than the basis for the right. Why would a high school student who was born a male with male parts but who identifies as a female be harmed by having to use the boys' locker room consistent with the student's biological sex?

Because the person is a girl and is being treated unequally compared to other girls with respect to being allowed to use a restroom facility. Do you believe there isn't a harm for you personally to not be allowed to use the men's room?

Do I get to use the women's restroom? If so, the only harm I suffer is the uncomfortableness of using the women's restroom. That's precisely my point.

And, again, the issue is not whether both parties are uncomfortable, it's whether any party has a right not to be made uncomfortable in a given scenario. One of the parties at issue has a right at issue. The other does not.Furthermore, I guess you could categorize loss of civil rights - or really any harm whatsoever other than specific damages - as being made uncomfortable by this description.

Broken leg? Made uncomfortable. Bystander claim for for watching your child die? Made uncomfortable. Stigma associated with institutionally sanctioned discrimination? Made uncomfortable.

Being made uncomfortable in specific ways we don't allow under the law and being made merely uncomfortable are not equal harms. At least not under the law either of us practice.

Precisely. And that's why I was questioning the categorical way in which you were drawing the distinction. Being uncomfortable is a justifiable basis for recognizing rights in certain circumstances.

I think you may have missed a post or two of mine along the way.

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

 

[Henry Ford]

HF, I'm curious how you distinguish between the justifications for any segregation in this area and the segregation you're advocating. Afterall, we'd be dealing with the same intermediate scrutiny standard in either case. The purposes behind dividing students between lockerrooms would seem to be identical in either case. The administrators at the school are not limited to the least restrictive means at their disposal. I think we can agree that by and large whichever classification system the school chooses to use in the few unusual cases, it's still going to achieve the satisfy the governmental interests by and large.

I'm not sure I understand your question. We already use the system I'm advocating, we just aren't acknowledging it.We use gender - a socially constructed binary system - already, not sex. I know this because there's no intersex restroom for people who aren't male or female based on biological definition, yet everyone's allowed to use restrooms.

If you want to base things on sex, it's going to be insanely complicated. Primarily because not everyone knows his or her biological sex, nor does it really matter.

The only way your argument holds is if no one identifies with neither gender.

Besides, even then its a canard. All classification systems have outliers.

Plus, while it may not fit into the technical terminology of the field, I think its fairly easy to establish that the segregation is primarily based upon genitalia, which is sometimes complicated - but again, outliers.

Okay so you're going to base it on genitalia in the future? Whose job will it be to check genitalia?

The cops. You know, if a compliant is filed. Kinda like how its always been.

You've already stated that your preferred classification is reliant primarily upon the subjective determination of each individual, so how are you going to check that? An in depth question and answer session with a trained social worker at each bathroom entrance?

Uh, no. If you call the cops claiming someone is using the wrong bathroom, they don't come in and check genitalia.

 

[dparker713]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

 

[Henry Ford]

It's not just "my preferred classification." It's the currently used one. If you call the cops and they come check to see if someone's using the wrong bathroom.... Well first of all, that's not really a crime in most places. But if they show up on suspicion of a different crime related to being in the wrong bathroom, they'll do things like ask. Or check the ID. Which usually has the gender that person lives as on it, at least in most states. And they generally take someone's word when the person says "I'm transgender and I live as a woman."

 

[Henry Ford]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

Okay. Tell me about your system. Where do intersex people go and how do you decide?

 

[bigbottom]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

 

[bigbottom]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

Would a student born female with female body parts, but who identifies as a male be required to use the boys' locker room even if the student prefers to use the girls' locker room because the student feels uncomfortable using the boys' locker room?

 

[dparker713]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

Okay. Tell me about your system. Where do intersex people go and how do you decide?

You act like this is difficult.

 

[Henry Ford]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

Okay. Tell me about your system. Where do intersex people go and how do you decide?

You act like this is difficult.

It is.But, again, you're promising to account for everyone so I'm on board.

 

[bigbottom]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feeling," but of course you already understand that.

 

[dparker713]

If someone wants to completely change the method of categorization, I think I've said repeatedly in this thread that's a reasonable way to go - but you have to be consistent, and account for everyone. Male/female/intersex? Sure. Have at it. But figure out how to do that, because some people don't actually know their own biological sex, much less other people's biological sex. And it isn't recorded anywhere. And is a medical genetic record, I'd suppose, so that probably runs afoul of some laws about required disclosure of genetic testing results. But if you can work it out, work it out.

Seems needlessly complex compared to what we are already doing, but whatever.

No, you really don't, nor can you.

Sure you do. You may just say "x group can choose which one to use" but you have to let everyone use bathrooms in public schools. And if x group gets to choose, why are we changing everything so transgender people don't get to choose?

I'm not allowing any student to choose. I'm implementing a system, and within that system there will be odd fits, but they'll be assigned A or B by the system.

Would a student born female with female body parts, but who identifies as a male be required to use the boys' locker room even if the student prefers to use the girls' locker room because the student feels uncomfortable using the boys' locker room?

Yes. I honestly don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case. There is no perfect solution anywhere in this. Biology and humanity are messy. There is no perfect classification system.

 

[Henry Ford]

We can also discuss societal harm in relation to discrimination, but I'd imagine you'd also classify that as "being uncomfortable."

 

[bigbottom]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive.

 

[dparker713]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

 

[bigbottom]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I'm sort of with you on this. And I tend to be persuaded by the argument that RHE made earlier, namely that segregating by gender identity (as opposed to biological sex) is likely to lead to less discomfort in the aggregate.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

 

[whiskey7]

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.

Isn't the TG student in OP only transvestite? If it's about identity why would this make a difference? And I don't know if its daily weekly monthly or yearly.

But you see a binary gender class at the end, and gender-fluidity as confusion?

No. The TG teen is transgender. Which is a very different thing. Dressing like a woman and living as a woman are completely different concepts.

Frank N Furter from Rocky Horror is a transvestite. Laverne Cox is transgender.

What does it mean to live as a woman? What is the criteria? Who decides if someone is meeting enough of that criteria to be considered a woman?

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I'm sort of with you on this. And I tend to be persuaded by the argument that RHE made earlier, namely that segregating by gender identity (as opposed to biological sex) is likely to lead to less discomfort in the aggregate.

Wait, what the ####? I honestly never expected that your hook here would be utilitarianism.But yes. That's why we already do it. It's utilitarian.

 

[Henry Ford]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

 

[Henry Ford]

Sorry, long day. Gotta crash. Maybe I'll be clearheaded enough tomorrow to understand the issue we are having, big. Though still writing several briefs, so will probably take a few days before my best brain gets back into this discussion

 

[bigbottom]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

Gender identity is not a protected class in the state of Texas. Thus, refusing to allow a biological male who identifies as female to use the women's restroom does not constitute actionable discrimination. There is no recognized duty and there is no civil right.

In that context, we cannot default to claiming something as a "civil right" where no such right is recognized. Thus, we are relegated to discussing why this should be a right where it is not, and it comes down to a conclusion that the discomfort to which the transgendered person is subjected is worthy of accommodation notwithstanding the discomfort others may experience through such accommodation. I'm good with that argument. It is one that RHE made previously and it's quite persuasive.

 

[dparker713]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

The school is discriminating against every student. You're only focusing on a select few students, but every student is being classified and limited.

 

[Henry Ford]

The problem isn't that the girls in the OP aren't legitimately uncomfortable. It's that they don't have the right not to be uncomfortable. No one has identified an actual right that they have that is being violated causing that uncomfortableness.

Again, you've conceded the point. At its essence, it's all about people feeling uncomfortable. It's simply that some types of uncomfortableness are worthy of protection and other types are not.

I conceded that point about 20 pages ago. In fact, that's been my point for about 20 pages.

"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."

Yes. Thanks. If it's hard to understand, you can add the word "merely" after the word "feelings," but of course you already understand that.

As smart as you are, I'm honestly perplexed at how you don't recognize the circular nature of your reasoning. You say that being made to feel uncomfortable is not worthy of recognition, except when it is. Honestly, I'm on your side in this debate. But I think the distinction you're drawing is completely unpersuasive. You need to do better.

I'm sorry it doesn't persuade you, but if you don't understand that being uncomfortable is only actionable if there's a right not to be uncomfortable in that specific instance, I don't know what to tell you. We must just be talking past each other, because I know you're a lot smarter than you're coming off to me, too.I also don't like when people hit me in the face, and it makes me uncomfortable physically. But I don't put merely disliking when someone gives me milk chocolate rather than dark chocolate on the same level. Because merely disliking something doesn't implicate a right.

Without a duty not to harm, harm isn't actionable. Nor should it be. The school has a duty not to discriminate, which is what causes the harm here. The student doesn't have a duty not to change clothes in the bathroom consistent and with her gender. So I don't place that on the same level as a civil rights harm.

Gender identity is not a protected class in the state of Texas. Thus, refusing to allow a biological male who identifies as female to use the women's restroom does not constitute actionable discrimination. There is no recognized duty and there is no civil right.

In that context, we cannot default to claiming something as a "civil right" where no such right is recognized. Thus, we are relegated to discussing why this should be a right where it is not, and it comes down to a conclusion that the discomfort to which the transgendered person is subjected is worthy of accommodation notwithstanding the discomfort others may experience through such accommodation. I'm good with that argument. It is one that RHE made previously and it's quite persuasive.

Ah, I see what our issue is. You're looking at Texas law. I'm looking at my position - and the position of the United States through the DoJ and DoE on Title IX (and, alternatively, due process.)https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/gg-v-gloucester-county-school-board-amicus-brief-united-states

State actor, and specifically a school.

 

[dparker713]

I still don't see how the justification for any form of segregation in this area isn't also justification for any fairly reasonable segregation in this area. The government interests don't seem to change if you're segregating by gender, or genetic sex, or genitalia, or whatever.

I agree, with the caveat that genitalia involves a likely impermissible invasion of privacy, and genetic sex likely an impermissible requirement to disclose medical and specific genetic information.

I will say that my genitalia argument is based upon the notion that we use outward appearance as a proxy. Someone looking like a woman walks into a lockerroom and no one takes a second look. However, if they then shower and have a penis, plenty of people would consider that person had been in the wrong lockerroom all along.

Basically, I believe this is a matter of objective standards - outward appearances and the like. Meanwhile it seems to me that your primary signifier is the subjective determination of each individual.