Nondiscrimination on the basis of sex
It’s not always possible to do everything at once. You patch the leak in one place and it pops up in another.
Like trying to figure out this matter of “gender identity” for instance, and how it coheres with nondiscrimination on the basis of sex.
The Obama administration is planning to issue a sweeping directive telling every public school district in the country to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.
I’m leaning toward doing away with the whole sex segregation thing when it comes to restrooms and just having neutral rooms with floor-to-ceiling stalls. Privacy for all, and no need to fret about who is what.
Also, HB2 sucks.
But “gender identity” is a very iffy concept, and I don’t think the government should be treating it as settled fact when it is in fact hotly contested. The gov gets itself into a tangle by doing so:
A school’s obligation under federal law “to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents, or community members raise objections or concerns,” the letter states. “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”
As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced.
Ok, so if a school’s obligation under federal law to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex requires schools to provide transgender students equal access to educational programs and activities, then that means a student whose “gender identity” is female can play on the girls’ basketball team even if the student is a foot taller and 50 lbs heavier than the girls who don’t have any “gender identity” but are just plain old garden variety girls? Is that what the Obama administration is saying? If so is that a good plan?
De-segregate children’s sports and base it on weight classes instead. It better accounts for anomalies (because there’s also that female girl that is a foot taller and 50 pounds heavier than the girls that don’t have any “gender identity”)
The softball vs. baseball thing is already a travesty…
What about those students whose gender identification is “pizza”? Are they to be sent to the cafeteria?
Nope, just to the guidance office and then hopefully into counseling and whatever medical care is deemed necessary.
I agree about the bathrooms. Single fully enclosed cubicles with handwash basin and sanitary disposal bin in each cubicle. Privacy and dignity for all and no fuss about who can or can’t use them and my experience of an all girls school it would cut down on the opportunity for bullying or the need to run a gauntlet of hostile girls at the mirrors. I suspect there would be similar benefits for boys.
Solves most of the issues we have – except for finding the money for converting the buildings.
Now if we wanted the money to build a stadium….
“As soon as a child’s parent or legal guardian asserts a gender identity for the student that “differs from previous representations or records,” the letter says, the child is to be treated accordingly — without any requirement for a medical diagnosis or birth certificate to be produced.”
This is where the school, parents, and teacher came into conflict a few months ago. The school demanded that the parents wishes be complied with while the teacher was respecting the students request.
I wonder how they propose to punish doctors who refuse to transition toddlers.
Steamshovelmama @ 4 – Exactly. It’s not as if girls’ bathrooms in schools are some kind of utopia. Ugh.
In a school district in my area there is work towards a policy to convert single-use bathrooms from adult use to all-age use. It was started as an initiative of a parent of a transgender student, but there was interest among other families due to various social conflicts that occasionally take place in student restrooms.
thebewilderness: Do you have a link for that event, or even some useful Google language to find it (like, a school name or somesuch)?
What I especially don’t understand is when smaller establishments have single-person restrooms, but they still segregate them. If you’re going to be in there by yourself, what’s it matter?
Yeah, I mean I’ve used women’s restrooms of that sort before without any complaints. It’s all much ado about nothing.
Yup, unisex toilets. Sure urinals are convenient, but no one actually likes using them. Have proper privacy in the cubical. I don’t care if the hand wash facilities are in the stall or not (yes, hygiene argument I know) although architecturally it’s more efficient to have smaller stalls and a row of basins etc. Big thing is to make the entrance to the toilet room (not the cubical) a tortuous path with no doors. Better hygiene, disability access and public safety. As long as the cubicals are private you could even have a security camera in the open area, or at least at the entrance if people were really worried about mixed sex/age users.
Speak for yourself… Urinals are amazing…
It’s a privilege I’m willing to give up for the greater good though…
Amazing? Nah. Peeing off a cliff knowing there isn’t another person between you and the horizon as you soak up the beauty of nature is amazing. Trying to avoid you own splashed and other people stale drips, avoiding eye (and especially shoulder) contact all to avoid having to drop your trou – less amazing. Either that or you have access to much better urinal experiences than I do.
The bathroom issue is one that I think is a legitimate example of discrimination against transgender people. I also think that the public school environment makes any controversy about a student’s restroom use especially harmful for the transgender kid in the middle of it.
This isn’t about agreeing on the concept of “gender identity,” and neither are those “bathroom bills” that keep cropping up. I have a huge problem with the broader issue: anyone having the authority to investigate you because you walked into a public bathroom. Teachers have no business stopping a student from using the restroom in the first place; students, like people in general, don’t want to use the wrong restroom. Teachers can already stop disruptive behavior, and they should be able to tell the difference between some rowdy boys shoving somebody into the girls’ bathroom, and the “boy” who’s worn skirts and long hair since he was in second grade simply walking in to use the toilet.
I’m amazed this isn’t a bigger part of the discussion when it comes to these laws trying to criminalize going into the bathroom based on your birth certificate. Is anybody really okay with that? I know I don’t have a copy of my birth certificate, most people I know don’t either. Even people who do have a copy typically don’t carry it around with them. So we’re talking about giving the government authority to investigate you and force you to obtain and provide your birth certificate just because you walked into a public bathroom looking wrong.
@ ZugTheMegasaurus:
To amplify your comment: this also relies on the odious “if you see something, say something” messaging. When dealing with skin color, algebra, and bathrooms, there’s no harm in false positives! (/massive sarcasm tag).
@ Ophelia Benson:
Still reading on this, but something I’ve been impressed with are the recent HHS regulations treating gender identity as strictly a matter of presentation and prejudice. It doesn’t seem to rely on personal identification. Instead, it proscribes external (and inappropriate) judgment based on hair, apparel, behavior, etc. “You should dress/walk/talk/dance like a girl/boy because you’re a girl/boy”, and all that.
Those are my first impressions, at least. I’m looking forward to more analysis.
Zug – quite so. This ongoing Thing has caused me (like a lot of people) to think more than I’m accustomed to about public restrooms, and all I get is how much I hate them and always have. I’m now wondering why those incomplete partitions were ever thought a good idea. I don’t want to listen to strangers peeing any more than I want them listening to me. Forget gender segregation and just give everyone full privacy; boom.
I work in a place where almost all staff are male and I am the only woman who sits upstairs. I can’t use the upstairs staff toilets because there are urinals in there. There are two single cubicle toilets downstairs with sink inside. One is ladies/disabled and the other is gents. These are also for customers. Yesterday I just ended up using the men’s one twice as someone was spending a long time in the ladies and I’ve caught male colleagues using the ladies while the gents was occupied. I wish we could just have unisex toilets as it would save a lot of trouble.