Such assertions are wrong as a matter of science
John Knight, LGBT Project Director at the Illinois ACLU, posts about a suburban Chicago school district that refuses to let a trans girl use the girls’ locker room, instead making her use a separate room.
My clients started meeting with the District more than two years ago to explain why their daughter should be treated as a girl at school in all ways, including when using the locker room. As the District has no policy guiding the treatment of transgender students, the parents had to initiate the discussion regarding how the school would treat their daughter in accordance with her gender. They provided medical information regarding her diagnosis with gender dysphoria and her transition to living fully as a girl, including legally changing her name and changing the gender on her passport.
In response to claims by the school that they had not had to deal with transgender students before, the parents brought in representatives from the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance to educate the school administration and staff. The parents made clear to the District that their daughter’s gender and her medical condition is not a choice and that it is essential to her health and her ability to succeed at school that she be treated as a girl, and that means being treated like a girl in all respects including locker room access.
What the District offered was a separate restroom, down a long hallway, where my client has been forced to dress for gym and the athletics she is involved in. The separation serves as a daily reminder that the school does not regard her as a girl or even a human being but as some undifferentiated “other.”
Does it? Does the separation really say (or “serve as a reminder”) that the school does not regard the student as a human being?
I don’t think it does. I think that’s rhetorical inflation.
What our client wants is pretty basic – to be accepted for who she is and treated just like other students. Other students accept her. The school board and administration apparently do not. These adults should remember that many students are unhappy with their bodies – body image issues can be serious in a world filled with unrealistic and often oppressive images of physical beauty particularly for young women and girls. But no other students – no matter how uncomfortable they are with their bodies – are required to hide them. Imagine how it feels for a girl to be told that her body is so unacceptable that she must dress apart from everyone else – even if she might otherwise choose to do so. The message is loud and clear – transgender students should be ashamed of how they look and who they are.
But if these adults should remember that many students are unhappy with their bodies, then that applies to the girls in the locker room in general, not just to the trans girl.
It is upsetting to see the superintendent say that the District is “sensitive” to the needs of transgender students and supportive of them. The District’s actions are the farthest thing from being supportive. You can’t defend discrimination by claiming you’re nice about it. Most damaging, the superintendent asserts that a girl who is transgender has a “male body” and that transgender students are “of the opposite sex” when defending the District’s position. Such assertions are wrong as a matter of science and offensive because they serve to challenge and undermine the very core of a person’s identity.
In what sense are such assertions wrong as a matter of science? What science is it that says a transgender girl has a female body?
And then this business of the very core of a person’s identity…what exactly about that is immune from challenge? What are the criteria? Are there any limits? If people say their identity is something that doesn’t comport with the apparent facts, does the world have to agree in all circumstances no matter what? Or does this new rule apply only to trans gender people? If so, why?
A transgender girl is female. She is a girl through and through – not something in between as the District suggests.
“Through and through” – what does that mean? How does John Knight know?
I don’t think this kind of magical thinking is going to help anyone in the long run.
Goddammit this recent surge of conflating sex with gender bugs me. She does have a male body, in that it is anatomically male. Identifying as female does not change her anatomy, and does not change the sex designation of that anatomy from male to female. That’s why she’s trans! She identifies as female gender while having male anatomy. If she identified as female and had female anatomy, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because she’d be cis female.
Exactly.
The school is in a very tough position. They could incur a legal liability by giving a male bodied student access to female segregated space. Since they gave her access to a separate room it seems unreasonable to assume they are being malicious.
The hyperbole about the school not seeing her as human is so solipsistic.
“If you are a trans woman, embrace the fact that you are, and always will be, male; there is nothing wrong with this, it is neither a judgement nor a value statement, and believe me when I say you will be a happier person accepting this.” – Miranda Yardley
http://mirandayardley.com/
“In what sense are such assertions wrong as a matter of science? What science is it that says a transgender girl has a female body?”
Well, speaking from the podium as a biologist (of the highly edumacated kind), I can answer that.
None.
There is nothing in biology that says that.
quixote @5, I agree it’s not science, but it’s a valid perspective under a different paradigm.
I perfectly understand the concept: if the person is a woman, of course that person’s body is accordingly a female body — regardless of its morphology. It’s a reversal of the traditional ontological depencence, but it’s not incoherent.
(Reminds me of theological concepts about “substance and accident” — which I also understand)
Perhaps he should have said “as a matter of post-structuralist science”. Steve Fuller (http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Fuller.cfm) would be happy to testify, I reckon,
Why don’t you just list everything you understand, John, and get it out of the way.
Ophelia, sorry.
Holms (@1), she has a male-typical body. Or a body typical of males. It can still be a (non-typical) female body, the body of a non-typical female person.
That was not what I disputed. Saying “a woman can have a penis (or, a man can have a uterus)” is agreeable, along with the reverse formulation “a penis can be a part of a woman’s body (or, a uterus can be a part of a man’s)”. It is however not valid to then conclude that the penis in question becomes anatomically female by virtue of being on a female’s body (or etc.).
This would normally be nothing more than a minor quibble over mixing terminology, and I’d have left it at that preferably, but then there is that contingent of trans activists that will not even hear of anyone making even the slightest suggestion that a trans woman (for some reason trans men don’t seem to come up in these yell fests) has, or ever had, an atypical body. Recall the following:
This is the mentality that I am rebutting. They are quite deliberately attacking the difference between sex and gender, and anything less than total capitulation on that point kills trans women.
Bah, just imagine that the last par. started with “This is the mentality that I am addressing.” Much less pompous.
John Morales, I understand their reasoning, too.
I understand the reasoning of students who make errors in their math, too. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t completely and utterly in error.
In fact this is an example of the Converse Error.
If a person is female-bodied, they are a woman. [states traditional definitions].
The converse error turns this into:
If a person is a woman, they are female-bodied.
But that isn’t how logic works. A conditional statement means the second part MUST be true if the first part is. But it does not mean that the second part must be false if the first part is false.
For instance, I could say:
If you are as intelligent as you think you are, I will eat a brownie.
But frankly… I’m going to eat a brownie. I don’t care if you’re not all that. I want a brownie. I have a brownie handy. I *will* eat that brownie, no matter what.
and
If that is the case, then there doesn’t seem to be any reason she shouldn’t use the locker room with the rest of the girls (regardless of how her body is defined)
If it makes some of the other girls feel awkward, that would matter; if it is the case that the other students accept her then how her body is defined doesn’t matter in practice, in relation to this specific issue..
^ Absolutely. It seems likely to me that the administration is dithering perhaps because of their own reluctance to accept a trans student, or because they fear reprisal from conservative parents. Giving her a separate room is possibly a ‘let’s hope we don’t get sued’ compromise.
Geez this gets complicated. Suppose America’s next female Olympic track and field team was composed entirely of young male to female transgendered women. Would such a state of affairs be allowed? Suppose Caitlyn Jenner had transitioned prior to the Montréal Olympics, and had then been on the women’s track team. Bruce Jenner in ’76 swept up all the gold medals competing against other males. Had Bruce already transitioned to Caitlyn and had competed against other women instead, the gold medal sweep would have been an absolute cakewalk.
As in a one-hand-tied-behind-my-back cakewalk.
There are situations where this just doesn’t add up.
Well, maybe, sure, we could imagine other situations that have never yet happened and probably never will; and they would be other situations. But that really has no bearing on this situation.
Having entire teams of trans athletes is far fetched, but there have been individual trans and intersex athletes now and then. The reasoning so far employed by athletics ruling authorities and such have tended to classify competitors according to their anatomical sex. Which makes sense to me, as the whole basis of having segregated events is based entirely on the grounds of competetiveness; male bodies are simply larger and more muscular, and thus have an advantage in most sports.
Like cycling for instance.
‘Other students accept her.’ REALLY? That must be the most extraordinary group of teenagers in the world. Too bad the adults are such wrecks.
Does a trans girl’s FEELING of being female trump everyone else’s FEELING that she isn’t? This open the whole New Agey, relativist can of worms. If there isn’t a clear ‘matter of science’ to decide between positions, all that’s left is power. Who can whip up the biggest army of trolls? Who can whip the Houston voters into a frenzy of ignorance and hatred?
My own experience of locker rooms is very limited and odd. But the issue of privacy and protection from social pressure should guide any district’s response to such an issue. ALL students should have the opportunity to change in reasonable privacy. Obligatory exposure to the peer group, especially during adolescence, is close to abuse for all students, especially girls. We shouldn’t need the trans issue to make us think about this stuff.
Is anyone questioning the underlying premise that a person of one gender should not have access to the washroom/changeroom/shower which is intended for use by another gender? If there is a concern about sexuality (regardless of sex or gender), it seems to me that it should be similarly troublesome to have homosexual people using the facilities of their own gender, and bisexual people would need to be completely segregated. And if the concern is not about sexuality, just what *is* it about?
Accepting someone’s identity doesn’t necessarily imply you feel comfortable getting naked with them. Why is this suddenly controversial?
I can understand if a trans girl wants to share the “fix your make-up” chatter in the ladies’ room, but as for locker rooms: does she actually want to wave her dick at the other girls?
@Theo Bromine: For me this is not necessarily about sexuality or gender, but about “having the same bits”, i.e. having essentially the same body where the parts we generally feel self-conscious about are concerned.
That’s a helluva good point, Delft. I’m always having that basic thought, but that puts it so well.
The whole changing clothes in school thing is weird anyway. Cubicles or secure, fastenable curtains for all.
@Delft
Thanks for clarifying. I had not thought about the idea that a person feels less self conscious to be naked in front of a stranger with the same “bits”. Perhaps that is how most people feel, though I’m not sure if that means it’s a thing we need to make policies around.
@Ophelia:
Absolutely, cubicles with doors or curtains would address this. I’ll note that it’s not just a school thing. For example, at least around these parts, public swimming pools have large common change rooms (segregated by gender). In my experience, the vast majority of women attempt do the topological gymnastics of swapping bathing suits for bra and underpants while being wrapped in a towel. (Personally I’m not too fussed about people seeing my bits, but usually ended up doing the towel thing myself for fear of making others uncomfortable.)
I have no problem with this statement. A reminder can come from the holder of power “Don’t forget where you belong” or from the recipient “That makes me feel I don’t belong”. It’s one of the few times where I place the perception of the receiver above the intention of the sender. I also don’t see the statement as inflation. If the student feels that the use of a special bathroom down a long hallway away from everyone else is a reminder they are different and discriminatory, it’s the job of their advocate to state that in language that ensures that point is not glossed over and discounted. And hey, at least it wasn’t described as genocide!
I’m also happy to accept a person as whatever gender (male, female or other) that someone consistently presents as. Lets face it, it really only matters to each of us in moments of physical or emotional intimacy – toilet, showering and changing arrangements in public building being an enforced example in many cases and made worse by being with strangers. That could largely be sorted by proper design if they could be bothered (US toilet stall doors were an eye opener for me recently). This is nothing to do with the discussion of gender as such.
As for a persons sex being what they identify with, they loose me there. There is a guest discussion thread on Pharyngula at the moment that, if I have interpreted it correctly, basically says that words only have the meaning we agree to assign them and that applies equally to sex as it goes to gender. Therefore a person can identify as having a specific sex that may mismatch their physical body. I may have misinterpreted, so check the thread for yourselves. On that basis though I disagree. It becomes a form of control to twist words so far from the common accepted meaning that they either loose meaning completely or cease to functionally carry information at all. It’s what we have criticised totalitarian regimes of all political flavour of for decades. I don’t see any reason to accept that from anyone else. Sure, some words change meaning with time, but many stay permanently fixed because they are importantly functional as they are.
Shall we have to rewrite the biology textbooks?
Male humans have one X and one Y chromosome*
Female humans have two X chromosomes*
*except when they don’t.
Rob, the guest post on Pharyngula to which you refer…
…certainly is a lot of words, isn’t it?
Well, yes and no (to the general rule). Or yes, but within reason. People can say anything; people can throw a wobbly over anything; people can be demanding entitled brats.
But I don’t disagree that a special room down a long hall is far from ideal.
You don’t see “or even a human being” as inflationary at all? Because I do. It’s a room in a school, with plumbing and furnishings designed for humans; it’s not a kennel or a chicken coop.
I got accused of treating trans people as not human, on the basis of nothing whatever. I don’t like that kind of hyperbolic claim. It’s similar to saying I have the blood of murdered trans people on my hands.
I’m ashamed to say my eyes kept glazing over no matter how many times I tried reading it. I also lost track of where analogies were introduced and used. I don’t usually have that problem…
Hence my uncertainty in understanding.
Ophelia @28. Yeah, maybe the “…or even a human being…” is a step too far. Probably in fact, unless they have reason to believe that is actually how the administration sees her. If that’s the case though, they need a good kicking (metaphorically speaking).
I want to know: do the advocates actually think she will be happier if she is in the locker room with cis girls?
Samantha, if she tells her advocates that is what will make her happier, then I’m sure that is their opinion. It may even be their view.
Given the shit trans people get and how viciously cruel some people can be (especially high school children), happier may be a relative term. Maybe when life is that tough even a minor thing that is important can make you happier despite the additional problems it can bring. Who knows, maybe the other girls in that school are a bunch of universally mature, respectful, delights and their toilets and locker rooms are full of unicorns and rainbows. One can hope.
As an aside I’ve just seen a report of some truly awful behaviour by male school pupils towards girls that resulted in a warning from police, rather than something significantly stronger. I’m feeling jaded about the purity and niceness of youth.
To Holms @11: The words ‘male’ and ‘female’ are not used exclusively as biological terms. They are also used on legal documents. As long as male/female designation appears on IDs and passports these are also social terms.
John @16: Regarding serious sporting events, once a trans woman has been on estrogens for a while she loses much muscle. I doubt she’d have more of an advantage than the female athletes from various Communist countries back in the day who were allegedly on anabolic steroids.
#34 Anat
This is only partially correct. Yes there is some loss of muscle, but note that this is listed as a reversible change – it can be regained*. Also see ‘What HRT cannot change’ and you will see that a large number of physical characteristics are locked, depending on how long after puberty the HRT began. It is therefore entirely possible for a trans woman to ‘carry over’ a large number of male physical characteristics, the very thing that prompted segregated sports in the first place.
John the Drunkard #20
Maybe we shouldn’t, but the outcome – as I see it – is that we *do* need trans issues to think about this stuff, because otherwise we just leave ‘this stuff’ alone. My additional worry is that the approach “oh, all students have these problems” will function in practice as an excellent excuse for not lifting a finger (and not as a motivation to do something for everybody). The trans issue somehow emphasizes that stuff of this sort can turn real nasty – unlike the phrase “everybody has such problems”, only too often tantamount to “please, sleep well and continue doing nothing”. It’s just that sometimes one needs such a story to appreciate the lesson.
Ah, appreciate the lesson and do what? That’s the question. “Cubicles with doors or curtains” sound nice – assuming that the school has both the space and the money for such a solution. Perhaps in the US it’s not a problem (I don’t really know) but I have no doubt that for many small schools here even finding a space would be a serious challenge; I have also no doubt that the schools would be very reluctant to do this. Which leads only to the question – valid both here and (as I gather) in the US: what should the schools do in the meantime?
At the moment I have no idea. It seems to me that all the available solutions come with serious costs. Well… the thing is of course that I can afford to say this. Others – those directly engaged – do not have such a luxury.
Yes. And to put it bluntly, the premise of segregation and safe spaces for females who are in a vulnerable situation (and changing and showering in the open area is being vulnerable) is to protect females from males. And that would, and should, include male-bodied transgirls/women. That is the primary concern, not about modesty and worrying about one’s “bits”, although admittedly that is important for the teen psyche.
Theo Bromine @24:
Not my experience at all. Where I swim, women head from the pool to the communal showers where they remove their swim suits in the open. From there they usually wrap up at least partially in towels while heading to the changing area where they can dry off and get dressed – I do so in order not to freeze.
The age group most likely to work hard at not being exposed to others is that of preteens to young teens. They usually avoid the showers and create private spaces for themselves with towels. Nowadays I don’t see many of them because the times I go are dedicated to lap swimming (which tends to attract adults) and family swim (in the shallower pool, mostly young children with accompanying adults), whereas preteens and teens prefer the public swim times (when the pool is not separated to lanes and there is more playful swimming than exercise-oriented swimming).
BarbsWire @37:
Just for clarification: Are you saying that pre-op or non-op trans women are a danger to cis women, or are you saying they are being perceived as dangerous to cis women?
@BarbsWIre #37:
When you say that the segregation is to “protect females from males”, just what are the females being protected from? If it’s sexual assault, then why don’t lesbians/bisexuals present a risk? And where are the burly, bearded (but vagina-ed) trans men supposed to change?
@ophelia
I dont think it is (consider replacing Trans with gay/Jew/ black/atheist/muslim). Also it’s somewhat different when entire laws can be rejected by simply playing on fears about what happens when Trans women are in women’s bathrooms or locker rooms – you seem to be looking at this incident in isolation
@Delft
And many conservatives dont want to share bathrooms / locker room with The Gayz. They dont feel comfortable either. Does that argument carry weight with you ?
See also the pictures at
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/14/trans-folks-respond-bathroom-bills-wejustneedtopee-selfies
What do you mean “consider replacing Trans with gay/Jew/ black/atheist/muslim”? Replace with them where, how, demonstrating what? What entire laws can be rejected?
@ 42 Ophelia Benson
I suspect Deepak refers to the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance…
Passage of the ordinance was defeated by conservatives playing to anti-trans bigotry.
I’m aware of the Houston law, but I’m asking Deepak what he’s talking about. He’s being very unclear and I’d like him to stop doing that.
@Ophelia
I meant a segregated locker room /bathroom for a black person or for a gay person. I remember in sport, years ago , similar objections were made about having gay men in the same locker room as heterosexual men. The analogy doesn’t work if you think trans women are men – but I believe you have stated that, for you, politically and legally , trans women are women.
Yes, I was referring to the Houston law.
Sorry about that – It’s not intentional.
OK, since I am trans and was forced to share showering and changing facilities with pre-teen and teen girls – under the watchful gaze of the (fully-clothed) teacher, too – I must say that I would have been delighted to be offered a separate changing area. Actually, swimming was the only time I was comfortable after any sport; the municipal pool I swam at had individual curtained cubicles (brick on three sides) for changing, and everyone showered in their swimming costumes.
Also, I have never been more glad to be disabled than when needing to pee – facilities for physically disabled people are not segregated by sex, just from those of the (relatively) able-bodied, and each room is fully equipped and partitioned floor to ceiling with a proper door.
I wonder what the facilities are like for physically disabled students at that school.
Oh, as to the science – reflecting the first comment, I am trans precisely because I have a female body, despite my brain having been influenced by pre-natal hormones into believing itself to be male.
As I have said elsewhere, semantically it can be said to be “the body of a man” (if it is accepted that my ‘self’ is a man, and most gender-questioning feminists don’t have a problem with self-identity), because that is how English works; that still doesn’t make it a ‘male body’, though.