The serious transgender bathroom issue discussion

[slatfatf]

Myth #3: Letting trans people use the bathroom matching their gender identity is dangerousTransgender people generally prefer using the bathroom that matches their gender identity, not the one that corresponds with the gender they were assigned at birth. But critics argue that this could expose others to sexual voyeurism and assault in bathrooms — even though there's no evidence to support this claim.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee perpetuated this myth at a 2015 convention, stating, "Now I wish that someone told me that when I was in high school that I could have felt like a woman when it came time to take showers in PE. I'm pretty sure that I would have found my feminine side and said, 'Coach, I think I'd rather shower with the girls today.'"

But as Media Matters pointed out, experts from 12 states that protect trans rights have thoroughly refuted this talking point. In the US, there's not a single reported instance of this kind of voyeurism occurring in states with legal protections for trans people.

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11692494/transgender-bathrooms-creepy

I have NEVER once argued this point from a voyeurism or assault standpoint. I maintain that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a tranny feels uncomfortable being in a men's room because it doesn't match her "gender" - then why is it so fucking hard to understand that the opposite can be true and that a girl in a female locker room might equally feel "uncomfortable" showering and changing next to a person of the opposite biological sex??? What if that female doesn't give a rat's fuck about self-identified "gender" and is uncomfortable being around an exposed penis - even if that penis is attached to an outwardly feminine body? Why is her discomfort any less valid than the tranny's discomfort being in a male shower?

I brought it up earlier, and still believe that we will see instances of it now. Schools have had wide latitude in accommodating students in the past, and they are quickly losing it now. That is only going to accelerate as activists on both sides of the issue harden their stances and demonize each other. The religious right will, as in the NC law, legislate no accommodation leaving the transgenders as virtual lepers, and the LGBT community will insist on unfettered access to any facility of one's choosing. That is certainly what it is shaping up to be. Half the country hates half the country, and the other half hates the other half. When nobody respects the sensitivities and traditions of each other, we are doomed to see every single social issue devolve into this type of irrational tug of war / pissing match. There is no desire on the part of anyone to try to understand what the other side is saying. Really makes me want to become an even bigger hermit than I already am. Society no longer has a place for people who are not ready to bash a few hundred million people for their beliefs. Pick a side or get squashed in the middle.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

Why? There have been no problems with transgender people getting pervy in the bathrooms, and there will only be problems with local Citizen Fifes on Potty Patrol for as long as Fox keeps it in the news, or until November, whichever comes sooner, after which it will quietly go back to transgender people using the one for which they feel appropriate and nobody knowing a damn thing about it, mostly because they will be focused on a new boogeyman by then.

 

[slatfatf]

or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

That's probably the only actual answer. It'll just cost more.

Shovel ready project.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I brought it up earlier, and still believe that we will see instances of it now. Schools have had wide latitude in accommodating students in the past, and they are quickly losing it now. That is only going to accelerate as activists on both sides of the issue harden their stances and demonize each other. The religious right will, as in the NC law, legislate no accommodation leaving the transgenders as virtual lepers, and the LGBT community will insist on unfettered access to any facility of one's choosing. That is certainly what it is shaping up to be. Half the country hates half the country, and the other half hates the other half. When nobody respects the sensitivities and traditions of each other, we are doomed to see every single social issue devolve into this type of irrational tug of war / pissing match. There is no desire on the part of anyone to try to understand what the other side is saying. Really makes me want to become an even bigger hermit than I already am. Society no longer has a place for people who are not ready to bash a few hundred million people for their beliefs. Pick a side or get squashed in the middle.

I've said before that schools can handle this. School districts have been accommodating kids with differences for quite some time.

I agree with you about activists butting in where they don't belong. I want to understand where others stand on this, and I'm not trying to disrespect anyone else's views. I just find the notion that it could ever be proper for a state to enact a law depriving people of their rights on the basis of their gender or sexual preference (yeah, they snuck that in too), to be abhorrent. "We're doing this, and by the way, we're taking away your right to challenge it too." I can hardly think of a more unAmerican proposition.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

So we're gonna circle back to the separate but equal discussion today? We've already covered why that was wrong in the 50s and 60s and why it is wrong now.

Shall we provide them with separate water fountains too? How can we know what perversity rests upon their lips, for transfer to innocents via the water fountain?

apologies for the snark. I just cannot believe that we are having this discussion again.

You're missing the point completely, Counselor - you expect others to accept that gender isn't binary? OK. If we do so - then why should you try to force a binary gender accommodation?

I contend that the gender confused kids have issues. I also contend that the solution to those issues shouldn't marginalize or cause additional issues for their schoolmates. I further contend that the discomfort experienced by any "cisgender" kid is as valid and should be treated as seriously as any discomfort felt by the gender confused kid.

So - I'm not at "separate but equal" even though in this case, it is appropriate from every perspective aside from little johny who wants to be janey's feelings that they aren't accepted if they aren't with the "cisgirls".

Little johny who wants to be janey has issues, and it's little johny who wants to be janey who has to adjust to resolve those issues - not everyone else, and that the proponents of forcing everyone else to adjust to accommodate little johny who wants to be janey are being disingenuous in their dismissal of everyone else's discomfort. Gender != race - as much as you are trying to conflate the two.

The only equitable fix I see is the elimination of communal facilities altogether.

 

[slatfatf]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

Why? There have been no problems with transgender people getting pervy in the bathrooms, and there will only be problems with local Citizen Fifes on Potty Patrol for as long as Fox keeps it in the news, or until November, whichever comes sooner, after which it will quietly go back to transgender people using the one for which they feel appropriate and nobody knowing a damn thing about it, mostly because they will be focused on a new boogeyman by then.

As I mentioned several times earlier, the difference is that we are now putting into writing regulations and laws which insist the only requirement for use of a common facility be a stated identification with the gender that facility was designated for. That is a real difference. In the past it was not an issue, because it was people who passed as the gender they identified with who used those facilities. I understand that keeping things that way leaves many in various states of transition in an uncomfortable quandary as to what bathroom or shower or locker room to use, but I also recognize that an acceleration towards eliminating that uncomfortable quandary they find themselves in will create uncomfortable quandaries more many cisgenders who legitimately are not comfortable being nude in front of someone they recognize as being of the opposite sex because the person they see actually has the genitals of the opposite sex, I don't see that alone as being evidence of bigotry any more than I see a man or woman being uncomfortable with nudity in front of the opposite sex as being evidence of sexism. We should try to accommodate those people who are various states of transition, but not at the expense of anyone who feels the necessity to show modesty in the presence of members of the opposite sex, and not at the expense of providing cover to pervs like Huckabee who would use these new guidelines as cover for exercising their perviness.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

So we're gonna circle back to the separate but equal discussion today? We've already covered why that was wrong in the 50s and 60s and why it is wrong now.

Shall we provide them with separate water fountains too? How can we know what perversity rests upon their lips, for transfer to innocents via the water fountain?

apologies for the snark. I just cannot believe that we are having this discussion again.

You're missing the point completely, Counselor - you expect others to accept that gender isn't binary? OK. If we do so - then why should you try to force a binary gender accommodation?

I contend that the gender confused kids have issues. I also contend that the solution to those issues shouldn't marginalize or cause additional issues for their schoolmates. I further contend that the discomfort experienced by any "cisgender" kid is as valid and should be treated as seriously as any discomfort felt by the gender confused kid.

So - I'm not at "separate but equal" even though in this case, it is appropriate from every perspective aside from little johny who wants to be janey's feelings that they aren't accepted if they aren't with the "cisgirls".

Little johny who wants to be janey has issues, and it's little johny who wants to be janey who has to adjust to resolve those issues - not everyone else, and that the proponents of forcing everyone else to adjust to accommodate little johny who wants to be janey are being disingenuous in their dismissal of everyone else's discomfort. Gender != race - as much as you are trying to conflate the two.

The only equitable fix I see is the elimination of communal facilities altogether.

The Megyn Kelly Vox link has a link to the discussion on confusion. They're not confused. They know.

They don't need accommodating, they've been using one of the two bathrooms since we developed indoor plumbing and dual restrooms, and nobody gave a shit because they had no idea. Sending them to their own facility just ensures that they get singled out for all manner of shitty treatment.

There's no need to take the ball and go home. Public restrooms work just fine, or they did until a local community added gender identity/expresion to their non-discrimination ordinance and a state legislature responded by passing a bathroom bill.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

The Megyn Kelly Vox link has a link to the discussion on confusion. They're not confused. They know.

They don't need accommodating, they've been using one of the two bathrooms since we developed indoor plumbing and dual restrooms, and nobody gave a shit because they had no idea. Sending them to their own facility just ensures that they get singled out for all manner of shitty treatment.

There's no need to take the ball and go home. Public restrooms work just fine, or they did until a local community added gender identity/expresion to their non-discrimination ordinance and a state legislature responded by passing a bathroom bill.

Locker rooms? Participation in sports teams? The issue is larger than bathrooms, and more than trying to accommodate a minuscule percentage of kids who feel like their internal gender doesn't match how they were born. Forcing the issue into legislation will result in tests/abuses of that legislation, and the way I've heard the "guidance" described eliminates local discretion in implementation. I don't think that the majority of the T-kids who are seriously trying to transform themselves will behave inappropriately, but, I do agree with what Len said above that the guidance will definitely open the door for abuses to happen.

Why even go there when we don't have to? There's enough crap for schools and kids to deal with already, and we want to add this, while taking away more of the ability for folks on the ground to analyze and decide the best course of action? Fuck me, but, that's stupid!

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

I was thinking about something from an article that Sol shared above trying to explain the chromosomal basis for feeling transgendered. It seems to me that if we are to accept that gender isn't binary, than perhaps the solutions to gender "acceptance" shouldn't be either.

If we stipulate to that, then it is indeed the case that the trans-kids who are pushing for inclusion into the facilities of their chosen gender identity are the ones who are being intrusive, and that the only equitable solutions are to provide separate facilities for each possible permutation of "gender identity", or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

Why? There have been no problems with transgender people getting pervy in the bathrooms, and there will only be problems with local Citizen Fifes on Potty Patrol for as long as Fox keeps it in the news, or until November, whichever comes sooner, after which it will quietly go back to transgender people using the one for which they feel appropriate and nobody knowing a damn thing about it, mostly because they will be focused on a new boogeyman by then.

As I mentioned several times earlier, the difference is that we are now putting into writing regulations and laws which insist the only requirement for use of a common facility be a stated identification with the gender that facility was designated for. That is a real difference. In the past it was not an issue, because it was people who passed as the gender they identified with who used those facilities. I understand that keeping things that way leaves many in various states of transition in an uncomfortable quandary as to what bathroom or shower or locker room to use, but I also recognize that an acceleration towards eliminating that uncomfortable quandary they find themselves in will create uncomfortable quandaries more many cisgenders who legitimately are not comfortable being nude in front of someone they recognize as being of the opposite sex because the person they see actually has the genitals of the opposite sex, I don't see that alone as being evidence of bigotry any more than I see a man or woman being uncomfortable with nudity in front of the opposite sex as being evidence of sexism. We should try to accommodate those people who are various states of transition, but not at the expense of anyone who feels the necessity to show modesty in the presence of members of the opposite sex, and not at the expense of providing cover to pervs like Huckabee who would use these new guidelines as cover for exercising their perviness.

I have to be missing something that you are not. As I see it, before anything happened, transgenders could use whatever bathroom they wanted, and that was probably the one for the gender with which they identified, which given the lack of problems, likely coincided with their appearance. So Charlotte came along, and like any number of other communities, enacted a non-discrimination ordinance, and then amended that ordinance to include gender identity, gender expression, sexual preference and marital status. Re the gender identity/expression part of the amendment, Charlotte protected the existing practice of using the restroom for the gender with which the person identifies. That is akin to saying "keep choosing the restroom that fits; nobody is going to mess with you our your employees when it comes potty time in Charlotte."

The legislature responded with "oh yes we will." In so doing, they locked the courthouse door to those groups (and to the homosexuals as well). That is rank bigotry, albeit codified with the whiff of false legitimacy.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

The Megyn Kelly Vox link has a link to the discussion on confusion. They're not confused. They know.

They don't need accommodating, they've been using one of the two bathrooms since we developed indoor plumbing and dual restrooms, and nobody gave a shit because they had no idea. Sending them to their own facility just ensures that they get singled out for all manner of shitty treatment.

There's no need to take the ball and go home. Public restrooms work just fine, or they did until a local community added gender identity/expresion to their non-discrimination ordinance and a state legislature responded by passing a bathroom bill.

Locker rooms? Participation in sports teams? The issue is larger than bathrooms, and more than trying to accommodate a minuscule percentage of kids who feel like their internal gender doesn't match how they were born. Forcing the issue into legislation will result in tests/abuses of that legislation, and the way I've heard the "guidance" described eliminates local discretion in implementation. I don't think that the majority of the T-kids who are seriously trying to transform themselves will behave inappropriately, but, I do agree with what Len said above that the guidance will definitely open the door for abuses to happen.

Why even go there when we don't have to? There's enough crap for schools and kids to deal with already, and we want to add this, while taking away more of the ability for folks on the ground to analyze and decide the best course of action? Fuck me, but, that's stupid!

There are 700,000 transgender Americans. What is the threshold number for getting rights and protection from the majority? I am inclined to think that it is precisely the weakest among us who deserve the greatest protection from mob rule. That's what makes the US great. We can look, think, worship, act etc., differently, and as long as we don't hurt anyone (physically or especially financially), we're pretty much good to go.

Sports? Here's the IOC's take: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/sports/olympics/transgender-athletes-olympics-ioc.html Want to play in women's sports as a transgender woman? Show acceptably low testosterone levels.

Here are the most prominent transgender athletes: http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-famous-transgender-athletes/?view=all

Locker rooms are the sticky wicket for sure, and the one that would cause me the most discomfort. As I've said before, I'd leave it to the schools/school districts to resolve. They have experience with such issues that state legislatures do not.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

The Megyn Kelly Vox link has a link to the discussion on confusion. They're not confused. They know.

They don't need accommodating, they've been using one of the two bathrooms since we developed indoor plumbing and dual restrooms, and nobody gave a shit because they had no idea. Sending them to their own facility just ensures that they get singled out for all manner of shitty treatment.

There's no need to take the ball and go home. Public restrooms work just fine, or they did until a local community added gender identity/expresion to their non-discrimination ordinance and a state legislature responded by passing a bathroom bill.

Locker rooms? Participation in sports teams? The issue is larger than bathrooms, and more than trying to accommodate a minuscule percentage of kids who feel like their internal gender doesn't match how they were born. Forcing the issue into legislation will result in tests/abuses of that legislation, and the way I've heard the "guidance" described eliminates local discretion in implementation. I don't think that the majority of the T-kids who are seriously trying to transform themselves will behave inappropriately, but, I do agree with what Len said above that the guidance will definitely open the door for abuses to happen.

Why even go there when we don't have to? There's enough crap for schools and kids to deal with already, and we want to add this, while taking away more of the ability for folks on the ground to analyze and decide the best course of action? Fuck me, but, that's stupid!

There are 700,000 transgender Americans. What is the threshold number for getting rights and protection from the majority? I am inclined to think that it is precisely the weakest among us who deserve the greatest protection from mob rule.

Sports? Here's the IOC's take: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/sports/olympics/transgender-athletes-olympics-ioc.html Want to play in women's sports as a transgender woman? Show acceptably low testosterone levels.

Here are the most prominent transgender athletes: http://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-famous-transgender-athletes/?view=all

Locker rooms are the sticky wicket for sure, and the one that would cause me the most discomfort. As I've said before, I'd leave it to the schools/school districts to resolve. They have experience with such issues that state legislatures do not.

Sounds like the IOC might be ahead of the game, and actually treating the situation equitably. Thanks for the link.

Under threat of withholding federal $$, the "guidance" as I understand it won't permit localities to exercise discretion. So - that puts a bit of a cramp in the idea, doesn't it?

"threshold for rights"? I'm right there with ya, with the exception being that I don't think that gender segregation in the locker room is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is parental support for their kids' desire to maintain their privacy "mob rule".

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Sounds like the IOC might be ahead of the game, and actually treating the situation equitably. Thanks for the link.
Under threat of withholding federal $$, the "guidance" as I understand it won't permit localities to exercise discretion. So - that puts a bit of a cramp in the idea, doesn't it?

"threshold for rights"? I'm right there with ya, with the exception being that I don't think that gender segregation in the locker room is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is parental support for their kids' desire to maintain their privacy "mob rule".

A certain amount of this problem is due to our advances in science. We know more about the body than we used to. This isn't just teenagers trying to get a look at some boobies, or I would not be taking offense. I like boobies and was creative about ways to view them before the internet spoiled my creativity. Here's a story about an 8 year old. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478337140/obama-guidelines-to-protect-transgender-students-is-life-changing

Here's the link to the policy guidance letter: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

It is explicit about it's force and effect:

ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter is significant guidance. 2 This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. I

It isn't new law and doesn't apply new regulations. It is only explaining how the departments interpret the law, in response to a flurry of inquiries from schools, school districts, etc. "In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students."

So they didn't just come bursting through the bathroom wall like the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull with a bunch of new rules in hand. They said how they would interpret the law, and governments do that all the time, as my experience with the Cuba race taught me. If you do this, we will do that, if you do that, we will do this, etc.

 

[A guy in the Chesapeake]

Sounds like the IOC might be ahead of the game, and actually treating the situation equitably. Thanks for the link.
Under threat of withholding federal $$, the "guidance" as I understand it won't permit localities to exercise discretion. So - that puts a bit of a cramp in the idea, doesn't it?

"threshold for rights"? I'm right there with ya, with the exception being that I don't think that gender segregation in the locker room is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is parental support for their kids' desire to maintain their privacy "mob rule".

A certain amount of this problem is due to our advances in science. We know more about the body than we used to. This isn't just teenagers trying to get a look at some boobies, or I would not be taking offense. I like boobies and was creative about ways to view them before the internet spoiled my creativity. Here's a story about an 8 year old. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478337140/obama-guidelines-to-protect-transgender-students-is-life-changing

Here's the link to the policy guidance letter: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

It is explicit about it's force and effect:

ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter is significant guidance. 2 This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. I

It isn't new law and doesn't apply new regulations. It is only explaining how the departments interpret the law, in response to a flurry of inquiries from schools, school districts, etc. "In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students."

So they didn't just come bursting through the bathroom wall like the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull with a bunch of new rules in hand. They said how they would interpret the law, and governments do that all the time, as my experience with the Cuba race taught me. If you do this, we will do that, if you do that, we will do this, etc.

I've read the guidance, and appreciate you sharing the link.

They are establishing a mandate that equates gender identity with sex. That mandate is what's different, and which opens schools up to a whole host of potential problems, especially given that the only criterion for establishing gender identity is self-declaration:

Excerpted:

"As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.4 The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.5 The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.6 Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence),7 requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity"

You're a lawyer, so I suspect that you have a better legal perspective on this than I do - can you honestly and objectively tell me how you see this working in implementation?

My read has been that the T-kids can go where they want, anyone that's uncomfortable can request "single user" accommodations, but, that their discomfort with the presence of a biological opposite sex in their locker room/shared lodging is of no consequence.

Here's another fun thing w/r/t "respecting Transgender privacy"

4. Privacy and Education Records Protecting transgender students’ privacy is critical to ensuring they are treated consistent with their gender identity. The Departments may find a Title IX violation when a school limits students’ educational rights or opportunities by failing to take reasonable steps to protect students’ privacy related to their transgender status, including their birth name or sex assigned at birth.25 Nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII), such as a student’s birth name or sex assigned at birth, could be harmful to or invade the privacy of transgender students and may also violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).26 A school may maintain records with this information, but such records should be kept confidential.

So - will schools now have to purge any prior mention of Johny who is now known as Jane from publicly accessible records. Student of the Week announcements? newsletters? Class rosters?

Sorry Sol - I can understand and support why this is happening, but I think that the implementation is flawed.

 

[Gouvernail]

@ gov - if that woman does say she's uncomfortable with a biological man in the woman's locker room, what accommodation would/should we give her? A private shower? What if she refuses just as the tranny boy refuses to use a separate shower?

Do we boot her out of her own locker room, suck it up and say to go to class sweaty and you can damn well shower when you get home?

Its that what you're saying?

Neither seems like a very nice solution
Bear in mind, I believe you are asking for a detailed solution to an extremely unlikely hypothetical.

You are suggesting some female is going to claim a need for access to a solution to a problem

I don't believe will ever exist.

"There is a person in the locker room I would like to use whose presence violates my freedom. "

"How does this person's presence violate your freedom"

"The person has a dangly thing between the legs."

"And?"

"?????? OK.... I can't fill in this part because I have no idea why anyone would possibly give a rat's parootie about a dangly thing hanging off a person who is in every other way playing the time of a female

So, I have no idea what accommodations such a person might need.

She might be grossed out, frightened, amazed, jealous, turned on, revolted...

I don't have Ny idea what the hypothetical petitioner wants, needs, or any way to predict what might be fair.

I can guarantee this. If I were a teacher or administrator T her school Snd confronted with this situation, I would sit down and chat with the petitioner and do my very best to serve her needs.

In fact, I am fully confident I could work with her to absolutely solve the problem in a way she would find acceptable

But yet the trannies could not be accommodated in any way they would find acceptable other than to force all the other girls to shower with him?

By your reasoning above, gov, if you claim it would be unfathomable that a girl would have a problem with a "girl" with dangly bits showering next to her - why then would a tranny "girl" have a problem going into a men's room? Does (s)he also not want to have to be exposed to dangly bits in the shower room too? Seems like an amazing double standard you are building here.

Think about that.....

Because the kid is living as a girl and likely already the subject of brutal teasing by the guys.

Remember high school?

I am pretty certain, at my school in the sixties, the boy/ girl ends up with his / her head stuffed in the toilet

But I am also certain the girls would have cared for that kid and defended the kid against the asshole boys.

Just guessing

How does your vision of this dangly person in the girl's locker room play out??

You presented a hypothetical.

I think your hypothetical is based upon a ludicrous non

Possible.

So play out YOUR VERSION for us.

What happens?

Who objects?

Why?

What accommodation does the objector need?

Maybe knowing your real hypothetical concern I can exactly describe my hypothetical answer more clearly

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Sounds like the IOC might be ahead of the game, and actually treating the situation equitably. Thanks for the link.
Under threat of withholding federal $$, the "guidance" as I understand it won't permit localities to exercise discretion. So - that puts a bit of a cramp in the idea, doesn't it?

"threshold for rights"? I'm right there with ya, with the exception being that I don't think that gender segregation in the locker room is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is parental support for their kids' desire to maintain their privacy "mob rule".

A certain amount of this problem is due to our advances in science. We know more about the body than we used to. This isn't just teenagers trying to get a look at some boobies, or I would not be taking offense. I like boobies and was creative about ways to view them before the internet spoiled my creativity. Here's a story about an 8 year old. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478337140/obama-guidelines-to-protect-transgender-students-is-life-changing

Here's the link to the policy guidance letter: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

It is explicit about it's force and effect:

ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter is significant guidance. 2 This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. I

It isn't new law and doesn't apply new regulations. It is only explaining how the departments interpret the law, in response to a flurry of inquiries from schools, school districts, etc. "In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students."

So they didn't just come bursting through the bathroom wall like the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull with a bunch of new rules in hand. They said how they would interpret the law, and governments do that all the time, as my experience with the Cuba race taught me. If you do this, we will do that, if you do that, we will do this, etc.

I've read the guidance, and appreciate you sharing the link.

They are establishing a mandate that equates gender identity with sex. That mandate is what's different, and which opens schools up to a whole host of potential problems, especially given that the only criterion for establishing gender identity is self-declaration:

Excerpted:

"As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.4 The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.5 The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.6 Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence),7 requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity"

You're a lawyer, so I suspect that you have a better legal perspective on this than I do - can you honestly and objectively tell me how you see this working in implementation?

My read has been that the T-kids can go where they want, anyone that's uncomfortable can request "single user" accommodations, but, that their discomfort with the presence of a biological opposite sex in their locker room/shared lodging is of no consequence.

Here's another fun thing w/r/t "respecting Transgender privacy"

4. Privacy and Education Records Protecting transgender students’ privacy is critical to ensuring they are treated consistent with their gender identity. The Departments may find a Title IX violation when a school limits students’ educational rights or opportunities by failing to take reasonable steps to protect students’ privacy related to their transgender status, including their birth name or sex assigned at birth.25 Nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII), such as a student’s birth name or sex assigned at birth, could be harmful to or invade the privacy of transgender students and may also violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).26 A school may maintain records with this information, but such records should be kept confidential.

So - will schools now have to purge any prior mention of Johny who is now known as Jane from publicly accessible records. Student of the Week announcements? newsletters? Class rosters?

Sorry Sol - I can understand and support why this is happening, but I think that the implementation is flawed.

My profession only effects my view of this because I look for certain key things, like what exactly the directive from the Departments actually is, which is important to judging the force with which it applies. They are just providing guidance about existing law, how they will apply it.

The key thing I see to keep this from turning into a shitshow is that with or without their parents, they have to go to the school administration and inform them of it. The kid who puts on a dress and goes into the girl's room to piss on the toilet seats, make fart noises and peep boobies is not going to do very well, and is not covered by Title IX. And maybe it's just me, but having to go tell the school administration that they are a different gender, as a kid? Something tells me that such a task has a pretty good weeding out factor, because that would not be an easy task, and would bring along with it, a lot of grief, or we'd have seen it done already. Schools deal with individualized education plans all the time. I've done them for kids in a different context, and it is not something done for fun, I guarantee that. It was about as much fun as the time my big brother put ben gay in my undies. But administrators tend to be pretty good at handling stuff, or their district ends up in court a lot, and they end up being replaced. They should not have their hands tied with mandates from above.

That, right there, is why I ask about prior incidence of problems.

 

[slatfatf]

Our local school district responding to the non-change in guidelines and directives from the feds:

The transgender student bathroom discussion has come to the local level.

The East Stroudsburg Area School Board's policy committee is discussing on how to treat transgender and nonconforming gender students when it comes to bathroom use. The committee isn't taking any action to send a policy to the rest of the board, though.

Eric Forsyth, director of administrative services, said the administration proactively began development of the policy on its own. At a March policy committee meeting, he presented a drafted policy to the committee and asked the for direction as to how liberal they wish to be and if the policy should be based on gender identity or the anatomically correct gender.

Since the policy is still being drafted and has not been submitted to a quorum of the board for deliberation, he couldn't comment on the main points of the policy until the committee would elect to post a final draft for public review, Forysth said Tuesday.

When the time comes for that, the public will have at least 30 days prior to any board action to adopt the policy to review the policy.

Judy Summers, chair of the policy committee, said the group won’t make any final decisions until the Pennsylvania School Boards Association drafts a policy they could use.

“It’s too new to know where to go with it,” she said at the policy committee meeting Monday.

Administrators said there are two or three known affected students at the South high school and two students at the North high school. They currently use a bathroom in the nurse’s suite during the day and there haven’t been any problems.

Emily Leader, senior deputy of general counsel with the PSBA, said when it does draft a policy, they do so based on settled law.

“The problem with this area of law is that it really isn’t settled yet,” she said Tuesday. The PSBA isn't sure where this issue is going to end up. They can’t tell school districts what policies to write until the law says it clearly.

That can’t stop a district from adopting a policy on their own, however, Leader said, districts should be aware that anything that won’t be consistent with whatever guidance PSBA may settle on can be called in as a complaint.

On Friday, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice released joint guidance on the issue reminding districts that compliance with Title IX is a condition of receiving federal funds and a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits or otherwise treat any person different on the basis of sex in its educational programs or activities.

Summers said that until the issue is sorted out, the discussion could get ugly.

“If this isn’t handled properly through PSBA, we are sitting on an edge of a cliff if we don’t do the right thing,” Summers said. “That’s why we aren’t’ doing anything until PSBA gives us the lead and tells us the way to go.”

The policy committee meets on the third Monday of the month at 5 p.m.

emphasis from me.

http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160518/east-stroudsburg-school-weighs-transgender-bathroom-position

This is probably going to cost me another 5k per year in property taxes to fix.

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

Our local school district responding to the non-change in guidelines and directives from the feds:

The transgender student bathroom discussion has come to the local level.

The East Stroudsburg Area School Board's policy committee is discussing on how to treat transgender and nonconforming gender students when it comes to bathroom use. The committee isn't taking any action to send a policy to the rest of the board, though.

Eric Forsyth, director of administrative services, said the administration proactively began development of the policy on its own. At a March policy committee meeting, he presented a drafted policy to the committee and asked the for direction as to how liberal they wish to be and if the policy should be based on gender identity or the anatomically correct gender.

Since the policy is still being drafted and has not been submitted to a quorum of the board for deliberation, he couldn't comment on the main points of the policy until the committee would elect to post a final draft for public review, Forysth said Tuesday.

When the time comes for that, the public will have at least 30 days prior to any board action to adopt the policy to review the policy.

Judy Summers, chair of the policy committee, said the group won’t make any final decisions until the Pennsylvania School Boards Association drafts a policy they could use.

“It’s too new to know where to go with it,” she said at the policy committee meeting Monday.

Administrators said there are two or three known affected students at the South high school and two students at the North high school. They currently use a bathroom in the nurse’s suite during the day and there haven’t been any problems.

Emily Leader, senior deputy of general counsel with the PSBA, said when it does draft a policy, they do so based on settled law.

“The problem with this area of law is that it really isn’t settled yet,” she said Tuesday. The PSBA isn't sure where this issue is going to end up. They can’t tell school districts what policies to write until the law says it clearly.

That can’t stop a district from adopting a policy on their own, however, Leader said, districts should be aware that anything that won’t be consistent with whatever guidance PSBA may settle on can be called in as a complaint.

On Friday, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice released joint guidance on the issue reminding districts that compliance with Title IX is a condition of receiving federal funds and a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits or otherwise treat any person different on the basis of sex in its educational programs or activities.

Summers said that until the issue is sorted out, the discussion could get ugly.

“If this isn’t handled properly through PSBA, we are sitting on an edge of a cliff if we don’t do the right thing,” Summers said. “That’s why we aren’t’ doing anything until PSBA gives us the lead and tells us the way to go.”

The policy committee meets on the third Monday of the month at 5 p.m.

emphasis from me.

http://www.poconorecord.com/news/20160518/east-stroudsburg-school-weighs-transgender-bathroom-position

This is probably going to cost me another 5k per year in property taxes to fix.

It absolutely could get expensive, if they force a kid who looks like a girl, acts like a girl, identifies as a girl, to use the boys facilities because the child was born with a pecker. Expensive in many was, not just money.

But if they're taking fed money, they have to comply with Title IX. Look at the uproar at FSU over the girl who was allegedly raped by the star football player. The criminal justice system swept it under the rug, but what got the alleged victim her day in court (albeit a kangaroo court) was Title IX. Nobody wants the federal funds to be cut off.

 

[Raz'r]

or to eliminate communal facilities altogether.

And that is exactly where i expect things to go.

That's probably the only actual answer. It'll just cost more.

there was a lot of angst on making facilities handicap accessible as well.

As far as facilities, I assume there are still some open showers in girls lockers in old buildings - but I know my kids are all in separate stalls. Guys locker rooms, not so much.

 

[Raz'r]

Sounds like the IOC might be ahead of the game, and actually treating the situation equitably. Thanks for the link.
Under threat of withholding federal $$, the "guidance" as I understand it won't permit localities to exercise discretion. So - that puts a bit of a cramp in the idea, doesn't it?

"threshold for rights"? I'm right there with ya, with the exception being that I don't think that gender segregation in the locker room is a violation of anyone's rights, nor is parental support for their kids' desire to maintain their privacy "mob rule".

A certain amount of this problem is due to our advances in science. We know more about the body than we used to. This isn't just teenagers trying to get a look at some boobies, or I would not be taking offense. I like boobies and was creative about ways to view them before the internet spoiled my creativity. Here's a story about an 8 year old. http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/478337140/obama-guidelines-to-protect-transgender-students-is-life-changing

Here's the link to the policy guidance letter: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

It is explicit about it's force and effect:

ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter is significant guidance. 2 This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. I

It isn't new law and doesn't apply new regulations. It is only explaining how the departments interpret the law, in response to a flurry of inquiries from schools, school districts, etc. "In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students."

So they didn't just come bursting through the bathroom wall like the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull with a bunch of new rules in hand. They said how they would interpret the law, and governments do that all the time, as my experience with the Cuba race taught me. If you do this, we will do that, if you do that, we will do this, etc.

I've read the guidance, and appreciate you sharing the link.

They are establishing a mandate that equates gender identity with sex. That mandate is what's different, and which opens schools up to a whole host of potential problems, especially given that the only criterion for establishing gender identity is self-declaration:

Excerpted:

"As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations.4 The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination.5 The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.6 Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence),7 requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity"

You're a lawyer, so I suspect that you have a better legal perspective on this than I do - can you honestly and objectively tell me how you see this working in implementation?

My read has been that the T-kids can go where they want, anyone that's uncomfortable can request "single user" accommodations, but, that their discomfort with the presence of a biological opposite sex in their locker room/shared lodging is of no consequence.

Here's another fun thing w/r/t "respecting Transgender privacy"

4. Privacy and Education Records Protecting transgender students’ privacy is critical to ensuring they are treated consistent with their gender identity. The Departments may find a Title IX violation when a school limits students’ educational rights or opportunities by failing to take reasonable steps to protect students’ privacy related to their transgender status, including their birth name or sex assigned at birth.25 Nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information (PII), such as a student’s birth name or sex assigned at birth, could be harmful to or invade the privacy of transgender students and may also violate the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).26 A school may maintain records with this information, but such records should be kept confidential.

So - will schools now have to purge any prior mention of Johny who is now known as Jane from publicly accessible records. Student of the Week announcements? newsletters? Class rosters?

Sorry Sol - I can understand and support why this is happening, but I think that the implementation is flawed.

My profession only effects my view of this because I look for certain key things, like what exactly the directive from the Departments actually is, which is important to judging the force with which it applies. They are just providing guidance about existing law, how they will apply it.

The key thing I see to keep this from turning into a shitshow is that with or without their parents, they have to go to the school administration and inform them of it. The kid who puts on a dress and goes into the girl's room to piss on the toilet seats, make fart noises and peep boobies is not going to do very well, and is not covered by Title IX. And maybe it's just me, but having to go tell the school administration that they are a different gender, as a kid? Something tells me that such a task has a pretty good weeding out factor, because that would not be an easy task, and would bring along with it, a lot of grief, or we'd have seen it done already. Schools deal with individualized education plans all the time. I've done them for kids in a different context, and it is not something done for fun, I guarantee that. It was about as much fun as the time my big brother put ben gay in my undies. But administrators tend to be pretty good at handling stuff, or their district ends up in court a lot, and they end up being replaced. They should not have their hands tied with mandates from above.

That, right there, is why I ask about prior incidence of problems.

But Jeff and Friends are CONVINCED we are about to see an epidemic of transgenders clamoring to change with the girls.

it's this years EBOLA!!!!

 

[Sol Rosenberg]

But Jeff and Friends are CONVINCED we are about to see an epidemic of transgenders clamoring to change with the girls.


it's this years EBOLA!!!!

These guys are not unreasonable. I stopped wasting time with folks who cannot be reasonable, other than for the five minutes or maybe ten, before abject mockery loses its edge.... We haven't seen much of this, so it can be used, like ebola, to cause fear. It's like foilers. What in tarnation are these newfangled flying thingamajigs doing on the water, screwing up our race courses? In reality, foilers have been around for quite some time.

So it causes some discomfort. I get that. It shouldn't, because it's been around awhile, and the locals know how to deal with it. It's not an idea that just popped up overnight, it's been around quite a while. Sometimes, it just takes a bit of time to get used to it. We're human. We can learn. http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a44994/canada-transgender-rights/