"You cant use this bathroom because you are female"
Both of these are discriminatory statements.
So you're taking the position in favor of gender-neutral bathrooms, then?
Position? I do not care where anyone else uses the bathroom. I'm simply stating the law prevents discrimination based upon sex. Hint: The idea they have to be labeled/restricted in the first place is a fundamental problem within our society.
I'll take that as a "yes".
And you would miss the point. Gender neutral or female bathrooms are labels and entirely socially constructed. It's identity politics. You have no label for the bathroom, you have no problem, the bathroom becomes what it's supposed to be, a utility, not something to fight over. The fact you want to fight so hard to get me to identify or label it shows me that is what your main interest is in....to take sides or align with some cause.
You have presented an argument that bathrooms should not be segregated by gender. This is a debate thread about whether we should have gender-neutral bathrooms (ie, bathrooms not segregated by gender). If you're not taking the position that we should have gender-neutral bathrooms, what are you doing besides flailing on a keyboard?
How about a human being who just wants to choose where they go to the bathroom? The persons gender, sex, identity, race, ethnic back ground should be irrelevant, but you are finding ways to make it relevant by putting some label on someone who is not like you, or like you. The toilet does not know any difference. Shouldn't we promote the same attitude as the toilet? Until we get to that point as a society, we will continue to hit our heads against the wall with discrimination.
So you agree with the premise of the thread?
Who are you arguing with exactly? Because (as I far as I can tell) pretty much everyone here either thinks the same thing or thinks something quite similar.
That's actually an argument against ditching "cis". Sometimes you want to talk about everybody who isn't trans, then you can say "not trans". But sometimes you do want to talk specifically about that majority group, and not the-majority-group-plus-all-the-other-minorities-that-aren't-trans.
It's like how sometimes you want to talk about all "nonblack" people, and sometimes you want to talk about "white" people.
I know, that's why I said it depends on what you want to say. A lot of discussions I've read online about that topic kinda separate people into 2 groups(oh the irony) and then only use cis/trans while arguing, totally forgetting people who are neither.
Regardless, I'm still in favour of ditching "cis" cause I find it abhorrent to force a term on other people, especially coming from a minority towards the absolute majority. Personally I use trans-, intersex/gender etc. as additional information, and unless stated otherwise, I talk about "cis" people, which is a given to me. Like with your example for dwarfism/average height, I do not always use descriptive words for the overwhelming majority.
But I guess if you want to be explicit about it then yes, it can be useful.
Funnily enough, I've used the "nonblack/white" argument too in a similar discussion.
Regardless, I'm still in favour of ditching "cis" cause I find it abhorrent to force a term on other people, especially coming from a minority towards the absolute majority.
Any source on that? Specially on it somehow "coming from" the minority (transgender people) rather than, say, academic experts such as sociologists or psychologists?
How about a human being who just wants to choose where they go to the bathroom? The persons gender, sex, identity, race, ethnic back ground should be irrelevant, but you are finding ways to make it relevant by putting some label on someone who is not like you, or like you. The toilet does not know any difference. Shouldn't we promote the same attitude as the toilet? Until we get to that point as a society, we will continue to hit our heads against the wall with discrimination.
So you agree with the premise of the thread?
Who are you arguing with exactly? Because (as I far as I can tell) pretty much everyone here either thinks the same thing or thinks something quite similar.
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically. I also have asked for compelling evidence that using the bathroom is a major issue. No one can provide any data to indicate the frequency a trans faces discriminatory behavior in the bathroom. I would venture to guess, I too would be discriminated and harassed if I, as a male born male, used a female labeled bathroom at will. It's breaking a societal norm. There are many norms we all conform to, despite not necessarily agreeing with it. My other argument is, the people who are dismissive of the women who are discomforted using the bathroom with a trans, simply because they feel her discomfort is unwarranted. Obviously, there are many who feel the trans discomfort is unwarranted as well, but that would be identified as homophobic or bigoted. Many in the world pick and choose which persons discomfort they care about when they decide to pass laws. I do not think the logic in that is solid.
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically.
Regardless of what you are choosing to call the concept, you are arguing in favor of bathrooms which are not segregated by gender, yes?
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically.
Regardless of what you are choosing to call the concept, you are arguing in favor of bathrooms which are not segregated by gender, yes?
I've answered this question three times now.
No. Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging, to which you and others keep ignoring with the hope that I agree with the conclusion. Conclusions are a dime a dozen, I want people to show their work and back it up. I have an issue with labels, and people who cant say why they want that label other than platitudes like "major problem".
If I say I support gender neutral bathrooms, do you get some sort of victory or something? Am I part of the team?
Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging
So you are simply flailing on the keyboard, not attempting to contribute to the debate. Good to know.
Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging
So you are simply flailing on the keyboard, not attempting to contribute to the debate. Good to know.
You should look up the words "premise", "methodology" and "reasoning". If you can not defend the merits of your premise, methodology, and reasoning behind your conclusions, those conclusions tend to have very little value in debate. It's unfortunate you think someone challenging the premise to which someone presents a conclusion is nothing more than "flailing at the keyboard". I've answered you in good faith, your only concern is for me to answer the same question, only worded differently, to which three times I've refuted the premise of the question and explained why and my purpose for doing so. Obviously, you feel the discussion can only focus on the answer to the question, as opposed to how you got the answer. You do not care to respond to those arguments I've presented (outright ignoring them), which is okay, but stop asking the same question and expecting a different result, especially when your only desire it to get an answer I possible cant give, for the aforementioned reasons. Great achievements are great, but the process to which they were achieved are much more important....and in my mind, more interesting. Debates are not won or lost in conclusions, (i.e. whether or not I support gender neutral bathrooms), they are won with sound reasoning and empirical evidence.
Personally, I find it odd that you think we should identify bathrooms with some form of gender reference to participate in the debate.
EDIT: You may also want to look up what a contrarian is. There are two popular opinions on this issue, I share neither but are similar, in some regards, to both.
I think this quote gets the gist of Obama's executive order-
Quote from »
“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.
Thoughts?
I'm still just really curious how they're going to deal with locker rooms and communal changing areas in general,seeing as how the order also apparently states-
Quote from »
It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek “additional privacy” for whatever reason.
I think this quote gets the gist of Obama's executive order-
Quote from »
“A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so,” according to the letter, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times.
Thoughts?
I'm still just really curious how they're going to deal with locker rooms and communal changing areas in general,seeing as how the order also apparently states-
Quote from »
It says that schools may — but are not required to — provide other restroom and locker room options to students who seek “additional privacy” for whatever reason.
I don't think this is a bombshell at all. Transgender people have been quietly using the bathroom that matches their gender all over the country, and no one has really noticed or cared.
EDIT: I mean that no one has noticed or cared from a policy perspective - most schools aren't out policing this sort of thing. Obviously, people do notice and care when they harass transgender people for trying to use the bathroom.
I don't think this is a bombshell at all. Transgender people have been quietly using the bathroom that matches their gender all over the country, and no one has really noticed or cared.
EDIT: I mean that no one has noticed or cared from a policy perspective - most schools aren't out policing this sort of thing. Obviously, people do notice and care when they harass transgender people for trying to use the bathroom.
Have they been going into the changing rooms that matched their gender identity and change there too?
Because, I'm pretty sure a school would care if a person who looked like a boy chose to go change in the girl's locker room after PE.
As for this being a bombshell-
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
Have they been going into the changing rooms that matched their gender identity and change there too?
Because, I'm pretty sure a school would care if a person who looked like a boy chose to go change in the girl's locker room after PE.
Almost certainly they have. Many transgender people actually pass as the gender the identify as, and people wouldn't bat an eye.
The have certainly been some freak-outs about instances of transgender students using locker rooms, sometimes coming from parents and sometimes coming from school boards. But the DoE and DoJ have already been telling schools that they risk violating Title IX if they don't let the students do so. It's just been on an individual basis prior to this.
It's been California state law for several years now, so this isn't exactly uncharted territory.
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
Have you LOOKED for evidence? How many transgendered people have you asked? Even if you only Googled, you'd find an article linking to this study on the first page. And this article discussing the survey, in which some transgendered people describe their experiences using bathrooms.
Even if you just considered the facts that transgendered people experience discrimination, for which there is also empirical evidence, that and there is no reason to think there would be _less_ discrimination in a gender-segregated bathroom than elsewhere (and given the emphasis on gender in that situation, every reason to suspect more), that might lead you to thinking it could be an issue.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
The Title IX right in question is an individual right. Even if it were the case that only a single person in the entire country would be effected, that person is still guaranteed that right, and the DoJ would still be compelled to issue the same directive.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
The Title IX right in question is an individual right. Even if it were the case that only a single person in the entire country would be effected, that person is still guaranteed that right, and the DoJ would still be compelled to issue the same directive.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory. I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school. This will lead to more fights in school.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory.
If a transgender student would prefer to forgo the right to use the bathroom of their gender in order to avoid making a splash, that's certainly their prerogative to make that compromise. However, if a school district is going to compel them to do that, then that's not really a compromise, is it? That's just someone's rights being taken away from them.
I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school.
Transgender students exist regardless of whether kids are "equipped to understand it". We can't simply close our eyes and pretend they aren't there and don't have rights in order to avoid making students confront the issue. If a school is worried that students are going to have trouble understanding the issues faced by a transgender student, then educate the students on the topic.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school.
What responses are these? Is this not the best time for children to learn about transgendered people, before they cement discriminatory opinions?
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory.
If a transgender student would prefer to forgo the right to use the bathroom of their gender in order to avoid making a splash, that's certainly their prerogative to make that compromise. However, if a school district is going to compel them to do that, then that's not really a compromise, is it? That's just someone's rights being taken away from them.
I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school.
Transgender students exist regardless of whether kids are "equipped to understand it". We can't simply close our eyes and pretend they aren't there and don't have rights in order to avoid making students confront the issue. If a school is worried that students are going to have trouble understanding the issues faced by a transgender student, then educate the students on the topic.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
I didn't ignore your argument - I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights. Pragmatism does not trump rights. That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
Almost certainly they have. Many transgender people actually pass as the gender the identify as, and people wouldn't bat an eye.
The have certainly been some freak-outs about instances of transgender students using locker rooms, sometimes coming from parents and sometimes coming from school boards. But the DoE and DoJ have already been telling schools that they risk violating Title IX if they don't let the students do so. It's just been on an individual basis prior to this.
It's been California state law for several years now, so this isn't exactly uncharted territory.
The only thing I can find online regarding freakouts in CA is this-
I suppose the problem with this is that transgender people are rare to begin with, and as such there's simply not enough brouhaha over it to become an actual policy issue. It would not be difficult for most schools to accommodate what transgender people are in the district, since private changing rooms and the like were always a thing.
What do you think about students who may be uncomfortable changing clothes in the locker room with transgender individual who haven't transitioned?
I suppose the problem with this is that transgender people are rare to begin with, and as such there's simply not enough brouhaha over it to become an actual policy issue. It would not be difficult for most schools to accommodate what transgender people are in the district, since private changing rooms and the like were always a thing.
What do you think about students who may be uncomfortable changing clothes in the locker room with transgender individual who haven't transitioned?
The same thing I think about students who are uncomfortable changing clothes in the locker room with individuals of the same gender. It's not invalid to feel uncomfortable, but you can't expect to be able to kick other people out of a room they have just as much of a right to use.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
I didn't ignore your argument - I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights. Pragmatism does not trump rights. That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
I refute the premise that you can not possibly have a limited right. I would surmise you disagree with all forms of gun control.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
So you agree with the premise of the thread?
Who are you arguing with exactly? Because (as I far as I can tell) pretty much everyone here either thinks the same thing or thinks something quite similar.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I know, that's why I said it depends on what you want to say. A lot of discussions I've read online about that topic kinda separate people into 2 groups(oh the irony) and then only use cis/trans while arguing, totally forgetting people who are neither.
Regardless, I'm still in favour of ditching "cis" cause I find it abhorrent to force a term on other people, especially coming from a minority towards the absolute majority. Personally I use trans-, intersex/gender etc. as additional information, and unless stated otherwise, I talk about "cis" people, which is a given to me. Like with your example for dwarfism/average height, I do not always use descriptive words for the overwhelming majority.
But I guess if you want to be explicit about it then yes, it can be useful.
Funnily enough, I've used the "nonblack/white" argument too in a similar discussion.
Any source on that? Specially on it somehow "coming from" the minority (transgender people) rather than, say, academic experts such as sociologists or psychologists?
Most here do not think the same as me. It's important for you to identify it as a "gender neutral bathroom", its important to me not to label a bathroom. That is where I stand ideologically. I also have asked for compelling evidence that using the bathroom is a major issue. No one can provide any data to indicate the frequency a trans faces discriminatory behavior in the bathroom. I would venture to guess, I too would be discriminated and harassed if I, as a male born male, used a female labeled bathroom at will. It's breaking a societal norm. There are many norms we all conform to, despite not necessarily agreeing with it. My other argument is, the people who are dismissive of the women who are discomforted using the bathroom with a trans, simply because they feel her discomfort is unwarranted. Obviously, there are many who feel the trans discomfort is unwarranted as well, but that would be identified as homophobic or bigoted. Many in the world pick and choose which persons discomfort they care about when they decide to pass laws. I do not think the logic in that is solid.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I've answered this question three times now.
No. Stop thinking in the terms of conclusions and start thinking about the process to which you come to your conclusion, becasue that is what I am fundamentally challenging, to which you and others keep ignoring with the hope that I agree with the conclusion. Conclusions are a dime a dozen, I want people to show their work and back it up. I have an issue with labels, and people who cant say why they want that label other than platitudes like "major problem".
If I say I support gender neutral bathrooms, do you get some sort of victory or something? Am I part of the team?
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
You should look up the words "premise", "methodology" and "reasoning". If you can not defend the merits of your premise, methodology, and reasoning behind your conclusions, those conclusions tend to have very little value in debate. It's unfortunate you think someone challenging the premise to which someone presents a conclusion is nothing more than "flailing at the keyboard". I've answered you in good faith, your only concern is for me to answer the same question, only worded differently, to which three times I've refuted the premise of the question and explained why and my purpose for doing so. Obviously, you feel the discussion can only focus on the answer to the question, as opposed to how you got the answer. You do not care to respond to those arguments I've presented (outright ignoring them), which is okay, but stop asking the same question and expecting a different result, especially when your only desire it to get an answer I possible cant give, for the aforementioned reasons. Great achievements are great, but the process to which they were achieved are much more important....and in my mind, more interesting. Debates are not won or lost in conclusions, (i.e. whether or not I support gender neutral bathrooms), they are won with sound reasoning and empirical evidence.
Personally, I find it odd that you think we should identify bathrooms with some form of gender reference to participate in the debate.
EDIT: You may also want to look up what a contrarian is. There are two popular opinions on this issue, I share neither but are similar, in some regards, to both.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=2
I think this quote gets the gist of Obama's executive order-
Thoughts?
I'm still just really curious how they're going to deal with locker rooms and communal changing areas in general,seeing as how the order also apparently states-
I don't think this is a bombshell at all. Transgender people have been quietly using the bathroom that matches their gender all over the country, and no one has really noticed or cared.
EDIT: I mean that no one has noticed or cared from a policy perspective - most schools aren't out policing this sort of thing. Obviously, people do notice and care when they harass transgender people for trying to use the bathroom.
Have they been going into the changing rooms that matched their gender identity and change there too?
Because, I'm pretty sure a school would care if a person who looked like a boy chose to go change in the girl's locker room after PE.
As for this being a bombshell-
It's a bombshell for a number of reasons, most of them actually not related to transgender rights in of itself imo.
But, as far as the transgender rights is concerned- it's a bombshell for precisely the reason you wrote- People are now making this into a serious policy issue and Obama basically forced everyone's hands by making a big announcement from the very top.
S.C.'s law was a big deal, but it ultimately remained on the state level and isolated to S.C. Obama just forced every state and its political heads to deal with this. It's a big deal.
Almost certainly they have. Many transgender people actually pass as the gender the identify as, and people wouldn't bat an eye.
The have certainly been some freak-outs about instances of transgender students using locker rooms, sometimes coming from parents and sometimes coming from school boards. But the DoE and DoJ have already been telling schools that they risk violating Title IX if they don't let the students do so. It's just been on an individual basis prior to this.
It's been California state law for several years now, so this isn't exactly uncharted territory.
I think you nailed it.
As many people are aware, in politics one of the first rules it to label or define your opponent. Obama, purposely or not, is forcing the members of congress to takes sides. Once they pick, the labels are going to start flying. I believe this action polarizes and expands this issue needlessly. I've yet to see ANY empirical evidence that indicate transgender folks are having considerable problems using the bathroom with any degree of frequency.
Even if you just considered the facts that transgendered people experience discrimination, for which there is also empirical evidence, that and there is no reason to think there would be _less_ discrimination in a gender-segregated bathroom than elsewhere (and given the emphasis on gender in that situation, every reason to suspect more), that might lead you to thinking it could be an issue.
The Title IX right in question is an individual right. Even if it were the case that only a single person in the entire country would be effected, that person is still guaranteed that right, and the DoJ would still be compelled to issue the same directive.
We comprise our rights all the time for social norms. The label on most segregated bathrooms are discriminatory. I understand the ideological argument in regards to equality and discrimination, but there is some serious issues this raises. I would not be comfortable with a kid in junior high sharing a bathroom with the opposite sex. A kid is not emotionally mature, a kid is impulsive, a kid has dramatic changes occurring that constantly questions their identity and sexuality. These issues are not being projected upon tran-gender kids, this is all kids. It also questions whether or not we should be politicizing where kids go to the bathroom. It's also a matter of the very nature of what trangender is and I'm not sure kids are equipped to understand it. Needless to say, I think there are more variables than just a right to use a bathroom of ones choice.
I went to school with someone who pretended to be gay just to be unique and stand out. There is nothing wrong with that, but when you are making policy decision that can dramatically alter social norms, that can invoke some serious responses, responses a kid should not have to make in junior high school. This will lead to more fights in school.
If a transgender student would prefer to forgo the right to use the bathroom of their gender in order to avoid making a splash, that's certainly their prerogative to make that compromise. However, if a school district is going to compel them to do that, then that's not really a compromise, is it? That's just someone's rights being taken away from them.
Transgender students exist regardless of whether kids are "equipped to understand it". We can't simply close our eyes and pretend they aren't there and don't have rights in order to avoid making students confront the issue. If a school is worried that students are going to have trouble understanding the issues faced by a transgender student, then educate the students on the topic.
You completely ignored my argument, i.e. pragmatism versus ideology. Do you really want to argue that right is inalienable? As I said, I understand the ideological argument and agree people should not be discriminated against, but in the same token, I live in the real world where I and everyone else conform to societal norms despite not necessarily agreeing with them ideologically. You assert freedom to choose a bathroom in junior high is worth all the possible repercussions that will result.
I didn't ignore your argument - I'm saying that I reject the pragmatic tradeoff you propose, because it amounts to simply stripping transgender students of their rights. Pragmatism does not trump rights. That's what makes something a right - if you only get to exercise a "right" when it's the most pragmatic option, then it's not a right at all.
The only thing I can find online regarding freakouts in CA is this-
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-transgender-locker-20160211-story.html
I suppose the problem with this is that transgender people are rare to begin with, and as such there's simply not enough brouhaha over it to become an actual policy issue. It would not be difficult for most schools to accommodate what transgender people are in the district, since private changing rooms and the like were always a thing.
What do you think about students who may be uncomfortable changing clothes in the locker room with transgender individual who haven't transitioned?
The same thing I think about students who are uncomfortable changing clothes in the locker room with individuals of the same gender. It's not invalid to feel uncomfortable, but you can't expect to be able to kick other people out of a room they have just as much of a right to use.
I refute the premise that you can not possibly have a limited right. I would surmise you disagree with all forms of gun control.