Transgender in California can now use the same Bathrooms/Locker Rooms in public schools

I agree with Major's posts in this thread and think there isn't a right answer. I think with larger schools there could be the possibility of doing a mix of gendered and unisex facilities. In fact in many facilities there already are those. This becomes a bigger issue though for smaller facilities.

That said I'm willing to take on your argument.

First as I said before in college I lived in a co-ed dorm that had co-ed bathrooms and didn't have any problems with that. This was more than 20 years ago and at a prominent state university not a small private liberal arts college. Also while traveling have stayed at many hostels that have co-ed bathrooms and haven't noticed problems with those. Further pretty much all of us who grew up with a mother, father, brothers and sisters already experienced unisex bathrooms.

This is about teaching people to respect each other's privacy and boundaries and if we can do that it doesn't matter who is in the bathroom with you.

Also there is a big practical consideration to having unisex bathrooms. I can tell you as an architect that it would be far easier and cheaper if we didn't have to construct separate gender bathrooms. Not having to do so would remove a big constraint on development.

 

Adults & family aren't exactly the same as kids, FWIW.

 

To me, much of the general outcry and consternation over this policy stems from a belief that transgenderism (1) Is a lifestyle choice and (2) Is ripe for abuse.

It just seems outright insane to think that with the massive social stigma attached to transgender people in society today, someone would willingly choose to identify as transgender merely for an advantage in athletics or to use the facilities of the sex opposite their own. There is talk about how it might be abused by someone who is merely “confused,” as if it were only a phase. Look at how incredibly difficult still it is to come out as gay or lesbian for child of school age; at the stories upon stories of the emotional struggle it was to conceal who they truly were, about the yearning to just “be normal” before they accepted who they were. Now take that angst and mental struggle and apply it to a condition that is far, far less accepted and understood, and can’t be easily hidden. Those who are transgender display it in their clothes, in their mannerisms, in their physical appearance. Who in their right mind would put themselves through such an experience if they weren’t completely convinced it was the ONLY thing option?

You’re not going to have teenage boys walking into the girls’ locker room at school while identifying as male everywhere else in their life. I highly doubt it’s a blanket open access policy where anyone can come in, declare they are transgender and use any facility at their leisure. I’m not sure how the policy is actually written, but I would assume that qualifying as a transgender student would require parental notification, psychological assessment, and a true, demonstrated hardship. Most likely, the ones who take advantage of this policy will be the ones who have been psychologically tormented their entire lives by gender dysphorias who want nothing more than to be completely ignored and go about their business.

The ADA gives special accommodations to those with physical and mental disabilities, and has the potential to be gamed by those who milk an anxiety disorder or exaggerate a sprained ankle. Yet we have faith that we can build in sufficient checks to eliminate all but the most dedicated imposters, in exchange for providing immense help to those who truly need it. I believe this policy is in the same vein, and has the potential to help a few students immensely with virtually no effect on those unaffected by it.

 

No matter what, even if it were my son, daughter, mother, father or wife like my quote said ... I'm all for people getting what's fair to them, but just not if it comes at the expense of, or violates what's fair for someone else; especially when it comes to children.


My daughters condition offers her certain perks, such as disabled parking, free parking at hospitals etc. whilst I'm happy that society offers those exceptions for her, I wouldn't want, or even allow her to use her condition to be comfortable if it came at the price of making those around her uncomfortable, or allow her to use her condition to manipulate people into doing something that makes them feel violated, uncomfortable or forced to do it.

Just because someone is kin doesn't make doing the wrong thing right.
Agree?

I'll ask y'all this:

What if some guy in High school who felt that he was more female than male demanded to use the female lockers, change rooms or bathroom and as a consequence young girls were subjected to or exposed to his nudity?

What if this made the young girls in that environment feel uncomfortable? Would they be forced to now wait outside until said transgender is finished, or would the schools have to now build her a separate facility to accommodate her civil right to privacy, & also allow her to feel comfortable when using such facilities?

Would you allow your wife or daughters to use the showers at the gym with men who felt that they were more female than male?

 

The extent of the law goes well beyond retrofitting buildings. It's a law based on non-discrimination. The remedy being practical rather than absolute for this accommodation, in a sense containing a grandfather clause and exceptions due to business size, doesn't preclude it from being a civil rights law. A lot of civil rights aren't absolute.

I agree it's not an easy issue. It's basically the manner in which we recognize gender by hardware rather than software. The skepticism of this being a real condition seems drive fear and paranoia, it's all over this thread.

 

1. My main concern is for the well being and feelings of young women who do not want to share a bathroom or locker with a male, whether he be gay, bi or transgender. See no matter what the 'label' males are still male & females are still females. No female should be put in a position where she is forced to share a toilet, change room or showers with a male.

Do we now take the rights of women away to meet the needs of men who are unsure of there sexuality?

2. Are you saying that being gay, bi, lesbian or transgender is a mental illness that should be covered by the ADA?

 

There also seems to be a misconception that locker rooms are seperated by lifestyle. They aren't. They are separated to keep the exposed dicks from the exposed vaginas. It has nothing to do with grouping those who personally identify with particular gender roles.

Abuse isn't even a concern for me. It's the fact that separate locker rooms that both have exposed male & female parts contradicts the need for even having gender separate rooms in the first place.

I have no problem with transgenderism, but I do have a problem illogical reasoning. There's simply no benefit to being a transgender with a penis in the womens locker room, or with a vagina in the male locker room.

 

My contention is that anyone who qualifies as a transgender student and is willing to put up with the stigma that society puts on these individuals is going to be someone who has already begun transitioning to the degree that you should not consider them as the gender of their birth. A male to female transgender student is not going to be whipping out her equipment and doing helicopters in front of everyone once she gains access to the locker room; she is going to do what every high school student insecure about their body does: get in and out with as few people seeing her as possible.

I bring up the ADA not because I believe that being Gay, Lesbian, Bi or Transgender is a mental disease, but because it is an example of a policy giving specific privileges to a certain set of individuals at the expense of the majority of citizens. It demonstrates how these privileges are reserved specifically for those with debilitating disabilities, and how checks can be inserted into policy to ensure that the underlying condition is real and requires aid and protection. In the same way, I would expect the California transgender policy to carefully screen away most of the imaginary predators you envision, leaving only those who truly identify as the opposite gender.

I just think you overstate the discomfort and unease that women and girls would feel from sharing facilities with a true transgender student. The fact that she's taking off a sports bra and panties, changing into a skirt, minding her own business and identifying as female should matter much more than what someone might glimpse fleetingly between her legs.

 

I see Dingo Jesus has made his triumphant return from the outback.

 

You ask for evidence - I giveth you the phantasmagorical stylings of Ricketman Josh and treetard? What more could you want? If some jackass musing on a basketv
Ball message board about lascivious lying teen transgender terror - not sure what more you need.

Why hath thou forsaken empiricism?

 

aint u heard???
Every little slight is not JUST LIKE BEING BLACK BACK IN THE DAY
Everyone's fight . .. the use the struggle of black people
as a prop
a comparison to give their argument weight

Meanwhile . . . . generally speaking . . they could careless about black people's modern struggle or general wellfare

Rocket River

 

So by your omission, I take it you think all guys would be okay with women in their locker room?

 

How you going mate? It's been a while, hasn't it...but just like a boomerang I keep returning to the D&D...

Who knows? Maybe one day I'll learn my lesson...

 

Can there be any assurance that female or male students won't be exposed to the genitalia of the opposite sex? If not then that defeats the purpose of having gender based bathrooms or lockers in the first place. All lockers should then be unisex if you believe that there is nothing wrong with members of the opposite sex changing, showering or relieving themselves in front of each other.

There is a reason why there are classifications on movies and censorship. There is a reason why ladies can't walk down the street topless & why Clutch uses a spoiler for NSFW & won't allow full nudity posted in the forums.... young eyes should be protected from being exposed to 'rude bits' until sex ed or the parents choose to teach their children about the birds @ the bees. That's why indecent exposure is still a crime.

Ludicrous. A Shameful comment mate. People with disabilities are usually at a disadvantage, that is why there are certain allowances made in order for those that have a physical or mental impairment to better function & fit into society. Any argument to justify your comment or equate that the little perks of a disabled toilet or parking space that people like My daughter who has lost her inner ear, has little energy after chemo or radiation treatments & who gets dizzy spells when walking or someone who is crippled or suffers from mental r****dation having their needs met to make their difficult life a little easier to some transgender wanting to use the dressing room & toilets of the other sex to make them feel better is disgraceful.



And it's not just about 'the predators', they will find their way into a Locker room if that's what they want to do. It is specifically about the students right, whether they be male or female, to get changed, shower, poop or pee without a member of the opposite sex there! It's called common decency & privacy. There are things they don't need or want to see & things that they don't want or need to be seen.

I think you understate the discomfort and unease that a young girl taking off a sports bra and panties, changing into a skirt in her locker room would feel, with a male present...even if said male thinks he is a girl.


Easy solution is either make all lockers & toilets unisex or specify a unisex toilet.


The sporting decision is even more absurd...smh.

 

True it isn't exactly the same but just pointing out that pretty much all of us share bathrooms with other genders. This means there isn't anything innate about having gender segregated bathrooms.

 

I've seen pics you've posted of your daughter who is very lovely but there are people who are uncomfortable around cancer patients especially ones dealing with the physical changes brought on by chemotherapy. What if you were out at the park and another parent said they were uncomfortable having your daughter playing with there would you take your daughter away just to make that parent comfortable?

My GF is friends with a few pre and post op transgendered so yes I am fine with them in that case since it is has already happened. I don't have kids but just anecdotal at the gym I train at, which is part of the University of Minnesota system, they do allow parents to bring young children into opposite gendered restaurants, I've seen young girls in the mens' locker room while men are changing and showering.

 

There was nothing regarding 'icky' or any mention of the 'icky factir' in my comments. I in no way degraded or ridiculed any member of the Gay, bi, lesbian or transgender community.

The only thing icky about this discussion is that some people in the group are all FOR allowing young men to use female toilet & change room facilities!

 

This is a tough one, and there may be no solution that's reasonable to everyone.

I think the public school system in California is going to become lawsuit city in the near future. This law will be challenged.

 

I maintain it's not too tough, and here's why. (And I type this having known a few people who were/are transgender.)

They are generally the most self-conscious person in the equation and definitely aren't looking forward, with excitement, to using a different bathroom. In part for this reason, and in part for simple reasons of engineering and pragmatism, the transgender person will 99.9% of the time use a stall. Who will even know (unless she/he has a "wide stance") what gear she/he is utilizing in there anyway?

Locker rooms are definitely more the tricky part, I guess, but locker rooms are already totally awkward, IMHO.

Dear locker room guy who has to whistle because he's so uncomfortable being around other naked guys: like, you're not fooling anyone and you're just being annoying.

 

Except, again, this law has already been in place in LA (for a decade!) and SF. Have you heard about any lawsuits or controversy over it? Why not look at the actual history of it instead of projecting how you think it will play out? The latter is useful when coming up with new ideas - but not so much when you have actual real world evidence already available to look at.