“Allowing students to use restrooms, locker rooms and showers that are reserved for students of a different sex will create potential embarrassment, shame, and psychological injury to students,” - Kansas Bills SB 513 and HB 2737So... which of these two causes "psychological injury"?
Like bills proposed in other states, these measures attempt to define “sex” in a narrow way — in this case, “the physical condition of being male or female, which is determined by a person’s chromosomes, and is identified at birth by a person’s anatomy.Because Intersex people not only don't exist, they can't exist. The 1 in 300 men who are not 46,XY, and the 1 in 600 women who aren't 46,XX, they are causes of "shame and embarassment" because... well, just because. And that's worth Big Bucks.
The “Student Physical Privacy Act” would apply not only to public schools, but all public universities in the state as well, guaranteeing that anyone who saw someone transgender in the bathroom could sue their school for $2,500 for every time that it happened.At a minimum, plus court costs and actual damages for "psychological injury".
See http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2016/03/22/3762490/kansas-transgender-ransom-bathrooms/
36 comments:
Zoe,
The answer to the quiz is: the girl who has a penis shouldn't use the girls' bathroom.
It's a fair point that the rule "boys use the boys' room, girls use the girls' room" doesn't necessarily work for the intersex/transexual/have-I-missed-anyone people. What seems needed to me is some kind of accommodation that works well enough for people, rather than to completely break the existing system by issuing edicts (as is being done in the USA) supposedly on behalf of less than 1% of the population. I'm constitutionally opposed to edicts in any case and these ones seem particularly misguided.
It seems reasonable that girls don't want to change in the presence of a person with a penis. Whether it causes "psychological injury" I doubt, but then I doubt it causes injury for a person with a penis to enter the boys changing room if they feel they are a girl. I wouldn't privilege the feelings of the latter over the former, though.
I think it's a very bad idea to insist that one has a "right" to use the girl's bathroom in this situation. So use the disabled (single person) facility. Sure, it's inconvenient - but the idea is to get along without throwing sand in the gears of society, isn't it?
RWDB
"The answer to the quiz is: the girl who has a penis shouldn't use the girls' bathroom."
Which one is that?
As for single stall restrooms - if anyone is uncomfortable sharing a restroom with a black girl, a jewish girl, a trans girl, a patagonian girl etc, then there are indeed single stall facilities they can use. Can being the operative word, they shouldn't be forced to. Bigots have rights too.
Then there's the matter of exactly what is classified as a penis. Does a woman with a 2.5" clitoris due to CAH have a penis? What about a man with a 2.5" microphallus due to PAIS?
Zoe,
I assume the possessor of the penis knows they have one, and should choose accordingly.
My latter comment referred to CHANGING rooms, not TOILETS (whether or not you use the euphemism "restroom").
You seem to be asking for the feelings of the trans/intersex/other person to be taken into account when choosing a "restroom", while demanding the right to ignore the feelings of the other users - nay, calling them "bigots" if they don't like it. That really sounds like what your position is, Zoe. Or maybe you could make a rational argument without the name calling. I know you're very well informed on these issues, but I still don't see that you've thought it through without the emotions relating to trans acceptance affecting your judgement.
I don't see the issue with the micro-penis/CAH sufferers. The woman goes to the girls room, the man goes to the boys room (and presumably uses the stall rather than the urinal, just as many intact males with prostate issues end up doing). Change rooms the same, although there is the issue of embarrassment at revealing a physical deformity I don't see that as an issue of gender determination.
RWDB
Hi RWDB - in answer to your comment, I had to write a post. A long post. The bits that are relevant are the medical articles about the harm such bills do.
The ethical question is - how many kids is it OK to seriously harm or kill so that some others don't get to feel mildly uncomfortable? What's the ratio of acceptable losses? 1 death/injury to 1000 uncomfy? 1 to 10,000? 1 to 100,000?
Remember a large number of those whgo object to Trans and Intersex kids being able to use the same restrooms as Christian kids don't think Trans and Intersex kids are really human, on religious grounds. They see it as all part of a plot to teach Evil-ution, and in extreme cases, a Round Earth.
"We want our kids protected when they go to school, and their Christian values should be allowed to be expressed," parent Anthony Walden told Fox 5.
Anthony Walden , a parent, said allowing transgender students to use the restroom of their choice is part of a "socialist, liberal, godless ideology" that is threatening public education and has forced the teaching of evolution, the removal of Christian prayer, and the introduction of "the homosexual agenda."
However, if they and you think you can intimidate the human race into bowing down to your perverse agenda, you had better guess again. You cannot hide the reality of your condition and motives forever. WE are the human race and you are tolerated only to a point.-- Steven Mark Pilling, Chair of the Harris County TX GOP, on Intersex kids.
Zoe,
I haven't had a chance to read your long(!) post, but I will respond to the issues from that post in those comments.
"Seriously harm or kill"? "Kids"?
Sorry, I don't see how retaining the custom of anatomical males using the boys room and anatomical females using the girls room seriously harms or kills anyone. Possibly you've made this argument elsewhere and I haven't seen it - I'm coming at this from the point of view of government overreach (a major issue for me) as opposed to as a trans issue (a minor one).
I don't care if SOME of those who object don't see trans kids as human. What I care about are the reasons for their objection. I've never heard of that objection being made (and if I did I'd reject it utterly).
Of the two people you quoted: I have a lot of sympathy for the quoted words (a total of 7 words, actually) of Anthony Walden. I don't care for Steven Mark Pilling, who at best is confusing those trying to force people to "bow down to a perverse agenda" with trans kids.
However, I have to AGREE with both of them that there are attempts to force people to "bow down" to an agenda, and I strongly object to this.
Zoe,
I haven't had a chance to read your long(!) post, but I will respond to the issues from that post in those comments.
"Seriously harm or kill"? "Kids"?
Sorry, I don't see how retaining the custom of anatomical males using the boys room and anatomical females using the girls room seriously harms or kills anyone. Possibly you've made this argument elsewhere and I haven't seen it - I'm coming at this from the point of view of government overreach (a major issue for me) as opposed to as a trans issue (a minor one).
I don't care if SOME of those who object don't see trans kids as human. What I care about are the reasons for their objection. I've never heard of that objection being made (and if I did I'd reject it utterly).
Of the two people you quoted: I have a lot of sympathy for the quoted words (a total of 7 words, actually) of Anthony Walden. I don't care for Steven Mark Pilling, who at best is confusing those trying to force people to "bow down to a perverse agenda" with trans kids.
However, I have to AGREE with both of them that there are attempts to force people to "bow down" to an agenda, and I strongly object to this.
Darn it's good to have a discussion with someone rational on this subject. Please go read http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2016/05/a-us-potty-panic-roundup.html and then get back to me either here or in that comments section.
Regarding forcing people to "bow down" to an agenda ,-
In this document, the Education Department does not endorse any particular policy, but offers examples from actual policies to help educators develop policies and practices for their own schools.
Compare with the state legislation that prohibits schools from doing this. Sometimes "to protect the children from danger", sometimes "to protect the children's privacy" - the same argument used for keeping restrooms segregated by race - sometimes "to protect religious liberty". When one argument fails, the next is adopted, which rather suggests that all are pretextual. The fact is, the existence of Trans and especially intersex people makes many uncomfortable. They don't wish to be reminded that they exist, and see nothing wrong with removing the source of their discomfort, legally or through violence at schools. Making sure they're treated as pariahs is an essential part of this.
Zoe,
I'd like to respond to a lot of things you have written, but blog comments aren't really a conducive medium for this so I'm going to restrict myself to a subset.
I'd point out that the state legislation was a response to the Federal "guidelines", and the former would not have occurred without the latter. The only question is, was it an over-reaction? I don't think so.
The guideline actually has a lot of force, in spite of the innocuous language:
School: About that new directive...
Gubmint: No! No, that's not a directive. It's a suggestion.
School: But...
Gubmint: It it were a directive, we are required by law to have a period of public comment and discussion. You don't fundamentally transform the way school bathroom practices have worked for decades without a thorough and public examination of the issues leading to a broad consensus. So it's not a directive, no siree. Just a suggestion. A hint, if you will.
School: So we can ignore it, then.
Gubmint: Of course you can. It's just a suggestion. But, you should be aware that government funding for your school may depend on you not discriminating against anyone for any reason whatsoever.
School: We don't discriminate...
Gubmint: Well, that may be true. But if someone... some activist, say, were to lodge a complaint, then that would need to be determined, wouldn't it?
School: Who decides if we're discriminating?
Gubmint: We do. But if you follow our suggestions, I'm sure you won't have any problems... for now.
This is why many schools will feel FORCED to comply with it even though it (apparently) doesn't have any force behind it.
To give an example of this, recall the "Dear colleague" letter from the Department of Education which has created a Kafka-esque situation in the handling of sexual assaults in colleges. If you're unaware of this, I can look up references - if it doesn't make your blood boil, I'd check your pulse.
You may personally not think those fears are justified (I personally think they are), but on the face of it they're not unreasonable.
RWDB
School: We don't discriminate...
Gubmint: Well, that may be true. But if someone... some activist, say, were to lodge a complaint, then that would need to be determined, wouldn't it?
That's happened a couple of times already - before the guidelines were introduced. The lawyers made out like bandits. The courts made the decisions. Those decisions are reflected in the guidelines.
Without such guidance, the schools could quite justifiably state that they're not legal experts, that their lawyers aren't versed in this area, so have lots of excuses to flout the laws until compelled to obey by court action (followed by stoppage of funds if the court's decision was ignored - as it has been sometimes).
They could also be justifiably aggrieved that no guidance on how to obey the law had been issued, as it had been for discrimination on the basis of race, religion etc.
School: Who decides if we're discriminating?
Gubmint: We do. But if you follow our suggestions, I'm sure you won't have any problems... for now.
So take it to court. As was done in GG vs Gloucester and many other cases dating back to 2007 (yes, under Bush). No schools have ever had their funds cut off unless they didn't follow the court orders (ie acted within the guidelines - which followed, not led, the court decisions, until last year).
'd point out that the state legislation was a response to the Federal "guidelines",
Not even remotely, if by "the legislation" you mean HB2. Its proponents have been quite clear that it was an emergency bill passed on March 23 because of Charlotte's law of Feb 22, due to take effect in April. The guidelines came weeks afterwards on May 13.
See timeline at http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article72170307.html
Other bills in other states have been attempted for the last 20 years, long before the guidelines were issued. 44 in 2015.
Example of how long this has been going on, with attempts to grant Trans and Intersex people equal rights being stymied sometimes by Potty Panic:
New Hampshire must be guard against feeling smug or acting superior. Seven years ago, a bill that would have added transgender people in our state’s nondiscrimination law was turned aside after a diabolically effective campaign branding it a “bathroom bill.”
Zoe,
Okay, I got that wrong about HB2 - it was in response to a local Charlotte ordinance rather than the guidelines. However, my point stands - the legislation was in RESPONSE to a previous attempt to change the existing status quo and would not have happened without the imposed change by local government.
On the guidelines - I am skeptical that it came about as a result of previous court cases. Do you have any references to these?
This is what I am talking about:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/23/the-left-is-now-targeting-christian-schools-in-its-potty-crusades/
No "flouting of the law" because there IS no such law, only a bureaucracy arbitrarily deciding what the law is.
So if you actually want to change the law, do it properly - make a public case, get support, and have it passed in public by representatives. Don't have it imposed by judges or bureaucrats.
RWDB
Oh gosh, where to begin, there are so many... just restrictng it to Title IX cases...
From 2011, 5 years ago..,.
Student v. Arcadia Unified School District
http://www.nclrights.org/cases-and-policy/cases-and-advocacy/student-v-arcadia-unified-school-district/
On October 10, 2011, NCLR filed a complaint on the student’s behalf with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division (DOJ). The complaint alleged that the school district’s treatment of the student constituted sex discrimination in violation of Title IX. On July 24, 2013, OCR and DOJ announced a resolution to NCLR’s complaint. The Resolution Agreement requires the school district to treat the student as male for all purposes and to stop singling him out for different treatment than his male peers. Moreover, the district will revise its policies to state that transgender and gender nonconforming students are entitled to equal access to all of the school’s programs, facilities, and activities. The district will conduct district-wide training with personnel and students. Through this agreement, the federal government has taken an important step to protect young people from harassment and discrimination by clarifying that that Title IX requires schools to treat transgender students in accordance with their gender identity.
There's a list in http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/GG-Amicus-Brief.pdf
Note that under US law, a Federal Court cannot take on a case where the OCR hasn't already ruled that there is a case to answer. It's a pretty steep bar. All available remedies have to be exhausted first before it goes before a Judge.
The key argument is the one adduced in Schroer vs Billington
Trans people are not covered explicitly under the definition of "sex". Males and Females are (via much caselaw).
Conversos - those who convert from Judaism to Christianity - are not explicitly covered under the definition of Religion. Jews and Christians are (via much caselaw).
No-one could reasonably argue that discrimination against those who convert from one faith to another are not being discriminated against on the basis of religion - even if they are not explicitly protected as a separate faith, different from judaism or christianity.
Zoe,
I'm having problems with your comment system - this comment should have appeared last night, it isn't a response to your last 3 ones. I hope to look at your most recent three later this evening.
I'll just paste the text of the missing comment here:
Zoe,
I'm not sure what you meant to show with the snippet pasted about New Hampshire. I honestly don't know what you mean about "granting Trans and Intersex people" equal rights.
As I see it, trans and intersex people - and all people - have the right to be treated as people. But "equal rights"? What do you have in mind?
I have two main points to show where I'm coming from on this.
First is I don't put much store in equality (apart from political equality). I don't put much store in equal treatment (apart from treatment by the government which should treat citizens equally for the most part). I believe that in people are entitled to a certain minimum standard of treatment from others, but not equal treatment. I hope to treat all people fairly, but I will definitely treat members of my family better than strangers.
Second point is perhaps more relevant - I think the harm done by anti-discrimination legislation is greater than the harm it prevents, for a number of reasons. That doesn't mean I deny that well-targetted a-d laws aren't a good idea (e.g. I'd probably agree that discrimination against hiring a trans person should be a civil offence IF such discrimination were sufficiently widespread to be a real problem for many individuals). But the attempt to change by fiat long-standing social practises as what you dismissingly call the "potty wars" seems to me a classic example of coercive overreach.
So if you're going to insist that the principle of anti-discrimination means that anatomical males have a "right" to use the girl's changing room, I'd say junk all the laws and rely on social pressure to police real discrimination. Not a perfect solution, but one with a lot more freedom.
RWDB
Zoe,
This is response to multiple comments relating to court cases.
The case specified is not a court case. It was one decided by bureaucrats (OCR and DoJ). The same ones, more or less, as issued the "guidance" supposedly based on court results.
As it happens, from the details in the first link, I don't think the resolution makes sense. This is my analysis.
I don't see it as a case of discrimination to by resolved by applying a anti-discrimination principle.
Putting aside the reasons for the school’s decisions, they resulted in adverse and unnecessary effects on the student’s education, so the student had a valid complaint. Those issues could and should have been resolved, and there’s no essential problem with an outside agency determining what it should be since the school seemed unwilling to do so. That solution probably should have been, in effect, “permit the student use the boys’ bathroom and changing room”. In other words, a reasonable and practical accommodation to circumstance rather than trying to extract a universal solution based on a tendentious theory of “discrimination”.
It definitely does not give a reason to allow anatomical males to use the girls’ bathroom.
Let me turn that around. IF, as you claim, the principle of anti-discrimination requires that anatomical males be permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, this is a case of reduction ad absurdum. You have actually discredited the principle of anti-discrimination. I’m quite comfortable with that result since as I have said before I don’t support it in general and don’t like the serious negative effects its (mis)application has had including abridging actual freedoms.
RWDB
Long-standing practice has been for Trans and Intersex men to use male restrooms, and Trans and Intersex women to use female ones. Look male? Use a male restroom, with no-one enquiring as to what your birth certificate says, what your chromosomes are, what you looked like at birth, or what your genitals are now.
Recently, there have been objections to that, now that some are aware that Intersex and Trans people exist.
Only about 1/3 of the US had laws in place saying you couldn't fire someone for being Trans, couldn't deny service at a lunch counter to someone for being Intersex, and couldn't throw someone out of a restroom for being Intersex or Trans. It usually wasn't done, but if it was done, there was no law against it.
HB2 now makes the long-standing practice of allowing Trans and Intersex people to use the restrooms appropriate for them illegal. A first in the US. Before, such discrimination wasn't illegal in most places, only about 40%, but wasn't mandatory anywhere. Now it is.
For example, in NC I now have to use a male restroom, regardless of what the medical profession classes me as, or what my OB/Gyn says. Yes, I'm anatomicaly female. So what? HB2 has nothing to do with actual anatomy. It's about sticking it to the Gays (and no, I'm not Gay either).
IF, as you claim, the principle of anti-discrimination requires that anatomical males be permitted to use girls’ bathrooms, this is a case of reduction ad absurdum.
HB2 mandates that anatomical males use female restrooms. Some of them, anyway. Not just Trans and Intersex males, anyone who had a typo on their birth certificate.
That doesn't mean I deny that well-targetted a-d laws aren't a good idea (e.g. I'd probably agree that discrimination against hiring a trans person should be a civil offence IF such discrimination were sufficiently widespread to be a real problem for many individuals).
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/nss-department-injustice-at-every-turn.html
Among the key findings from “Injustice at Every Turn”:
Respondents were nearly four times more likely to live in extreme poverty, with household income of less than $10,000.
Respondents were twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the population as a whole. Half of those surveyed reported experiencing harassment or other mistreatment in the workplace, and one in four were fired because of their gender identity or expression.
While discrimination was pervasive for the entire sample, it was particularly pronounced for people of color. African-American transgender respondents fared far worse than all others in many areas studied.
Housing discrimination was also common. 19% reported being refused a home or apartment and 11% reported being evicted because of their gender identity or expression. One in five respondents experienced homelessness because of their gender identity or expression.
An astonishing 41% of respondents reported attempting suicide, compared to only 1.6% of the general population.
Discrimination in health care and poor health outcomes were frequently experienced by respondents. 19% reported being refused care due to bias against transgender or gender-nonconforming people, with this figure even higher for respondents of color. Respondents also had over four times the national average of HIV infection.
Harassment by law enforcement was reported by 22% of respondents and nearly half were uncomfortable seeking police assistance.
Despite the hardships they often face, transgender and gender non-conforming persons persevere. Over 78% reported feeling more comfortable at work and their performance improving after transitioning, despite the same levels of harassment in the workplace.
What levels of discrimination would you consider acceptable - or rather, tolerable - before saying "enough is enough"?
RWDB - knowing you, I think it's a case that you have no idea just how bad the situation is. It's well outside your personal experience, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Putting aside the reasons for the school’s decisions, they resulted in adverse and unnecessary effects on the student’s education, so the student had a valid complaint. Those issues could and should have been resolved, and there’s no essential problem with an outside agency determining what it should be since the school seemed unwilling to do so. That solution probably should have been, in effect, “permit the student use the boys’ bathroom and changing room”. In other words, a reasonable and practical accommodation to circumstance rather than trying to extract a universal solution based on a tendentious theory of “discrimination”.
Agreed. But what happens if a very great number of schools are not willing to do so? What happens when the vast majority of schools in a state are unwilling to do so, or have been directed by superiors not to do so? This is not an individual problem, it's as systemic a problem as racism.
11 state governments have now directed schools that they are under no circumstances whatsoever to make such individual accomodations. Persecution of Trans and Intersex children is now compulsory, not just permitted.
Yes, it's going to court.
Zoe,
I’m certain that trans persons face many hardships including dislike and even hatred by other people, on top of problems caused directly by their condition (intersex, gender dysphoria, etc.) They have my compassion.
There may be some confusion of cause and effect in your statistics. For example, the high rate of HIV (I doubt the virus discriminates) suggests that a much higher than normal number of trans people are drug users and sex workers, which in itself may explain some of the other statistics. Even if actual discrimination did not exist, those rates would probably still be higher than the population at large.
The existence of discrimination does not of itself justify anti-discrimination legislation (in the private sphere – as I’ve written earlier, government should not discriminate) and where it is justified it should be targeted. If one of of ten potential employers won’t employ a trans person, that’s unpleasant. If nine out of ten won’t do so, that requires action of some kind, targeted at employment (NOT BATHROOMS). Not necessarily outlawing discrimination – there are other options to encourage employment and to familiarise the general population with trans people.
The reason why I consider even targeted anti-discrimination legislation as a last resort, apart from its coercive nature, is it is a very poor solution. Discrimination is vaguely defined and hard to demonstrate. There can be any number of reasons one isn’t employed even if you suspect it is because you are trans, and even if it IS because you are trans, there could be valid commercial reasons. The existence of minorities requires special measures (at my own place of employment, we’ve lost two meeting rooms because of the necessity to provide a room for nursing mothers and an “interfaith” prayer room for you-know-who. I doubt trans people require a special room, but once offered a special status (protected class) there will be some additional overhead.
Then there’s the problem of employers fearing being sued for discrimination. It’s hard to prove but also hard to disprove. Some may try to inoculate themselves by employing the more acceptable trans as a token.
So why is it that the only solution you feel is acceptable entails allowing persons with penises to use the girls’ bathroom? Surely the long term solution is greater acceptance of trans people – I don’t see how you’re going to get that by means of breaking fairly important social institutions.
More to follow…
RWDB
Zoe,
Note that the informal arrangements worked reasonably well. It’s only because rules were introduced there are issues. And the rules were only introduced – in my opinion – because of social engineers tried to introduce “anti-discrimination” by fiat. I doubt it was because legislators suddenly because “aware” of trans people.
So thank those social engineers for the added inconvenience.
I think you’re wrong about people whose birth certificates have a typo not being able to use the usual bathroom. Yes, that’s what the law SAYS but not what the law DOES. They’re not checking birth certificates. As long as a post-op trans person can get their birth certificate updated (which I understand is the case) they are formally okay – but the male perv whom is feared by the population at large (whether or not those fears are justified) will be blocked. Not a perfect solution but it’s WORKABLE and HUMANE.
Those 11 states wouldn’t be “persecuting” trans children if the Feds hadn’t put out their “guidance”. So thank the Feds for that one.
I’m sceptical of claims of systemic racism in the US.
You asked about what if a large number of schools refused to make reasonable accommodations? One solution that I think would work (given the existence of a tribunal empowered to impose a solution on a single school) would be to post a list of all cases determined by the tribunal, with the necessary details and the reasoning applied in all cases. This way schools and students facing these issues would have a fair notion of what is going to be imposed on them IF a complaint is made.
I can hear what you’re thinking – how is this different from the “guidance”? Firstly, it does not assume a one-size-fits-all solution. It’s not attempting social engineering, but trying to find workable arrangements in individual cases. Also each resolution could have a “satisfaction” rating after it was implemented, with comments like “we were afraid that X might happen but there was no problem” would reassure others in similar situations. Finally, it would NOT induce state governments to pass rules banning things because there would be no fear of changes being imposed without consultation.
A point about “going to court”. This is nonsense. The law they’re basing it on is not about trans gender, they are simply trying to re-write it without having to pass legislation properly. Perhaps they can find a judge to go along with it but it won’t be a ruling according to the law, but according to the inclinations of the judge. I see no need to give such a ruling any weight whatsoever.
There is a valid, properly passed law in this area – HB2.
I’m not trying to solve the problems of the Universe, or to find a tidy, formal solution to a messy problem. I’m recognising that people are complicated and that even if I disagree with them it does not mean they are evil and/or stupid.
I’m after things which are workable, humane, and sustainable. I’m deeply concerned that the coercive overreach by governments to attain some state desired by our betters is going to destroy our liberal civilisation.
RWDB
Regarding "large numbers of schools" , - see https://www.texastribune.org/2016/05/26/paxton-shopped-transgender-policy-second-school/comments/
A Texas school serving an unincorporated township of 500 people was pressured to pass a policy just to contradict the guidance, in order to manufacture a case against it. They have no Trans or Intersex students, yet are claiming actual harm ex post facto. It's gotten that silly, with governors directing all schools in the state to discriminate.
You don't have to search for long to see a rash of such cases, Fundie churches up in arms, panicked parents bringing guns to meetings. Statements that any "transgenders" seen using public restrooms will be shot "in self defence". One school even allowing students to carry tear gas to use against them (though they re-thought that after it was pointed out that teachers would be likely victims).
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article76827092.html
Then there's cases like this: http://www.projectq.us/atlanta/trans_students_attacked_as_perverts_in_north_georgia
And this http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Guard-Charged-with-Assault-After-Confronting-Transgender-Woman-Using-Womens-Restroom-380010941.html
It would be impossible to give more than a superficial overview of the deliberately manufactured hysteria to get out the base in a country of nearly 350 million people. The closest analogy is the hysteria in Australia about "boat people" simultaneously taking Australian jobs and also not taking jobs but living on the dole, engaging in terrorist activities etc.
"One solution that I think would work (given the existence of a tribunal empowered to impose a solution on a single school) would be to post a list of all cases determined by the tribunal, with the necessary details and the reasoning applied in all cases. This way schools and students facing these issues would have a fair notion of what is going to be imposed on them IF a complaint is made."
In a country where school boards are elected, many of whom are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, you have to keep things simple. The guidance had exactly such a list in one of its appendices BTW, but when the head of the school board believes that Evil-ution is a lie made in Pit of Hell - quoting a member of the House Science and Technology Committee - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/10/07/republican-on-house-science-committee-evolution-is-a-lie-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell/ - you might be able to see why guidance might be needed.
Regarding HB2 - have you read it? Written, presented to the house and Senate, read, voted on, and signed by the Governor in 11 hours. Removes all rights to sue for discrimination on the basis of race under state law, rights that have existed since the 1980s. Lowers minimum wage statewide, and removes the powers of local governments in many areas. Legalises discrimination against gays and Trans people.
Valid and properly passed? Under Romer vs Evans, that's for Federal courts to decide.
Zoe,
Re-reading this comment thread, I realise I've given quite a misleading impression of my position. I'll just clarify it before commenting further.
I don't think a rule establishing a "right" for Person With Penis (PWP) to use a female bathroom is a good idea. I object very strongly to such a "right" being established by bureaucratic or judicial fiat. I see no problem with trans people of female appearance (pre- or post-op) from doing so.
If you have to have a formal rule specifying who can or can't use the bathroom, then the only feasible one is PWP use the boys room because that at least is objective. My preference, however, is to have no formal rule and generally have cis people use the normal bathroom and trans/intersex people go by appearance.
Don't be offended by me using the word "normal"! YKWIM
So my position here is objecting to the social engineering platform of the Charlotte council and the guidance.
On the Paxton matter - yup, there's your problem. The GUIDANCE. Because of the peculiarities of the US legal system you have to manufacture a complaint in order to object to burueacratic overreach of this nature. Blame the social engineers.
Tear gas (a definite overreaction) is the kind of thing that crops up because the bureaucrats get rid of the normal ways of handing these things by their decisions. If you block the normal pathways then abnormal ones become essential. Blame the social engineers again.
Beatings and harassment are wrong. What else is there to say on that? Maybe official efforts should go to enforcing ACTUAL LAWS against this and towards encouraging acceptance rather than deliberately stirring up antagonism without reason. Be reasonable to others to encourage them to be reasonable towards you. I see no great difference between them calling you "perverts" and you calling them "bigots". You're both being intolerant.
I'd like to hear the guard's side of the story before commenting on the incident of alleged assault. I understand the guard is in fact female, BTW. Is the alleged victim a PWP or not?
OCR is discredited in my view. The "guidance" is based on the idea of enforcing "civil rights" which are imaginary and without any legislative or moral basis. My proposal is based on finding humane, workable and if possible non-coercive solutions to human problems.
No, I haven't read HB2. Yes, it was debated, passed with a majority of legislators who stood up in public and made their arguments (foolish or not as it may be). No obvious problems (i.e. no unnecessary diminution of liberties) in the list of things you disagree with. I think minimum wages are economically insane, I disagree with discrimation being made illegal (doesn't mean I think it's RIGHT) and think such laws cause more harm than good... so what's not to like? Well... I don't like the necessity of putting the birth certificate rule in there, but I blame that on social engineers on the Charlotte council.
Here's the point: I don't believe the government should be in the business of stamping out "discrimination". Giving it that job gives it far too much power to destroy liberty - a cure much, much worse than the disease in current circumstances.
RWDB
For some reason this comment got eaten by Blogger...
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Try this quick quiz...":
Zoe,
Re-reading this comment thread, I realise I've given quite a misleading impression of my position. I'll just clarify it before commenting further.
I don't think a rule establishing a "right" for Person With Penis (PWP) to use a female bathroom is a good idea. I object very strongly to such a "right" being established by bureaucratic or judicial fiat. I see no problem with trans people of female appearance (pre- or post-op) from doing so.
If you have to have a formal rule specifying who can or can't use the bathroom, then the only feasible one is PWP use the boys room because that at least is objective. My preference, however, is to have no formal rule and generally have cis people use the normal bathroom and trans/intersex people go by appearance.
Don't be offended by me using the word "normal"! YKWIM
So my position here is objecting to the social engineering platform of the Charlotte council and the guidance.
On the Paxton matter - yup, there's your problem. The GUIDANCE. Because of the peculiarities of the US legal system you have to manufacture a complaint in order to object to burueacratic overreach of this nature. Blame the social engineers.
Tear gas (a definite overreaction) is the kind of thing that crops up because the bureaucrats get rid of the normal ways of handing these things by their decisions. If you block the normal pathways then abnormal ones become essential. Blame the social engineers again.
Beatings and harassment are wrong. What else is there to say on that? Maybe official efforts should go to enforcing ACTUAL LAWS against this and towards encouraging acceptance rather than deliberately stirring up antagonism without reason. Be reasonable to others to encourage them to be reasonable towards you. I see no great difference between them calling you "perverts" and you calling them "bigots". You're both being intolerant.
I'd like to hear the guard's side of the story before commenting on the incident of alleged assault. I understand the guard is in fact female, BTW. Is the alleged victim a PWP or not?
OCR is discredited in my view. The "guidance" is based on the idea of enforcing "civil rights" which are imaginary and without any legislative or moral basis. My proposal is based on finding humane, workable and if possible non-coercive solutions to human problems.
No, I haven't read HB2. Yes, it was debated, passed with a majority of legislators who stood up in public and made their arguments (foolish or not as it may be). No obvious problems (i.e. no unnecessary diminution of liberties) in the list of things you disagree with. I think minimum wages are economically insane, I disagree with discrimation being made illegal (doesn't mean I think it's RIGHT) and think such laws cause more harm than good... so what's not to like? Well... I don't like the necessity of putting the birth certificate rule in there, but I blame that on social engineers on the Charlotte council.
Here's the point: I don't believe the government should be in the business of stamping out "discrimination". Giving it that job gives it far too much power to destroy liberty - a cure much, much worse than the disease in current circumstances.
RWDB
Regarding the incident with the guard - who is Lesbian BTW, and apparently connevcted with TERFs "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists"
Quote
D.C. police have charged a security guard at a Giant grocery store with simple assault after a transgender woman said the guard forced her out of the women's restroom.
..
She said the officer put her hand on her shoulder and arm, grabbed her and pushed her out of the store.
Belcher said the guard told her, "You guys cannot keep coming in here and using our women's restroom. They did not pass the law yet."
"The Law" was passed in DC in 2006. More fallout from the disinformation campaign accompanying HB2.
While most people don't have problems, some ideological nutters think that unless it's specifically illegal, it's OK to persecute any minority they disapprove of. Hence the need for such legislation.
Even when there is such legislation, and has been for nearly a decade, some still haven't got the word,
Zoe,
I'd never heard of a "TERF" before.
I'd say it only matters to these people because they wish to maintain a sense of victimhood about being female, and that is diluted somewhat if trans women are (who presumably started as male and hence as beneficiaries of patriarchy) are counted as women as well...
Since I see no virtue in victimhood and am skeptical of the concept of social justice in any form, it's an argument with no meaning in my universe.
I don't know what "law" you're referring to from 2006.
I don't see why you blame a law passed in North Carolina for the actions of a guard in Washington DC - and I have no information about this incident apart from the claims of the alleged "victim".
Some more anecdata which you may find of interest:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/435752/most-heartbreaking-post-day-transgender-edition
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender
Anyway, I don't have anything more to add although there are a few loose ends you may care to take up, such as:
1) Why do you think there is a need to change long standing social practices about who uses which bathroom? You suggested not doing so will "seriously harm or kill kids" but didn't say why.
2) Where there any "court cases" on which the "guidelines" were based, or are they simply bureaucratic fiat (as I believe)?
3) In what way do trans and intersex people not have "equal rights"? If you just mean "not covered by anti-discrimination legislation" I would argue that isn't a "right" and that I consider such legislation to be a Bad Idea until proven innocent anyway. Or is there some real "right" that you feel they don't enjoy?
RWDB
Re 2)
See https://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/plylerletter.pdf
Those give the guidelines, and contain extensive references to the court cases that justify them.
Re 1)
Regarding adults, longstanding practice has been not to inquire too closely whether that somewhat manly looking woman in the restroom is a victim of PCOS, a rather butch straight or lesbian, trans, or intersex. This has now been changed by law in one state, NC.
Regarding children. longstanding practice (pre 2000) was for it all to be kept quiet and private when it came to Intersex and Trans kids. This became impossible with increased rigidity of record keeping and growing backlash against same sex marriage, and thus all things nonconformant.
Trans and Intersex kids, and adults, are not new. Remember, oh estimable and esteemed RWDB, I was an Intersex kid in the 60s and 70s. The 60s sucked, I got badly injured. By the time I was 12, in 1970 I'd learnt to keep my head down, and was at a more civilised school anyway.
I don't know what "law" you're referring to from 2006.
There's a few:
Washington D.C. District of Columbia law expressly prohibits discrimination based on "personal appearance" and "disability" in relation to the use of or access to facilities and services. D.C. Code § 2-1402.41 (2001). Gender identity is read into the provision under personal appearance, which covers discrimination based on "outward appearance, irrespective of sex, with regard to bodily condition or characteristics, manner or style of dress." D.C. Code § 2-1401.02 (2001).
See also http://ohr.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ohr/release_content/attachments/10907/OHR%20Transgender%20Fact%20Sheet%204%2011%2007%20%282%29.pdf
The Human Rights Act of 1977 was amended on March 8
, 2006 to add
“gender identity or expression”
to the list of
illegal forms of discrimination, providing legal pr
otection from discrimination for people who are transgender or
transsexual. This protection covers individuals fr
om discrimination in the District regarding employm
ent, hous-
ing, public accommodations, educational institution
s and services or programs of the District of Colum
bia gov-
ernment. The DC Office of Human Rights enforces thi
s protection so that individuals are treated accord
ing to
their gender identity and expression and not their
presumed or assigned sex.
f you just mean "not covered by anti-discrimination legislation" I would argue that isn't a "right" and that I consider such legislation to be a Bad Idea until proven innocent anyway.
A reasonable argument.
For evidence of innocence, see
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2011/02/nss-department-injustice-at-every-turn.html
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/50000-deaths.html
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/rdor-2011.html
http://aebrain.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/transgender-day-of-remembrance-2010.html
etc
And when it comes to Australia.. remember Intersex people had their marriages voided by the 2004 amendments to the marriage act. We are not permitted to be married. Not to anyone, of any sex.
Zoe,
Re: your reference to the "Plyler" letter - that link refers only to children illegally resident in the US, and has nothing to do with bathrooms. Sure that's the one you meant to supply?
About the NC law - I am of the opinion that this was purely a reaction to social engineering by other organs of government (the Charlotte city council and later the OCR/DoJ). The relation to same sex marriage is the same - a simple case of social engineering which people properly object to. Blame the social engineers in these cases.
I was not aware of your troubles in the '60s although if you were visibly different from other boys I'm not surprised. That was over half a century ago. Physical violence THEN does not provide a justification for social engineering NOW. If there is physical violence against children NOW then the correct response is to PUNISH THE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND SHAME THE PERPETRATORS, not to create absurd rules and increase government intrusion where is doesn't belong.
The Human Rights Act (as amended in 2006), if your interpretation is correct, means there is no grounds to prevent any male from using a female restroom because that would be "discrimination on the basis of gender". This is simply ABSURD. My interpretation is that this and similar "anti-discrimination" legislation is incoherent feel-good nonsense because "discrimination" itself is so vague and except in rare cases should not be the purview of government action.
The DC Office of Human Rights appears to be, in my view, simply a nest of bureaucrats whom would do less harm to civilisation if they were unemployed.
Re: anti-discrimination legislation, you provided four links which I scanned but did not read in detail, so if I missed something please point it out.
Two relate to violence against trans people - this is already illegal and do not justify a-d legislation on top of that (and before you mention it, I think the very concept of "hate-crime" is nonsense).
A third apparently refers to the impact of "junk science" relating to transexualism on health outcomes - again, does not justify a-d legislation.
The first link does appear relevant and we have discussed similar statistical disparities before. Some may justify government assistance (NOT government coercion of the rest of the population). Two areas which are plausible candidates for government mandates relating to discrimination are employment and housing - if you can't FIND a job or can't FIND housing because of widespread, possibly some form of TARGETED a-d coercion may be justified.
However - if a-d legislation as a side-effect violates long standing social practices such as boys and girls bathrooms, it is not innocent. It is social engineering and should be terminated.
As for marriage... I've stated my views at length elsewhere so I won't repeat them here. I question your phrasing: "We are not permitted to be married." I think what you mean is "Our unions are not recognised by the government as fulfilling the requirements of marriage as used in many pieces of legislation referring to single people and married couples." Otherwise, what is "not permitted"?
RWDB
I was formulating a reply, when I read Brynn Tanhill's recent article on the subject, which did a far better job than my own efforts.
So please go read it, and the articles it links to.
Zoe,
I've scanned that article but not read any of the links. I read the abstract on suicidality but it only referenced being denied access to bathrooms, not having to use the boys' room instead of the girls room so I did not proceed to the main article.
Two words: facile nonsense.
Slightly longer: a combination of false analogies, special pleading, straw man arguments, appeals to authority (the Southern Poverty Law Center!!) and simple falsehoods which I have already refuted in my previous comments.
If there's an argument there you thinkI haven't given a fair go, by all means put it in your own words and I will give it another look.
RWDB
Post a Comment