Awkward work situation

[Scarlett]

But if you get to choose a hill, then so do others. And while agree with Albeto that I don't believe you'd resort to violence, the same isn't true for everyone who holds a religious belief. When someone feels their hill to die on is worth taking out others, we call them extremists, especially if they practice a minority religion. So where does it stop? You get to decide what hill to die on. Who else gets that freedom? How do we choose between people we think will hold their ground peacefully and those we aren't sure of. Do you see how this can get out of hand?

 

Most laws of the land, btw, are to protect minorities. The Founding Fathers said as much.

 

 

Where it stops is up to each individual and the people who make laws.

 

And I believe the law of this land already has laws in place to address physical violence against another.

[Kerileanne99]

It turns out this question is once again in the news: SD just passed a bill to ban students from using bathrooms that ' don't agree with their chromosomes and birth gender.'

 

Note the word and. Really people.

The article uses the hypothetical example of 'do you really want 13 year old boys to see you 13 yo girl's anatomy?'

Because I am sure there will be a long line of 13 yo boys so desperate to see the inside of a girl's bathroom that they will put themselves through the emotional, psychological, social, and physical torture that Transgendered individuals must endure...

http://time.com/4226737/south-dakota-senate-transgender-bathroom-bill/

[FaithManor]

That article! Yikes! How stupid can law makers get and still hold on to their jobs??? Apparently the bar has been set even lower.

 

 

Total ignorance.

 

And of course this indicates I guess that hermaphrodite children whose genitalia does not match their chromosomes due to chromosomal anomaly must never use the bathroom????

 

Some days...ya...time for my beach hut in Fiji or Tahiti. Maybe Barbados.

[Lanny]

These are awkward situations and there is no solution that everyone will be pleased with or comfortable with. This article shows what the South Dakota Legislature sent to the Governor, with regard to Public Schools there:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/transgender-bathroom-bill-passes-through-south-dakota-legislature.html?intcmp=hplnws

[poppy]

Writing discrimination into the law, how does anyone think that's a great idea? 

[bibiche]

Writing discrimination into the law, how does anyone think that's a great idea?

But it's to protect the children from those twisted individuals who don't know what they are! To protect the children!

 

FFS. Why not just grab pitchforks, hunt them down and burn them at the stake. The ignorance and intolerance of people never ceases to amaze me.

[bolt.]

It turns out this question is once again in the news: SD just passed a bill to ban students from using bathrooms that ' don't agree with their chromosomes and birth gender.'

 

Note the word and. Really people.

The article uses the hypothetical example of 'do you really want 13 year old boys to see you 13 yo girl's anatomy?'

Because I am sure there will be a long line of 13 yo boys so desperate to see the inside of a girl's bathroom that they will put themselves through the emotional, psychological, social, and physical torture that Transgendered individuals must endure...

http://time.com/4226737/south-dakota-senate-transgender-bathroom-bill/

Do they realize that this obligates their school system to chromazone test all students, and (and!) somehow find a way to determine the gender of a newborn (edit: my mistake; the article does say 'anatomy' at birth) and gather testimony from reputable individuals who were present at the birth?

 

The first sounds expensive.

 

The second sounds impossible-as-stated ("birth sex" is a thing, "birth gender" is not). If adjusted to refer to a child's "birth sex" / "anatomy at birth" -- it still requires testimony from someone present at the birth, other than parents. (Some parents can be expected to "lie" by affirming that a transgender child actually is the gender they say they are -- because at least a few parents can be expected to be supportive.) Another option could be "present anatomy" -- but again, all students would have to be genital-checked (by who?) and testimony registered for each student... And there's the question of frequency of these checks.

 

And what if the chromosones and the visual check disagree? Or if either of both criteria are inconclusive. Do they really create "inconclusive" bathrooms and require selected students to use those, and be banned from all others?

 

Are there seriously no privacy laws of human rights et play here?

Edited February 17, 2016 by bolt.

[justasque]

These are awkward situations and there is no solution that everyone will be pleased with or comfortable with. This article shows what the South Dakota Legislature sent to the Governor, with regard to Public Schools there:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/17/transgender-bathroom-bill-passes-through-south-dakota-legislature.html?intcmp=hplnws

 

Just because something feels awkward, doesn't mean we have to avoid it, especially if we know that it's the right thing to do.  Doing the right thing isn't always easy or comfortable.  Most grown-ups are capable of handling situations where they feel awkward with grace, especially when they know that doing so will help another person who is feeling much, much more awkward.

 

...The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he'd need to study it more before making a decision.

 

 

I am glad to hear the Governor is realizing that he may need to study this issue.  It is one that benefits from listening closely to the testimony of those most affected by it.

 

Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to "preserve the innocence of our young people." ... 

"I'm sorry if you're so twisted you don't know who you are," Omdahl said at a recent event when asked about the bill. "I'm telling you right now, it's about protecting the kids, and I don't even understand where our society is these days."

 

 

Sen. Omdahl may wish to follow the leadership of the Governor, and take some time to study the issue before commenting further, as his comments make it clear that he has much to learn.  

 

[Kerileanne99]

Writing discrimination into the law, how does anyone think that's a great idea?

No joke!

Seriously. My SIX year old heard her daddy and I talking about this this morning, and exclaimed "but mom! They can't do that! It is just like discrimination and segregation and Martin Luther King Jr.!" With a huge look of disgust.

 

How can anyone think that is okay, or even legal?

[Lady Florida.]

Writing discrimination into the law, how does anyone think that's a great idea? 

 

The sad thing is, they were elected by the people of South Dakota. The bigotry goes well beyond the walls of their state capitol.

 

ETA: I'm not picking on SD. My own state is trying to write discrimination into state law as well.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Lady Florida

[creekland]

I have not read any of the school articles because I'm on break and have just a little time left.

 

I can say it wouldn't surprise me if high school boys used the excuse of "whichever bathroom they wanted" when there was no need, so some safeguards would have to be in place.  We like to think kids are adults, but... well... they're kids and hormones are running at the high school age.  No teacher or admin knows ALL the kids in a school by sight in order to be able to control anything.

 

That said, as I think about it... I let kids go to the bathroom and never follow up on which bathroom they are using, so technically they could use whichever bathroom they wanted now.  The difference, of course, would be that some gal could get them in trouble if they chose the wrong one.  (Could is chosen as I'm not sure all gals would.)

 

I think the future for our country really needs to be in open to all closed door restrooms.  Problem eliminated.  But to get there... there are definitely things to think about.

[Paige]

.

 

Nope!! I was responding to the lengthy message speaking of Christians having no right to disobey laws that go against their conscience!!

 

Nobody has a right to disobey laws....they wouldn't be laws if that were true, but rather suggestions. Christians, and people of all religions, have the personal freedom to disobey laws if they wish, but they should also understand that it may mean accepting the legal consequences. 

 

There are no "conscience" exceptions for laws unless the law was written with the exceptions spelled out ahead of time. 

 

I think what the PP was suggesting was that it is difficult to say that some people's actions in defying the law are brave and noble and others' are crazy and fanatical. I think we can all agree that it's true- we'd all break laws for some things and condemn others for breaking laws for other reasons, but we can't codify it and it's a messy, gray area in many cases. 

 

One person's hero is another's terrorist or bigot and it goes in all directions.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Paige

[Tanaqui]

I can say it wouldn't surprise me if high school boys used the excuse of "whichever bathroom they wanted" when there was no need, so some safeguards would have to be in place.

 

The same teenage boys who panic when exposed to menstrual products? (Unless teenagers are way more mature than they were when I was a kid, because I have stories like that as well.) I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And when I do see it, I know *they* won't be seeing *anything*, because there is simply nothing to see. Unless your public school bathrooms don't have doors on the stalls, which I know is a thing in some schools, but if so they really need to get over themselves and fix that.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Tanaqui

[goldberry]

If they really wanted to protect "the innocence of the children" they'd be homeschooling. ;)

 

Maybe they should stop all the heterosexual guys that yell "Hey baby suck my --- " when girls walk down the halls.  

[zoobie]

Teenagers pushing boundaries and being pranksters is not what the bill contemplates or should contemplate. There's always a guy dared to go in the girls' room or vice versa. Surely high schools aren't asking the legislature to criminalize other school discipline issues. How many actual transgender students does South Dakota have, and why on earth do they think criminalizing restroom usage is the correct way to deal with this issue? It's fear mongering and pandering like the hyping up of the Imminent Danger Posed by Refugees. The people being harmed by this and similar laws are not the general public, unless you consider the effects of codifying ignorance.

[December]

So is there any way to word the laws to allow transgendered people to use the appropriate bathroom while not allowing cis men who think they are being really clever by going into the women's bathroom and claiming that they just decided 5 minutes ago to switch their gender to female?  It appears something like that just happened in a locker room in Seattle.

[goldberry]

So is there any way to word the laws to allow transgendered people to use the appropriate bathroom while not allowing cis men who think they are being really clever by going into the women's bathroom and claiming that they just decided 5 minutes ago to switch their gender to female?  It appears something like that just happened in a locker room in Seattle.

 

It seems like it wouldn't be a big deal for a transgendered person to meet with the school counselor, so the admin would be aware of the situation.

[Tanaqui]

So is there any way to word the laws to allow transgendered people to use the appropriate bathroom while not allowing cis men who think they are being really clever by going into the women's bathroom and claiming that they just decided 5 minutes ago to switch their gender to female?  It appears something like that just happened in a locker room in Seattle.

 

When one is out as transgender one generally has some documentation of this fact. There are transgender people who are in the closet, but they're not likely to suddenly decide to enter the other bathroom for lulz.

[Guest]

When one is out as transgender one generally has some documentation of this fact. There are transgender people who are in the closet, but they're not likely to suddenly decide to enter the other bathroom for lulz.

So what's your solution to preventing abuse of these policies? Or do we just need to ignore any issues for the sake of 'progress'?

[happi duck]

People who identify and live as female should use the women's room and vice versa.

 

In a school setting I would think a student would not choose changing bathrooms as a first step. Someone pulling a prank is not going to start living as another gender just to get away with something.

[Tanaqui]

So what's your solution to preventing abuse of these policies? Or do we just need to ignore any issues for the sake of 'progress'?

 

I don't think there's any widespread "abuse of these policies", nor do I think there's likely to be any. Furthermore, I think that so long as private business is primarily conducted in stalls with doors then any attempted "abuse" is likely going to be dead on the water. If you think it's so thrilling to hang about in a public bathroom, knock yourself out, y'know, but I'm just gonna lock my stall door and do my business in relative privacy.

 

I don't spend my life coming up with solutions for things that aren't real problems.

[justasque]

So is there any way to word the laws to allow transgendered people to use the appropriate bathroom while not allowing cis men who think they are being really clever by going into the women's bathroom and claiming that they just decided 5 minutes ago to switch their gender to female?  It appears something like that just happened in a locker room in Seattle.

 

I think wise school administrators can tell the difference between an actual transgendered student (who is likely to have an IEP and a long history of other forms of documentation) from a student who is playing a prank.  

 

We've come this far without bathroom laws.  Do we really want using the wrong bathroom to be a criminal offense?  With all the lawyers, and court time, and so forth that would entail?  For juveniles?  In cases where someone did more than just enter the bathroom, existing laws like indecent exposure or assault would come into play.  Trying to enact laws to cover complicated situations that are likely best handled at the local level is not always the best way to go.  Especially when those laws are created by people who appear to have zero understanding of the very real people who would be affected by such laws.

[goldberry]

So what's your solution to preventing abuse of these policies? Or do we just need to ignore any issues for the sake of 'progress'?

 

The same way any other policy violation is treated.  If you are using the opposite sex bathroom but the admin is not aware of a specific situation with you, then you get whatever kids get - detention, whatever.

[justasque]

So what's your solution to preventing abuse of these policies? Or do we just need to ignore any issues for the sake of 'progress'?

 

A school policy that covers it should do the trick.  "Students are expected to use the bathroom that corresponds with their lived gender.  In cases where a student's situation is more complex, or a student is transitioning to the opposite gender, the student is expected to contact their guidance counselor to develop an accommodation plan.  Consequences for students not complying with this policy will be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances."

 

One could argue, of course, that consequences should be the same regardless of circumstances, but that goes down the zero-tolerance road, which is problematic in itself.  I am sure it would be easy to come up with language that says, in essence, "if you're pranking, you get a detention, if you're bullied into it, the bullies get a detention, if you're experiencing serious gender issues, you get a referral to counseling and an accommodation plan meeting to which we will invite your parents."  

[happi duck]

I think issues arise when someone is known before and after transition. I really do believe that as a society we need to get over it. No laws, no seeking permission etc. Use the bathroom that matches how you live.

 

Bathroom laws in schools, imo, will perpetuate all the problems. It will start in schools and get to workplaces as people who grow up thinking the anatomy of others is their business enter the workforce.

 

If someone changes schools after transitioning what do they do? They are only known as a boy but to use the boys room would break that law. If someone finds out the law gives them ammo to be a jerk.

[justasque]

Here is the text of the South Dakota bill:
 

AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    

Section 1. That chapter 13-24 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    The term, biological sex, as used in this Act, means the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth.
    

Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.
    

Section 3. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

    If any student asserts that the student's gender is different from the student's biological sex, and if the student's parent or guardian consents to that assertion in writing to a public school administrator, or if the student is an adult or an emancipated minor and makes the assertion in writing to a public school administrator, the student shall be provided with a reasonable accommodation. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impose an undue hardship on a school district. A reasonable accommodation may not include the use of student restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms designated for use by students of the opposite biological sex if students of the opposite biological sex are present or could be present. A reasonable accommodation may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty. The requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation pursuant to this section does not apply to any nonpublic school entity.

 

[Ravin]

What is the right answer here? This is a real situation happening to someone I know.

 

The workplace is a small law office with about 50 people. There are 2 floors. Each floor has a men's room and a woman's room. They do not own the building so they can not alter it.

 

An employee of about 5 years is transitioning from female to male. He would like to start using the men's room. Several men are uncomfortable with this. Normally, I'd say "get over it" but I see their point. This is a person they have worked with and known as a female and now they are supposed to share a restroom. It is uncomfortable.

 

What says the Hive??

 

Just saw this thread. My vote is for the men to "Get over it." For Pete's sake, it's a men's room. People generally go in there, do their business, and leave. Etiquette means you don't stand around watching other people pee. There is nothing uncomfortable about it. Any guy dismayed by the thought of the trans guy walking in while they're using the urinal can use a stall. Most likely the trans guy will use a stall (unless he's gotten really good with an STP).

 

Furthermore, if he keeps using the women's, and he's started hormone treatments, it will gradually get to the point where he's going to make women in THAT restroom uncomfortable. I personally made the switch after the second time I had to tell a visitor to the law school where I was a student at the time that no, she was in the correct restroom. I did go through a period where I stuck to the one unisex restroom or used the women's (and then the men's) in the basement which was less frequented.

 

The right answer is for people in a law office to act like professionals and get over themselves.

[Ravin]

Because they are actually men and it is a men's restroom. She is and will always be a female. I would feel the same if a man wanted to come into a woman's restroom.

 

This is why: http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2015/03/17/trans-man-behind-wejustneedtopee-isnt-selfie-centered

 

Google "transman in women's restroom selfie" and I'm sure you will see more examples.

 

If I walked into a restroom where you were coming out of the stall, I would startle you and make you uncomfortable. Men who don't know my history would not notice anything amiss in my walking into the men's and using a stall.

[Ravin]

I think women's restrooms are easier for cis women and trans women to share, because everyone uses stalls. In the men's room, I see exposure during urinal use as a more legit discomfort than women worrying about sharing the space where they wash their hands.

 

However, since exposure while using a urinal is optional, I can't really regard either case as anything more than an emotional response to a new reality.

 

Men's room etiquette 101: Though shalt not watch other men pee.

 

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, except maybe a very young child, is going to look at another male while they are peeing at the urinal. The trans guy will either walk past them and go use the stall, or, if he's VERY good with an STP, will use the urinal with the expectation that no one will be watching him, either.

[Ravin]

No one is making a fuss. It is just an issue that has come up. It is a small office.

 

Saying "get over it" is disrespectful. We have seperate gender restrooms because that is where people want privacy from the opposite sex. Seeing Sophia as Steve will take time to accept.

 

My suggestion was that they ask the owner to put a lock on the bathroom. Or some kind of door stop. If you are uncomfortable, lock the door. There is a bathroom on the other floor.

 

That acceptance comes faster when people have to pee. No one should be locked out of a restroom with multiple stalls/urinals when just one person is using the facility. That's ridiculous.

[Ravin]

I think the person should be able to use the restroom once they have had surgery and are completely in their new identity, but not a second sooner.  I don't want men in the women's room, but if they have *completely* made the transition, then I am fine with it.  I think the transgendered person's feelings are important, but so are the feelings of everyone else who is using that restroom.  Theirs aren't the only feelings that should be taken into consideration.

 

You clearly don't know much about transition. Most trans men are on hormones for several years before pursuing surgery, and when they get surgery, it's usually just chest reconstruction because female to male GRS is 1. Extremely expensive and not covered by insurance, 2. Risky, and 3. Not always medically necessary depending on the individual's degree of gender dysphoria.

 

And a few years of testosterone results in most guys looking, well, like guys. As in, see them walking down the street and you aren't going to know they weren't born male because people don't walk down the street showing their genitals. Likewise if they walk into the restroom. 

[Lady Florida.]

No joke!

Seriously. My SIX year old heard her daddy and I talking about this this morning, and exclaimed "but mom! They can't do that! It is just like discrimination and segregation and Martin Luther King Jr.!" With a huge look of disgust.

 

How can anyone think that is okay, or even legal?

 

I have confidence that the up and coming generations will eliminate this kind of discrimination. Both my son's generation of newly minted adults and the ones after him like your six year old and my grandsons will not tolerate it. 

 

As was suggested earlier in the thread (and I think on a different thread), some years from now people will look back and be shocked at the discrimination that took place. Sadly, that future acceptance doesn't help any of today's trans people, or anyone in the LGBTQ community.

[Ravin]

I'm pretty conservative, I'm not saying it's all about the transitioning person.  I'm just wondering what is so sacred about the men's room.  Even if a woman had to go in there for some reason, I don't see what the big deal is.  Honestly.

 

I fully admit to having different feelings if the genders were reversed.  The reason being that (mainly in the case of strangers in public places) there is some risk that a biological male in the ladies' room is a physical danger to the women in there.  Still, in a work situation where everyone knows everyone, I would get over it.  It would probably be weird at first, but not so weird that I would file a complaint or anything like that.

 

If I personally could not deal with the possibility of a known trans person using the restroom s/he identifies with, I would go to another floor to use the facilities.

 

There are many, many more examples out there of trans women being subjected to violence while using a restroom than of trans women doing anything to anyone while in the women's restroom. Safety is a very real concern around restrooms for transgender people--and a red herring when raised by cis people.

[Ravin]

If it's not too off topic, I'd like to ask about the idea of 'having different feelings if the genders were reversed' -- particularly in public settings.

 

I think I hear you saying that while any person is capable of common assault, that a person with male anatomy has (by definition) the anatomy required to perpetrate sexual assault. So, I think this means that you experience the current impression that a women's washroom is a place where common assault is possible, but safe from male-anatomy sexual assault, by virtue of being (obstensibly) free from male anatomy.

 

While I agree that, logically, the absence of male anatomy of course makes male-anatomy sexual assault impossible... I just don't see that the mere presence of male anatomy makes sexual assault terribly likely. We spend most of our time around plenty of male people, and do not find ourselves afraid that their anatomy makes them dangerous.

 

In the same way that we simultaneously know that the women in our washrooms conceivably *could* beat us up, kidnap our children, or rob us, and leave us injured and alone in the washroom to wait for help... Yet we manage to believe that most of them probably won't... I think we can do that for trans women (and their male anatomy) too.

 

If we find that difficult, we might ask ourselves why male anatomy is more threatening in a washroom than it is elsewhere, or why the male anatomy of a trans woman is more threatening than the male anatomy of a cis man.

 

Sexual assault, BY DEFINITION, does not require possessing any particular anatomy. Even rape generally is defined in a manner which could be perpetrated by or against someone regardless of the perpetrator's anatomy. A person of either biological sex/gender can commit a sexual assault against a person of any other biological sex/gender.

 

IF anything, the male anatomy of a trans woman ought to be viewed as less threatening, as even pre-op they usually take female hormones in combination with suppressants for male hormones, which have a variety of effects, one of which is making them much less likely to behave (or be able to behave) in a sexually aggressive manner.

 

You make very good points about mere presence not really making something terribly likely.

[bolt.]

 

Here is the text of the South Dakota bill:

AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to restrict access to certain restrooms and locker rooms in public schools.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. That chapter 13-24 be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

The term, biological sex, as used in this Act, means the physical condition of being male or female as determined by a person's chromosomes and anatomy as identified at birth.

Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Every restroom, locker room, and shower room located in a public elementary or secondary school that is designated for student use and is accessible by multiple students at the same time shall be designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex. In addition, any public school student participating in a school sponsored activity off school premises which includes being in a state of undress in the presence of other students shall use those rooms designated for and used only by students of the same biological sex.

Section 3. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

If any student asserts that the student's gender is different from the student's biological sex, and if the student's parent or guardian consents to that assertion in writing to a public school administrator, or if the student is an adult or an emancipated minor and makes the assertion in writing to a public school administrator, the student shall be provided with a reasonable accommodation. A reasonable accommodation is one that does not impose an undue hardship on a school district. A reasonable accommodation may not include the use of student restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms designated for use by students of the opposite biological sex if students of the opposite biological sex are present or could be present. A reasonable accommodation may include a single-occupancy restroom, a unisex restroom, or the controlled use of a restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for use by faculty. The requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation pursuant to this section does not apply to any nonpublic school entity.

In other words: No trans boys in boys rooms. No trans girls in girls rooms. Make "reasonable accommodations" for people who make formal assertions about their gender, but not too expensive = expect port-a-potties.

 

Honestly, do they really think nobody knows how to lie about their so-called biological sex? How is a "assertion" about one's biological sex any more trustworthy than an "assertion" about one's gender? How can either assertion be verified unless it is disclosed? And why isn't information about the biological sex of a minor covered by privacy legislation?

 

It's the easiest thing in the world for a transitioning person to say, "I used to present as X, but it wasn't true. I'm actually a Y." (What about your biological sex) "I don't think any meaningful information can be gained from my anatomy." A supportive doctor can easily write a note confirming that, "No conclusive information about gender can be gained from (whoever's) anatomy at this time." <- Because that's completely true about everyone. It only says that gender doesn't depend on anatomy, no matter what the anatomy might be. A trans person should be seeing a doctor that believes that.

[Ravin]

I would bring in a port a potty and have the transitioner use that until the transition is complete. It is not the men's fault that the woman is transitioning. Therefore, their majority should not have to be uncomfortable. The transitioner should get over it, not them. Once she is fully transitioned, then the rest of them can get over it as HE would rightly be in the men's restroom.

 

This is another sentiment which shows that you have no idea what "fully transitioned" necessarily means. And if there's going to be a portapottie, how about the "uncomfortable" person use it? Why does it have to be the transitioner? The man just wants to pee, he shouldn't be singled out--nor should the company have to fork over $$ to pay for such a ridiculous "accommodation."

[bolt.]

Sexual assault, BY DEFINITION, does not require possessing any particular anatomy. Even rape generally is defined in a manner which could be perpetrated by or against someone regardless of the perpetrator's anatomy. A person of either biological sex/gender can commit a sexual assault against a person of any other biological sex/gender.

 

IF anything, the male anatomy of a trans woman ought to be viewed as less threatening, as even pre-op they usually take female hormones in combination with suppressants for male hormones, which have a variety of effects, one of which is making them much less likely to behave (or be able to behave) in a sexually aggressive manner.

 

You make very good points about mere presence not really making something terribly likely.

I was trying to focus on the perceived threat of penis-based rape, without excluding the possibility of sexual assault not involving a penis. I was dancing a bit because I don't want to write penis, penis, penis, all over the board and get us spammed -- and I didn't want to distract from the line of logic I was following (that people seem to fear penisis unreasonably and inconsistently).

[Ravin]

Wow. So much intolerance. There is a great show on amazon that explores transgender issues, Transparent. A little risqué, but a very good show.

 

:lol: I think a show like that might make some people's heads explode. To get some PG rated education, try watching that reality show with the girl who wrote that kid's book. "I Am Jazz" on TLC.

[Ravin]

Taking the political correctness out of the conversation: I don't understand why several men have to be uncomfortable so that one transitioning person can be comfortable. Why can't the transitioning person just use the bathroom that has always been used?

 

And I don't mean that rudely. If I were in this person's place I would be attempting to assist others in feeling comfortable with my choice (within limits of course). This person wants to be real and authentic, but so do the men. They're people too.

 

People will adjust over time. My dad worked in San Fran forever and initially was not cool with gay people. Then he started going to funeral after funeral of his coworkers who'd died from AIDS. His position changed 180.

 

Compassion towards everyone -- including the men who don't quite gets what's happening -- is the way to help smooth this situation's wrinkles.

 

Alley

 

If the guy is on testosterone (highly likely), it's only a matter of time before he makes more than a few women uncomfortable with his continued presence in the women's. Including (especially) those who don't work there and don't know him, such as clients.

 

Scaring away clients would not be a smart move for a law firm.

[Ravin]

Your pity for people who are not like the majority is so incredibly insulting I don't even know where to start.

 

Aberration, freak, whatever you want to call it: I don't feel sorry for people who are not normal or typical except that statements like yours could be taken personally. In other words, the only pitiable thing about their situation in many cases is that they have to deal with statements like yours.

 

Think about that for a bit. You are the reason their life is so difficult. It's not the difference, it's the lack of love. There is nothing to pity but the fact that you pity them.

 

Maybe they love themselves. Maybe they are happy. Maybe they don't give a flying fart at a rolling donut whether or not the fact that they are not typical, makes other people uncomfortable because they don't place a high value on "make the majority comfortable" but instead have values like, oh, I don't know...

 

LOVE.

 

(And no, love is not "not being who I am so you don't have to deal with diversity" because then you have to love others by hating yourself. And that is not okay. Love in this situation is celebrating every last person and if something squeeges you out, just use the stall!)

 

Tsuga, you would have made me cry, before testosterone. Seriously, this is brilliant and THANK YOU.

[Ravin]

Tsuga, I have to be quick. I was discussing this with my husband and although he agrees with me, he said that abberation was not a kind word to use and gave me a good example to demonstrate that. He is right. I apologize for not being kind and will change the post. I do not apologize for having sympathy for people who struggle (if, in fact, they do).

 

Speaking from a religious point of view, I do not believe it is at all loving to encourage people in the direction of possible sin, whether they feel happy in their life or not.

 

And, no, I take no responsibility for anyone's life being difficult, if I don't even know them. I would be as kind to a transgender person as to anyone else. If they asked for my opinion, I would give it.

 

Good night!

 

Okay, it's off topic but how the heck is being transgender a SIN? Please, spell that out for us.

[creekland]

The same teenage boys who panic when exposed to menstrual products? (Unless teenagers are way more mature than they were when I was a kid, because I have stories like that as well.) I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And when I do see it, I know *they* won't be seeing *anything*, because there is simply nothing to see. Unless your public school bathrooms don't have doors on the stalls, which I know is a thing in some schools, but if so they really need to get over themselves and fix that.

 

You and I weren't thinking along the same lines for what's going on.  I was contemplating a guy and a gal purposely heading into one or the other bathrooms together for some alone time.  If kids can use whichever restroom they want, this wouldn't raise too many flags.  With things the way they are, anyone seeing this is going to intervene.

 

I love the idea of any Peeping Tom heading into a gal's restroom seeing more than he bargained for though!   :lol:

 

 

 Someone pulling a prank is not going to start living as another gender just to get away with something.

 

I agree.  But in a school with 1300+ students, it really is impossible to truly know them all.

 

We've come this far without bathroom laws.  Do we really want using the wrong bathroom to be a criminal offense?  

 

This.  I wouldn't want to see any laws one way or the other.  I think things can be worked out more fairly with appropriate consequences if there are no laws - and it doesn't make the bathrooms a hidden closet someone would need to be checking for hanky panky if kids aren't given the idea that anyone can choose any bathroom (NOT what SD was after, of course, but the opposite).

 

A school policy that covers it should do the trick.  "Students are expected to use the bathroom that corresponds with their lived gender.  In cases where a student's situation is more complex, or a student is transitioning to the opposite gender, the student is expected to contact their guidance counselor to develop an accommodation plan.  Consequences for students not complying with this policy will be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances."  

 

This school policy seems just fine to me!

[justasque]

You and I weren't thinking along the same lines for what's going on.  I was contemplating a guy and a gal purposely heading into one or the other bathrooms together for some alone time.  If kids can use whichever restroom they want, this wouldn't raise too many flags.  With things the way they are, anyone seeing this is going to intervene.

 

...I think things can be worked out more fairly with appropriate consequences if there are no laws - and it doesn't make the bathrooms a hidden closet someone would need to be checking for hanky panky if kids aren't given the idea that anyone can choose any bathroom (NOT what SD was after, of course, but the opposite).

 

 

Just a reminder that hanky-panky doesn't always take place between students of opposite genders.  We've addressed potential problems in the past by segregating by gender, but increasingly institutions that involve teens are coming to grips with the fact that segregation doesn't cover the whole "potential hanky-panky" picture.

 

And yes, this kind of thing does make life seem more complex now, but it's because we are increasingly understanding, and making an attempt at including, those who in the past may have lived life on the margins or, worse yet, had their life tragically cut short.  As life gets a wee bit more complicated for the "average" person (for lack of a better term), it gets much, much better for those who have traits or experiences that put them outside of the "average".  When people are able to live good, productive, fulfilling lives, even if not exactly the "average" way, we all benefit.  

[creekland]

ps  One might wonder why I worry about a guy and a gal meeting in a bathroom if the law said any student could use the restroom they chose, yet not worry about two gay/lesbian students doing the same now.  

 

We already have issues with the latter and are supposed to try to watch out for that as best we can (not letting the same student out at the same time and no more than one of the same gender out of any one room at a time, etc).  This is why my mind moved on to the former.  At the moment for those we merely have to watch certain corridors that are more out of sight and they've recently added cameras to assist.  Shouldn't do cameras in restrooms!

 

High school kids with hormones active can get creative and really could see an open opportunity as just that.

[creekland]

Just a reminder that hanky-panky doesn't always take place between students of opposite genders.    

 

We were typing at the same time.  I think I read your brain waves!  ;)

[Ravin]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that Christians are not under Mosaic law. The failure of some Christians to recognize this is the root of many problems in the church. However, I believe the New Testament does indeed speak to transgender presentation:

 

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

I am well-aware that many attempts have been made to explain away this passage. I feel no need to defend it or argue about it. Truth speaks for itself.

 

So exactly which of these is a transgender person? Being transgender has nothing to do with sex, so it doesn't make us idolaters or adulterers. Trans women as women aren't "effeminate", they're female. When trying to be men, they often come across as "effeminate." So they're only going to NOT sin by being what they actually are, brain-wise: women. Trans men, on the other hand, are usually not effeminate, so it doesn't apply to us particularly. Gender identity is not the same thing as sexual orientation; a transgender person can be heterosexual (and this is more common than the other way 'round). Indeed, in some countries (Iran comes to mind) gender transition is legal while same-sex sexual anything is not. Being transgender has nothing to do with being a thief, or wanting someone else's property, or being drunk (indeed, for those who have struggled with alcoholism or addiction because of the depression that often goes along with fighting our true gender, we're far less likely to be drunkards post-transition). I have no idea what a "reviler" even is, but by transitioning we are being who we really are, so we are not swindling anyone.

 

Truth does speak for itself, but that passage has nothing to do with transgender people, even if you ignore how culture-bound many of those terms are and how iffy their translations may be (inspired and all that, I know).

 

(edited because "i" before "e" except after "c.")

Edited February 17, 2016 by Ravin

[Ravin]

Just curious, why is the trans person so uncomfortable about using the women's room like in the past?

 

Speaking from personal experience, it's likely the trans person has been uncomfortable about using the women's restroom for a while before getting to the point in transition that he has approached his employer about making the switch. He may well have been using the men's in public places already, or may be in that awkward phase where he goes out of his way to find a gender-neutral/family restroom when he can, but at his workplace that isn't an option.

 

I switched to the men's about the same time I started taking testosterone, and a good thing, because I already occasionally startled women who didn't know me in the women's before hormones. Once my voice dropped, which was quick, it would have been even worse because it would have been less convincing when I reassured a startled woman we were both in the right restroom. 

 

I have never ONCE been questioned about my choice of restroom. Not even when in there with my four year old calling me "mommy." It was slightly uncomfortable the first half dozen or so times; after that, it was a huge relief to not have to worry about scaring some poor woman just so I could pee.

[Tanaqui]

You and I weren't thinking along the same lines for what's going on.  I was contemplating a guy and a gal purposely heading into one or the other bathrooms together for some alone time.  If kids can use whichever restroom they want, this wouldn't raise too many flags.  With things the way they are, anyone seeing this is going to intervene.

 

Honestly? My solution to that is to put free condoms in all the bathrooms. Seriously, as it stands, people have sex in public restrooms all the time. Sometimes it's same sex couples, sometimes it's opposite sex couples. If they're so desperate that they're willing to do it in the public toilet (ewwwwww!),  I don't think rules are going to stop them. They'll just find someplace even grosser to do it.

[Ravin]

.

 

Nope!! I was responding to the lengthy message speaking of Christians having no right to disobey laws that go against their conscience!!

 

Whatever happened to "Render unto God what is God's, and render under Caesar what is Caesar's"? Isn't that about respecting secular law (paying taxes) and laying down the line at really important stuff (who you actually worship)?

[creekland]

Honestly? My solution to that is to put free condoms in all the bathrooms. Seriously, as it stands, people have sex in public restrooms all the time. Sometimes it's same sex couples, sometimes it's opposite sex couples. If they're so desperate that they're willing to do it in the public toilet (ewwwwww!),  I don't think rules are going to stop them. They'll just find someplace even grosser to do it.

 

Sorry.  We're in a public school and these kids are supposed to be in classes (except for a quick bathroom break).  What they do on their own time is up to them, but at school on taxpayer dollars and with the news media that would chomp on any "what's going on in the public schools" story like this, nope.  I'm still in favor of doing what we can to keep hormones in check and out of our bathrooms.