There is nothing to be inheritently ashamed of as far as race is concerned - there are no biological differences between a black, caucasian or asian person of the same sex other then the levels of skin pigmentation. Females and males on the other hand have different body constructs, and as human beings we are exposed to the feeling of "shame" when facing the other construct in a situation we would not expect to see it. Call me up on this one if I'm wrong, but it's frowned upon to flash male genitalia infront of female audiences in public places and vice-versa. THIS is my argument. It's not discrimination, it's following simple rules of common decency that the society put upon itself on its own.
The suspension was issued by the appropriate school administration unit and according to the school rules it was justified.
I'm going to offer my final thoughts on this subject, and then I won't be able to take part in the thread any more.
The underlying assumption that you are pushing is that the LBGT community is a special interest group that is looking to extort special privileges for themselves. Insofar as they are a social minority that is frequently discriminated against in the US, this is ridiculous. While they have advocacy groups of their own, they have had no significant impact upon the US as a whole. Laws have been changed, but the discrimination stays the same (Colorado, where this takes place, passed a transgender law two years ago that was supposed to do away with the gender binary, even in restrooms). The only difference is that you are arguing with "science" instead of bible verses. The LBGT community deserves to be protected and accommodated at all costs.
Yes, they have the right to do so, but they are trying to accomplish their goal unlawfully or incorrectly. Just because they have the right to, doesn't mean that they are obligated to disturb public places. That's just like saying that Terrorists can do what they want, despite being unlawful, insolent, disgusting and/or incorrect.
Moving on to your main argument. It is, in many respects, discriminatory and fallacious. You state that racial differences are "nothing to be ashamed about" (which is a rather strange thing to say to absolve racial differences) and that this "shame" you speak of manifests itself whenever members of the opposite sex see each other in the nude. It is entirely true that the American ruling class has confined nudity and sex to a dark corner that should only be unearthed in respect to supermodels. But nudity is not inherently negative, and "shame" is not an absolute, it is merely a ruling moral in relation to US capitalism. Shame in nudity, does not stretch to every nation on the planet, nor should it. You however, uncritically present it as a moral imperative that is dictated by "common decency". Common decency according to whom? You?
According to America and its society. It's America; what do you expect?
To the polluting diatribes of the corporate media and bourgeoisie, which relegates sex to the stuffy household and must be monogamous? I believe that you simply borrowed this "shame" concept from the bible's Genesis. I'm sure that you've heard of the story: When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they realized that they were naked, and they were both embarrassed. Your argument is entirely in line with the religious concept of "Original Sin", an outdated belief that is more than 2000 years old. I'm sure you understand that the bible barely has anything useful to say about human nature. If you actually bothered to look at different societies around the world, specifically in Africa or certain beaches in France, you would find that shame in nudity are merely endemic. It is not epidemic.
Oh yeah, I totally knew that I can see "Africa or certain beaches in France" from America. Yes, America: 'she' lives in America. That's just like saying that Slavery is legal in America because there are certain groups of people in Africa that condones slavery. Or the genocide of certain people is alright because certain groups of people think that it's alright. No, it's America. Your argument is flawed.
Lastly, transgenderism cannot be dismissed as a "whim". This is probably the most damning thing you have said. But what is even worse is how you compare transgenders using the women's bathroom to a male streaking or exposing himself in public. Your analogy is so inappropriate that there's really nothing more for me to say about it, except that yet again it is a product of outdated religious morality. More specifically, it is
ruling class morality, which, whether you admit it or not, refuses to look any deeper in this issue than biology; It is not as though you are alone in holding to this, but you must know that scientifically and socially it is rather primitive. Transgenders are not bound to their genitals;
the fact that they identify themselves as male or female is enough. The traditional gender binary for bathrooms must be scrapped and transcended to accommodate transgenders. This would mean, in the long run, public bathrooms that do not separate the sexes or make them feel as though they are both of a different species.
YES, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! I now publicly identify myself as a female, so I should be obliged to use the female public restroom without any consequences. I'm going to go into the female restroom, whip out my junk, and start peeing along the girls in the female restroom. They are totally comforted about my existence in the female restroom and are going to tell their parents about me. Their parents are assured that the female public restroom is a secure place for their beautiful daughters to be using. You see how fucked up your argument is?
People's needs have evolved, and are evolving, and they are beginning to find real expression in the civil sphere, both socially and politically. It is my opinion that if you continue to tow the line with such reductive and bigoted views, you will end up being left behind.