Trans Girl Suspended From High School for Using Bathroom

[leic7]

Um, since you want to talk about this issue from a "biological standpoint", I'd like to remind you that sex is not a binary property in biology, either; i.e. "female" and "male" are not the only possible outcomes.

I'd also like to remind everyone that laws and rules are social constructs that can be, have been, and will be, arbitrarily made up and changed at will.

I have absolutely no problem with sharing washrooms with other people, and I think unisex public washrooms should be the way to go; that way it's accessible to everyone.

 

[Foxi4]

Um, since you want to talk about this issue from a "biological standpoint", I'd like to remind you that sex is not a binary property in biology, either; i.e. "female" and "male" are not the only possible outcomes.

Yeppers. There is also hermaphrodite, which is an abnormality. These are divided (very generally, read more here: http://translate.goo...nie.htm&act=url ) into "Supermen" (no pun intended), "Superwomen" and simply people with both sets that may or may not be corrected after Gender has been established. Even so, they express either of the sexes more radically than the other, but let's put them in one basket for now.

I'd also like to remind everyone that laws and rules are social constructs that can be, have been, and will be, arbitrarily made up and changed at will.

That is, when such a change is necessary, and here it is not. Unless 20% of the nation suddenly decides to become trans. Nobody's going to change school rules for two individuals.

I have absolutely no problem with sharing washrooms with other people, and I think unisex public washrooms should be the way to go; that way it's accessible to everyone.

Not a bad idea at all. As of now though, we have two types of bathrooms, it is unlikely to change due to the fact that only a fraction of the society is herm or transgender/sexual and unless that group of people actually openly demands it and gains sufficient support, no such thing will exist.

The 1% cannot rule over the 99%. Deal wit'it.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Not only that - she is still biologically male. A 100% sex change is impossible from a medical standpoint - she still has no uterus, no ovaries, no milk glands or no naturally-formed vagina - all there really is is a set of fake breasts and a mutilated male reproductive organ shaped to look like a vagina. She was never born with those and her hormone levels are adjusted artificially.

In my opinion, you are far too stringent on the differences between males and females. From the way you talk about it here, it is almost as if males and females have nothing in common, that they come from different planets or are representative of different species. Your case boils down to biology, which is inherently misleading. Since when did the scientific community come to a consensus that gender is only determined by biology? There is a distinct social aspect to this issue. A biological impetus to conform to our genitals occurs in puberty, but this impetus is not imperative, as the case of transsexuals clearly demonstrates. I think you should do more research in this area.

 

[Foxi4]

Not only that - she is still biologically male. A 100% sex change is impossible from a medical standpoint - she still has no uterus, no ovaries, no milk glands or no naturally-formed vagina - all there really is is a set of fake breasts and a mutilated male reproductive organ shaped to look like a vagina. She was never born with those and her hormone levels are adjusted artificially.

In my opinion, you are far too stringent on the differences between males and females. From the way you talk about it here, it is almost as if males and females have nothing in common, that they come from different planets. Your case boils down to biology, which is inherently misleading. Since when did the scientific community come to a consensus that gender is only determined by biology? A biological impetus to conform to our genitals occurs in puberty, but this impetus is not imperative, as the case of transsexuals clearly demonstrates. I think you should do more research in this area.

For the love of God, Gender and Sex are two different things - sex is determined nearly entirely by biology while gender is a state of mind. How many times should I explain that before people stop accusing me of being sexist and close-minded?

The most basic sexual system is one in which all organisms are hermaphrodites, producing both male and female gametes—this is true of some animals (e.g. snails) and the majority of flowering plants.

In many cases, however, specialization of sex has evolved such that some organisms produce only male or only female gametes. The biological cause for an organism developing into one sex or the other is called sex determination. In the majority of species with sex specialization organisms are either male (producing only male gametes) or female (producing only female gametes).

Exceptions are common—for example, in the roundworm C. elegans the two sexes are hermaphrodite and male (a system called androdioecy). Sometimes an organism's development is intermediate between male and female, a condition called intersex. Sometimes intersex individuals are called "hermaphrodite"; but, unlike biological hermaphrodites, intersex individuals are unusual cases and are not typically fertile in both male and female aspects.

Gender is a range of characteristics used to distinguish between males and females, particularly in the cases of men and women and the masculine and feminine attributes assigned to them. Depending on the context, the discriminating characteristics vary from sex to social role to gender identity. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955.(...) Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

For the love of god, Gender and Sex are two different things - sex is determined nearly entirely by biology while gender is a state of mind. How many times should I explain that before people stop accusing me of being sexist and close-minded?

I agree that they are different, but they are hardly mutually exclusive. There is a social aspect to this problem that you are constantly ignoring. That is all I wanted to point out.

Edit: Incidentally, you shouldn't use Dr. Money as a reference. He went to the opposite extreme and claimed that gender and sex are only social constructs, and ended up imposing sex changes that were otherwise not needed. A posthumous examination of his work has revealed numerous distortions and falsifications.

 

[Foxi4]

For the love of god, Gender and Sex are two different things - sex is determined nearly entirely by biology while gender is a state of mind. How many times should I explain that before people stop accusing me of being sexist and close-minded?

I agree that they are different, but they are hardly mutually exclusive. There is a social aspect to this problem that you are constantly ignoring. That is all I wanted to point out.

Edit: Incidentally, you shouldn't use Dr. Money as a reference. He went to the opposite extreme and claimed that gender and sex are only social constructs, and ended up imposing sex changes that were otherwise not needed. A posthumous examination of his work has revealed numerous distortions and falsifications.

This is why I'm only using his definition of gender as a refference point. There are numerous definitions of the terms - that's a subject for Culture Studies. What I am trying to point out is that sex is downright biological while gender is determined by the psyche. Just because some of his definitions were found incorrect does not mean that his entire set of works is wrong.

Out of numerous "schools" of defining those terms I choose to treat them as exclusive, seeing that in some cases the factual sex of a given person does not influence their gender identity. Social interactions and personal experiences play a far more important role in identity discovery than a dangling piece of flesh, or in the lack of it.

 

[junkerde]

she was transylvanian, no vampires allowed.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is why I'm only using his definition of gender as a refference point. There are numerous definitions of the terms - that's a subject for Culture Studies. What I am trying to point out is that sex is downright biological while gender is determined by the psyche.

The fact still remains that you are using a biological argument to bolster a regressive social tendency. You cannot have it both ways. You are relying on strictly biological grounds, and this is completely inadequate as to how to deal with the overall social problem confronting gays and transgenders. Your line of logic, carried to its ultimate conclusion, is biological discrimination at best and Social Darwinism at worst.

Social interactions and personal experiences play a far more important role in identity discovery than a dangling piece of flesh, or in the lack of it.

Then why are you saying that a transgender should stick to the bathroom that is biologically "assigned" to them? That "dangling piece of flesh" was, up until now, the centerpiece of your argument. You are all over the place.

 

[Foxi4]

This is why I'm only using his definition of gender as a refference point. There are numerous definitions of the terms - that's a subject for Culture Studies. What I am trying to point out is that sex is downright biological while gender is determined by the psyche.

The fact still remains that you are using a biological argument to bolster a regressive social tendency. You cannot have it both ways. You are relying on strictly biological grounds, and this is completely inadequate as to how to deal with the overall social problem confronting gays and transgenders. Your line of logic, carried to its ultimate conclusion, is biological discrimination at best and Social Darwinism at worst.

Social interactions and personal experiences play a far more important role in identity discovery than a dangling piece of flesh, or in the lack of it.

Then why are you saying that a transgender should stick to the bathroom that is biologically "assigned" to them? That "dangling piece of flesh" was, up until now, the centerpiece of your argument. You are all over the place.

Gender determination is one thing, factual sex of a given person - another. As stated earlier, I am not thinking about the singled out transsexual student. I'm thinking about all the girls who do not wish to share the bathroom with a boy and all the boys who do not wish to share the bathroom with a girl, for whatever reasons. Majority sets the standards. I'm far from being all over the place, you're just misreading my arguments.

 

[Hyro-Sama]

It's called a penis. Saying "A dangling piece of flesh" is unnecessary. We aren't a bunch of 12 year olds.

@Foxi4: I saw that pic you posted and that was nasty.

 

[thieves like us]

how rich are the families of these kids that can afford them operations during their teen years? something tells me that maybe they should be home-schooled

 

[JoostinOnline]

It's called a penis. Saying "A dangling piece of flesh" is unnecessary. We aren't a bunch of 12 year olds.

@Foxi4: I saw that pic you posted and that was nasty.

I should report you for saying the "P" word.

 

[Foxi4]

I used the term "dangling piece of flesh" because it could mean a penis, the breasts or the vulva, lol.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

This is why I'm only using his definition of gender as a refference point. There are numerous definitions of the terms - that's a subject for Culture Studies. What I am trying to point out is that sex is downright biological while gender is determined by the psyche.

The fact still remains that you are using a biological argument to bolster a regressive social tendency. You cannot have it both ways. You are relying on strictly biological grounds, and this is completely inadequate as to how to deal with the overall social problem confronting gays and transgenders. Your line of logic, carried to its ultimate conclusion, is biological discrimination at best and Social Darwinism at worst.

Social interactions and personal experiences play a far more important role in identity discovery than a dangling piece of flesh, or in the lack of it.

Then why are you saying that a transgender should stick to the bathroom that is biologically "assigned" to them? That "dangling piece of flesh" was, up until now, the centerpiece of your argument. You are all over the place.

Gender determination is one thing, factual sex of a given person - another. As stated earlier, I am not thinking about the singled out transsexual student. I'm thinking about all the girls who do not wish to share the bathroom with a boy and all the boys who do not wish to share the bathroom with a girl, for whatever reasons. Majority sets the standards. I'm far from being all over the place, you're just misreading my arguments.

If the article is anything to go by, it was the school administration that made the decision to suspend the person in question. There was no majority to speak of.

And if I'm misreading your arguments, please explain why. I don't think my interpretation is completely wrong. You are advocating that social issues be reduced to biology. Again, this approach is prejudicial and inadequate. You are placing the penis and the vagina as opposites of each other, and completely ignoring the social aspect of the problem. In essence, your conclusions are biologically discriminatory. One might as well say that the negligible "biological" difference between races could serve as a basis for offering each race a bathroom of their own.

 

[Foxi4]

If the article is anything to go by, it was the school administration that made the decision to suspend the person in question. There was no majority to speak of.

And if I'm misreading your arguments, please explain why. I don't think my interpretation is completely wrong. You are advocating that social issues be reduced to biology. Again, this approach is prejudicial and inadequate. You are placing the penis and the vagina as opposites of each other, and completely ignoring the social aspect of the problem. In essence, your conclusions are biologically discriminatory. One might as well say that the negligible "biological" difference between races could serve as a basis for offering each race a bathroom of their own.

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.

 

[leic7]

I fail to understand how a transgendered person using either washroom could be interpreted as "indecent", though. If the person has a penis and pees at the urinals, is that indecent? Is it indecent if they pee inside a stall behind a closed door?

And I don't think an inequality is any less of one just because the people affected by it are not the majority. The minority matters, too. If a school has one student who's in a wheelchair who can't access the regular washrooms, do I think we should make school-wide accommodations for this student so they could have equal access to facilities just like everyone else? Absolutely.

 

[Foxi4]

A transgender male or female may access their respective bathrooms without any problems whatsoever, a handicapped person may not due to physical inability. Hyyyuge difference between "Can't" and "Won't, because I feel like it".

In the case of a handicapped person, you are accomodating his/her basic need - he or she needs means of transportation to use the constitutional right to study, and while at it, satisfy basic phisiological needs.

In the case of a transgender person, you are satisfying a whim. A change is simply not necessary.

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

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.

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? 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.

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.

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.

 

[s4mid4re]

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.

 

[Fishaman P]

There's one critical point that the article failed to address:

Did the trans students have their reproductive organs changed?

I can see why school officials would be concerned if genital type A's went into a Type B restroom, but that still is not grounds for a warning, let alone suspension.