Virginia school transgender toilet ban struck down

[catsmate]

In an interesting and topical decision the US (Federal) Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-to-1 in favor of one Gavin Grimm, who'd sued the Gloucester County School Board, arguing that its policy requiring students to use facilities that correspond with their "biological gender" (as on the birth certificate) or gender-neutral single-person restrooms was a violation of Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, which bans discrimination based on sex.

This is the first case that extends Title IX protections to transgender persons.
Grimm, who identifies as male, said the policy was stigmatising.
In backing him the Fourth Circuit deferred to the Department of Education’s interpretation of policies that give transgender students access to the bathrooms that match their gender identities rather than their biological sex.

Even more interesting is the facts that the state of North Carolina (passer of a recent pro-bigotry law) is part of the Fourth Circuit, hence the ruling could stand as a precedent there and have major implications in the current battle against HB2 (the aforementioned pro-bigotry law).

Also under threat is 4.3 billion dollars of Federal funding to schools in NC; the (Federal) Department of Education was already studying whether the NC law violated the Title IX civil rights protections "to determine any potential impact on the state’s federal education funding"
This judgement would mean that it does, meaning funding could be withheld, despite previous claims by North Carolina's (Republican) Governor Pat McCrory (proponent of the pro-bigotry law).
A ED spokesperson said: "We will not hesitate to act if students’ civil rights are being violated"

The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit marks the first time that a federal appeals court has determined that Title IX protects the rights of transgender students to use sex segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity. The Fourth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to reevaluate Gavin’s request for a preliminary injunction under the proper legal standard.

“I feel so relieved and vindicated by the court’s ruling.” said Grimm. “Today’s decision gives me hope that my fight will help other kids avoid discriminatory treatment at school.”

“Today’s Fourth Circuit decision is a vindication for Gavin and a reinforcement of the Department of Education’s policy.” said Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Project. “With this decision, we hope that schools and legislators will finally get the message that excluding transgender kids from the restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination.”

“Gavin’s fight has been a beacon of hope in the face of increasingly hostile rhetoric against transgender people in Virginia, and across the nation,” said Gail Deady, The Secular Society Women’s Rights Legal Fellow at the ACLU of Virginia. “The court’s ruling sends a strong message to schools and lawmakers that discriminatory restroom policies don’t just harm transgender students, they put Title IX funding at risk.”

 

[Aepervius]

Is there an emoticon for "sudden outbreak of rationality" ?

The problem I see is that you will have to have somebody fight the law in NC (with all cost that it means) before rationality also take step there.

 

[catsmate]

Is there an emoticon for "sudden outbreak of rationality" ?

How about

or

The problem I see is that you will have to have somebody fight the law in NC (with all cost that it means) before rationality also take step there.

The ACLU and other groups are already involved, a lawsuit was filed on Monday.

 

[ZirconBlue]

How about http://rationalia.com/z/gotcha.gif or http://rationalia.com/z/alarm.gif


The ACLU and other groups are already involved, a lawsuit was filed on Monday.

A personal friend of mine is actually part of that lawsuit.

 

[Beerina]

Does this apply to locker rooms, too? I find it hard to believe a 1972 law envisioned overriding the ancient and court-recognized right not to have to expose your junk to the biological opposite gender, or to have to see it.

 

[Corsair 115]

A ED spokesperson said: "We will not hesitate to act if students’ civil rights are being violated"

You'll pardon my cynicism in giving such a remark much merit given the numerous documented violations of due process arising from the way Title IX has been used in connection with sexual assault cases on university and college campuses.

 

[Tero]

I was thinking of the technical details. If you have a working penis but use a ladies' room, since you identify as female, where is the problem? It's not like they have a urinal in there.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Does this apply to locker rooms, too? I find it hard to believe a 1972 law envisioned overriding the ancient and court-recognized right not to have to expose your junk to the biological opposite gender, or to have to see it.

The vast number of transgenders don't go about showing their junk to the biological opposite sex, they don't want to be outed as Transgender if they can help it, and doing that would result in it. They also aren't going to be viewing those in the room and getting off on it either, the majority of Transgenders are straight to the gender they are transitioning to. i.e. most M->F Transgenders are sexually attracted to men, and most F->M Transgenders are attracted to women.

 

[Brainster]

I was thinking of the technical details. If you have a working penis but use a ladies' room, since you identify as female, where is the problem? It's not like they have a urinal in there.

Yeah, and it's not as if girls strip down in the locker room or showers.

 

[catsmate]

Does this apply to locker rooms, too? I find it hard to believe a 1972 law envisioned overriding the ancient and court-recognized right not to have to expose your junk to the biological opposite gender, or to have to see it.

Feel free to read the judgement.

You'll pardon my cynicism in giving such a remark much merit given the numerous documented violations of due process arising from the way Title IX has been used in connection with sexual assault cases on university and college campuses.

I believe there's already a thread for your conspiratorial ramblings.

 

[Megalodon]

Yeah, and it's not as if girls strip down in the locker room or showers.

Do you have one example of a transgender woman sexually assaulting women in a public toilet or locker room?

 

[Corsair 115]

I believe there's already a thread for your conspiratorial ramblings.

Thanks for confirming yet again you have lost all sense of rationality and critical thinking ability when it comes to certain subjects.

That you ignore the word "documented" in my post says it all. You could start with thefire.org and view the cases on file there; you could look up the numerous news reports on such cases; but you won't because you aren't interested in anything which challenges the narrative you've constructed. You prefer to construct your bogeyman and then tilt at it relentlessly.

And you do this on a skeptic's forum, no less.

 

[catsmate]

Thanks for confirming yet again you have lost all sense of rationality and critical thinking ability when it comes to certain subjects.

That you ignore the word "documented" in my post says it all. You could start with thefire.org and view the cases on file there; you could look up the numerous news reports on such cases; but you won't because you aren't interested in anything which challenges the narrative you've constructed. You prefer to construct your bogeyman and then tilt at it relentlessly.

Sigh. Feel free to start a thread, rather than dragging your obsession into every other one

 

[marplots]

And now the Seventh Circuit has weighed in with a denial of a motion (on appeal) to quash injunctive relief for a student wanting to use the boy's bathroom: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...C:16-3522:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1971382:S:0

 

[PhantomWolf]

Good. The school district waved it hands in the air and tried to evoke the spectre of a boogieman while the defense had a pretty solid case showing that it was harmful to prevent him from using the boys bathroom. On top of that the School tried to cite rules that had no written copy and were basically because "this is how we think it should be" with no regard to medical science. Judge got it exactly right.

Of course there is the whole irony of this school wanting to force a boy to use the Girl's Bathroom when the usual argument is about how terrible it is having a boy in the girl's bathrooms.

 

[baron]

What is the US obsession with toilets? Is it code for something that's actually important?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What is the US obsession with toilets? Is it code for something that's actually important?

It's all about shaming the deviance out of people that don't conform to their version of normal. If you make life impossible for them then they have to conform or go away, do anything that makes life easier for them is seen as enabling their deviancy. Just the same way that once upon a time kids were repeatedly strapped for daring to use their left hand to write with.

 

[Thermal]

What is the US obsession with toilets? Is it code for something that's actually important?

I think it is the rubber-hits-the-road point where freedom of association is lost.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I think it is the rubber-hits-the-road point where freedom of association is lost.

Freedom of Association gives you the freedom from the Government interfering and preventing you from associating with the people you wish to do so, except in limited circumstances, such as a criminal being prevented from associating with other criminals. What it doesn't give you the right to do is to ban people you don't want to associate with from a public space you are using.

 

[quadraginta]

It's all about shaming the deviance out of people that don't conform to their version of normal. If you make life impossible for them then they have to conform or go away, do anything that makes life easier for them is seen as enabling their deviancy. Just the same way that once upon a time kids were repeatedly strapped for daring to use their left hand to write with.

It is also about shaming in general.

Our Puritan tradition of body shaming remains among the last vestiges of ingrained religious guilt trips. God forbid (irony intentional) that males and females should encounter each other in the same bathroom.

Disgusting and shameful.

 

[deadrose]

Yes, because women and girls can be scarred for life by the mere sight of a penis. It's always about the women seeing a penis. I just don't get it. It's not as if people walk into the shared portion of a public bathroom and strip. Nor do women's bathrooms have urinals.

The explanations always seem to boil down to anyone with a penis being a lust-crazed animal who can't control their behavior, so we need to protect our fragile flowers from them. Pretty soon they'll insist we need to wear enveloping robes and head coverings so men won't be incited by a glimpse of our flesh.

As the mother of a transgender daughter, I find this all very offensive and completely lacking in facts.

 

[Beerina]

So...there never was any point to separate bathrooms? Apparently the only point is to protect transgendered people from discrimination and outing?


I ask this facetiously to get back to basics and work forward.

 

[applecorped]

One bathroom for all!

 

[Hungry81]

Yes, because women and girls can be scarred for life by the mere sight of a penis. It's always about the women seeing a penis. I just don't get it. It's not as if people walk into the shared portion of a public bathroom and strip. Nor do women's bathrooms have urinals.

The explanations always seem to boil down to anyone with a penis being a lust-crazed animal who can't control their behavior, so we need to protect our fragile flowers from them. Pretty soon they'll insist we need to wear enveloping robes and head coverings so men won't be incited by a glimpse of our flesh.

As the mother of a transgender daughter, I find this all very offensive and completely lacking in facts.

How about some people are just more comfortable using a bathroom of their own sex/gender due to a complex range of issues. After all, if it doesn't matter which bathroom is used, then what are Transgender people whinging about?

Like it or not bathrooms are designed with physical differences in mind. Its why there also are sometimes seperate toilets for disabled people and even rarer small toilets and lowered toilet paper dispensers and sinks for little children to use.

Me, I don't like using any public toilet and prefer to hold it until I get home. When I do need to use a public toilet I appreciate the convienience of urinals so I don't have to line up waiting for cubicals for both acts like females do.

If bathrooms are going to be combined to suit the precious sensibities of some pre-op transgender person (a minority of a minority) Then they (and any females) should at least learn to use urinals and bring those funnels with them designed for that purpose. That way they are reducing the demand on cubicals for when other need them and are all around quicker in general when using the toilet.

Also combining facilities should not mean that the number of facilities should be reduced (although many places would probably try it for penny pinching reasons)

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, and it's not as if girls strip down in the locker room or showers.

Cinemax lied to me!

 

[ponderingturtle]

So...there never was any point to separate bathrooms?

Kind of like separate entrances, separate facilities. The south must like those religions that still make men and women sit separately for services.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

How about some people are just more comfortable using a bathroom of their own sex/gender due to a complex range of issues. After all, if it doesn't matter which bathroom is used, then what are Transgender people whinging about?

Like it or not bathrooms are designed with physical differences in mind. Its why there also are sometimes seperate toilets for disabled people and even rarer small toilets and lowered toilet paper dispensers and sinks for little children to use.

Me, I don't like using any public toilet and prefer to hold it until I get home. When I do need to use a public toilet I appreciate the convienience of urinals so I don't have to line up waiting for cubicals for both acts like females do.

If bathrooms are going to be combined to suit the precious sensibities of some pre-op transgender person (a minority of a minority) Then they (and any females) should at least learn to use urinals and bring those funnels with them designed for that purpose. That way they are reducing the demand on cubicals for when other need them and are all around quicker in general when using the toilet.

One could just as easily say bathrooms are currently designed to suit the delicate sensibilities of prudes.

Why does anyone need to learn to use urinals? What claim does any person have on a toilet stall other than having arrived first?

This sounds like you want the convenience of a shorter wait time and are willing to pay for it with someone else's discomfort.

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

[Lithrael]

After all, if it doesn't matter which bathroom is used, then what are Transgender people whinging about?

One of the big ones is that, if you force transgender people to use the 'correct' restroom it causes Large and Embarrassing and sometimes Dangerous problems when everyone sees this person who looks like a woman walk into the men's bathroom, or this person who looks like a man walk into the women's bathroom. At best there is confusion with people who think they've gone in the wrong room by mistake. At worst the person has been forced to out themselves as transgender to a hostile audience.

Anyway there are plenty of mannish looking women out there who become collateral damage to bathroom gender watchdogs.

In case you missed the hundreds of times this has been explained on the forums before.

 

[Giordano]

So...there never was any point to separate bathrooms? Apparently the only point is to protect transgendered people from discrimination and outing?


I ask this facetiously to get back to basics and work forward.

As far as I can tell- no, there really was never any point to gender-separated bathrooms. Unisex bathrooms (spas, nude bathing) were quite common through history and remain common in many countries today. There were no laws in the USA mandating separate male and female bathrooms until the 19th century. Some describe these laws as arising from the changing social roles of women, although I personally also wonder if they didn't relate to the stereotype that men are messy pigs whereas women deserve a cleaner bathroom. But from what I can tell it was not related to weird ideas of the possibility of an assault, or that the mere sight of the flesh of the opposite gender would cause severe mental disease.

I think that gender-segregated bathrooms are one of those issues that seem so logical and natural- until one actually thinks about it. I am male and I don't believe that I have ever really seen another male's penis in a public restroom- at "worse" I've seen vague shapes from the corner of my eye at an adjacent urinal. It is not usually encouraged to pay close attention to the genitals of the stranger next to you in a public restroom (depends on the bathroom of course- there are certainly some bars and times in San Francisco where open displays are standard- but that is a different story). Beyond that- what does anyone see when someone uses a stall?? I presume this is also true in women's rest rooms.

My kids went to colleges with unisex dorms with unisex bathrooms- including showers. Partitions and curtains allowed them to dress and undress with perfectly reasonable privacy. And it didn't represent any major expense to add these features to the prior, segregated restrooms.

Frankly I don't know why it is assumed it is okay if males are unwillingly subjected to the display of other male's genitals in a public restroom, whereas a female similarly seeing a glimpse of a male genitalia must be prevented by stern laws. Personally I would rather not display my penis to random male strangers and vs. versa. And the idea that I would be sexually stimulated by knowing that a female is defecating in the stall next to mine is insulting and bizarre. Excretion is not high on my list of things that get me hot (I know that is not true of all).

To me it is not a gender issue- public bathrooms should provide reasonable individual privacy no matter one's gender- it is a matter of individual dignity to allow one to defecate or urinate in relative privacy. Most public restrooms already achieve this with partitions on stalls (and even between urinals). Modest additional changes can make this work even netter. Bottom line- I've experienced a variety of mixed restrooms in the past decade and it is absolutely no big deal. And no- I don't have any problem with a 5 year old girl using a unisex bathroom anymore than I do myself- although I think all 5 year olds should be accompanied by an adult in a public place such as a public restroom.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I may have mentioned this in another thread ... I live in a small town (35,000 pop) .. the local coffee shop and bakery is large enough for the building code to require it to have a half dozen toilets.

When they renovated they just put 6 separate washrooms in .. SOOOO Simple? .. there's no boy/girl signs on any of the doors ... because it's just not needed.

Simple lessons kids

 

[quadraginta]

Kind of like separate entrances, separate facilities. The south must like those religions that still make men and women sit separately for services.

They'd like to, but the congregation wives would never stand for it.

They want to be sitting next to their husbands so they can give 'em a bruising poke in the ribs whenever they catch 'em ogling that silicon-busted, bottle-blonde hussy from down the street who's always "sunbathing" in one of her string bikinis whenever hubby is working on the lawn.

 

[Meadmaker]

Frankly I don't know why it is assumed it is okay if males are unwillingly subjected to the display of other male's genitals in a public restroom, whereas a female similarly seeing a glimpse of a male genitalia must be prevented by stern laws.

It isn't about females seeing a penis. That strawman gets thrown around all over the place, but that's not the issue.

The issue is females displaying their naked, or partially naked, bodies in front of a male.


The only time the "I don't want her seeing a penis" even comes up is with regard to small girls, and even then, it is not that anyone thinks that is a problem, the problem is not that their daughter might see a penis and be forever traumatized. The problem is that people are trying to teach their daughters to be wary of strange men, and not take their clothes off in front of men, but it's ok to take your clothes off in a locker room or restroom because only women are there, and suddenly there's this penis in front of them and now mom has to explain the concept of trasgenderism to an eight year old, and has to modify what they told those girls earlier about only boys having penises.

If you want to say, as some have, that there is no reason to have gender segregated changing rooms/locker rooms/restrooms, well fine. That's an intellectually reasonable position to take. However, at this point in time there is no political will to end gender segregation in such circumstances. It is a fringe belief that is not part of serious social discourse. In other words, gender segregation in locker rooms is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

That leaves us with the question of "what is a boy?" Should the question be decided based on the feelings of a person who identifies themselves as a boy, or should it be decided based on some objectively verifiable biological criteria?

A related question, more specific to this thread, is if the legislature decides on one definition to be used in their state, should a court intervene and insist that a different definition be used?

 

[Worm]

Should girls not be wary of strange women?

 

[Wolrab]

Should girls not be wary of strange women?

Especially the ones with a penis.

 

[Meadmaker]

Should girls not be wary of strange women?

Should? Where does should come into the picture? I don't know whether women, or girls, or someone else in between "should" be wary of taking off their clothes in front of anyone in particular. I just know that they are. Nature? Nurture? Someone else can figure it out.

The point is that females want to have some control over which men see them naked. To facilitate this, when we have occasion to take off our clothes in the course of day to day business, we create facilities segregated by sex, so that only women see other women naked or nearly naked in those sorts of places.


Once we have the segregated facilities, it is very easy. Girls go to the girls' room. Boys go to the boys' room. Now all we have to do is define "girl" and "boy".

 

[marplots]

Should girls not be wary of strange women?

Strange enough to have a penis?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Should girls not be wary of strange women?

All children need to learn to fear homosexuals.

 

[Worm]

I think I've lost track here. Are people stripping off in public restrooms?

If you don't want other people to see your bits and pieces, then keep your clothes on. Culturally I understand that we have issues with male/female interactions that involve nudity, but we're talking about using the toilet here.

Go into a stall, do your business, and get out. I'm not sure why nudity has to come into the equation.

 

[marplots]

I think I've lost track here. Are people stripping off in public restrooms?

If you don't want other people to see your bits and pieces, then keep your clothes on. Culturally I understand that we have issues with male/female interactions that involve nudity, but we're talking about using the toilet here.

Go into a stall, do your business, and get out. I'm not sure why nudity has to come into the equation.

It's not just the nudity, it's the vulnerability.

 

[Wolrab]

At what point should the rest of the human race have to upend their standards to accomadate a tiny minority?