Transgender protest about YMCA locker rooms

  The article “State Freedom Caucus holds presser, blasts YMCA over transgender policy” described one policy issue that caused a lot of controversy. This was a locker room policy at the Kerasotes YMCA. Two months ago, a 16-year-old girl Abbigail Wheeler and her family protested over the fact that the YMCA allow transgender people to use the same locker room that matches with their identity. And this issue came across due to an incident of when Wheeler went into the locker room and saw a transgender woman there, and was uncomfortable about potentially seeing that person change out of their swimsuit. Although she was not exposed to the transgender woman’s genitals, the situation did make Abbigail Wheeler uncomfortable. 

Abbigail’s father, Dan Wheeler spoke at the rally and was quoted in news media as saying: “ Rather, we stand here today in unity to advocate for all the families that drop their children off at the YMCA in Springfield, by bringing awareness to a flawed policy based on, my opinion, of improper interpretation of current state statute that allows children to be potentially exposed to individuals of the opposite biological sex in the girls’ locker rooms.” On the news, after mentioning the rally, the coach was quoted as saying that there “was nothing they could do by Illinois state law.” Also, someone from the YMCA said that if she was uncomfortable then she could use the family locker rooms or she could change at home, and that she did not need to use the facilities used by the trans woman. The Illinois human rights act prohibits businesses or in this case recreational centers, from denying or refusing the “full and equal enjoyment of facilities, goods, and services” solely based on someone’s gender identity according to the Illinois Department of Human Rights website.” On the other hand, Abigail and her teammates did send a hate speech message towards the trans community by posting signs like “Biological women only” and “men are not welcome here” on the door to the women’s locker room. That is showing bad behavior on their part as well. 

Both the news and the article showed how there are major flaw in the YMCA policy, specifically when it comes to both women’s privacy and safety. Even though, I agree that any sort of discrimination towards the trans community is wrong and should not be tolerated as stated by the federal laws. “There are still policies that need to be put in place. Overall, one policy to avoid more outcomes and or issues of this from appearing could be by giving transgendered persons their own bathrooms based off their identity. So, it will allow them to feel comfortable in their own spaces and for the biological sex to not be uncomfortable as well. Or another way to solve this without it being overly expensive is to have personal stalls in locker rooms for the protection of others’ privacy. 

Reference

https://www.nprillinois.org/equity-justice/2023-07-14/state-freedom-caucus-holds-presser-blasts-ymca-over-transgender-policy

https://www.nprillinois.org/equity-justice/2016-07-14/illinois-issues-the-battle-over-transgender-rights-in-the-bathroom-and-beyond 

https://www.reddit.com/r/SpringfieldIL/comments/14yx9e2/some_truth_comes_out_about_the_y_scandal/

This seems like an ethical dilemma. Abbigail Wheeler and her parents and politiicans of the Freedom caucus are appealing to a purity ethic about two things: they are claiming that transgender women are still men, and they are saying that women in changing rooms and showers of a YMCA have a right to be in sex-segregated situations where no men will be mixed with them. The law and most of us are claiming that transgender women are essentially women, and should be treated no differently from other women. We are saying that excluding transgendered women from women's locker rooms and showers and bathrooms would violate their human rights and civil rights. 

There are a variety of circumstances that give rise to persons who are not easily placed into categories of male or female (e.g., intersex conditions at birth).  Likewise, slight mutations in a fetus can alter how they respond to certain hormones, so that persons with a brain of one gender might have genitals of another gender. One project embraced by most progressive people is to reframe the categories and constructs related to male and female, masculine and feminine, suggesting these can be vague or flexible. A counter project embraced by many conservative people is to claim that gender is immutable and clearly defined, so that everyone (or nearly everyone) belongs in one of two categories, and will remain in whatever category they were born into for their entire life. 

Most of the conflicts arise from assumptions and definitions about what we mean when we say someone is a "female" or a "male" person. 

At any rate, I prefer private stalls for changing and so forth.  It's slightly awkward in a gym or pool locker room when taking showers in a communal shower or changing out of a swimsuit with other people around. I only find it slightly awkward, and have never been particularly uncomfortable about it, but I can tell that some people find this sort of thing extremely disturbing, and if they happen to fear that someone of the other gender will see them, and they old traditional binary attitudes about gender, they are going to be feeling hurt by policies such as we have in Illinois. Perhaps the solution is the one you suggested, where we use private stalls for changing. 

The Ban on Transgender Soldiers

 Donald Trump recommended a new policy saying that people who are transgender and have had gender reassignment surgery be disqualified from military service. In July of 2017, court rulings halted the ban because it could have been potentially unconstitutional. The Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recommended this to President Trump. He thought that by banning transgender people from the military, this would enhance the military’s ability to protect Americans and win wars. The thought was that the exclusion of transgender persons would help military people to survive better. In July President Trump posted on Twitter that the government will not accept or allow in any capacity for transgender people to be in the military. In August, he guided the Pentagon to reverse a policy made my President Obama to allow transgender people and people with gender dysphoria to serve in the military.

President Trump also tweeted that the military cannot be burdened with the disruption and medical costs that transgender people would bring to the military. Republicans are for this policy and say it is for saving money for the military, but Democrats and LGBT advocates are against the policy. The Human Rights Campaign suspects the Trump Administration of being prejudice against transgender people. Nancy Pelosi tweeted that no one should be turned away from serving in the military, and the ban is trying to humiliate transgender people in the military. Advocates say the ban is worse than the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy which banned gays from serving in the military. They could not talk about being openly gay. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights said the policy has zero medical credibility and that it is anti-transgender propaganda made by Republicans. 

I’m curious about how many transgender persons serve in the military.  Does anyone have a guess?   I found a source at the BBC and at Snopes that review the research:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40950946. 

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/07/27/how-many-transgender-people-currently-serve-in-the-u-s-military/  

There are interesting historical examples of women who disguised themselves as men to serve in the military.  That history might be an interesting note to consider in a contemplation of the issue of transgendered soldiers.  I recommend you do a search for The Drummer Maid or the Female Drummer.

You might have informed your audience about the political reasons why the Commander in Chief might want to ban transgendered persons from serving.

There are the claims for direct reasons, which were covered fairly well in your paper:

1) It is detrimental to the fighting effectiveness of the military

2) The costs of helping those soldiers transition to their new gender through surgery and hormone treatments is too expensive a burden for the military to bear

3) Allowing the transgendered persons to serve makes it difficult to recruit persons who would otherwise be good soldiers.  Allowing transgendered soldiers harms the reputation of the military.

There are also indirect reasons.  I assume these are likely to be the real reasons for the attempt to ban transgendered soldiers, but I didn't pay much attention to the issue, and perhaps no one has published an analysis of the likely reasons for this policy.

1. Trump and General Mattis are uncomfortable with transgendered persons, and want to exclude them from the military, and will do so because that is what they want to do and they have the power to do it.
2. Trump wants to increase the intensity of the political support he has from those who approve of his presidency, because in some critical areas he is failing to deliver policies that will please those supporters, so he uses a ban on transgendered persons serving in the military as a way to appease his supporters.
3. There are very few transgendered persons in the general population, and many people do not accept transgendered persons as normal or good (some people hate any challenges to their ideals about binary gender and sex). Since this is a small group with little political power, it’s easy to scapegoat them and direct attention and hostile emotions toward them, as this will help Trump get political support from people who don’t know about his other policies or their (harmful) effects, and who will ignore those policies because they are so delighted with the attack on the (politically weak) transgender interest groups.

Bathroom Bill in Illinois!

Here is an editorial by a student in the class.

House Bill 4474 in the Illinois General Assembly is now being called the “Bathroom Bill”. The new bill decides who can use bathrooms and locker rooms according to their sex. To the bill sex is an individual’s anatomy at birth.  

Amends the School Code. Requires a school board to designate each pupil restroom, changing room, or overnight facility accessible by multiple pupils simultaneously, whether located in a public school building or located in a facility utilized by the school for a school-sponsored activity, for the exclusive use of pupils of only one sex. Defines "sex" as the physical condition of being male or female, as determined by an individual's chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual's anatomy. Provides that no member of the female sex may use a pupil restroom or changing room that has been designated by the school board for the exclusive use of the male sex and no member of the male sex may use a pupil restroom or changing room that has been designated by the school board for the exclusive use of the female sex, with exceptions. Authorizes a school board to provide reasonable accommodations to a pupil to use a single-occupancy restroom or changing room or the regulated use of a faculty restroom or changing room if the pupil is an adult or an emancipated minor, or the parent or guardian of a minor pupil submits to school officials, in writing, a request to receive such accommodations and the pupil is a member of the male sex but does not identify as a member of the male sex or the pupil is a member of the female sex but does not identify as a member of the female sex. Sets forth a complaint procedure. (ilga)

Let’s say this bill passes, in some people eyes it will stop the perverts. The new bill’s purpose is to have privacy while in the bathroom and safety for the children.  Except the new bill will only prevent the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming youth. This is basically saying that they have no rights, they’re not respected, or valued. 

They should be allowed to feel safe and secure in a restroom. It is only fair for the students to decide for themselves, not be singled out because of their gender identity. This will only make a bigger problem instead of solving an issue. 

We’re in the year of 2016, in a generation that’s very accepting, so why take steps back when we’ve been progressing altogether by including the LGTBQ community? The new bill is like a slap to the face of the transgender community. We like to encourage and accept people, but once it’s done we want to take their rights. It’s wrong, it’s unfair, and there’s not enough evidence that this new bill will stop any unsafe activity going on in the restrooms. 

Wow, this bill has many co-sponsors, and it has some bi-partisan support.  One way of looking at it is the misguided definition of sex: “as determined by an individual's chromosomes and identified at birth by that individual's anatomy.”  I guess whoever drafted the bill didn’t know anything about Maria Patino and other women athletes (about 1 in 500) who have XY chromosomes like men, but don’t have a sensitivity or receptor for testosterone, and therefore develop as women and are physically women.  Or, what about when the the SRY gene gets deleted from a Y chromosome or displaced onto an X chromosome?  What about the intersex persons?  Surely people these days know that sometimes the sexual assignment at birth is wrong.  And now of course, as you say, we are accepting people who don’t even want to be put into the dichotomous categories of male and female. 

It turns out that there have been some occasional problems with men going into women’s bathrooms wearing disguises as men, or claiming that they are transgendered, but in every case I have read about, the man was heterosexual and not at all transgendered, and was using the excuse to get into the bathrooms to satisfy some sort of kink, or just to make a point.  And even in these incidents, I have never heard of any violence, and ever case I am aware of took place in adult bathrooms, not in schools. Would it not be strange if the only men who are bothering women in bathrooms are men who want to pass laws to keep transgendered women out of women’s bathrooms because they were assigned a sex of male at birth or happen to have a Y chromosome?  They are creating the problem they seek to remedy.

Any excuse to pass more laws and give police and tyrants more excuses to fine people and get them involved with the devilish mechanisms of the justice system. I am shocked that this bill has so much support in the General Assembly. Perhaps someone will offer an amendment to change the way sex is defined in the bill.  Or, more likely, it will just die in the Rules Committee. Barbara Currie from Chicago chairs that committee, and she has some sense.

REFERENCES

Illinois General Assembly - Bill Status for 4474. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2016, from http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=4474

Transgender persons and bathroom use

A student reaction paper

The United States has reached a social justice boiling point on several issues. But one that has recently been heating up is the issue of transgender rights. Several states have passed discriminatory legislation that attacks transgender men and women, directly violating some of their most basic rights. And while the stigma of gay and lesbian identity has slowly been melting away, transgender people are still regarded as "others." This group is not widely accepted, even by some in the LGBT community. But we still need to focus on protecting their rights as individuals. 

HB2, a recent law passed in North Carolina, mandates that public and government buildings must restrict access to restrooms based on birth-assigned sex. In other words, whatever gender your birth certificate says, is the restroom that you must use. Now there are several problems with this law, namely its enforcement. But my biggest issue, and several other cisgender women's biggest issue, is that the law claims to protect the rights, privacy, and safety of cis women. The argument against allowing men who identify as women into the women's restroom is based on the assumption that transgender women pose an inherent danger to cisgender women is completely unfounded. In my own personal research, I couldn't find a single incident of a trans woman attacking, harassing, or sexually assaulting a cis woman. Not a single case. So where is this coming from?

I find it completely asinine that the same legislators passing this law in the name of women's safety are the same legislators passing laws that restrict access to abortion and contraception. The governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory (the same governor who signed into law a piece of legislation that forced abortion providers to meet the same surgical center standards and prevented public health insurance policies from paying for abortions) stated that HB2 was designed to "stop the breach of basic privacy and etiquette."

I want politicians to stop using my safety to justify their unfounded fear of transgender men and women. They don't give a damn about my safety when it comes to almost anything else. They don't give a damn about my safety when it comes to obtaining safe and accessible abortion services. I don't have a problem with a transgender person using the same restroom as me. And how should I know whether they are transgender or not? Who cares? Transgender people have to walk around every day being conscious of who they are, what they are doing, and how they present themselves. I have the privilege of being cisgender and not having to worry about that.If using the women's restroom makes them more comfortable, then so be it. It isn't my concern where they evacuate their bladders and bowels. It's none of my business, and it isn't anyone else's.

I am comfortable with this situation because I'm sure it has happened to everyone at some point in their lives, and you probably didn't even notice it happened. I'm not going to ask to check whether everyone in the restroom that I am using has female genitalia. I suppose that a transgender woman could peek through a stall door, but a cisgender woman could too, and both situations would be equally creepy. I wouldn't be more comfortable if someone who looked like a woman did it. 

 Transgender people experience more harassment than cisgender people do, and why would we exacerbate that by forcing a "man" who identifies as a woman to use the men's restroom? How much more uncomfortable would that be for all involved? Imagine walking into the men's room and seeing a young woman washing her hands at the sink. Or walking into the women's restroom and having a bearded man follow you in. This legislation could present potentially dangerous situations for transgender people. This could also potentially have a worse effect on transgender people of color. People of color experience more bias and prejudice than whites. In states like Florida, where stand your ground laws exist, and citizens can conceal and carry handguns, imagine the outcome of the above situation in the women's room. A white woman walks into the restroom to find a black "man" standing there. It's hard to believe, especially in today's current racial climate, that there wouldn't be a huge stir arising from this situation if she were to fire on him.  

The message that legislators are sending with this legislation is that transgender people are not welcome. And this is already coming back to bite them in the ass. Several large chain retailers in the state have openly stated they will not enforce or support this law, and have showed open support for the LGBT community. There are so many other real threats to women's safety, and often it is perpetrated by the same legislators who support this type of bill.  Don't use my very real concerns about my personal safety to justify your hate, to further oppress an already extremely oppressed group. You don't get to use my life and my experiences and the real threats that exist at your convenience. I will not stand idly by to act as your excuse, as your justification, as your reason. I will not stand by while you pit victims of white male privilege against each other. And while I'm supposed to appreciate the sentiment that these politicians had in mind when passing this bill, I must respectfully decline to be a part of their transphobic legislation and ask that instead of worrying about my "safety" in the restroom, that they worry about my safety everywhere else.