Trans

How to Deal with Transgender Students in the Locker Room

A smart solution requires a willingness to compromise.

|

Credit: katerha / photo on flickr

High school locker rooms are not places kids go to feel comfortable and relaxed. Baring your entire body to classmates and adults—friends, enemies, strangers, coaches—is a disagreeable obligation for most students. But for decades, the desire of adolescents for privacy has been deemed irrelevant. 

That's no longer the case in Palatine, Illinois, where the public school district had to decide how to handle a transgender student who was born male but lives as a female. 

The youngster's choice is clearly not a passing fancy or a ruse to shower with the girls, as Mike Huckabee might suspect. Her passport identifies her as a girl, which is what she looks like. She had her name legally changed. She's getting hormone treatments. 

The school district has largely accepted her identification, letting her play on a girls' sports team and use the girls' restrooms. But it draws the line at the locker room, where it says other students must be protected. 

Its solution is to provide a private space this student must use to change clothes. Several curtained areas were recently set up for the benefit of anyone who wants more privacy. The transgender girl, however, would have no choice. 

This remedy doesn't satisfy the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education, which this week decided that restricting locker room access to "Student A" is a violation of Title IX, which forbids discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs. The policy means "providing services to her in a different manner, subjecting her to different rules of behavior, and subjecting her to different treatment on the basis of sex," it said. 

Critics may say: Of course it does, because she is different. But mere difference is not enough to justify different treatment. Women differ from men, blacks differ from whites, and Catholics differ from Jews. Yet all are entitled to equal treatment. 

The least enlightened approach would be to say that anyone born male should be treated as male, no matter what. But that solution has its own problems. Would girls be any more comfortable changing clothes alongside a girl who identifies as a boy, and is undergoing physical transition, than a boy who identifies as a girl? 

Another option is to treat transgender kids as a third sex, assigning them to separate facilities. But that would officially stigmatize them as freaks. It would also exclude them from some normal activities, like boys' or girls' sports teams or other clubs. 

What does that leave? Either treating Student A as a girl for all purposes, as the government insists, or for all purposes but one, as the school district has chosen. 

The latter approach may look perfectly reasonable, and the district deserves credit for going as far as it has. But other districts in the area have found there is nothing to fear from the option recommended by the feds. The suburban Daily Herald did a survey and found that two large high schools, Barrington and Stevenson, report no complaints about letting transgender kids have normal access to the locker rooms and restrooms they choose. 

The Palatine district says its goal is "to protect the privacy rights of all students when changing clothes or showering." But the same reasoning would justify separating gay kids from straight ones, lest the straight ones draw unwanted gazes. In practice, adolescents (like adults) have easily adjusted to what once would have been seen as an awful intrusion. 

The district's concern about privacy is oddly narrow. Until recently, kids who prefer not to expose their bodies to anyone were obliged to change in restroom stalls. The superintendent acknowledges that most students don't shower at all, presumably for reasons of modesty. 

When they have to disrobe, some students have friends shield them behind a towel or hold towels in their mouths to cover their fronts. Until Student A came along, privacy was not a district priority. 

The feds' solution is a sensible compromise. It suggests that the district provide curtained changing areas, available to all, without forcing anyone to use them. As it happens, Student A says she would be happy to use them as long as she has a free choice. 

If the district is serious about privacy, it can offer more spaces that cater to the needs of modesty. It might also post signs stating a locker room rule that most kids already know: Keep your eyes to yourself. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: Law school dean denounces lecture disruption at University of Minnesota

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The remake of Fast Times at Ridgemont High is going to be very different than the original.

    1. With Paul Reubens in the Phoebe Cates role.

    2. Just because we live in the theatre of the absurd, can we still try to apply a fraction of rationality?

      When things get ridiculous, perhaps reverting to statistics and math is the logical solution; as always. These folks, unfortunate as they may be, are a tiny fraction of the population. Do we have to constantly upend the apple cart for a fraction of a percentage of citizens when society has to function for the betterment of most sometimes?
      Give them a curtain, get the state out of the conversation and move on to the next dipshit diversion from what really matters. A female student should be allowed to protest a human with balls showering next to her. The fractional percentage person should be able to protest and given a stall with a towel as long as the majority agrees. no violence, no state involvement, and perhaps a separate showering time.
      Now does anyone know the US is entirely bankrupt and the FED is destroying the lives of unborn generations 2 and 3 generations out?

      1. Oh you, with all that logic. You’re not seeing the real point here.

        The idea is to normalize these gender switches so that more kids are encouraged to question their gender. Sure, it’s a tiny fraction now, but progressives won’t be happy until the concept of gender is destroyed entirely.

        They envision a not-so-distant future in which gender isn’t something we even attempt to assign at birth, but rather left to the decisions of kindergarteners and first graders who will be taught as part of an official curriculum that they can choose any gender they like. Sure, it’ll start off as an ‘accommodation’ for a vanishingly small fraction of the population, but that’s merely the groundwork for larger efforts towards reducing gender to a personal choice that each child must make for themselves; there’s no other explanation for the outsize effort being put into the issue. And if you look at the path they took with gay marriage, it all fits the game plan.

        And of course, this will also serve the larger goal of wresting children from parental control and into the arms of the state, as parents who object or are accused of ‘misgendering’ their children will undoubtably risk losing them altogether.

        This is the long term goal. Yes it sounds crazy. But progressives aren’t interested in sanity.

        1. We are far better off as a society to remove progressives from our country. Mtthew this all goes away.

      2. They don’t need a curtain, they need psychological treatment and hormone therapy to correct ther aberration. They are not a different gender because they feel like it. Period. Anything else is just progressive bullshit.

      3. Wow, until that last sentence you really sounded sane.

        1. Was that intended for me? Do you think that it is NOT progressives forcing this shit down our throats through policy decisions and proposed legislation? If not, then please enlighten me as to the source of it.

      4. “Do we have to constantly upend the apple cart for a fraction of a percentage of citizens when society has to function for the betterment of most sometimes?”

        Yes, because for the leadership of these Prog groups, they upending is the purpose. The transgender youth is just a convenient club they can use to beat on the remnants of Western society.

        The school district made the greatest concession that they could reasonably make without affecting 300 girls. That was unacceptable to the youth’s parents, or to the Dept. Of Education (that may be the most ironically misnamed organization I’ve ever seen. I could see Terry Pratchett coming up with something like this.

        I have the feeling there is going to be a major backlash coming soon. The left seems to have officially jumped the shark.*

        *For the record, I refuse to consider what the left did to the shark after jumping it.

  2. Wow. Never thought I’d see a Reason article advocating Title IX. Even if one were to accept the implicit assumption here (transgenderism is a thing and not a mental illness … which despite the cries of “bigotry” around here is actually a still not agreed upon by doctors controversial statement) literally all actual legal language discusses “sex” discrimination. Not “gender” discrimination. One’s sex can’t change regardless of what one believes to be true or cuts off/sews on. Therefore the Feds lawsuit is baseless. I thought libertarians believed in pluralism. Using anti-discrimination laws as a cudgel to fix the hurt feelings of a teenager would normally be something libertarians were against right? Libertarians would be for the right to choose one’s lifestyle not the right to force everyone else to humor it? I mean … does equality under the law now mean the right to not be uncomfortable? Because I’m suing my local DMV if that’s the case for the shitty plastic chairs they make us sit in for hours while Barb behind the desk works on her Soduko puzzles. Just trying to understand the “Harm Principle” violation at play here that makes you think federal government intervention is warranted.

    1. I’m convinced Chapman’s blowing someone pretty important at Reason for publishing rights which is actually more comforting than the thought that they actually, you know, agree with him.

    2. Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.

      I think reason only publishes Chapman because they feel like they need a resident proggie voice but don’t want to go to the trouble of actually hiring one permanently. Although why they don’t also have a resident neo-con or so-con I don’t know. Probably something to do with cocktail parties… mumble mumble den of cosmos…

      1. They already have Shikha and Sheldon for that job.

        1. I think the writers here are becoming more concerned about getting invited to the right cocktail parties than being good libertarians. I guess they want to sit at the cool kid’s table after all.

      2. Chapman has a long association w exposure via libertarian media, going back at least 35 yrs. to CATO’s “Byline” radio commentaries. I think he says something good about explicit libertarians from time to time, & is hard to pin down as in either the “liberal” or the “conservative” camp, so they like to associate w him.

        1. CATO eventually (w the Fairness Doctrine still in effect) had to go full progtard by including Julian Bond in their stable of commenters.

      3. I note a glaring lack of writers from the right of the libertarian spectrum, e.g. Tom Woods, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell. I suppose they have their own outlets at places like mises.org, but there does seem to be such a socially liberal bias on Reason that writers even go as far as to advocate government interference in freedom of association, as this piece does. The point is that it shouldn’t be anyone else’s business how this school deals with a transgender students. Not mine, not yours, and certainly not the government’s. But I guess smashing the social conservatives is more important.

        1. I’ll have to check out mises.org because Reason’s been getting silly lately and will only get worse as the election approaches.

        2. This is a public school…

        3. DON’T YOU KNOW THOSE CHRISTIANS ALL WANT TO ESTABLISH A TOTALITARIAN THEOCRACY????????

          IT’S GONNA HAPPEN ANY DAY NOW, EVEN THOUGH THEY’VE BEEN IN CHARGE OF BASICALLY EVERYTHING SINCE DAY ONE AND EVEN WROTE THE CONSTITUTION BUT WHATEVER… WE NEED TO SMASH CHRISTIANITY BECAUSE LIBERTY DEPENDS ON IT OR SOMETHING!!!!!!!

    3. Wow. Never thought I’d see a Reason article advocating Title IX.

      Title IX and the absolutely retarded notion of ‘gender-identity’ are so fluid and counter-intuitive, I’m not surprised.

      I think a decent case could be made for voiding gun-free zones at schools under the same premises. I mean, if carrying around a large black rifle, concealed or exposed, isn’t a direct expression of the individual’s sexuality, I don’t know what is. The fact that there are zero locker rooms for explicit hoplosexuals anywhere clearly demonstrates how oppressed this minority is and merely thinking that hoplosexuals are inherently dangerous just shows how primitive and bigoted your thinking really is.

      1. “This is my weapon, and this is my gun…”

      2. As a libertarian, aren’t you tired of the “this stupid policy is OK because we have this other stupider policy” argument?

    4. So if sex change students get to chose which naked kids to hang out with, why shouldn’t ALL kids have that choice? I’m sure there would be plenty of guy who’d want to hang out with the naked girls…

      Or are the rights of normal, heterosexual, non-gender-confused students less important than the rights of trans-gender freaks?

      1. best comment yet

      2. “Her passport identifies her as a girl, which is what she looks like”

        If she still had a bat and balls, she doesn’t look like a boy.

        But seriously, it’s a very selfish position. Me, me, me. Everything must be done to satisfy me! The hell with what anyone else feels, or if their privacy is violated.

    5. Hey, a lot of the supposed libertarians were fine and dandy with the SCOTUS making national law from the bench, so some federal bureaucracy should be able to, too. Amirite?
      After all, neither were cited in the Constitution as being able to make law, yet, yipee, the Court says it’s all good, regardless of those pesky Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

    6. Using anti-discrimination laws as a cudgel to fix the hurt feelings of a teenager would normally be something libertarians were against right?

      I must be misreading this, because it sounds like you’re concerned about protecting the liberty of this state-run school from intervention by the state.

      Libertarians would be for the right to choose one’s lifestyle not the right to force everyone else to humor it?

      How is this not choosing one’s lifestyle?

      1. I must be misreading this

        Yes. The rest of us are thinking about the rights of the females in the locker room

        1. The right to… what, exactly?

          1. To not shower with men they aren’t in romantic relationships with. Which pretty much all women place a high value on

        2. That is, what is it that’s so threatening about one (female-hormone-withered) penis?

          And as far as I can tell female students are left with a multitude of options, including changing in a stall or not showering, which led me to the conclusion that the only entity that one could reasonably be concerned about is the school.

      2. I think the school district should be able to operate as they, and the parents/taxpayers that support them, see fit without Big Daddy Fedgov sticking their dick into the situation.

      3. ” must be misreading this, because it sounds like you’re concerned about protecting the liberty of this state-run school from intervention by the state.”

        Nailed it.

        Much like the recent article on a California student journalist’s “free speech” rights. Which had nothing to do with free speech, and was really a pissing match between a teacher and the school principle over which one of them gets to play gatekeeper and decide which student opinions are fit to print.

        The only dogs in these fights are statist dogs

    7. It’s a silly article. It pretends the conflict can be fixed. It cannot. Public property, forced association, compulsory attendance are the problems.

      It also pretends everything is the same as everything else as does the intellectually bankrupt civil rights nonsense. It’s not. Actual real people don’t think so. They think a teen being forced to look at a penis in her shower, even a penis the owner doesn’t want, is different from and more unwelcome than a staring lesbian or just a loss of privacy generally.

      Maybe this is just the result of syndication. Chapman had to phone something in twice a week.

      1. Chapman wants to preoccupy you with arguments over which outfit the emperor should wear.

        Rather than noting that he’s stark friggin naked.

    8. TG is a mental illness, often exacerbated by hormonal imbalance. As usual progressives have latched on to this as a a ,eans of degrading traditional values and destabilizing society.

  3. “The suburban Daily Herald did a survey and found that two large high schools, Barrington and Stevenson, report no complaints about letting transgender kids have normal access to the locker rooms and restrooms they choose. ”

    Well, of course nobody complains. How’d you like to be the kid Twitter-shamed worldwide because you objected?

    Ludicrous.

    1. ‘Report no claims’ does not equal ‘have received no claims’

      1. Do they have a trans boy in the shower with the girls?

        1. If in high school, I would insist on showering with the cheerleaders. And I would go to Eric Cartman lengths to get my way.

          1. Heck, almost every teen comedy from the 80’s had some variation on the ‘what type of Rube Goldberg setup can we devise to spy on the girl’s locker room’ theme.

            Now, you can just say that I feel like a woman today, and you’re in.

            Note: I understand the youth discussed in this article seems to be genuine, but the 2nd, or the 102nd, or the 1002nd will be scamming to check out girls in the shower.

            1. And as a lesbian trapped in a girls body I would insist on being orally serviced in said shower by cheerleaders. As rejection of my girl penis would be a clear case of anti-homosexual discrimination.

      2. You know who else didn’t receive (m)any complaints? Like too much sawdust in the bread, the paper uniforms are too thin, the lack of heating in the barracks, etc?

    2. Odds that there are any transsexuals at either of those schools? Pretty low.

  4. Another option is to treat transgender kids as a third sex, assigning them to separate facilities. But that would officially stigmatize them as freaks.

    As in the cases where “blacks differ from whites and Catholics differ from Jews,” the above suggests that desegregation is the answer. Unisex locker rooms. Co-ed high school sports. Let the healing begin.

    1. I wake up every day, hoping against hope that I don’t miss someone getting Fisted.

    2. I think it is only a matter of time.

    3. “As in the cases where “blacks differ from whites and Catholics differ from Jews,” the above suggests that desegregation is the answer. Unisex locker rooms. Co-ed high school sports. Let the healing begin.”

      Yes, there are effectively two reasonable approaches, 1) Everyone has an individual bathrooms/changing rooms (so a line of unisex bathrooms) or 2) One communal bathroom / locker room. The first approach is what almost everybody desires, but will cost more money. The second approach will be hated by everybody forced to use it.

      So school officials will almost certainly eventually universally choose option 1 for staff and option 2 for students.

      1. or do away with sports and locker rooms altogether…but then what happens when someone has to urinate?

    4. Trannies ARE freaks. Which is what happens when you treat severe mental illness like it’s somehow normal.

  5. The ultimate solution is to abolish all government schools and allow free people to come up with whatever arrangements that they find mutually agreeable.

    1. That can’t be allowed to happen. Don’t you know Utopia can only be reached by force?

    2. +1 pointless culture war

  6. What compromise? A reasonable compromise was offered and rejected. Calling this “compromise” is abuse of the language.

    The student in question insists that there be no compromise and in running to the federal bureaucracy precludes any alternative solutions that might fit and intrudes on the privacy of others selfishly putting “her” fragile feelings above those of the biological females in the school. It would be interesting to see if one or more of the girls would she under sexual harassment law for creating a hostile environment by forcing them to share an intimate space with a biological male.

    1. Somebody should sue back, but of course they’d be labeled a bigot

  7. this is a matter of semantics, we simply need a new set of categories.
    Male-boy, male-girl(the transgender one), female-girl, female-boy(transgender again)

    Then again this only works until we realize this isn’t about body parts or feelings but about destroying identity ( and subsequent individuality, you are only 1 of many but not and different). I think kids who are doing this are having problems because they get picked on and just want some more anonymity(to observe but not be observed, at least not as much) or they simple do not want to conform. Or they have having problems with friends who are conforming but would otherwise be a perfectly normal weird kid. they really don’t want to go from male-boy to male-girl or we would see a similar comparison of homo and heter-sexuality as in the population as a whole. I think its closer to 50-50 with bisexual accounted for also, while the population as a whole is maybe 4-5% homosexual.

    1. Chromosomes determine gender, not feelings. Another reason why progressives need to be put to sleep.

  8. Co-ed locker rooms. It’s the only way to be sure.

    1. +1 Starship Troopers

    2. “It’s the only way to be sure.”

      That’s the wrong movie.

      “Co-ed locker rooms. Who needs a knife in a nuke fight anyway? ”

      FIFY.

      1. +1 hand-on-a-wall

  9. “What does that leave? Either treating Student A as a girl for all purposes, as the government insists, or for all purposes but one, as the school district has chosen. ”

    How about psychiatric help…it seems that people care more for the championing of these causes rather than focusing on the mental well being of these individuals who are dealing with some profound mental illness.

    1. It’s the elephant in the room that everyone’s afraid to mention. Barring rare genetic abnormalities, men have X chromosomes and women don’t and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. Whether a man chooses to live as the female gender and vise versa is a separate issue and should be treated as such.

      1. Y chromosomes, damnit.

      2. I got into one of those instantly-regrettable Facebook arguments with a progressive acquaintance a while back on this subject.

        I mentioned the psychological issues that are being enabled here — particularly with young children that are being allowed to ‘transition’ — and she rebutted by stating matter of factly that it wasn’t psychological at all; there were often mismatched chromosomes leading to gender dysmorphia.

        So then I said, well, if it’s a chromosomal issue, shouldn’t we test for such a thing before allowing a child to transition their gender? I mean, if there’s a legitimate, quantifiable medical issue, then I’m in favor of doing whatever needs to be done. Shouldn’t we get all that information before making such drastic decisions, especially where children are concerned?

        The answer of course was no, of course not, how can you even ask. Then I was called a bigot and blocked.

        That’s how these arguments tend to go.

    2. “How about psychiatric help…”

      She’s taking hormones, so it’s safe to assume that she already crossed that bridge.

      1. He said psychiatric help, not psychiatric harm.

      2. So psychiatric help for someone with body integrity identity disorder would be to facilitate the cutting off of their limbs.

        1. They’re already doing that to transsexuals.

      3. /facepalm

    3. “How about psychiatric help…it seems that people care more for the championing of these causes rather than focusing on the mental well being of these individuals who are dealing with some profound mental illness.”

      /\ This.

      A thousand times, this

      1. The problem is that the ‘profession’ that should otherwise help with such problems is committed to enabling the problem.

    4. Progressives don’t give a fuck about these people. They are just using them as a delivery system for more Marxism. Which is pretty much everything they do.

  10. “The least enlightened approach…” and we have circular reasoning co-joined with an ad hominem. I’ve labeled my position enlightened therefore positions not mine are unenlightened and you don’t want to be considered unenlightened do you?

    How does any writer get away with this slop?

    1. It is the hallmark of the social liberal.

      1. Don’t forget, social conservatives do it too. Not that that excuses either, but it isn’t ONLY progressives who claim enlightenment and demonize their opponent.

        1. Human beings, Libertarians included, do it. It’s a universal quality.

  11. I’ve been following this story for a couple days, frankly horrified at the tone-deafness of this federal overreach, and have been looking forward to seeing Reason’s take on the matter.

    Wow.

    1. Reason is actually run by a cabal of transgender editors they are just in the closet about it. I went to junior high with Sabina Chapman in Skokie before she was Stephen. We dated until she won the 1978 Sauerkraut Queen title at the county fair.

      1. +1 wienerschnitzel

        1. -1 schnitzengruben

  12. This isn’t a good situation, and she will get hurt. Possibly physically by a boyfriend or father of one of the girls. Almost certainly emotionally. A lot of the love and tolerance showered on her will turn to hate.

    The activists have stabbed her in the back to push their own agenda. It is starting to backfire, as we have seen i Houston.

    1. she will get hurt

      Was there a female mentioned in this story? I don’t know whom you’re referring to

    2. It’s the progressive way. Remember that nutcase, Cindy Sheehan? Who lost it when her son was killed in Iraq? The progs used her shamelessly to attack Bush. When Obama got elected they threw her away like rotting garbage. Any of these trannies are no different.

  13. “But mere difference is not enough to justify different treatment.”

    The differences between male and female are the reasons we have separate bathrooms and locker rooms for men and women. The physiological differences between men and are why sports are generally segregated by sex.

    It would be supremely ironic if the outcome of accommodating transgendereds is the abolition of women’s sports teams under Title IX on the basis that they are a manifestation of unequal treatment on the basis of sex.

    1. Hell,I could have been a beast in girls bball and volley ball.Just needed to dress the part and collage and wnba here I come.Then again,in the 70’s this crap didn’t fly.

    2. I’ve never understood why women playing on men’s teams didn’t let the colleges eliminate that number of women’s teams.

  14. The superintendent acknowledges that most students don’t shower at all, presumably for reasons of modesty.

    Nah, it’s because they’re lazy kids. Showering is drudge work?ya gotta get undressed, get washed, dry off, get dressed again?& it’s not even fun like this? http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.htm

    What vexes me is this whole transgender thing, because it’s reifying sexism. A child “identifies” not w the plumbing, but w the arbitrary societal correlates of the sexes.

    1. Cutting off your junk because you believe it’s wrong for your thoughts and feelings to not match your genitals is the most extreme expression of sexism imaginable.

  15. Maybe I don’t understand the meaning of the word “compromise” but I didn’t think a compromise was when one side gets exactly what they want the way they want. I thought it was when there was give and take on both sides. Silly me.

    1. Evidently you are new to the Obama world.

      1. “Let’s compromise – you give up a considerable chunk of your gun rights, and in return, we’ll give you… Um… Come on, why won’t you compromise?! Meet in the middle! Let’s work together on this! Why are you so unreasonable?!”

        – The Gun Control Movement

  16. My first girlfriend in our rural school was a chicken. I was ridiculed about it daily. But there was no chicken fucker union for my kind. Suck it up or rub some dirt on it, you little fairy.

    1. My first girlfriend in our rural school was a chicken.

      A biological chicken or just a pre-op trans-chicken?

  17. Something tells me that teenagers will come up with their own ways of dealing with transgender classmates in bathrooms, and it won’t be official school policy.

    Funny how teens can grasp the inability of policy makers to control people, but most adult can’t.

    1. Funny how the teens can can grasp the inability of policy makers to control people,or reality but most adult (SJWs, politicians etc can’t or won’t). As South Park has pointed out better than anyone else a hundred times.

  18. The least enlightened approach would be to say that anyone born male should be treated as male, no matter what.

    I guess I’m not “enlightened”, however the author defines that… I think I’m OK with that.

    What does that leave? Either treating Student A as a girl for all purposes, as the government insists, or for all purposes but one, as the school district has chosen.

    Being a “libertarian”, I’m shocked, shocked I say, to find that you didn’t figure out the answer to all this was to deny any “public” school tax funds (stolen from me) and recognize the universal right to freedom of association. If so, this “societal problem” gets a market fix, if you don’t like your school’s transgender policy, use a different school.

    You do realize that all of these stupid (and rarely smart) kinds of questions come directly from the “public” schools being run by stolen tax money, right? Get rid of that NAP violation and there is no longer a problem.

    1. As I understand it, most schools are funded with state and local money. You can vote with your feet, too. Don’t like what your tax dollars are producing? Move to another area.

      Now, don’t get me wrong, I agree that there is a significant NAP violation that needs to be addressed, but you have every right to move to a different district.

      1. I don’t use the public school system as it’s so incompetent/evil. (Therefore, I have more claim than most that it’s theft.) I don’t need to “vote with my feet” as I can’t really go anywhere in the world where they actually respect property rights…

      2. I agree that “voting with your feet” may provide relief for someone who is victimized by certain instances of government BS, but not everyone is financially able to do that.

        Also, we’re not in the government’s territory; they’re our employees (in theory). They’re in OUR territory. It would be like if I hired a butler and he slacked off, stole valuables, etc. and when confronted, replied, “well if you don’t like how I run this household, move to another house with a different butler!”

  19. Chapman starts by saying the compromise is the key to the intimate problems associated with accommodating the teeny minority of transgender public school students. Then he argues for total capitulation by one side because “why not?”.

    Actually the school did offer to let the student change in the girls locker room in a sequestered section. Not good enough. The SJW advocates will not be satisfied until everyone approaches transgender people by pretending they are not TRANSgender.

  20. Why do we have separate facilities at all? I thought “separate but equal” was itself a form of discrimination.

    1. I think that is the logical endpoint of the reasoning Chapman uses. But I do not think that women (ones with 2 X chromosomes) will like that result.

  21. I don’t expect this drivel from Reason. Except for the microscopically small number of truly intersex individuals, people are either male or female. No matter how much a male wants to be a female, he can’t be. The reverse is also true. Maybe technological changes will make that possible in the future, but it’s not true today. The so-called transgendered are simply mentally ill individuals who mutilate their bodies in an attempt to ape the sexually dimorphic characteristics of the obvious sex.

    Refusing to coddle mental illness by playing along with a delusion is not being a jerk. It’s living in the real world.

  22. Is there a limit to the amount of stupid Steve Chapman can write that Reason will print?
    No. No there isn’t.

  23. Tolerance of behavior in dress and action is due to all people. So is reality. Transgender should dress with the XX or XY they are. Those trangender that can’t accept that are mentally ill as they ignore reality. If a male wants to dress and act like more females it is no skin off my nose, but he is still male and in male female lockers, he belongs with the males.

    1. you can say that again!

  24. Tolerance of behavior in dress and action is due to all people. So is reality. Transgender should dress with the XX or XY they are. Those trangender that can’t accept that are mentally ill as they ignore reality. If a male wants to dress and act like more females it is no skin off my nose, but he is still male and in male female lockers, he belongs with the males.

  25. “The least enlightened approach would be to say that anyone born male should be treated as male, no matter what. But that solution has its own problems. Would girls be any more comfortable changing clothes alongside a girl who identifies as a boy, and is undergoing physical transition, than a boy who identifies as a girl?”

    Just one brief paragraph – no more – is sufficient to refute thousands of years of collective wisdom.

    Hayek would be impressed – he was under the impression that the human race could actually build up helpful wisdom over innumerable generations. He wasn’t aware that clever writers could rebut that wisdom in a couple of sentences.

    1. Oh come on.

      Chapman is not particularly clever.

  26. “But that would officially stigmatize them as freaks.”

    And your point is…?

  27. Ten years ago no school would have been at-all accomodating for a transitioning student.

    And now we’re talking about whether or not the student can use the locker room without modifications?

    Seems that even though significant numbers still try to deny that trans* folk exist (insisting they’re just “mentally ill” and such), the country is still getting better.

    So I have hope.

    As for the “libertarian” angle to all this…

    Even if the libertarian “ideal” is that public schools shouldn’t exist at all, given that they *do*, in fact, exist, shouldn’t they, as agents of the government, be required to serve all students equally, without bias or judgement? That bias and judgement (and exclusion from facilities) is something that can go on in private endeavors, but not government funded and run facilities like public schools.

    1. So, you’re advocating unisex locker rooms, and an end to girls’ sports teams? That clearly would be the result if we “serve all students equally, without bias or judgement”.

    2. If not enshrining the enabling of a variant of body dysmorphia in law is wrong then I don’t want to be right.

      The fact is that this individual is a male, a person with XY chromosomes, that identifies with the female gender, which is OK as long as this identification isn’t forced down other people’s throats. No amount of hormone therapy or even surgery can change that fact.

    3. Twenty years ago, studfents who were trans simply sucked it up and acted according to their birth sex.

      1. Things were better 20 years ago

  28. What really pisses me is when people presumably schooled in the English language think that you can use whatever pronoun someone prefers. If Arnold Schwarzenegger insisted on being called a she would Chapman actually do that? Would the State Department change his passport to say he was a biological female? Would he have to wear a dress or have his cock cut off first or does it even matter? Hell, we used to think size mattered, now it doesn’t even matter if you have one or not. I’m thinking of changing my name to John Deere and getting State to change my passport to reflect my new sex…I’m gonna change it to bush hog.

  29. This BOY should be treated like all the other BOYS. HE wants different treatment. HE wants everyone else to go along with HIS delusions. HE needs real psychological help, not surgery, not hormones not a name change, not lipstick, not a dress and definitely not forced accommodation by others. HE is demanding to be treated differently, not the same and to believe otherwise is a denial of basic human biology as well as common sense, decency and courtesy.

  30. Another great argument for not having state run schools or the state involved with education *AT ALL*.

  31. You were right again Warty. No point in it.

  32. “a transgender student who was born male but lives as a female. ”

    Translation from PC to English: a boy.

  33. The politically correct crowd insists that if a girl objects to undressing in front of a boy, she needs to get over it. Nonsense. If a boy is disappointed that he is not a girl, he should get over it.

    “Another option is to treat transgender kids as a third sex, assigning them to separate facilities. But that would officially stigmatize them as freaks.”

    ? Their choice.

  34. But that would stigmatize them as freaks. Yes. Because they are freaks. You have 2 chromosomes. Either they are the same or they are not.

  35. The central committee for the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education knows what’s best for everyone.

    Obama’s Legacy: Transgender Bathroom Crusade

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47J-6zwZl18

  36. Silly article. This is what this country needs to be concerned with? Teenage transsexuals? What a waste We have real problems yet even the President injects his administration again into some local issue. I am still not convinced that kids at this age even understand what is going on with their bodies and so-called adults are encouraging them to cut off their johnson if they suddenly feel like a woman. This si why the Republic is lost.

    1. If all the progressives are euthanized, this ceases to be a problem.

  37. i think there is a big point that gets missed in alot of these transgender cases. why are so many parents letting their kids do this? why are we so eager to tell our kids they don’t have to deal with reality, they only have to deal with what they want to pretend is reality? how are we ok with letting kids who have barely hit puberty… in the stage of life where they are the least qualified to make big life choices… make these kind of changes? what if your kid feels like they are taller? what if they feel like they don’t need glasses to see? what if they feel like they should be valedictorian, but they have a C average? why are we working so hard to teach kids that reality is meaningless compared to their desires?

    i say if an adult decides they want to live as a different gender, more power to them. i think it is practically criminal that we are letting kids go so far as to take hormone therapy and demand special treatment. (because they feel like they don’t have a penis.) let your boy dress as a girl if he wants… but tell him he has to wait for hormone therapy, and showering in the girls room, until he is an adult. maybe not as a legal matter, but as a moral matter, these parents are weak and wrong.

    1. i think there is a big point that gets missed in alot of these transgender cases. why are so many parents letting their kids do this?

      Especially in light of the other things “we” do or don’t let kids do. Transgender fantasies must be supported by everyone in the school district by mandate in arguably the most burdensome method possible, but pop-tarts as ray guns fantasies, reports on shooting dinosaurs, and lewd or unapproved electronic communications, whether privately conducted outside of school or not, is forbidden for everyone.

    2. THIS EXACTLY. It’s completely fucking batshit insane that parents are allowing children — literally children — some as young as four and five years old, to make these kinds of life-altering decisions. Decisions which they are utterly incapable of comprehending the implications of, and the burdens of which they’ll carry for their entire lives.

      When I was in kindergarten, the school I went to had a dress-up closet. It had all the usual stuff you’d expect little kids to want to dress up as. Astronauts, firefighters, ballerinas, etc. For some reason, I was always fixated on this red sequin dress (I’m a guy). I have no idea why, but I just liked it. I know for a fact it wasn’t anything sexual or gender related — far from it. I didn’t have any concept of any of that; I just liked the dress for whatever reason. So every time we played dress up, that’s what I’d pick. And you know what? My teachers left me alone, and that was that. Just a kid doing kid stuff.

      Fast forward thirty years, and here I am, a straight guy with a fianc? and a daughter of my own. No baggage, no gnawing feeling that I shouldn’t have a penis or anything of the sort.

      But had my little escapade with the red sequin dress have taken place today, who knows? In a progressive district, I could have been diagnosed with gender dysmorphia and put on hormones from age six. For no fucking reason at all.

  38. We used to call them Trannies and everyone laughed and the world went on. These folks must live a tough life but they are a tiny fraction of humanity and the world must move on to more important things. They still get to vote, pay taxes, and be entirely ignored by the police state and the criminal politicians.

  39. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

  40. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———- http://www.4cyberworks.com

  41. Except Transgendered people are freaks. They should be stigmatized. We should not be encouraging this ridiculous behaviour.

  42. “Keep your eyes to yourself” – great words!

  43. Maybe I’m crazy for thinking that each community should be able to deal with this issue as they see fit. The possibility of making 99.9% of the population accommodate 0.1% by the force of the Federal Government is off-putting to me, to say the least.

    The author does have a couple points, but using Title IX as the basis of your argument is absurd.

    Here’s a good test: make it so EVERY school in America is required to have partitions or curtains in their bathrooms and/or showers. Something tells me this won’t quell the transgender outrage. However, I could be wrong – maybe this would be enough to make everyone somewhat happy.

    But this is just another symptom of our society sexualizing everything at a younger age. I know people who advocate for Sex Ed classes in Kindergarten, and it’s despicable. Just because innocence will eventually be lost, that doesn’t mean that it should be lost immediately. Let kids be kids. And let parents parent. It’s my right to bring up my son as I see fit. If I choose not to educate him at all, then so be it (don’t worry, this won’t be the case). The point is this: let communities, and their most basic foundation (the family), make the decisions for those whom they govern or take care of.

  44. “Her passport identifies her as a girl, which is what she looks like.”

    How much you want to bet?

  45. you can’t change DNA another fact people can’t get over

  46. Our paleo ancestors didn’t have a problem about nudity why should we. Make one shower/locker room and let the boys and girls share it. Oh wait. Most of these people are supposed to be Christians, to whom the unclothed human body is evil, sinful, obscene, and just downright disgusting. It’s a wonder more people don’t go crazy or kill themselves when they have to get naked at home to bathe. (Remember, we’re all naked under our clothes.)

    1. Separating naked teenage boys and girls has absolutely nothing to do with nudity being sinful, evil, or any other straw man you’d like to construct. This isn’t ancient Rome, where girls were expected to be married and pregnant by age fourteen.

      Here in the real world of 2015, kids already have more than enough opportunity to see each other naked if they so choose, and seem to have very little problem doing so on their own terms. But if you can’t imagine why throwing dozens of naked teenagers into a locker room/shower together is a bad idea, then I’m afraid you’re just disconnected from reality.

      Or maybe you’re just hoping to supervise? You know, to make sure nothing inappropriate happens?

  47. FTA: “But mere difference is not enough to justify different treatment. Women differ from men, blacks differ from whites, and Catholics differ from Jews. Yet all are entitled to equal treatment.”

    ….. what??? Did Chapman miss the fact that women and men have separate bathrooms and locker rooms?

    Race and religion aren’t the same thing as sex. When it comes to the sexes, it’s “separate but equal”.

    Bathrooms and locker rooms were never intended to be gender identification stations. They are there to separate penises from vaginas. I wonder – would Chapman really be comfortable with his daughter in a locker room of biological men?

    1. The question is what kind of similarity constitutes “equality”.

  48. The school district has a reasonable solution. The Feds have no power enumerated in the Constitution to interfere. Period.

    But hey, why not take things to their logical conclusion. Since the Supreme Court will never do its job and declare federal interference like Title IX unconstitutional, then we should no longer have separate changing rooms for girls and boys.

    1. Seeing as the threatened “interference” is witholding funds, how does the Fed *not* have power? Is the school now entitled to federal funds? Is the fed not allowed to place conditions on it’s funding?

  49. This is all political theater, designed to distract from the real issues. Deck chairs on the Titanic. Seriously. Problem is all that these echo chamber dwelling,vapor ware vendors have no idea how absurd this SJW bullshit looks to the 99% of the rest of the country that doesn’t live there. Let’s not imagine how ridiculous and decadent we look to the rest of the world. My favorite thing about the Hunger Games was it’s portrayal of the absurd and cluelessly self absorbed capital city aristocracy. Camille Paglia may be on to something. In a free market educational system this would not even be a thing. We don’t have these issues with say food service for this reason. Vegan Raw food, Steak and Lobster, McDonalds value menu, nothing at all? Buy what you want, or not – no one forces it down your throat and everyone is wealthier and happier for it. The one upside I see is the imminent elimination of the oh so PC but oh so panderingly racist affirmative action policies. X and Y are binary and very much written in stone in a sense, in the DNA stone we are all made of. “Race” on the other hand is a very abstract concept at best. Much more fluid, not black or white but ten thousand shades of gray. And always self or culturally defined. A political discriminatory practice that everyone can take advantage at will is one that no longer exists for long.

  50. Your entirely reasonable article is undermined by the penultimate paragraph. Compromise, reasonable or otherwise is not in the lexicon of the modern ‘progressive’ culture warrior.

  51. It’s hard to believe libertarians are still hung up on this. Oh wait, loads of you are still crying about homosexuals getting equal treatment before the law; this is totally believable.

    The “why do we have to bend over backwards for a tiny minority” is pretty laughable when these propositions and laws are targeted against the rights of that minority. Libertarians rightfully get upset about how elections are rigged to favor only two parties; why care about the tiny minority of libertarian voters? Why should elections have to bend over backwards for you?

    The ‘chromosome’ argument is particularly ridiculous – when was the last time you examined someone’s chromosomes before deciding whether to call them ‘he’ or ‘she’? Chromosome testing isn’t very common, and when it has been done it shows that quite a few people don’t have their expected chromosomes – and some have both XX and XY.

    The most obvious solution: most teenagers want to disrobe in private; curtains or stalls in the locker rooms would benefit everybody and nobody would have to show off anything they didn’t want to.

  52. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……

    http://www.OnlineJobs100.com

  53. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  54. Here’s a compromise: anyone with a dick stays out of the girl’s room, and they don’t get neutered with a shotgun.

    See, compromise.

  55. On one hand, I’m sympathetic to LGBT individuals who just want to live their own lives in a way that fits with their own identity. As far as I’m concerned, the central point of libertarianism is that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren’t hurting (i.e. initiating force against) anyone else. People who are afraid of transgender individuals are bigots, period.

    On the other hand, I can’t stand SJWs who insist on government mandating every aspect of personal behavior to fit some sort of progressive politically correct ideal.

    Fundamentally, the question of “Who should the government allow into locker rooms?” is like the question of “What religion should government indoctrinate children into?”

    The idea that schools should be private is not a side issue. It is the central issue. Schools invariably raise children according to certain values. In a pluralistic society with conflicting value systems (traditionalism vs. progressivism vs. individualism) any public school (with mandatory funding and attendance) is absolutely going to violate someone’s rights, and the only argument is over whose values should be sacrificed.

    1. “People who are afraid of transgender individuals are bigots, period.”

      The period is very impressive. But those who are not awestruck notice that more is required to support that assertion. Please elaborate.

      1. Give me one rational justification for this fear. Irrational fear of people who are different = bigotry.

        Again, I’m not saying the SJWs are right that the federal government should ban bigotry at gunpoint, just pointing out what it is.

        1. Tell me why it’s a fear as opposed to an average preference (“average” referring to kind, not to majority preference). Is disgust the opposite to finding something beautiful? Are perceptions of beauty rational?

  56. A claims he is a teapot, B claims he is not a teapot. That would be easy to decide. As long as the objective definition for “teapot” still stands and we don’t have anyone who postulates a trans-teapot. In regards to sex, the questions is whose definition is superior. That can’t be solved. So one has to choose some other criterion. That’d be freedom of association, possibly combined with majoritarianism and utilitarianism. If the boys or girls agree that X is not a boy/girl then X has no positive right to association, to be in the locker room these groups deem wrong. Some accomodations are in order, based on utilitarianism. That presumably means creating a third locker room would generally be prohibitively expensive. Thus setting up X in the locker room which the boys and girls agree is correct would be the right solution, with accomodations such as curtains. Much like single-sex schools, trans-schools could be worth considering. Though again, low numbers may bar that approach (utilitarianism, efficient/equal use of resources/tax money).

    As for homosexuals, the same principles apply, but things are easier in practice. That’s in part because they more easily pass and can their orientation can be ignored. A further part is that their difference – deviation – seems less fundamental and less unsettling.

    1. As a libertarian, I don’t think either majoritarianism or utilitarianism provides a suitable basis for a free society.

      1. You have to figure out a solution for this, which is but an approximation, not an exercise of theory under perfect conditions. What you are saying that democracy is not suitable basis. Yet we are moving within its bounds. Funds are expropriated. The question is how to best use them, within realistic bounds. That brings into play concepts of public goods, and efficiency (including for example Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks). Couple them with pluralism, as an approximation to the idea of classical liberalism.

  57. What website is this? It can’t be Reason…

  58. Why is this even a federal issue?

  59. Isn’t the answer simply to get the government out of education?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.