Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

Royal Irish · 28-02-2013 11:29PM

MadsL wrote: »

Read the articles, or the thread.

In the OP it says 18 months and if that is accurate the parents should have their kids taken off them. Its just plain wrong. This is a decision the child should make themselves in their teens.

MadsL · 28-02-2013 11:30PM

Royal Irish wrote: »

In the OP it says 18 months and if that is accurate the parents should have their kids taken off them. Its just plain wrong. This is a decision the child should make themselves in their teens.

You still haven't read them. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

--Kaiser-- · 28-02-2013 11:33PM

MadsL wrote: »

I'm using language that a four year old would use. At one point this child was crying at the thought of have a hairy chest and a beard when they get older. Coy pushed the parents to be allowed to wear dresses outside.

Coy may not have GID, but for the moment is happier when wearing a dress and identifying as a girl.

Now do you want to articulate what the problem is exactly.

You would have to have the mind of a 4 year old to think any of this is reason to declare an infant as transgender

TheChizler · 28-02-2013 11:37PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You would have to have the mind of a 4 year old to think any of this is reason to declare an infant as transgender

Of course that's not the only reason, what's with the excessive use of hyperbole in this thread? (There's nothing I hate more than in the world than hyperbole!

)

A professional psychologist has determined this taking into account a whole lot more evidence, and the school had accepted the significance of this up to now.

clairefontaine · 28-02-2013 11:38PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

The school didn't single the child out for segregation, the parent's did, by making a point of the fact that the child was to be given special treatment because of their perceived gender identity.

It's going to be a messy one Mad tbh (the case I mean, not the toilet, I'm sure the child has been taught to aim properly by now with their penis), I know that over here the school has provided outside unisex toilet facilities on the yard and indoor single sex toilet facilities, and that in the case of students where psychological testing is deemed necessary, the school must employ the services of a professionally qualified psychiatrist to assess the child's needs.

I can only imagine the amount of legal eagle spin and conjecture that'll be employed by both parties in this case, but tbh I can't see the child coming out the best of it in any case.

Both the family and the school have already been tried in the court of public opinion and I'd imagine both sides are fairly well divided, with one side empathising with the child, the other side calling for some common sense to be applied.

Schools regularly make special treatments for kids. Muslim kids can leave to pray. Jehovas' witnesses are exempt from immunisations and the pledge of allegiance. Kids with gifts or learning disabilities also get special treatment to accommodate their extra needs. That's what respect for the individual means. You can't treat everyone the same, when everyone is not the same, that is the worst kind of discrimination.

The only solution to this as far as I can see is in schools make the bathrooms unisex. This might work in elementary, when you get to secondary and you have sports teams and changing rooms, it might be a lot harder to do that.

clairefontaine · 28-02-2013 11:40PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Of course that's not the only reason, what's with the excessive use of hyperbole in this thread? (There's nothing I hate more than in the world than hyperbole! )

A professional psychologist has determined this taking into account a whole lot more evidence, and the school had accepted the significance of this up to now.

They were probably taking into consideration the feelings of the girls using the bathroom.

starlings · 28-02-2013 11:41PM

MadsL wrote: »

Disability, Race, Color, National Origin, Ancestry, Sexual Orientation, Sex (includes pregnancy), Creed, Religion (employment and housing only), Age (employment only), Marriage to a Co-Worker (employment only), Marital Status (housing and public accommodations only), and Familial Status (housing only).

Why do you want to exclude one from that list from children when all others apply? If a 12 year old is obviously gay and has a boyfriend in school, do his orientation rights disappear because he is a child?

Pregnancy is also protected under those rights, are you saying schoolchildren who get pregnant whilst still at school age should not be covered by such rights?

And I have posted at least two examples where those feelings were present from the age of 5.

Comply with the law.

Assert their child's rights under the law. Not the least is the right to an education.

I neither think it is a good idea to throw ridicule at the parents, as you have.

And I do not see that child either being hurt by being allowed to be happier than being forced into a birth gender identity nor that the parents are hurting anyone else.

As I said, it's one 6 year-old child, not a gay 12 year-old boy or any other argument I didn't actually make.
I acknowledged the early onset of GID, as reported by adult trans people. The question is how to help a child deal with it during his/her development.
I did not ridicule the parents.
As I said, it's tricky.

TheChizler · 28-02-2013 11:44PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

They were probably taking into consideration the feelings of the girls using the bathroom.

I can see the schools perspective on this all right, other parents taking exception and all that. So the school have a huge conundrum. But is it ok to single out one child discriminatorily because of some parents taking offence?

starlings · 28-02-2013 11:46PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The only solution to this as far as I can see is in schools make the bathrooms unisex. This might work in elementary, when you get to secondary and you have sports teams and changing rooms, it might be a lot harder to do that.

By the secondary school stage (horrors of puberty aside), having grown up in a gender-neutral way, the boys and girls might be better able to cope with difference and with the very rare cases where one of them might identify with the opposite gender/sex.

Czarcasm · 28-02-2013 11:46PM

MadsL wrote: »

You believe children cannot express what makes them feel happy and not happy? That is all that happened. Child is now wearing a dress because that makes them feel happy. Is that really hard to grasp?

Have any psychologists assessed the possible long term effects that shoving the child in front of the world's media will have on them, and that if the child in the future decides they are indeed not happy to wear dresses, will they feel pressured to continue the behaviour in order to get the extra affection and attention from their parents that the other four children are being made to miss out on?

GK keeps mentioning the case of David Reimner, but a case like that pales in comparison to the number of trans persons who having chosen to undergo gender reassignment surgery, later regret their decision having done so.

The transgender community doesn't like to acknowledge those people though half as quickly as one tragic case that works for their world view.

Royal Irish · 28-02-2013 11:47PM

MadsL wrote: »

You still haven't read them. I'm not going to spoonfeed you.

I have read them and the only people who need to be spoon fed is some common sense to the parents.

mackg · 28-02-2013 11:51PM

Links234 wrote: »

Nobody said there were signs, all the parents said was in retrospect that she seemed to like everything pink and sparkly since 18 months. They hadn't taken this as any kind of sign, but seemed to suggest it made sense after she had began to express herself quite vocally about who she was.

Fair enough even though it sounds more like dumb "he's loved football since he was 2 months old" parent kind of crap about their son on the local team than anything else to me, harmless stuff but as can be seen here doing them no favours. As it stands I'll take the psychologists word for it.

On the toilet issue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/20/zach-avery-4-is-youngest-in-britain-to-be-diagnosed-with-gender-identity-disorder-gid_n_1288531.html

And Zach's school - Purfleet Primary in Essex - has even turned their toilet block gender neutral to support him.

Theresa added: "They have changed the toilets for Key Stage 1 pupils into Unisex instead of male/female and they address him as a girl, which is what he wants.

"When he gets a bit older, to Key Stage 2, then obviously the law changes and there will be more difficulties surrounding the bathroom issue, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it - it may be that Zach will use the staff toilets.

"We explained to the other kids at the school that Zachy's body was that of a boy but in his brain he was a girl. We said Zach was just happier being a girl than a boy.

"But the other kids haven't batted an eyelid, they've accepted Zach as Zach and there's been no problems at the school with bullying.

"The school has been brilliant and really, really supportive."

It's strange that what's really supportive and what's outright discrimination are virtually the same thing in different places. Was there any mention of the schools attitude to the kid outside of the toilet issue?

TheChizler · 28-02-2013 11:52PM

Royal Irish wrote: »

I have read them and the only people who need to be spoon fed is some common sense to the parents.

What common sense? They're supporting their child, after taking sensible steps to be certain it's not just a phase. The only questionable thing I can think of is the media coverage the child is being exposed to, but then again we don't know was the story going to break anyway and they wanted to come out ahead, is the child ok with it, did their psychologist determine it wouldn't do the child any harm? We don't know and can't do anything but speculate.

clairefontaine · 28-02-2013 11:53PM

TheChizler wrote: »

I can see the schools perspective on this all right, other parents taking exception and all that. So the school have a huge conundrum. But is it ok to single out one child discriminatorily because of some parents taking offence?

I really don't know. It opens up a can of worms. I can think of many boys in school who would have preferred to use the girls' locker room, not for peeping tom purposes but to avoid the hazing and bullying that went on in the boys' one.

If you let one boy in, then you have to let the others in, other wise it's also discrimination.

clairefontaine · 28-02-2013 11:58PM

starlings wrote: »

By the secondary school stage (horrors of puberty aside), having grown up in a gender-neutral way, the boys and girls might be better able to cope with difference and with the very rare cases where one of them might identify with the opposite gender/sex.

This is impossible once you hit puberty. Sharing a bathroom is one thing, but changing rooms, showers, and sports are another thing altogether. Even within families of brothers and sisters, once that stage is reached, girls and boys stop sharing rooms and are encouraged not to change in front of each other and to be private about their privates.

starlings · 28-02-2013 11:58PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I really don't know. It opens up a can of worms. I can think of many boys in school who would have preferred to use the girls' locker room, not for peeping tom purposes but to avoid the hazing and bullying that went on in the boys' one.

If you let one boy in, then you have to let the others in, other wise it's also discrimination.

we used to let the boys into the girls' changing rooms because they were further from the staff room and we could all smoke without getting caught!

TheChizler · 28-02-2013 11:59PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I really don't know. It opens up a can of worms. I can think of many boys in school who would have preferred to use the girls' locker room, not for peeping tom purposes but to avoid the hazing and bullying that went on in the boys' one.

If you let one boy in, then you have to let the others in, other wise it's also discrimination.

I'd agree with the sentiment, but you'd have to show that they were being treated less favourably for it to be discrimination. For the transgender child they are being singled out and have to go to very different lengths to go to the bathroom. But for what I'd assume is a close to 50/50 male to female school, the female bathrooms would have to be a significantly nicer or convenient or generally better for you to argue that the boys were being discriminated against. If the facilities are essentially identical then I can't see how you'd argue discrimination.

starlings · 01-03-2013 12:00AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

This is impossible once you hit puberty. Sharing a bathroom is one thing, but changing rooms, showers, and sports are another thing altogether. Even within families of brothers and sisters, once that stage is reached, girls and boys stop sharing rooms and are encouraged not to change in front of each other and to be private about their privates.

I wasn't clear - I meant that children brought up with unisex toilets could fit in (or not in rare cases) to their gendered changing rooms once they hit puberty.

clairefontaine · 01-03-2013 12:03AM

TheChizler wrote: »

I'd agree with the sentiment, but you'd have to show that they were being treated less favourably for it to be discrimination. For the transgender child they are being singled out and have to go to very different lengths to go to the bathroom. But for what I'd assume is a close to 50/50 male to female school, the female bathrooms would have to be a significantly nicer or convenient or generally better for you to argue that the boys were being discriminated against. If the facilities are essentially identical then I can't see how you'd argue discrimination.

Ah ok I see what you were saying.

So to avoid that trap.... could they have said to the parents... while he has a penis..he is using the boys' bathroom?

If you let one use the girls' bathroom, then you have to let the others. There is just no way around that. And then of course to really be fair, you have to let the girls use the boys' bathroom.

TheChizler · 01-03-2013 12:10AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

If you let one use the girls' bathroom, then you have to let the others. There is just no way around that. And then of course to really be fair, you have to let the girls use the boys' bathroom.

I don't think discrimination laws cancel out if you counter the initial discrimination with the opposite. I don't see why you'd be counting and letting one physical female in to the opposite bathroom for every physical male.

I suppose it depends if you assign people to bathrooms based on physical sex or psychological gender! A lot of anti-discrimination laws specify gender-identity though.

Edit: Then again the issue here is not letting people into opposite bathrooms, it's that one person is being singled out and made do something different to either group.

Annasopra · 01-03-2013 12:10AM

awec wrote: »

The parents said that at 18 months their child presented as female (though again, how anyone can deduce this for a child that age is incredibly questionable).

It seems fairly clear that from that age on they believed their child was female.

Given the young age of the child, it's far from unreasonable (in fact it's most likely) that the parents would have continued with this idea they had through the child's early years, when the child was incredibly impressionable.

That is YOUR interpretation only

clairefontaine · 01-03-2013 12:11AM

starlings wrote: »

I wasn't clear - I meant that children brought up with unisex toilets could fit in (or not in rare cases) to their gendered changing rooms once they hit puberty.

Well here is the practical challenge with that.

Elementary schools are k-8. That brings you from 5 years old to 13. Puberty hits in around 9 in some cases.

What they could do to avoid the issue entirely, is instead of having bathrooms outside of the classroom down the hall that a number of classrooms share, is have classrooms be ensuite, with one bathroom attached to the classroom. This would be safer too as its one kid at a time, no having to leave the classroom, in my opinion and cut out the buddy system [implemented to avoid sex assaults and bullying] and the other stuff that goes on when the kids meet in the bathroom.

MikeD22 · 01-03-2013 12:14AM

[QUOTE=MadsL[/QUOTE]

You have been arguing now for 40ish pages.......

Is this some sort of record???

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2013 12:17AM

mango salsa wrote: »

That is YOUR interpretation only

I think you'll find It would to be most our opinion/interpretation

And before it gets jumped on i said MOST not ALL

starlings · 01-03-2013 12:20AM

MikeD22 wrote: »

You have been arguing now for 40ish pages.......

Is this some sort of record???

a broken one???

TheChizler · 01-03-2013 12:22AM

GT_TDI_150 wrote: »

And before it gets jumped on i said MOST not ALL

Correct beats most!!

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 12:23AM

MadsL wrote: »

I'm using language that a four year old would use. At one point this child was crying at the thought of have a hairy chest and a beard when they get older. Coy pushed the parents to be allowed to wear dresses outside.

Coy may not have GID, but for the moment is happier when wearing a dress and identifying as a girl.

Now do you want to articulate what the problem is exactly.

what if coy DOESN'T have GID, what do you think this public dog and pony show will do to the kid as they hit puberty?

if dressing your transgender kid as their physical gender is going to mess with their self-image and mental health, surely it follows that the reverse is true?

This kid should have been told "lookit, you're using the nurse's, cause you are different. not different good or different bad - but different." By the parents, not the school. It would definitely be preferable to dragging the kid out of school, which tells the kid they are different AND isolates.

How can anyone be saying this kid is identifying as transgender if this topic isn't even discussed with said kid.

Plus, I'd have killed in school to have me own separate jacks.

MadsL · 01-03-2013 12:45AM

MikeD22 wrote: »

You have been arguing now for 40ish pages.......

Is this some sort of record???

16 pages as I am using boards correctly.

And you over a year here and you still can't use quote tags. Is this a record?

oppenheimer1 · 01-03-2013 01:48AM

MadsL wrote: »

16 pages as I am using boards correctly.

And you over a year here and you still can't use quote tags. Is this a record?

I didn't realise there was a correct way to use boards??

You have a bit of an attitude problem I think...

fasttalkerchat · 01-03-2013 02:01AM

MadsL wrote: »

16 pages as I am using boards correctly.

And you over a year here and you still can't use quote tags. Is this a record?

Doing it wrong. I'm on page 12. You seriously need to add to your ignore list!

Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

Comments