Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

1…2021232526…35

Comments

  • #662
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    mayobumblebee wrote: »
    :eek:
    my fella always sits to pee i noticed because i never have to put the seat down:D
    i asked him about it and he says he has always sat from a very young age if he has a choice
    oh dear should i tell him now ?

    If it turns out in a few years that he is indeed transgender, when you're being interviewed for an article and asked to think back about any possible signs you can refer to that.


  • #663
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Links234 wrote: »
    It's a very clumsy way of saying she had been allowed to use the girl's toilets all along and the school had up until this point been supportive of her doing so.

    Well children are children but as they get older, more aware and more body conscious I can see why there would be objections in fairness.


  • #664
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    smash wrote: »
    Well children are children but as they get older, more aware and more body conscious I can see why there would be objections in fairness.

    Just because there are objections doesn't mean they should be adhered to. People object to all sorts of things, like teaching evolution, sex education or any number of other things.


  • #665
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Links234 wrote: »
    Just because there are objections doesn't mean they should be adhered to. People object to all sorts of things, like teaching evolution, sex education or any number of other things.

    I'm sorry, but the possible objections or possible issues of a class full of girls should be adhered to. This is not a case of a strange form of teaching. It is the introduction of a member of the opposite sex (not gender) into an arena where they should be allowed feel safe and secure.


  • #666
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 56,309 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Links234 wrote: »
    Just because there are objections doesn't mean they should be adhered to. People object to all sorts of things, like teaching evolution, sex education or any number of other things.

    The parents are objecting to the idea of their child using the boys bathroom.

    Can their objection be ignored then, seeing as they are the clear minority?


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Links234 wrote: »

    Just because there are objections doesn't mean they should be adhered to. People object to all sorts of things, like teaching evolution, sex education or any number of other things.


    Isn't the whole premise of this case based around the objections by the parents and the school's refusal to adhere to them?

    I see, the above only applies when it suits you, we can disregard everyone else's opinion then as invalid just so we all conform to your opinion.

    Baby steps Links, and try not to bite off more than you can chew.


  • #668
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    smash wrote: »
    I'm sorry, but the possible objections or possible issues of a class full of girls should be adhered to. This is not a case of a strange form of teaching. It is the introduction of a member of the opposite sex (not gender) into an arena where they should be allowed feel safe and secure.

    "safe and secure"!? possible objections should only be considered if there was actually any danger posed by the little girl in question, which there isn't! and you're forgetting that it's the school who is making the issue, she's probably got plenty of friends in the school who don't treat her any differently at all.


  • #669
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    TheChizler wrote: »

    If it turns out in a few years that he is indeed transgender, when you're being interviewed for an article and asked to think back about any possible signs you can refer to that.


    Why would you assume the default that "indeed" the child might be trans, just because they sit down for a pìss?

    Methinks thou analyse and read into things WAY too much in your quest to categorise and label a behaviour that doesn't sit right with your gender stereotypical view.

    Have you ever heard the expression "monkey see, monkey do", as in if the child is only aware that the default behaviour when urinating is to assume the sitting position, then that's the behaviour they follow.


  • #670
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Links234 wrote: »

    "safe and secure"!? possible objections should only be considered if there was actually any danger posed by the little girl in question, which there isn't! and you're forgetting that it's the school who is making the issue, she's probably got plenty of friends in the school who don't treat her any differently at all.


    You're taking some almighty leaps in probability Links, in the very same way it suits you to be certain that the child is indeed a little girl.

    There could just as much be every possibility that the child is not a little girl and you can't assume you know any better based on the same sketchy information that is available to the public.

    The school has to take account of this possibility while at the same time giving due regard to the other students in the school and THEIR parent's views. The other parents in the school shouldn't have to be confronted with the idea of approaching and explaining transgenderism to THEIR children if they feel they are not mature enough yet to understand the multitude of issues involved.

    The parents in this case show no due consideration to anyone but themselves (the father still hasn't said much either), and reinforce the idea in their child that they are the centre of their known world and said known world will revolve around them and adapt itself to accommodate the child.

    I can see this coming back to give the child when they grow to be an adult, a ferocious bite in the ass that they will be wholly unprepared for.


  • #671
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    awec wrote: »
    The parents are objecting to the idea of their child using the boys bathroom.

    Can their objection be ignored then, seeing as they are the clear minority?

    She had been using the girl's toilets all along and the school had been supportive of this, it was also in line with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act so they acted illegally. If people are to be ignored just because they're in the minority, then are you suggesting that majority rules and everyone who doesn't adhere to it should be forced to? do you not see how wrong a position that is?


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Isn't the whole premise of this case based around the objections by the parents and the school's refusal to adhere to them?

    I see, the above only applies when it suits you, we can disregard everyone else's opinion then as invalid just so we all conform to your opinion.

    Baby steps Links, and try not to bite off more than you can chew.

    The whole presime of the case is that the school acted illegally and is being taken to court over it.

    and stop the condescending nonsense


  • #673
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Links234 wrote: »
    "safe and secure"!? possible objections should only be considered if there was actually any danger posed by the little girl in question, which there isn't! and you're forgetting that it's the school who is making the issue, she's probably got plenty of friends in the school who don't treat her any differently at all.

    No, possible objections should be considered because there is not just 1 person to consider here. There is a whole school full of girls to consider!
    Links234 wrote: »
    She had been using the girl's toilets all along and the school had been supportive of this, it was also in line with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act so they acted illegally.

    So if a father brings his daughter to the men's changing room at the swimming pool while she's young, should she still be allowed to go there as she gets older?


  • #674
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    smash wrote: »
    No, possible objections should be considered because there is not just 1 person to consider here. There is a whole school full of girls to consider!

    So if it were a single muslim child at a majority christian school, it's just 1 person to consider right?
    smash wrote: »
    So if a father brings his daughter to the men's changing room at the swimming pool while she's young, should she still be allowed to go there as she gets older?
    I don't even know how to respond to that. :confused:


  • #675
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    smash wrote: »
    I agree 100% here. Bathrooms aren't about gender, they're segregated based on sex! Why should other girls have to deal with someone using their bathrooms or facilities if they have a penis?

    I can definitely understand this point.

    On the other hand, girls are well used to seeing boys use female facilities because mothers bring their young boys with them to the ladies room when mother, son or both have to go to the bathroom.

    I'm not really sure at what age this stops becoming ok and boys are sent into the men's on their own.


  • #676
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Links234 wrote: »
    So if it were a single muslim child at a majority christian school, it's just 1 person to consider right?
    I fail to see how this has anything to do with sex? You're going back to teaching again which is nothing to do with it.
    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I'm not really sure at what age this stops becoming ok and boys are sent into the men's on their own.

    In a school environment, after the age of around 6, they're sent on their own.


  • #677
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    smash wrote: »
    I fail to see how this has anything to do with sex? You're going back to teaching again which is nothing to do with it.

    You're saying that one student shouldn't have their concerns looked out for even if the school acted against the law. If a single muslim student was discriminated against and the defense was that it was a christian majority and they weren't comfortable with the muslim student, is that ok because it's only one student?


  • #678
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Links234 wrote: »

    You're saying that one student shouldn't have their concerns looked out for even if the school acted against the law. If a single muslim student was discriminated against and the defense was that it was a christian majority and they weren't comfortable with the muslim student, is that ok because it's only one student?
    No, I'm saying that there's a lot more people to consider than the 1 single student. Who was offered an alternative by the way. A Muslim in catholic school has nothing to do with decency and privacy laws! The child is a different Sex, it's separate to gender! Toilets are about the use and possible exposure of sexual organs... The same as a changing room!


  • #679
    starlings
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭starlings


    Links234 wrote: »
    She had been using the girl's toilets all along and the school had been supportive of this, it was also in line with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act so they acted illegally. If people are to be ignored just because they're in the minority, then are you suggesting that majority rules and everyone who doesn't adhere to it should be forced to? do you not see how wrong a position that is?

    Links234, I'm very glad you joined this thread and I've found your posts illuminating.

    If this child was an adult or teenager, I would expect the full force of the anti-discrimination laws to be applied. The problem IMO is that, being only 6, Coy is in the subset of children within the set of a minority, and this is where everything gets tangled up in knots. The courts will have to consider a reported self-identification from a person on the cusp of the age of reason - who is probably bewildered by having her existing toilet habits taken away and being taken out of school- so there is a real problem with subjectivity, and balance that with the needs of her classmates and the implications of this case as a precedent.

    If the school had carried on as before, which seemed to be a kind and reasonable approach to dealing with a child who is different, it would have been better for all concerned.


  • #680
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    smash wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that there's a lot more people to consider than the 1 single student. Who was offered an alternative by the way. A Muslim in catholic school has nothing to do with decency and privacy laws! The child is a different Sex, it's separate to gender! Toilets are about the use and possible exposure of sexual organs... The same as a changing room!

    I don't know what you are talking about exposure for. Girls toilets have cubicles!

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #681
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Czarcasm wrote: »


    Why would you assume the default that "indeed" the child might be trans, just because they sit down for a pìss?

    Methinks thou analyse and read into things WAY too much in your quest to categorise and label a behaviour that doesn't sit right with your gender stereotypical view.

    Have you ever heard the expression "monkey see, monkey do", as in if the child is only aware that the default behaviour when urinating is to assume the sitting position, then that's the behaviour they follow.
    Wasn't talking about the child there at all. Someone commented on someone they know demonstrating what they thought could be seen as a transgender trait.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Links234 wrote: »

    The whole presime of the case is that the school acted illegally and is being taken to court over it.


    I've already pointed out, based on information you yourself provided, that the school met it's obligations under Colorado State law by accommodating the child with appropriate facilities for their presented gender in the school nurses station. The child refused to use the facilities and was adamant that they be allowed use the bathroom used by children whose physical gender was female.

    This to me, when common sense is applied, just comes across as the child behaving like a spoilt brat and wanting everything their own way, the parents then expecting that everyone else should fall into line to accommodate the child.
    and stop the condescending nonsense


    Quite the opposite Links and far from being condescending, I happen to be just as passionate about this issue as you are, we just have a different perspective on it. If I were to be condescending, you would certainly be made aware of the difference between that, and me just having an opinion that doesn't jig with your conservative world view.


    Since Mad has not answered the question, maybe you could-

    Where do you draw the line between what the child wants, and what a parent wants for the child?

    If the child at four years of age is understood to understand all the issues surrounding the concept of what it is to be transgender, and were to tell you that they wanted to transition with a combination of hormones and surgery, would you then listen to them too and support their decision and do what you could to enable them to undergo medical treatments and procedures to transition at four years of age, having put forward the idea all along that they understood all the concepts and issues involved in what it is to be transgender?


  • #683
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I don't know what you are talking about exposure for. Girls toilets have cubicles!

    So where do you draw the line? It's ok to use a toilet but not a changing room? Because that will be the next thing.


  • #684
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Wasn't talking about the child there at all. Someone commented on someone they know demonstrating what they thought could be seen as a transgender trait.


    Except they didn't ascribe any transgender traits to the child at all, you did, because it followed your stereotypical perceptions of gender and subscribing to the idea that girls sit, boys stand.


  • #685
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I don't know what you are talking about exposure for. Girls toilets have cubicles!

    It doesn't matter. Really, in most discussions where one side is arguing in defense of the rights of a minority and the other side is against them, the anti-side frequently present a diverse range of reasons and rationalisations, but it's just a front. The truth is that they have a conservative, judgmental attitude and weirdos should be shunned, everything else is hot-air. Opponents of gay marriage rant about adoption: Think of the children!. Transgendered people using the "wrong" bathroom: Think of the genitals!

    Their reasons don't need to connect with reality, they need to present the facade of legitimacy and that's all that matters. It really really explains a lot about why debating with prejudiced people is so frustrating: Their stated reasons aren't their real reasons, so it doesn't matter how thoroughly you out-debate them, they'll just go in circles, or ignore you, or invent something new. It's amazing how consistent it is once you learn to look out for it.


  • #686
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    mango salsa wrote: »

    I don't know what you are talking about exposure for. Girls toilets have cubicles!


    How would you suggest accommodating a child who presented as male but had physical characteristics of a female?

    Would you suggest they too be forced to use the female toilets?


  • #687
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Where do you draw the line between what the child wants, and what a parent wants for the child?
    When a psychologist verifies that what the child wants is not just a phase and part if who they are. Obviously you would never consider surgery until after the major changes that occur in puberty.


  • #688
    starlings
    Closed Accounts Posts: 683 ✭✭✭starlings


    Zillah wrote: »
    It doesn't matter. Really, in most discussions where one side is arguing in defense of the rights of a minority and the other side is against them, the anti-side frequently present a diverse range of reasons and rationalisations, but it's just a front. The truth is that they have a conservative, judgmental attitude and weirdos should be shunned, everything else is hot-air. Opponents of gay marriage rant about adoption: Think of the children!. Transgendered people using the "wrong" bathroom: Think of the genitals!

    Their reasons don't need to connect with reality, they need to present the facade of legitimacy and that's all that matters. It really really explains a lot about why debating with prejudiced people is so frustrating: Their stated reasons aren't their real reasons, so it doesn't matter how thoroughly you out-debate them, they'll just go in circles, or ignore you, or invent something new. It's amazing how consistent it is once you learn to look out for it.

    right back at you, Zillah: that is the very definition of prejudice.


  • #689
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Please elaborate.


  • #690
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zillah wrote: »
    It doesn't matter. Really, in most discussions where one side is arguing in defense of the rights of a minority and the other side is against them, the anti-side frequently present a diverse range of reasons and rationalisations, but it's just a front. The truth is that they have a conservative, judgmental attitude and weirdos should be shunned, everything else is hot-air. Opponents of gay marriage rant about adoption: Think of the children!. Transgendered people using the "wrong" bathroom: Think of the genitals!

    Their reasons don't need to connect with reality, they need to present the facade of legitimacy and that's all that matters. It really really explains a lot about why debating with prejudiced people is so frustrating: Their stated reasons aren't their real reasons, so it doesn't matter how thoroughly you out-debate them, they'll just go in circles, or ignore you, or invent something new. It's amazing how consistent it is once you learn to look out for it.

    That really is quite an insulting and extremely cocky post. Insinuating that if we're not with you, we're against you also is quite low.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Links234 wrote: »
    You're saying that one student shouldn't have their concerns looked out for even if the school acted against the law. If a single muslim student was discriminated against and the defense was that it was a christian majority and they weren't comfortable with the muslim student, is that ok because it's only one student?
    What are you waffling about? For children, there is no such thing a 'Muslim student'. That religious identity is given to them by their parents and is certainly not innate. No child is born Muslim or Christian.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement