Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:20PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No it doesn't

You haven't the slightest notion what you're talking about

Czarcasm · 01-03-2013 02:23PM

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't know why you are bringing forcing into this. What evidence have you that Coy is using girls toilets against her will?

Mango you misunderstood the question. As I understand it, the child in this case is being told they cannot use the female facilities. They were offered the use of appropriate for their gender facilities in the nurses station. They refused these too. They are adamant that they be allowed use the female facilities.

I put forward the hypothetical question that if a child presenting as male, but displaying female physical characteristics, wanted to use the male toilets, would you suggest that they too be accommodated in the same fashion, or forced to use the female toilets.

i.e. Should a female pre-op child presenting as male, be allowed to use the male toilets?

(and for the purposes of keeping the question as simple as possible, I am willing to ignore more practical concerns such as installing extra plumbing and a cubicle for the child).

Links234 · 01-03-2013 02:28PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

(and for the purposes of keeping the question as simple as possible, I am willing to ignore more practical concerns such as installing extra plumbing and a cubicle for the child).

Apparently boys don't poop.

The ****?

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:32PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Mango you misunderstood the question. As I understand it, the child in this case is being told they cannot use the female facilities. They were offered the use of appropriate for their gender facilities in the nurses station. They refused these too. They are adamant that they be allowed use the female facilities.

I put forward the hypothetical question that if a child presenting as male, but displaying female physical characteristics, wanted to use the male toilets, would you suggest that they too be accommodated in the same fashion, or forced to use the female toilets.

i.e. Should a female pre-op child presenting as male, be allowed to use the male toilets?

(and for the purposes of keeping the question as simple as possible, I am willing to ignore more practical concerns such as installing extra plumbing and a cubicle for the child).

Sure, why not? I think it would be physically impossible for a female-to-male transgendered person to use a urinal, but there's nothing stopping him from using a cubicle in the boy's room. At lot of people seem to be missing the point. The child in the OP doesn't want to be left out, to be made feel like an outcast, which is what using the nurse's bathroom would do.

You people sure do raise a lot of objections about practical issues, without showing the slightest inclination towards solving them! It's almost as if you don't want them over come. Weird!

Annasopra · 01-03-2013 02:33PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Mango you misunderstood the question. As I understand it, the child in this case is being told they cannot use the female facilities. They were offered the use of appropriate for their gender facilities in the nurses station. They refused these too. They are adamant that they be allowed use the female facilities.

I put forward the hypothetical question that if a child presenting as male, but displaying female physical characteristics, wanted to use the male toilets, would you suggest that they too be accommodated in the same fashion, or forced to use the female toilets.

i.e. Should a female pre-op child presenting as male, be allowed to use the male toilets?

(and for the purposes of keeping the question as simple as possible, I am willing to ignore more practical concerns such as installing extra plumbing and a cubicle for the child).

I still don't understand why you are talking about forcing at all. Nobody is forcing Coy to use toilets against Coys will.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:35PM

What if women aren't strong enough to pull the voting lever on their own? We've got these big, heavy machines - what if a women is in the voting booth and she can't pull the lever all the way down. I think we need to stop and reconsider allowing women to vote. There's all these practical concerns getting in the way.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:37PM

Wait wait...my slaves don't have any formal education, if I just let them go then what the hell are they gonna do? They're not qualified to go get jobs, none of them can even read. I'm not saying I'm against emancipation, I'm just saying, there's all these problems surrounding the issue and we should stop and think before we just let all the slaves go.

darced · 01-03-2013 02:39PM

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine · 01-03-2013 02:40PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Mango you misunderstood the question. As I understand it, the child in this case is being told they cannot use the female facilities. They were offered the use of appropriate for their gender facilities in the nurses station. They refused these too. They are adamant that they be allowed use the female facilities.

I put forward the hypothetical question that if a child presenting as male, but displaying female physical characteristics, wanted to use the male toilets, would you suggest that they too be accommodated in the same fashion, or forced to use the female toilets.

i.e. Should a female pre-op child presenting as male, be allowed to use the male toilets?

(and for the purposes of keeping the question as simple as possible, I am willing to ignore more practical concerns such as installing extra plumbing and a cubicle for the child).

Do you know what a child feels like to be excluded from his or her perceived peers? Can you just step outside the moral and ethical question for 15 minutes and try to understand how this child feels, step into her skin. The child has a disorder, but his reality is that he is a girl, as much as your reality is that you are a man, so imagine being excluded from male spaces and being told no you can't because you are not a man. Now imagine this applied to the skinless sensitivities of a six year old. Kids want nothing more than to have a sense of belonging in their big wide confusing worlds and they don't have the walls we have built up yet to protect them.

The problem is that the toilets are gendered apartheided in the first place. That's a whole other debate though.

As an aside, I have always wondered why the boys didn't get the same privacy as the girls in the first place. Why do they need urinals? If they were that important wouldn't households have them? Just use stalls.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:44PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well yes, that's obvious. Children with male bodies that identify as females should use the girls' toilets though, obviously. If you disagree with that, well, I'd invite you to consider that forcing someone to live as a gender they don't identify with is horrific for their mental health and frequently results in teenage suicide. How would you feel if everyone insisted that you live as a member of the opposite gender? I bet you'd be kind of unhappy with that.

darced · 01-03-2013 02:48PM

This post has been deleted.

starlings · 01-03-2013 02:49PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Do you know what a child feels like to be excluded from his or her perceived peers? Can you just step outside the moral and ethical question for 15 minutes and try to understand how this child feels, step into her skin. The child has a disorder, but his reality is that he is a girl, as much as your reality is that you are a man, so imagine being excluded from male spaces and being told no you can't because you are not a man. Now imagine this applied to the skinless sensitivities of a six year old. Kids want nothing more than to have a sense of belonging in their big wide confusing worlds and they don't have the walls we have built up yet to protect them.

The problem is that the toilets are gendered apartheided in the first place. That's a whole other debate though.

As an aside, I have always wondered why the boys didn't get the same privacy as the girls in the first place. Why do they need urinals? If they were that important wouldn't households have them? Just use stalls.

I would broadly agree, except on the term 'peer'. It's the percieved gender that Coy is being excluded from in this case. Her 'peers' are the classmates, male & female, and the link in the OP said that they had accepted her as a girl. The exclusion from her peers is the home-schooling that her parents thought necessary till the issue is resolved.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 02:57PM

starlings wrote: »

I would broadly agree, except on the term 'peer'. It's the percieved gender that Coy is being excluded from in this case. Her 'peers' are the classmates, male & female, and the link in the OP said that they had accepted her as a girl. The exclusion from her peers is the home-schooling that her parents thought necessary till the issue is resolved.

You don't think having to pee in a special bathroom in the nurse's office might count as being excluded? Do you honestly not see how that could be awkward and embarrassing?

G.K. · 01-03-2013 03:00PM

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

For the nth time, gender is not influenceable. That's why just telling a trans kid 'you're a boy' or 'you're a girl' and 'deal iwht it' wouldn't work. It would only end badly.

Patrick2010 wrote: »

From the article...

Coy Mathis, 6, was born a male but has presented as a female since she was 18-months-old, her mother Kathryn Mathis told talk show host Katie Couric.

That is how the writer chose to say it. If you look at the videos the parents do not say that.

Carlos Orange · 01-03-2013 03:01PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

As an aside, I have always wondered why the boys didn't get the same privacy as the girls in the first place. Why do they need urinals? If they were that important wouldn't households have them? Just use stalls.

I imagine it is because they are more efficient in space ,plumbing , maintenance and time requirements. Guys get in and out quicker.

From a privacy perspective I don't really see the objection to the kid being in the girls toilets. Whatever your position on trans he or she isn't going to see anything. Obviously my understanding of what happens in women toilets is kinda limited, maybe I'm missing something.

starlings · 01-03-2013 03:02PM

Zillah wrote: »

You don't think having to pee in a special bathroom in the nurse's office might count as being excluded? Do you honestly not see how that could be awkward and embarrassing?

I do, but that's excluding her from her perceived gender. It's also a paper-cut of embarrassment compared to what other children go through in sickness, disability etc. I was simply making the point that 'peers' are a wider group.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 03:05PM

starlings wrote: »

I do, but that's excluding her from her perceived gender.

It's excluding her from the other children. She's the weirdo that has to go to the special nurse's toilet at the other end of the building when she has to pee.

It's also a paper-cut of embarrassment compared to what other children go through in sickness, disability etc.

Yeah, some children died in the holocaust so obviously this isn't a big deal. What are you on about?

smash · 01-03-2013 03:12PM

Zillah wrote: »

It's excluding her from the other children. She's the weirdo that has to go to the special nurse's toilet at the other end of the building when she has to pee.

Because peeing is a group activity?

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah, some children died in the holocaust so obviously this isn't a big deal. What are you on about?

Because sickness and disability has everything to do with the holocost. What are YOU on about?

darced · 01-03-2013 03:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Zillah · 01-03-2013 03:21PM

smash wrote: »

Because peeing is a group activity?

Ehm, yes, sometimes. Girls especially often go on bathroom trips together. Imagine some of her nicer peers were like "Hey let's all go before class/practice whatever" and she was the one girl in the group that's all "Oh...yeah, no, I'm not allowed, I have to go to the ~special~ bathroom".

Anyway, even without group trips, she's still the one that has to go in the opposite direction to everyone else when she has to make a toilet break.

You're being so disingenuous. You're not stupid, I really don't think I need to explain this to you.

Because sickness and disability has everything to do with the holocost. What are YOU on about?

Other people enduring hardship has nothing to do with how we choose to treat a transgendered child.

darced wrote: »

Your wrong,for a 6 year old child it certainly is.

Man, why didn't you say this earlier!? You could have saved all the time and money and effort that we've wasted on this science stuff that came to the opposite conclusion.

Czarcasm · 01-03-2013 03:25PM

Links234 wrote: »

facilities appropriate to their gender identity means the girl's facilities in Coy's case.

Pain in my face with this-

Facilities appropriate to the child's purported gender identity were provided- the school nurse's facilities were gender appropriate.

(and before you pull me up on my use of the word "purported", you have no better evidence than I do that the child is indeed female, and you admit as much yourself below which I will address in due course)

this is a wild and baseless claim, where are you even getting this nonsense about her being a "spoilt brat"!?

Because the child was accommodated in presenting as female from the age of four, and retrospective "evidence" was collated to support this claim.

The child was then accommodated in the school at the expense of other students who POSSIBLY (you've used that word often enough to support your own argument) would have felt uncomfortable with the idea and lacked the maturity to understand the behaviour, but felt unable to express their opinion for fear of being shunned by their peers.

the school should have accommodated her as they did all along! then the school suddenly change things.

The school has accommodated the child, just not to the child's satisfaction. Procedures change in schools ALL the time. Would you prefer if procedures had remained the same as they were fifty years ago? The school is showing tolerance and understanding of the child's purported condition, the child feels they need show no tolerance or understanding of others, based on the fact that they were brought up in an environment where they were led to believe the world revolves around them.

as is understood by medical science, all evidence supports that being transgender is an inborn trait, it is something that occurs in utero. it's not a concept or issue to be understood.

Hold that thought, it may be the only thing we agree on.

no I would not "enable" them to have any sort of treatment at age 4, nobody would!

Thank you Links for finally answering the question that nobody in this discussion has answered. At least you have shown where you draw the line between what the child wants, and what you would want for the child. BUT, you cannot answer for everybody, so you cannot definitively say that nobody would accommodate a child's wish to undergo life threatening, life saving medical procedures.

There are people in this world though that would view your opinion as conservative.

best practice is to wait and see if the gender identification persists until the child is older, under supervision of a psychologist who deals in these issues, and if it is persistent, discuss the possibility of puberty blockers at an appropriate age. the blockers have the effect of giving everyone more time to see if it persists.

Why would you be concerned with buying time and putting things off if you have already diagnosed the child as transgender, a condition you earlier yourself admitted they are born with? Buying time is like admitting you are unsure about your diagnosis, but the parents in this case are not only encouraging, but endorsing and enabling the behaviour, thereby skewing what should only be observed behaviour.

a child wouldn't be able to start hormone treatment until the age of 15 or 16 as far as I understand, and then IF it's something they want, surgery after they're of the age of 18.

Kim Petras, who you yourself posted a youtube clip of earlier, was 12 when she began female hormone treatments. She was 16 when she underwent gender reassignment surgery.

Playboy · 01-03-2013 03:26PM

So having read the first 10 or so pages and the last 3 or 4 pages and a few in middle and not having the patience to read through the rest of what is mostly drivel and ranting, can someone tell me why the conversation at this end if the thread seems to be focusing on the bathroom rather than the parents?

Simply put a child of 6 let alone 18 months will have issues grasping the concept of gender. To think a child is ready to 'decide' for themselves what gender they will be for the rest of their lives at such a young age is a ludicrous notion. The child should be allowed to play and behave as they wish but not to the extent that it will impact their own view of themselves and their place in the world which will be reinforced by others around them thus putting the child in a position where he/she feels under too much pressure to change his or her mind. Nobody knows what impact puberty will have on this childs view of themsleves. Maybe a huge increase in testosterone levels will give he/she a different perspective on their own gender identity. If the child has been encouraged in his female behaviour/preferences/traits (whatever) from such a young age and is presented by his parents as a female then what choice does that child have to become male again if he wishes? Wont he be famous for being the transgendered child? Wont everyone treat him like a woman? Doesnt he run the risk of getting trapped by a decision he was too young to make?

I personally dont care if an adult wants to get corrective surgery to become half elephant as long as the adult is making a concious decision with an understanding of the impact that decision will have on the rest of their life. I know many transgendered people both pre and post op and while they say they felt different from quite a young age I dont think anyone of them claimed that it would have been easier had their parents encouraged them to be female from such a young age. I havent asked the specific question but hey ho I will be sure to next time I'm speaking to one.

In respect to the toilet issue. Cant see a problem with the child using the toilet in the nurses station. The simple fact is the child is different from the majority and it's something he/she will need to get used to because these are the types of issues he/she will face for the rest of his/her life. The school has to comply with the law. If the parents want the law changed then they should lobby their politician. Personally I'm in favour of uni-sex toilets... cant understand why we need to seperate sexes in this day and age. The only bonus is that for men you tend to get in and out quicker due to urinals and less faffing around.

Jimoslimos · 01-03-2013 03:26PM

Zillah wrote: »

Ehm, yes, sometimes. Girls especially often go on bathroom trips together. Imagine some of her nicer peers were like "Hey let's all go before class/practice whatever" and she was the one girl in the group that's all "Oh...yeah, no, I'm not allowed, I have to go to the ~special~ bathroom".

What about girls who don't like taking bathroom trips along with the group. I know plenty who don't. Does it make them any less female if they don't conform to your stereotypes on female behaviour?

Crooked Jack · 01-03-2013 03:28PM

Links234 wrote: »

So if it were a single muslim child at a majority christian school, it's just 1 person to consider right?

This is the single most preposterous, hysterical, misleading and disingenuous thing that has been said on this thread yet and looking at some of the other posts that's quite an achievement.

Congratulations

smash · 01-03-2013 03:29PM

Zillah wrote: »

Ehm, yes, sometimes. Girls especially often go on bathroom trips together.

So in a round about way you're now admitting that there's a possibility that genitals will be on display!

Zillah wrote: »

You're being so disingenuous. You're not stupid, I really don't think I need to explain this to you.

No, I'm really not being disingenuous. Don't detract from the conversations by throwing out accusations now.

Zillah wrote: »

Other people enduring hardship has nothing to do with how we choose to treat a transgendered child.

Isn't that the issue here? You're not considering points raised by others. Or the feelings of others because it's all about you.

starlings · 01-03-2013 03:34PM

Zillah wrote: »

Yeah, some children died in the holocaust so obviously this isn't a big deal. What are you on about?

Oh, so you can throw out analogies of slavery and female emancipation, but won't listen when someone puts the gender identity disorder of one child in a confused, but on the whole well-meaning, school in the US into perspective on a scale of suffering?

Zillah · 01-03-2013 03:45PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

What about girls who don't like taking bathroom trips along with the group. I know plenty who don't. Does it make them any less female if they don't conform to your stereotypes on female behaviour?

They have the option to join their friends if they want. They can also decline if they like. The child from the OP does not have the option to join her friends.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Facilities appropriate to the child's purported gender identity were provided- the school nurse's facilities were gender appropriate.

Scenario:
A bunch of white people don't want to have to share a bathroom with a black person. You arrange for the black person to be able to use an entirely separate race-appropriate toilet. Is this acceptable?

("gender-appropriate" is not the issue, it is about being inclusive)

smash wrote: »

So in a round about way you're now admitting that there's a possibility that genitals will be on display!

They go to the room together, but use separate cubicles. Did you not know that?

Isn't that the issue here? You're not considering points raised by others. Or the feelings of others because it's all about you.

I'll respond to posts that have a point. I fail to see the relevance of other people enduring hardship. If someone is sick with cancer that is bad. What does that have to do with the conversation at hand? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm asking you to please explain it to me.

starlings wrote: »

Oh, so you can throw out analogies of slavery and female emancipation, but won't listen when someone puts the gender identity disorder of one child in a confused, but on the whole well-meaning, school in the US into perspective on a scale of suffering?

My analogies are relevant: People are using irrational arguments to defend prejudicial positions in society. By drawing these parallels I hope to help people understand that their positions don't make any sense. It does seem that this "perspective" you're referring to achieves anything related to the topic. Can you explain how it is relevant?

Zillah · 01-03-2013 03:45PM

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.

lol

I must learn to take my own advice.

smash · 01-03-2013 03:48PM

Zillah wrote: »

Scenario:
A bunch of white people don't want to have to share a bathroom with a black person. You arrange for the black person to be able to use an entirely separate race-appropriate toilet. Is this acceptable?

Not the same scenario at all I'm afraid.

Zillah wrote: »

They go to the room together, but use separate cubicles. Did you not know that?

I'm positive that I know girls who use the same cubicles when they go to the toilet in groups.

Zillah wrote: »

I'll respond to posts that have a point. I fail to see the relevance of other people enduring hardship.

Thanks. That's all I needed to hear.

Zillah wrote: »

If someone is sick with cancer that is bad. What does that have to do with the conversation at hand? I'm not being rhetorical, I'm asking you to please explain it to me.

You've mentioned black people and the holocost and now cancer. None of which have anything to do with the conversation at hand.

starlings · 01-03-2013 03:53PM

Zillah wrote: »

My analogies are relevant: People are using irrational arguments to defend prejudicial positions in society. By drawing these parallels I hope to help people understand that their positions don't make any sense. It does seem that this "perspective" you're referring to achieves anything related to the topic. Can you explain how it is relevant?

What doesn't make sense is turning one confused, still-developing child that we only know of from a few news articles, who is neither hungry nor sick nor bullied and abused, whose case has not yet been heard by courts of law, into a poster kid for your crusade against global oppression.

Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

Comments