Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

starlings · 01-03-2013 05:31PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

People seem to be arguing here that women wouldn't be comfortable with a trans woman with a penis using the ladies toilet. I'm just trying to gauge if this is true and just wondering what would be the source of this discomfort?

good idea.

as far as I can see, it doesn't really apply to this case, because adults are able to understand and negotiate gender identity and social norms, and they don't have to ask permission to go to the toilet.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 06:13PM

MadsL wrote: »

Probably less than telling the kid "No, you can't wear that!" for the next 8 years.

you think.

Answer the question: if it is damaging to a transgender kid to dress them innapropriately for the gender, surely the same is true of a kid who isn't transgender?

Also, I can see why the hardcore feminists are cagey about this ****. Maybe we should stop having little kids dressed as ridiculous gender stereotypes.

"Oh, she liked pink at 18 months, must be a girl". That's pretty assinine.

B0jangles · 01-03-2013 06:16PM

Woman here; I'd have no problem whatsoever with trans women using the women's facilities.

MadsL · 01-03-2013 07:23PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Are you allergic to Google Mad? It's just a personal thing with me but I hate quoting other peoples sources, resources, studies, statistics or links when it comes to talking about people, because every human being, every person, is an individual, and shouldn't be reduced to just a number or a +1 statistic.

So you want to assert something very broad, with no examples at all, and draw an conclusion from it - but if I query it, then I'm supposed to scour the whole interweb to find the person you are thinking of. Maybe Derren Brown could work that into a show. Or you could just admit you were throwing unsubstantiated opinion out there.

Czarcasm wrote: »

Mad doesn't answer questions, he only questions others opinions, maybe the odd time outdoing himself by throwing in an odd tidbit of an opinion when the argument suits his opinion.

And you have finally decided to stop trying to constantly live up to your username and are now engaging in the debate, so I can take you questions seriously.

Mad has still to answer the question I posed earlier which was; where do you personally draw the line between what the child wants, and what you want for the child?

As a father, as a process of listening to the child and weighing what is best for the child. I might want my daughter to be a concert pianist , but after listening to her, that ain't happening, pushing her to practice for hours isn't going to achieve it. It may technically, but her heart will not be in it. The idea of a parent "wanting this for the child" is what produces Toddlers & Tiaras.

It's a valid supposition to question the idea that if you are able to make the argument that the child at four years of age is able to identify as female, and understand all aspects of the transgender condition, then at four years of age put forward the opinion that they wanted to undergo surgery to transition, you've claimed all along that you listen to the child and support them, so why would them requesting for life saving surgery be any different?

Would you then stop listening to them because it doesn't suit you any more?

Because you just threw "life-saving" in there as an emotion twist, you invalidated your question. The principle of what is best for the child stands, and (just personally speaking) I would suggest that waiting to see what puberty brings would be part of the process that is best for the child. But I'm not an expert and this is personal opinion. (As I'm accused of not posting one)

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Cos of stupid yank hippies and supporters of stupid yank hippies

Casual racism will really help this debate along...:rolleyes:

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?

If the child has a mental disability would you object?

Czarcasm wrote: »

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)

That's not what the law says though does it?

http://cospl.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/co:9345

For example, you cannot prevent someone using a bathroom appropriate for their gender identity. An "Oh you can use the separate bathroom out back" does not comply with the law.

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.

ANY evidence for this whatsoever???

The school has accommodated the child, just not to the child's satisfaction.

It is law that needs to be satisfied, not the child.
[/QUOTE]

awec wrote: »

Basically, from this thread it seems it's ok to ignore the objections of anyone so long as you aren't ignoring the objection of the minority in which case you are a bigot.

Sorry? What parents and children were objecting?

bodice ripper wrote: »

Answer the question: if it is damaging to a transgender kid to dress them innapropriately for the gender, surely the same is true of a kid who isn't transgender?

It is not about the clothes. They are just clothes. I wear a type of skirt/kilt sometimes at festivals when the weather is hot, but the point that is damaging is the reinforcement of being wrong/weird in the child'd mind. We as a society have gone way past the point of saying "boys don't wear that", so the parent's horror at seeing Johnny want to wear a skirt is communicated repeatedly to the child. That is what is damaging as Johnny continues to listen to what is inside and the parents reaction to that.

"Oh, she liked pink at 18 months, must be a girl". That's pretty assinine.

If it were the only basis, instead of a continued pattern of gender identifying. Please don't caricature these parents as something they are plainly not.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 07:35PM

MadsL wrote: »

It is not about the clothes. They are just clothes. I wear a type of skirt/kilt sometimes at festivals when the weather is hot, but the point that is damaging is the reinforcement of being wrong/weird in the child'd mind. We as a society have gone way past the point of saying "boys don't wear that", so the parent's horror at seeing Johnny want to wear a skirt is communicated repeatedly to the child. That is what is damaging as Johnny continues to listen to what is inside and the parents reaction to that.

it's just clothes, it's just a toilet.

If it were the only basis, instead of a continued pattern of gender identifying. Please don't caricature these parents as something they are plainly not.

even if I wanted to, it would be tough:
"Dakota is 5 1/2 years old and has Autism. Coy, Max, and Lily are 3 1/2 year old triplets. Coy is our special little neuro-typical child. Max is also on the Autism spectrum. Lily had a very bad brain injury as a 4 month old and is about like having a 1-2 month old baby, but is so much fun (and feisty!)."

..

MadsL · 01-03-2013 07:39PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

..

You are taking the piss out of the parents because the have a kid with Autism? :eek:

This thread just hit a new low.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 07:47PM

MadsL wrote: »

You are taking the piss out of the parents because the have a kid with Autism? :eek:

This thread just hit a new low.

you really will read in whatever you want, won't you? and it won't flap you at all that many, many people on thread have noted that fact.

I am taking the piss out of a parent who does interviews that open with "none of my kids are normal!", when the kids aren't of an age where they can object.

Nothing in this thread is as low as making a media spectacle out of your own young kids.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 07:48PM

or as low as making a young kid into a political football, Madsl.

MadsL · 01-03-2013 07:55PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

you really will read in whatever you want, won't you? and it won't flap you at all that many, many people on thread have noted that fact.

I am taking the piss out of a parent who does interviews that open with "none of my kids are normal!", when the kids aren't of an age where they can object.

Nothing in this thread is as low as making a media spectacle out of your own young kids.

Wow. Just wow.

They have triplets (not a normal occurance)
A kid with a brain injury
A kid with autism
A kid with near-autism (aspergers perhaps?)
And a kid who is transgendered.

And you are literally taking the piss out of the parents. Wow.

MadsL · 01-03-2013 07:56PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

or as low as making a young kid into a political football, Madsl.

The school did that.

GT_TDI_150 · 01-03-2013 08:10PM

MadsL wrote: »

The school did that.

Oh ffs, i cant read anymore of your rubbish ... Parent behaviour here is 100% normal?! blame everyone but the damn parents?!

**unfollows**

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 08:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

They have triplets (not a normal occurance)
A kid with a brain injury
A kid with autism
A kid with near-autism (aspergers perhaps?)
And a kid who is transgendered.

And you are literally taking the piss out of the parents. Wow.

The mom doesn't get a free pass on criticism of dragging her kids into the public eye because of her kids' issues.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 08:11PM

MadsL wrote: »

The school did that.

they took the kid out of school and went public, did they?

MadsL · 01-03-2013 08:19PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

The mom doesn't get a free pass on criticism of dragging her kids into the public eye because of her kids' issues.

You want a free pass to throw mud at her character because she didn't describe her family circumstances as "normal". I'm still incredulous.

bodice ripper wrote: »

they took the kid out of school and went public, did they?

1. School says Coy has to use a segregated bathroom.
2. Parents say that is not the law, and complain
3. School stands firm
4. Parents issue complaint to the State Civil Rights Commission
5. School issues their lawyers' public statement.
6. Media pesters family for their side of the case.

That's the history.

bodice ripper · 01-03-2013 08:23PM

MadsL wrote: »

You want a free pass to throw mud at her character because she didn't describe her family circumstances as "normal". I'm still incredulous.

1. School says Coy has to use a segregated bathroom.
2. Parents say that is not the law, and complain
3. School stands firm
4. Parents issue complaint to the State Civil Rights Commission
5. School issues their lawyers' public statement.
6. Media pesters family for their side of the case.

That's the history.

So what Coy has to use a segregated bathroom? Better than being pulled out of school and routine disrupted. A kid in a wheelchair has to use a different toilet too. What help is the mom being to the kid by doing this?

MadsL · 01-03-2013 08:30PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

So what Coy has to use a segregated bathroom? Better than being pulled out of school and routine disrupted. A kid in a wheelchair has to use a different toilet too. What help is the mom being to the kid by doing this?

Demonstrating that you should stand up for yourself perhaps? Did you miss the fact that Coy also has Asperger Syndrome, life is going to be tough anyway.

And as for that "caricature" as you describe it. Here is where you got it from, the original interview with the Mother when Coy was 3 1/2 years old. NO mention of Coy's gender identity. Not the media monster you want to paint her as.

http://visionarymom.com/an-interview-with-kathryn-mathis/

Annasopra · 01-03-2013 08:37PM

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I'm a woman and have no isses with a trans woman using the ladies toilets. I do, however, have an issue with an 18 month old child "identifying" as a different gender, and their parents raising them as such. I don't think it's in a CHILD'S best interested to be raised a different sex, when realistically a child of that age can't possibly have an understanding of something as complex as gender identity. If the child later turns out to identify as transgender, that's fine. But I always hate hearing stories of how "liberal" and "out there" parents are by raising little babies as different genders to what they are born with. Without trying to be over-dramatic, I actually do think it is child abuse.

Nail on the head.

Sigh

It has been pointed out NUMEROUS times that no decision was taken at 18 months to raise Coy as a girl.

Why don't people read the full thread before jumping to conclusions!

Ush1 · 01-03-2013 08:41PM

mango salsa wrote: »

Why don't people read the full thread

Because it's mostly bollocks?

Jimoslimos · 01-03-2013 08:49PM

MadsL wrote: »

It is not about the clothes. They are just clothes. I wear a type of skirt/kilt sometimes at festivals when the weather is hot, but the point that is damaging is the reinforcement of being wrong/weird in the child'd mind. We as a society have gone way past the point of saying "boys don't wear that", so the parent's horror at seeing Johnny want to wear a skirt is communicated repeatedly to the child. That is what is damaging as Johnny continues to listen to what is inside and the parents reaction to that

But it is about the clothes. Otherwise what differentiates a TG child from every other one. The toilets they go to? The games they play? All these are cultural and could be completely different in 100 years time.

Sometimes I find it peculiar that feminists spend so much effort in breaking-down gender stereotypes only to have them built back up by TG groups in order to validate their identity.

Czarcasm · 01-03-2013 09:17PM

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?

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

Your analogy is shìte, tbh.

The child is purportedly transgendered, so not only are there physical differences, but there are also psychological differences.

A better analogy would've been the segregation of a black gay man, because you cannot see their psychological make up, but you can see the difference in skin color.

In this case, the child is physically identifiable as a male, because they have male sexual organs. therefore should be encouraged to use the male toilets.

The child expresses that psychologically they identify as female, but this cannot be determined with any degree of certainty as other posters have admitted that even the experts recommend playing the waiting game and buying time, observing in the meantime the behaviour of the child.

Meantime the parents are coercing and encouraging and enabling the child to indulge the child's assertions that they are female, reinforcing the child's belief by parading them on tv shows and the likes, effectively making a spectacle of a child too young to comprehend the difference between negative and positive attention, yet purportedly mature enough to understand what it is to be transgendered.

Personally I think someone has been putting ideas in the child's head and words in their mouth, and the idea of using hormone blockers to stunt the onset of puberty to keep the child a child is to me nothing short of reprehensible cruelty.

The use of hormone blockers while they "figure out whether the behaviour persists or not" means of course the behaviour will persist because the child will not have had the chance to go through the natural human adolescent development stage.

This to me smacks of "we'll accommodate nature while it suits us to ascribe transgender traits to the child, and then we'll defy nature when it suits us to enable us to keep on ascribing transgender traits to the child until they finally bend to our wishes".

This is why I am skeptical of this new generation of raising "princess boys", because imho they are not transgender children in the true sense that transgender children are born with the condition, but merely they are being treated as puppets by their parents (usually the mother) to play dress up and force a break in gender stereotyping, ie: in it's simplest terms that boys (and it IS usually boys) can wear pink and dress up in glittery stuff.

You have to wonder how seriously they are taking the issue when you see things like beauty pageants for these princess boys.

IMO these parents and other idiot parents like them are doing a dis-service to the trans community in society by furthering a ridiculous stereotype the very same as the quintessentially camp and effeminate gay man is used in popular culture to stereotype all gay men.

My issue isn't with the child that may be trans, my issue is with the parents who refuse to see them as anything else.

starlings · 01-03-2013 09:22PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Because it's mostly bollocks?

sexist transphobic pig!

MadsL · 01-03-2013 09:28PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But it is about the clothes.

It is???

Otherwise what differentiates a TG child from every other one.

Just a stab in the dark, but could it be the way they perceive their gender identity. I know, crazy talk.

The toilets they go to? The games they play? All these are cultural and could be completely different in 100 years time.

Because no-one dressed boys in dresses until the age of 7, ever.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3079/2708936513_9c83293b67.jpg

Sometimes I find it peculiar that feminists spend so much effort in breaking-down gender stereotypes only to have them built back up by TG groups in order to validate their identity.

No, you are building back up the gender stereotype with this waffle about clothes.

Hilly Bill · 01-03-2013 10:24PM

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.

No, but he still should be using the gents toilets

Hilly Bill · 01-03-2013 10:30PM

MadsL wrote: »

In this case it is the school doing that, not the other kids, nor the parents.

They are telling a boy to use the boys toilet, how is that wrong?

Czarcasm · 01-03-2013 10:31PM

MadsL wrote: »

So you want to assert something very broad, with no examples at all, and draw an conclusion from it - but if I query it, then I'm supposed to scour the whole interweb to find the person you are thinking of. Maybe Derren Brown could work that into a show. Or you could just admit you were throwing unsubstantiated opinion out there.

Here, knock yourself out:

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

And you have finally decided to stop trying to constantly live up to your username and are now engaging in the debate, so I can take you questions seriously.

Jesus don't strain yourself, you certainly haven't so far, wouldn't want you to risk developing RSI or anything.

As a father, as a process of listening to the child and weighing what is best for the child.

Yes, do continue? I see a full stop there, but I don't see a definitive answer yes or no, or did you do that on purpose to avoid the question?

I might want my daughter to be a concert pianist , but after listening to her, that ain't happening, pushing her to practice for hours isn't going to achieve it. It may technically, but her heart will not be in it. The idea of a parent "wanting this for the child" is what produces Toddlers & Tiaras.

We agree at last! Now we're getting somewhere. Still doesn't answer my question as to where you draw the line between what the child wants and what you want for the child, but it does suggest that at least you wouldn't foist a responsibility upon your child that they weren't prepared for, like the parents in the OP that have foisted their child upon the world media stage to have the spotlight shone upon them.

Because you just threw "life-saving" in there as an emotion twist, you invalidated your question.

I haven't, but you'll use any excuse to avoid answering the question. No surprise there. The reason I refer to it as life saving surgery is because that's exactly what the trans community refers to gender reassignment surgery as- life saving surgery. You need to read up more on the issue.

The principle of what is best for the child stands, and (just personally speaking) I would suggest that waiting to see what puberty brings would be part of the process that is best for the child. But I'm not an expert and this is personal opinion. (As I'm accused of not posting one)

At LAST you answer the question. Thank you. At least you finally admit that you would listen to the child while their opinions and wishes suits you, and then disregard their opinions, again when it suits you.

That's not what the law says though does it?

http://cospl.coalliance.org/fedora/repository/co:9345

For example, you cannot prevent someone using a bathroom appropriate for their gender identity. An "Oh you can use the separate bathroom out back" does not comply with the law.

I'm only going on what Links posted, the law says appropriate facilities for their gender identity. The school met it's legal requirements. Other posters have said it's not about gender identity but inclusion. It'd be nice if people didn't keep trying to shift the argument when it didn't suit them, but the fact that different people see different issues from different perspectives doesn't surprise me personally. It does seem to surprise and unsettle some people though that someone might dare to have a different opinion to theirs.

ANY evidence for this whatsoever???

I said POSSIBLY. Other posters were able to use words like "possibly" and "probably" to deduce what suited them. I was just doing the very same thing.

It is law that needs to be satisfied, not the child.

We agree again, we're getting there, slowly but surely. The law was met, the child just didn't want to use the gender identity appropriate facilities provided.

MadsL · 01-03-2013 10:57PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here, knock yourself out:

http://www.sexchangeregret.com/

About 8 cases there. There are also nearly 700,000 transgender individuals in the US alone.

Jesus don't strain yourself, you certainly haven't so far, wouldn't want you to risk developing RSI or anything.

Ah, that's more your usual Czarcasm style.

Yes, do continue? I see a full stop there, but I don't see a definitive answer yes or no, or did you do that on purpose to avoid the question?

I answered the question, it cannot be answered yes or no, as it is framed incorrectly, as I showed. You just don't like my answer.

We agree at last! Now we're getting somewhere. Still doesn't answer my question as to where you draw the line between what the child wants and what you want for the child, but it does suggest that at least you wouldn't foist a responsibility upon your child that they weren't prepared for, like the parents in the OP that have foisted their child upon the world media stage to have the spotlight shone upon them.

What possible value as a parent is what you "want' for the child? That is what produces the unhappy "You'll play for Ireland one day son" pushy soccer dads and Honey Boo Boo mothers.

I haven't, but you'll use any excuse to avoid answering the question. No surprise there. The reason I refer to it as life saving surgery is because that's exactly what the trans community refers to gender reassignment surgery as- life saving surgery. You need to read up more on the issue.

Again you don't like the answer I gave, but I have answered your question as you admit below.

At LAST you answer the question. Thank you.

You posted a question. I responded, nothing AT LAST (drama) about it.

At least you finally admit that you would listen to the child while their opinions and wishes suits you, and then disregard their opinions, again when it suits you.

Absolutely not what I said. And you on your high-horse about putting words in people's mouths.

I'm only going on what Links posted, the law says appropriate facilities for their gender identity. The school met it's legal requirements.

You couldn't google the law, and read it?

As to the law, are you are the judge of that? This is an active case, and it is the basis of the complaint that the school hasn't.

Other posters have said it's not about gender identity but inclusion. It'd be nice if people didn't keep trying to shift the argument when it didn't suit them,

Well, you just indulged in a nice bit of whataboutery on gender surgery regret which has nothing to do with this.

but the fact that different people see different issues from different perspectives doesn't surprise me personally. It does seem to surprise and unsettle some people though that someone might dare to have a different opinion to theirs.

This isn't about opinions. People have been calling for sterilisation and for the child to be taken away and child abuse charges to be brought.

I said POSSIBLY. Other posters were able to use words like "possibly" and "probably" to deduce what suited them. I was just doing the very same thing.

Still no evidence then. It is POSSIBLE the other children pelted him with bananas, but there is no evidence for it.

We agree again, we're getting there, slowly but surely. The law was met, the child just didn't want to use the gender identity appropriate facilities provided.

If the law was met, there is no basis for complaint. The school must provide facilities and not segregate is the parent's case as I see it. The investigation will determine if the law was met.

There is a big difference between accomodate and segregate.

bodice ripper · 02-03-2013 12:07AM

MadsL wrote: »

Demonstrating that you should stand up for yourself perhaps? Did you miss the fact that Coy also has Asperger Syndrome, life is going to be tough anyway.

How about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", or being female is not about toilets and clothes and pink and long hair in bows, or YOUR BEING FEMININE DOES NOT HANG ON OTHERS PERCEPTION OF YOUR FEMININITY ? every female child needs that one.

bodice ripper · 02-03-2013 12:10AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

But it is about the clothes.

MadsL wrote: »

It is???

No, you are building back up the gender stereotype with this waffle about clothes.

but...

MonkstownHoop wrote: »

what huge choices can an 18 month old child make? get a grip

MadsL wrote: »

Which clothes to put on is a simple choice. Why does a 6 year old 'boy' wearing a dress threaten you so much?

MadsL · 02-03-2013 12:15AM

Exactly my point.

We are 'almost' at the stage of clothes being almost entirely gender-neutral.

Why people get upset at seeing a kid in a dress is beyond me, it would have been quite normal in my great-grandfather's time.

Clothes are not the point here.

Annasopra · 02-03-2013 12:16AM

bodice ripper wrote: »

How about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"

What about it? Personally I think it's deeply horrible philosophy that completely disregards minority human rights - (that's a general statement by the way not necessarily linked to this discussion)

Transgender child banned from girl's bathroom

Comments