Transgender girl awarded $75,000 in lawsuit over school bathroom access

a reply to: Grovit

What special programs are transgender people eligible for? Is being able to use a gender appropriate bathroom, unmolested, a special interest program in your mind?

Isn't allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they deem appropriate the same as allowing black people to use the water fountain they wish, or sit at any lunch counter they wish?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grovit

then what is the problem with using the boys bathrom?

Because of the OBVIOUS gender difference, biology be damned!

Interesting. Can you point out the biology involved here? Genetic or otherwise?

I'm not sure what you're asking here? Do you mean boobs and balls?

You are the one who brought up biology. What biology do you refer to? Genotype? Phenotype?

Plumbing type?

You worry about discomfort, but how uncomfortable will men be sharing their restroom with a voluptuous fem fatale, whipping out her piece? Wouldn't you men prefer she use the ladies room?

Okay. That doesn't answer the question. You said "biology be damned" in criticizing the other poster and I'm curious, what biology do you think was "damned?"

Plumbing biology!

So when you said "biology be dammed" where you implying that we should put him where his plumbing puts him or not put him where his plumbing puts him? Or were you implying that the poster was ignoring biology?

I'm saying that gender identity should dictate which restroom a person uses.

Would the people that you're defending be comfortable with the person whose picture I posted earlier, for example, a biological man, using their restroom with them? Or would they feel more comfortable if that person used the ladies room?

What is your solution?

"Gender identity" is really now a rather vague and unprovable assertion. What you are suggesting is that a man can use the female facilities, against the objection of the females, as long as he says "I identify as a female" and you are saying that they should suck it up if they are uncomfortable with that because they are just "bigots."


Have a unisex bathroom that anyone can use like they already have pretty much anywhere. One knocks and then goes in if unoccupied. That way nobody has to be forced to be involved with anything they have an issue with. Just because someone claims something does not automatically mean that everyone else must accommodate them nor their claim.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: windword

Personally, I don't think gender identity and racial identity are comparable

Exactly as I predicted 3 pages ago...
Transgender bias...

Does anyone stop Eminem or Justine Beiber from pretending to be a black man?

Okay. That was funny. Well played.

a reply to: American-philosopher

I've worked at several places that's had a gender neutral restroom. It's worked really well in each instance and don't see why we can't have that as a standard. So I see no issue with the school having it.

But to make a big fuss out of it either way is just overkill. "Mah freedumbs!", mmhmm... There are bigger issues in the world today.

a reply to: NavyDoc

"Gender identity" is really now a rather vague and unprovable assertion.

So? Are accusing those who claim a different gender identity than their genitalia are lying about their orientation?

What you are suggesting is that a man can use the female facilities, against the objection of the females,

Again, how would anyone know what's under the skirt or pants, if they look the part? What about the discomfort of the opposite scenario? Isn't having a woman in the men's room, or vice versa, exactly the same?

as long as he says "I identify as a female" and you are saying that they should suck it up if they are uncomfortable with that because they are just "bigots."

I said no such thing! As usual, you're taking things out of context and putting words in mouth.

Have a unisex bathroom that anyone can use like they already have pretty much anywhere. One knocks and then goes in if unoccupied. That way nobody has to be forced to be involved with anything they have an issue with. Just because someone claims something does not automatically mean that everyone else must accommodate them nor their claim.

That's what I said early on. However, in the event that a unisex bathroom is unavailable, gender identification should be the norm. Strangers have no way of knowing of anything unorthodox, and therefore won't be offended or scared.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

"Gender identity" is really now a rather vague and unprovable assertion.

So? Are accusing those who claim a different gender identity than their genitalia are lying about their orientation?

What you are suggesting is that a man can use the female facilities, against the objection of the females,

Again, how would anyone know what's under the skirt or pants, if they look the part? What about the discomfort of the opposite scenario? Isn't having a woman in the men's room, or vice versa, exactly the same?

as long as he says "I identify as a female" and you are saying that they should suck it up if they are uncomfortable with that because they are just "bigots."

I said no such thing! As usual, you're taking things out of context and putting words in mouth.

Have a unisex bathroom that anyone can use like they already have pretty much anywhere. One knocks and then goes in if unoccupied. That way nobody has to be forced to be involved with anything they have an issue with. Just because someone claims something does not automatically mean that everyone else must accommodate them nor their claim.

That's what I said early on. However, in the event that a unisex bathroom is unavailable, gender identification should be the norm. Strangers have no way of knowing of anything unorthodox, and therefore won't be offended or scared.

Not necessarily, but I think that a reasonable person could see that there may be some people who would abuse such things for other than sincere purposes. Or do you think that sick people do not exist? Do you not agree that unscrupulous people abuse other accommodations such as those done for disabled people? Also, people may be sincere about it, but again it is not objectively provable as such things like race are objectively provable.

So if someone is not aware of something, then it's okay? I guess if there is a hidden camera in the locker room and nobody is aware of it, it should be okay then.

No, if a unisex bathroom is unavailable, the one person should suck it up and use the bathroom as expected rather than expecting everyone else to suck it up because of what the one person wants.

Ethical issues raised by the treatment of gender-variant prepubescent children.

Most recently, the Medicare ban on coverage for gender reassignment surgery was lifted in 2014. In contrast to the relative lack of controversy about treating adolescents and adults, there is no expert clinical consensus regarding the treatment of prepubescent children who meet diagnostic criteria for what was referred to in both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as gender identity disorder in children and now in DSM-5 as gender dysphoria. One reason for the differing attitudes has to do with the pervasive nature of gender dysphoria in older adolescents and adults: it rarely desists, and so the treatment of choice is gender or sex reassignment. On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys' gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender. In an effort to clarify best treatment practices for transgender individuals, a recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force on the Treatment of Gender Identity outlined three differing approaches to treating prepubescent gender dysphoric children.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Ethical issues raised by the treatment of gender-variant prepubescent children.

Most recently, the Medicare ban on coverage for gender reassignment surgery was lifted in 2014. In contrast to the relative lack of controversy about treating adolescents and adults, there is no expert clinical consensus regarding the treatment of prepubescent children who meet diagnostic criteria for what was referred to in both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as gender identity disorder in children and now in DSM-5 as gender dysphoria. One reason for the differing attitudes has to do with the pervasive nature of gender dysphoria in older adolescents and adults: it rarely desists, and so the treatment of choice is gender or sex reassignment. On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys' gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender. In an effort to clarify best treatment practices for transgender individuals, a recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force on the Treatment of Gender Identity outlined three differing approaches to treating prepubescent gender dysphoric children.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I would have to agree. Adults are a radically different issue, but children do pose difficulty. In pretty much every other dysphoric disorder in children, from weight and body image to racial dysphoria, the standard of care is treatment designed to bolster self image and to show them that they are beautiful as they are and to teach healthy, self-affirming, coping skills rather than enable the dysphoria and support the notion that they are not good people the way they are--all but this particulr one, which makes me fear that children are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

a reply to: NavyDoc

which makes me fear that children are being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

That's what I have been finding, from reading testimonials from people that have been through it.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

"Gender identity" is really now a rather vague and unprovable assertion.

So? Are accusing those who claim a different gender identity than their genitalia are lying about their orientation?

What you are suggesting is that a man can use the female facilities, against the objection of the females,

Again, how would anyone know what's under the skirt or pants, if they look the part? What about the discomfort of the opposite scenario? Isn't having a woman in the men's room, or vice versa, exactly the same?

as long as he says "I identify as a female" and you are saying that they should suck it up if they are uncomfortable with that because they are just "bigots."

I said no such thing! As usual, you're taking things out of context and putting words in mouth.

Have a unisex bathroom that anyone can use like they already have pretty much anywhere. One knocks and then goes in if unoccupied. That way nobody has to be forced to be involved with anything they have an issue with. Just because someone claims something does not automatically mean that everyone else must accommodate them nor their claim.

That's what I said early on. However, in the event that a unisex bathroom is unavailable, gender identification should be the norm. Strangers have no way of knowing of anything unorthodox, and therefore won't be offended or scared.

Not necessarily, but I think that a reasonable person could see that there may be some people who would abuse such things for other than sincere purposes. Or do you think that sick people do not exist? Do you not agree that unscrupulous people abuse other accommodations such as those done for disabled people? Also, people may be sincere about it, but again it is not objectively provable as such things like race are objectively provable.

So if someone is not aware of something, then it's okay? I guess if there is a hidden camera in the locker room and nobody is aware of it, it should be okay then.

No, if a unisex bathroom is unavailable, the one person should suck it up and use the bathroom as expected rather than expecting everyone else to suck it up because of what the one person wants.

Why are equating transgender individuals with perverts and sexual predators? Sexual predators are not discriminatory where they hide? Why single out transgender people? It's not a sickness, you know?

So if someone is not aware of something, then it's okay?

How is it anyone's business what's inside someone else's panties?

the one person should suck it up and use the bathroom as expected .......

because of what the one person wants.

Wouldn't you expect someone who looks and acts like a woman to use the woman's room, NOT the men's room? I think that's what everyone wants.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

"Gender identity" is really now a rather vague and unprovable assertion.

So? Are accusing those who claim a different gender identity than their genitalia are lying about their orientation?

What you are suggesting is that a man can use the female facilities, against the objection of the females,

Again, how would anyone know what's under the skirt or pants, if they look the part? What about the discomfort of the opposite scenario? Isn't having a woman in the men's room, or vice versa, exactly the same?

as long as he says "I identify as a female" and you are saying that they should suck it up if they are uncomfortable with that because they are just "bigots."

I said no such thing! As usual, you're taking things out of context and putting words in mouth.

Have a unisex bathroom that anyone can use like they already have pretty much anywhere. One knocks and then goes in if unoccupied. That way nobody has to be forced to be involved with anything they have an issue with. Just because someone claims something does not automatically mean that everyone else must accommodate them nor their claim.

That's what I said early on. However, in the event that a unisex bathroom is unavailable, gender identification should be the norm. Strangers have no way of knowing of anything unorthodox, and therefore won't be offended or scared.

Not necessarily, but I think that a reasonable person could see that there may be some people who would abuse such things for other than sincere purposes. Or do you think that sick people do not exist? Do you not agree that unscrupulous people abuse other accommodations such as those done for disabled people? Also, people may be sincere about it, but again it is not objectively provable as such things like race are objectively provable.

So if someone is not aware of something, then it's okay? I guess if there is a hidden camera in the locker room and nobody is aware of it, it should be okay then.

No, if a unisex bathroom is unavailable, the one person should suck it up and use the bathroom as expected rather than expecting everyone else to suck it up because of what the one person wants.

Why are equating transgender individuals with perverts and sexual predators? Sexual predators are not discriminatory where they hide? Why single out transgender people? It's not a sickness, you know?

So if someone is not aware of something, then it's okay?

How is it anyone's business what's inside someone else's panties?

the one person should suck it up and use the bathroom as expected .......

because of what the one person wants.

Wouldn't you expect someone who looks and acts like a woman to use the woman's room, NOT the men's room? I think that's what everyone wants.

I'm not equating them with perverts. Now how is putting words in who's mouth?

What I said, and I don't think it unreasonable, is that these blanket accommodation rules do leave rather wide openings for unscrupulous and sick individuals because there is no objective criteria any more--just the statement of who you "identify" with. Before, transgendered individuals could not fully integrate until they had the change performed, then they had to wait for the process but had to undergo hormonal replacement and live like the opposite gender from dressing like (full time), legally changing their name, etc. before being treated as such, now people just have to state how they feel and that's it. I think the potential for abuse is quite obvious to anyone who is not blinded by ideology and agenda.

Certainly it is nobody's business what a guy has in his panties or even if he wears panties. However, the concept of "who cares if you don't know about it" is not a sound one. Otherwise a hetero male teacher sneaking into the girl's locker room to get his jollyies would be perfectly fine as long as the girls did not know about it by that logic. Now, before you try to put words in my mouth again, I'm not saying that a transgender person does it to get his jollies, I'm saying that the principle of "if they don't know about it, no problem" is not a sound one. If women or girls would be upset if they knew about it then they should not be subject to it even if they don't know about it.

I've very torn on this. I have a six year old for about 2 years insist she is a boy. Last night she had to take a "break" in the mall, so I made her go into the girls bathroom while I waited outside with my baby. Mom went in to "help" her when she showed up, and my daughter was telling a stranger who walked in "I'm a boy even though I'm in here but it's o.k. cause of mommy being in here'.

I'm not for her using a mens bathroom, but she sure as hell is embarrassed by using the laides room.

F*@$@)@ that's all I have to say about that, but this is definitely not a black and white issue. I see both sides. I know when I'm taking a dump I don't care if some lady dressed like a man comes in. But I still see them as ladies. I know if my daughter was in a bathroom, and some dude dressed like a lady tried to go into the womens bathroom, I might threaten to punch him in the face if he wasn't willing to wait for my daughter to come out first.

Life is tricky sometimes. Their is no right answer to this.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Some people feel that it's no one's business which restroom one uses. I don't respect a belief or a person that imposes behavior on an individual who is not harming anyone. It's really no one's business what this girl's biological plumbing is like or which restroom she uses.

Again, people are allowed to feel how they feel. I don't think it's a big deal if a girl who with male parts uses the bathroom with my teenaged daughter, but some people do. It's not wrong to be worried about your kids.

Agreed. I don't care which she uses, but if she identifies as a girl, she should have the freedom to use the restroom that other girls do.

I don't think that this is a logical argument, if only because stupid people (not the kiddo) will extend it to a logical absurdity and abuse it.

The school was in violation of the Maine Human Rights Act. They were at fault. That is the law of the state. If anyone sued the school for letting her use the girls' room, they would lose.

I briefly looked through the text of this legislation, but didn't see anything. Do you know what section was violated?

The solution wasn't workable for everyone.

And it still isn't. There are probably other girl students that aren't comfortable with the arrangement, but haven't spoken out. What about them?

I am all for reasonable accomodation. But I feel we're getting into Fahrenheit 451 territory here.

"Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? Bigger the population, the more
minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog-lovers, the cat-lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants,
chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans,
Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this
play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics
anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! All
the minor minor minorities with their navels to be kept clean.”

originally posted by: windword

What special programs are transgender people eligible for? Is being able to use a gender appropriate bathroom, unmolested, a special interest program in your mind?

Isn't allowing transgender people to use the bathroom they deem appropriate the same as allowing black people to use the water fountain they wish, or sit at any lunch counter they wish?

i never said anything about special programs for transgender people...
youre saying this girl should be able to use the girls bathroom cause she identifies as a girl..forget about what parts they have....its in the mind...thats what you are saying.

so i said, well, in my mind i am black. so, i want to be able to get black only scholarships...i mean, forget about the actual race...in my mind, i am black.

its the same thing in my opinion...

and you keep saying things like

Again, how would anyone know what's under the skirt or pants, if they look the part?
^^^you are hung up on that....how they know is not important.
what is important is IF they know and IF they are uncomfortable with it, why should they be forced to accept it?

thats all i am getting at...

and to the checklist that was posted...
you know, if i dont play ball with the list i am a bigot.
to that i say

if she wants to be called a girl then thats what i will call her.
if she wants to be called miss, mrs, or madam, thats what i will call her
if she wants me to call her by her female name, thats what i will call her

if it makes her comfortable thats what i will do....

however, in my mind, in my thoughts(you know, the thoughts i am allowed to have) i will think that she is a boy.

when i have discussion on the internet, i will think that she is a boy...

thats how i feel and i am entitled to feel that way, much like HE is entitles to feel and live as a woman.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Now, before you try to put words in my mouth again, I'm not saying that a transgender person does it to get his jollies, I'm saying that the principle of "if they don't know about it, no problem" is not a sound one. If women or girls would be upset if they knew about it then they should not be subject to it even if they don't know about it.

Know about what? Are you saying that girls would be upset "if they knew" because they would interpret that transgender person as a pervert? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but hat's what it sounds like your saying. What other objections would a girl have, if they knew?

What I said, and I don't think it unreasonable, is that these blanket accommodation rules do leave rather wide openings for unscrupulous and sick individuals because there is no objective criteria any more--just the statement of who you "identify" with.

"Unscrupulous and sick individuals" are already breaking laws and sneaking in places they don't belong to get their jollies off. You logic is akin to me saying that we should keep all priests away from all children. I don't see how people using gender appropriate bathrooms is opening the door for unscrupulous and sick individuals any more than it already is.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Ethical issues raised by the treatment of gender-variant prepubescent children.

Most recently, the Medicare ban on coverage for gender reassignment surgery was lifted in 2014. In contrast to the relative lack of controversy about treating adolescents and adults, there is no expert clinical consensus regarding the treatment of prepubescent children who meet diagnostic criteria for what was referred to in both DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as gender identity disorder in children and now in DSM-5 as gender dysphoria. One reason for the differing attitudes has to do with the pervasive nature of gender dysphoria in older adolescents and adults: it rarely desists, and so the treatment of choice is gender or sex reassignment. On the subject of treating children, however, as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health notes in their latest Standards of Care, gender dysphoria in childhood does not inevitably continue into adulthood, and only 6 to 23 percent of boys and 12 to 27 percent of girls treated in gender clinics showed persistence of their gender dysphoria into adulthood. Further, most of the boys' gender dysphoria desisted, and in adulthood, they identified as gay rather than as transgender. In an effort to clarify best treatment practices for transgender individuals, a recent American Psychiatric Association Task Force on the Treatment of Gender Identity outlined three differing approaches to treating prepubescent gender dysphoric children.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

THanks as a father of someone who has a six year old who seems pretty transgender, this was nice to see.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Now, before you try to put words in my mouth again, I'm not saying that a transgender person does it to get his jollies, I'm saying that the principle of "if they don't know about it, no problem" is not a sound one. If women or girls would be upset if they knew about it then they should not be subject to it even if they don't know about it.

Know about what? Are you saying that girls would be upset "if they knew" because they would interpret that transgender person as a pervert? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but hat's what it sounds like your saying. What other objections would a girl have, if they knew?

What I said, and I don't think it unreasonable, is that these blanket accommodation rules do leave rather wide openings for unscrupulous and sick individuals because there is no objective criteria any more--just the statement of who you "identify" with.

"Unscrupulous and sick individuals" are already breaking laws and sneaking in places they don't belong to get their jollies off. You logic is akin to me saying that we should keep all priests away from all children. I don't see how people using gender appropriate bathrooms is opening the door for unscrupulous and sick individuals any more than it already is.

No, what I'm saying is that many girls and women would be uncomfortable with the concept of a man in a dress in their locker room or changing room or their bathroom--whether they know it or not. That does not make them bigots or homophones and their concerns for safety and privacy are very valid.

Of course, logically, it opens up more potential for abuse. If all one has to do is call out the magic word "identity" to get access to areas they want, then there is more vulnerability and more potential for abuse.

I find the comparison with priests flawed in that they don't have legally mandated accommodation laws and can't have access to your children without your expressed permission.

originally posted by: windword


Know about what? Are you saying that girls would be upset "if they knew" because they would interpret that transgender person as a pervert? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but hat's what it sounds like your saying. What other objections would a girl have, if they knew?

i didnt say it and you were not talking to me but i will answer.
maybe they would interpret that person as a pervert.
maybe they would have the ick feeling..
i dont know.....im not them

why does the reason for what they feel or how they feel matter?

what should matter is are they uncomfortable...right?

if the transgender girl has the right to go to the bathroom without feeling uncomfortable, then the other girls do as well.

a reply to: Grovit

IF they know and IF they are uncomfortable with it, why should they be forced to accept it?

What's the alternative? Making a woman, for all intents and purposes, use the men's room? Will that make the men uncomfortable? If it'a all about comfort, whose comfort is more important?