Fort Worth schools jam through new trans policies

[TitanTiger 20,499]

http://static.gatewa..._guidelines.pdf

I got this from a source that highlighted some of the, in their view, more noteworthy provisions.

This is the part that just floors me:

“No medical or mental health diagnosis or treatment is required in order to have a student’s gender identity recognized and respected. School personnel must not question any student’s sincerely held belief regarding his or her gender identity once established and known.”

So, someone can just state that they're male or female, regardless of hard-wiring, and as long as they really, really, really believe it, then everyone else has to go along with it. Not only that, the restroom policy aspect of it would make the vast majority conform to the very distinct minority...restroom policies that apply to the convenience of the transgender person do not apply to the rest of the students.

It's just incredible to me that things have gotten to this point. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by much of anything, but this just seems like a "solution" in search of a problem. It feels like we've gone straight through the looking glass and into the land of Jabberwock.

The superintendent and the school board had been working on this for months in private, which would seem to be a violation of the Open Meetings Act in place in Texas. They had to know that this would be a powderkeg of an issue that would get (eminently justifiable) blowback and they did it behind closed doors anyway...and I'll be damned if I know why.

Well presumably, a transgender would already be presenting themselves as the opposite sex.

However, that's not necessarily true:

Sex, presentation, and identity[change | change source]

These can be confusing because most people have a sex (the label they were given at birth), gender presentation (what they show themselves as), and gender identity (what they think they are) that are the same. When we talk about 'male' we usually think this means all three things. We also usually assume that this means he likes women. In most people they are all the same – either male or female. But in transgender people they can be different.

A good way to look at it is this:

Sex is whether a person was labelled male or female at birth.

Gender or Gender Identity is how a person feels inside.

Gender Presentation or Gender Role is how a person dresses, acts and behaves.

Sexual orientation is about the gender which a person finds attractive.

Examples of transgender people[change | change source]

It is possible to have every different combination of sex, gender identity, gender presentation, and sexual orientation. Here are some of those possible combinations. (Pay special attention to the genders of the pronouns that are used. If someone has a male gender identity they wish to be seen and be treated as male.)

A person may be assigned female at birth (have a vagina and an XX sex chromosome) but have a male gender identity. Many people like this may dress and act like men and take jobs that are usually done by men. This person may call himself transgender. If he has surgery or takes testosterone, he may call himself transsexual. He may not use any of these terms, but may simply call himself a man. If he loves men, he may call himself a gay man. If he likes women, he may call himself a straight man. He may also have other sexual orientations.

A man might like to dress up in women's clothes (drag). This is often done as a performance on a stage. This man may have a male gender identity and a male sex. He may also have a male gender role most of the time, but when he 'does drag' he may have a female gender role.

Some people may have a gender identity that is different from their sex. However, if they live in a place where transgender people are not accepted they may hide this. They may also hide it because they are afraid their family will not accept them. So a transgender woman like this might have a female gender identity, but have a male sex and a male gender presentation. She might want to have a female gender presentation, but does not because of fear.

If a person identifies as a woman, then her body is female, no matter what label she was given at birth.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity

Some trans people aren't interested in presenting as a "traditional" gender: http://www.autostraddle.com/im-a-trans-woman-and-im-not-interested-in-being-one-of-the-good-ones-172570/

[homersapien 11,393]

Well, my wife tells me that woman just don't expose their naked bodies to each other in locker rooms. (Hell, most men don't.)

My wife says different. Most locker rooms don't have private areas to put on underwear after a shower for instance. I know many if not most of the men's locker rooms I've been in don't. Many don't have separate shower stalls, just a big shower area with shower heads in the wall. Or perhaps a partition between them but not a door or curtain on the front.

You usually have to go to your locker to put on your clothes if you don't want them to get wet. So you are naked at least long enough to take off the towel and put on some underwear.

It's hard for me to accept a transgender would go out of their way to expose their genitalia. It's more likely they would be even less reluctant to expose themselves, considering their male genitalia is what they are trying to reject and conceal.

Again, there are lots of states that have these sort of "right of gender" laws and there is no evidence it has caused any problems.

It's hard for me to accept that we should just let people choose whatever facility to use based on nothing but their professed feelings. It's even harder for me to accept that people are actually incredulous that there would be reasonable objections to such a thing.

I am not "incredulous" there are objections, reasonable or not. I would expect the sort of outrage that it's created, especially in the religious areas of the country. That's exactly why I think such "so called" transgender laws are counter-productive to begin with, especially in the South.

Transexuals have been going to the bathroom that they identify with forever. It's part of presenting yourself as the sex you identify with. This is not a new thing.

Fundamentally, the strong objection to such transgender rights laws is the fact that people simply reject the psychological diagnosis. You do not accept Gender Dysphoria as a legitimate, non-pathological condition or state of mind. That is why you keep emphasizing the word "feelings". It's a way to delegitimize a natural condition. It's no different from they way homosexuality was treated for so long.

And while I certainly wouldn't call your wife a liar, I do not believe that most women's locker rooms don't provide for a way to maintain individual privacy if that's desired. That might be the case in older facilities designed for athletic teams, but it's certainly not true in a YMCA (for example). It would be interesting to try to obtain a non-biased survey on that. Maybe the women on this forum could weigh - in.

Regardless, anyone who is presenting themselves as a woman - meaning they want the world to see them as a woman - is not likely to be revealing their male genitalia. If anything they would be trying all the harder to hide it.

[cptau 169]

Back in the 1970s the Equal Rights Amendment was sailing toward approval but stalled at 35 states in 1977. 5 states even rescinded their approval. 1979 was the deadline for approval and the deadline was moved to 1982, but no additional states approved. So the ERA amendment died.

Among the reasons for states not approving the ERA: Same sex marriage would be allowed, restrooms and locker rooms could not be segregated based on sex, and women would be forced to register for selective service and could be drafted.

So now same sex marriage is legal, the government is demanding that anyone be allowed into any restroom or locker room, and the military is being forced to accept women into combat branches and roles.

The last one is particularly interesting. While the draft is not active, selective service registration is required of all male US citizens at a certain age. Women are now exempt.

If a biological male identifies as female, does that person no longer have to register? (Easier than moving to Canada)

A woman identifying at male would have to register?

The solution, make them all register and be subject to the draft. Whether the Federal government may not do that on its own, but we will probably see a court decision for some 18 year old guy over being forced to register while women are not.

Are you positive that was in the ERA?

It was a proposed amendment. Amendments are worded such that they are open to further interpretation in the future. The fear was that the admendment would be interpreted to ban all separate but equal situations. No schools separate based on sex of the students. No restrooms separated based on the sex of the users.

[homersapien 11,393]

Everyone keeps talking about restrooms which people don't seem to have a problem with according to polls...however, they are never asked the question would they have a problem with a transgender person changing in front of their little girl in a locker room? or a transgender changing in front of their little boy? restrooms can be more private than locker rooms at the Y or school but that never seems to be asked in the polls...

That is a purposeful tactic. They know there's way more to it than restrooms, but harping on that aspect sounds like less of a big deal than other things such as locker rooms and other facilities where women and girls have a rightful expectation of privacy.

Yes, I know they have an agenda. It is always one sided in these venues...the minority outweighs the majority and that is a shame...also it could become very costly in lawsuits etc...especially if new facilities have to be built...

Can you please describe their "agenda" in a sentence or two?

I think the article did a pretty good job of it:

Don’t be fooled: the bathroom issue is a proxy for a deeper conflict over what it means to be male and female, and beyond that, about fundamental human nature. These standards are collapsing in American society in part because of elites pushing against them, but also — and perhaps moreso — because radical individualism is going into hyperdrive.

It's evidenced not just by the silly notion that someone can play on the sports team of the gender they self-identify with or locker room issues, but even the manipulation of language...not referring to the kids as boys and girls, but only as "students." It's in the directive to not just be tolerant of this notion of gender and sex, but to be "affirming", which goes far beyond merely being gay or lesbian and is a deconstructing of what it means to be male or female and the nature of the human person.

Well, we will just have to disagree. That is not a realistic summary of an "agenda". It sounds like an ignorance and fear-driven rant.

[homersapien 11,393]

Back in the 1970s the Equal Rights Amendment was sailing toward approval but stalled at 35 states in 1977. 5 states even rescinded their approval. 1979 was the deadline for approval and the deadline was moved to 1982, but no additional states approved. So the ERA amendment died.

Among the reasons for states not approving the ERA: Same sex marriage would be allowed, restrooms and locker rooms could not be segregated based on sex, and women would be forced to register for selective service and could be drafted.

So now same sex marriage is legal, the government is demanding that anyone be allowed into any restroom or locker room, and the military is being forced to accept women into combat branches and roles.

The last one is particularly interesting. While the draft is not active, selective service registration is required of all male US citizens at a certain age. Women are now exempt.

If a biological male identifies as female, does that person no longer have to register? (Easier than moving to Canada)

A woman identifying at male would have to register?

The solution, make them all register and be subject to the draft. Whether the Federal government may not do that on its own, but we will probably see a court decision for some 18 year old guy over being forced to register while women are not.

Are you positive that was in the ERA?

It was a proposed amendment. Amendments are worded such that they are open to further interpretation in the future. The fear was that the admendment would be interpreted to ban all separate but equal situations. No schools separate based on sex of the students. No restrooms separated based on the sex of the users.

Yeah, that's what I thought...

[cptau 169]

Just get ready to pay for lots of private stalls in public restrooms and locker rooms.

Those people that have problems with actually using any public restrooms now may have an easier time if there are private stalls.

Of course there's the other outcome that you often see depicted in science fiction movies. Men and women living together in common military barracks and other sleeping quarters and using shared locker rooms, showers, and restrooms. No separation or privacy.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I am not "incredulous" there are objections, reasonable or not. I would expect the sort of outrage that it's created, especially in the religious areas of the country. That's exactly why I think such "so called" transgender laws are counter-productive to begin with, especially in the South.

Transexuals have been going to the bathroom that they identify with forever. It's part of presenting yourself as the sex you identify with. This is not a new thing.

Creepy men have been sneaking into women's private areas forever too. It's part of being a creep. The mere fact that something occurs is not a point in its favor.

Fundamentally, the strong objection to such transgender rights laws is the fact that people simply reject the psychological diagnosis. You do not accept Gender Dysphoria as a legitimate, non-pathological condition or state of mind. That is why you keep emphasizing the word "feelings". It's a way to delegitimize a natural condition. It's no different from they way homosexuality was treated for so long.

I do reject it. I think it's based on pseudoscience and a warped understanding of reality. I don't doubt it's actually what they sincerely believe about themselves, I just reject that it should be treated as normal and that the rest of the world should reorient everything to go along with the person's feelings. I don't use the term to de-legitimize, I use it because that's what it is - the subjective, self-described feelings of a person. Anorexic people think they are overweight too. But I wouldn't propose that we encourage that line of thinking, even if it wasn't life threatening. I can look at their protruding rib cage and rail thin arms and say without hesitation that they are not fat or overweight.

People are welcome to think whatever they want. For all that it matters to me, a person can believe they are Minnie Mouse. But I don't have to join in on the fantasy nor changing the way society operates to accommodate that belief. That doesn't mean a person in such a state shouldn't be treated kindly or that bullying is ok. I wouldn't ridicule them (and no, failing to join in their view is not ridicule) or purposely hurt their feelings. I, in fact, have a great deal of sympathy and compassion toward them. I know it must be hard to live with a mental issue like this, as it is with many other mental conditions.

And while I certainly wouldn't call your wife a liar, I do not believe that most women's locker rooms don't provide for a way to maintain individual privacy if that's desired. That might be the case in older facilities designed for athletic teams, but it's certainly not true in a YMCA (for example). It would be interesting to try to obtain a non-biased survey on that. Maybe the women on this forum could weigh - in.

Largely depends on the age of the YMCA. The one nearest my house doesn't have private changing areas for either sex. I think that the trend for newer ones is for more private areas, but it's certainly not ubiquitous.

Regardless, anyone who is presenting themselves as a woman - meaning they want the world to see them as a woman - is not likely to be revealing their male genitalia. If anything they would be trying all the harder to hide it.

That's all fine and good, for the ones more prone to modesty. Others don't really give a **** what anyone else thinks. And that doesn't even get into the access gained by men posing as trans that didn't exist before. That creep in Target this past week likely doesn't even make it in the room because he's obviously out of place and people would call him on it. But now he's got an "out" for being in those spaces. It at least creates enough hesitation and doubt to give him access for a while if he can avoid being caught recording anything.

[homersapien 11,393]

Just get ready to pay for lots of private stalls in public restrooms and locker rooms.

Those people that have problems with actually using any public restrooms now may have an easier time if there are private stalls.

Of course there's the other outcome that you often see depicted in science fiction movies. Men and women living together in common military barracks and other sleeping quarters and using shared locker rooms, showers, and restrooms. No separation or privacy.

I don't see why that would be any more costly that providing separate facilities.

[homersapien 11,393]

I am not "incredulous" there are objections, reasonable or not. I would expect the sort of outrage that it's created, especially in the religious areas of the country. That's exactly why I think such "so called" transgender laws are counter-productive to begin with, especially in the South.

Transexuals have been going to the bathroom that they identify with forever. It's part of presenting yourself as the sex you identify with. This is not a new thing.

Creepy men have been sneaking into women's private areas forever too. It's part of being a creep. The mere fact that something occurs is not a point in its favor.

But that's not really the issue being argued. That is how you are characterizing the issue.

[homersapien 11,393]

Fundamentally, the strong objection to such transgender rights laws is the fact that people simply reject the psychological diagnosis. You do not accept Gender Dysphoria as a legitimate, non-pathological condition or state of mind. That is why you keep emphasizing the word "feelings". It's a way to delegitimize a natural condition. It's no different from they way homosexuality was treated for so long.

I do reject it. I think it's based on pseudoscience and a warped understanding of reality. I don't doubt it's actually what they sincerely believe about themselves, I just reject that it should be treated as normal and that the rest of the world should reorient everything to go along with the person's feelings. I don't use the term to de-legitimize, I use it because that's what it is - the subjective, self-described feelings of a person. Anorexic people think they are overweight too. But I wouldn't propose that we encourage that line of thinking, even if it wasn't life threatening. I can look at their protruding rib cage and rail thin arms and say without hesitation that they are not fat or overweight.

People are welcome to think whatever they want. For all that it matters to me, a person can believe they are Minnie Mouse. But I don't have to join in on the fantasy nor changing the way society operates to accommodate that belief. That doesn't mean a person in such a state shouldn't be treated kindly or that bullying is ok. I wouldn't ridicule them (and no, failing to join in their view is not ridicule) or purposely hurt their feelings. I, in fact, have a great deal of sympathy and compassion toward them. I know it must be hard to live with a mental issue like this, as it is with many other mental conditions.

The professionals feel differently (DSM-5). That pretty much ends any constructive discussion from my perspective. There is no logical rebuttal I can make if you don't first accept the science that is the basis of the argument.

But thanks for being up-front about it.

I may continue posting just for to demonstrating the existence of my position on the form. ("Show the flag" so to speak. )

[AUDub 11,158]

Fundamentally, the strong objection to such transgender rights laws is the fact that people simply reject the psychological diagnosis. You do not accept Gender Dysphoria as a legitimate, non-pathological condition or state of mind. That is why you keep emphasizing the word "feelings". It's a way to delegitimize a natural condition. It's no different from they way homosexuality was treated for so long.

I do reject it. I think it's based on pseudoscience and a warped understanding of reality. I don't doubt it's actually what they sincerely believe about themselves, I just reject that it should be treated as normal and that the rest of the world should reorient everything to go along with the person's feelings. I don't use the term to de-legitimize, I use it because that's what it is - the subjective, self-described feelings of a person. Anorexic people think they are overweight too. But I wouldn't propose that we encourage that line of thinking, even if it wasn't life threatening. I can look at their protruding rib cage and rail thin arms and say without hesitation that they are not fat or overweight.

People are welcome to think whatever they want. For all that it matters to me, a person can believe they are Minnie Mouse. But I don't have to join in on the fantasy nor changing the way society operates to accommodate that belief. That doesn't mean a person in such a state shouldn't be treated kindly or that bullying is ok. I wouldn't ridicule them (and no, failing to join in their view is not ridicule) or purposely hurt their feelings. I, in fact, have a great deal of sympathy and compassion toward them. I know it must be hard to live with a mental issue like this, as it is with many other mental conditions.

The professionals feel differently (DSM-5). That pretty much ends any constructive discussion from my perspective. There is no logical rebuttal I can make if you don't first accept the science that is the basis of the argument.

But thanks for admitting it.

I may continue posting just for to demonstrating the existence of my position on the form. ("Show the flag" so to speak.

NB4 Paul McHugh and the rest of the idjits at the American College of Pediatricians are brought up.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

The professionals feel differently (DSM-5). That pretty much ends any constructive discussion from my perspective. There is no logical rebuttal I can make if you don't first accept the science that is the basis of the argument.

Beyond a few studies about brain size and supposed similarities in brains of subjects and their felt gender (which hardly proves the claim that's being made), there isn't really much hard science to go on. The rest is just psychologists giving opinions on what patients tell them and a worldview that separates gender and sex. But that is still subjective and highly speculative.

And in situations like this in Ft. Worth, there's basically no questioning of it. No proof from a doctor or trained psychologist to back any of it up, just the stated feelings of the student. You can't even talk to the parents about it without the kid's permission to see if the kid has discussed this at home or if they've seen any evidence of it.

[AUDub 11,158]

Beyond a few studies about brain size and supposed similarities in brains of subjects and their felt gender (which hardly proves the claim that's being made), there isn't really much hard science to go on.

It's sill relatively early, but the hard science side is nothing to scoff at. It has grown, and continues to grow, at a rapid pace. This consensus isn't some "God of the Gaps" (or "Science of the Gaps," as it were) theory.

Hormone exposure studies

Genetic factor studies

And I know you don't share this view with me, but I put a ton of stock into the position statements of various organizations that deal with these kinds of things. APA, AAP, AMA, AAFP, APHA the ACOG.

[homersapien 11,393]

The professionals feel differently (DSM-5). That pretty much ends any constructive discussion from my perspective. There is no logical rebuttal I can make if you don't first accept the science that is the basis of the argument.

Beyond a few studies about brain size and supposed similarities in brains of subjects and their felt gender (which hardly proves the claim that's being made), there isn't really much hard science to go on. The rest is just psychologists giving opinions on what patients tell them and a worldview that separates gender and sex. But that is still subjective and highly speculative.

Well, psychology is not a "hard science", but that doesn't mean it's not science. Here's a good article on the subject:

https://www.psycholo...cience-argument

As for the possibility of one's sexuality being a function of the brain (mind) vs. some combination of other (sexual) anatomical parts, I would first point out that the brain is where every aspect of our self being resides.

(Well except for certain behaviors common in men which emanate from the "little head"..... , jk)

Anyway, the real question is: Is it possible for someone to experience the feeling, to identify in their mind, to be - a sex that doesn't match the equipment they are born with?

I don't see this as a fanciful proposition, especially if you consider there are hermaphrodites - or more PC, 'intersex' individuals - who are born with ambiguous genitalia. While I know practically zilch on this, I do understand there are 'true' hermaphrodites with a specific genetic basis and a range of 'pseudohermaphrodites' diagnosis that are caused by a combination of different things. But you are just as capable of reading Wikipedia, etc. as I am.

(But I did like this phrase from Wikepedia: Sex determination and differentiation is generalized with chromosomal sex during fertilization. (My emphasis.) In other words, pretty much like everything else in biology, things are not so much black or white but there is a complex continuum of sexuality.)

So to get to the point, I contend that it is possible for someone to "be" a sex that differs from what was assigned on your birth certificate.

I also contend that most of these people present as members of the sex they "feel" and pretty much act as such and this has been going on since humans existed without any problem. (I admit a lack of direct evidence.)

I also contend that the sort of extreme behavior of a transexual who is not presenting as a woman - or at least not doing it well - and then displaying her male genitalia to other women would be so unusual as to practically say it's not a problem. Granted, it's possible and if it happened, I have no problem with legally sanctioning such behavior - exactly as it would be treated today.

But having a law that requires one to assume the sexuality they were assigned at birth is clearly problematic for the transexual who is presenting themselves as a woman. She suddenly has to use the men's room by law. What do they do - walk in to the men's room even though the appear to be a woman? (And trust me, some of them are absolutely convincing.) Or do they disobey the law and try not to rock the boat?

[Strychnine 1,802]

NB4 Paul McHugh and the rest of the idjits at the American College of Pediatricians are brought up.

I'm admittedly not very interested in medicine, or biology, but I must ask: Is the American College of Pediatricians not similar to the American College of Physicians? Are they considered disreputable?

[telling tiger 156]

A political bent given to health and science......imagine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Pediatricians

[Strychnine 1,802]

A political bent given to health and science......imagine.

https://en.wikipedia...f_Pediatricians

Hence my question, I was wondering if they were such a group that merely adopted a legitimate sounding name.

[telling tiger 156]

Yeah............about the kindest thing I can say.

Wingnuts.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Yeah............about the kindest thing I can say.

Wingnuts.

Well, "Judeo-Christian traditional values" are always an immediate turn off for me, but I don't consider it an automatic invalidation of their perspective. That said, the American College of Pediatricians does sound wingnutty.

[telling tiger 156]

It is the US, people are entitled to their opinions.....They have theirs and I have mine of them.

Wouldn't let them walk my family's dogs, much less a member provide healthcare for our children.

[AUDub 11,158]

Is the American College of Pediatricians not similar to the American College of Physicians?

They were formed in opposition to the AAP over the gay adoption issue. And they're wingnuts.

Are they considered disreputable?

By anyone with any sense. Wingnut news outlets like Fox and LifeSiteNews love to cite them unironically. The proper response is to point and laugh.

[homersapien 11,393]

.............edit.............

However, that's not necessarily true:

Some trans people aren't interested in presenting as a "traditional" gender: http://www.autostrad...od-ones-172570/

First it didn't say what bathroom she used. I also got she preferred to dress as a "tom boy" instead of very feminine. I certainly didn't get the feeling she was trying to present as man, which she could presumably do easy enough... Finally, I don't get she was very typical - just the opposite.

But, assuming she used the women's room presenting as she normally does, used the stall, came out, washed her hands and left, would you call the cops? In North Carolina she would be breaking the law.

As for the (edited) Wikipedia reference it would be interesting to know what restroom transexuals who don't present as the opposite sex use. I'd be willing to bet that, for practical reasons, they use the restroom they present as, not as they actually feel they are.

[homersapien 11,393]

Beyond a few studies about brain size and supposed similarities in brains of subjects and their felt gender (which hardly proves the claim that's being made), there isn't really much hard science to go on.

It's sill relatively early, but the hard science side is nothing to scoff at. It has grown, and continues to grow, at a rapid pace. This consensus isn't some "God of the Gaps" (or "Science of the Gaps," as it were) theory.

Hormone exposure studies

Genetic factor studies

And I know you don't share this view with me, but I put a ton of stock into the position statements of various organizations that deal with these kinds of things. APA, AAP, AMA, AAFP, APHA the ACOG.

Damn, but you find the best sites!

(Although some of the principle researchers - or their publishers, not sure how that works - need to hire better translators.)

[Strychnine 1,802]

Is the American College of Pediatricians not similar to the American College of Physicians?

They were formed in opposition to the AAP over the gay adoption issue. And they're wingnuts.

Are they considered disreputable?

By anyone with any sense. Wingnut news outlets like Fox and LifeSiteNews love to cite them unironically. The proper response is to point and laugh.

telling tiger beat you to it, but thank you for the answer anyway. I knew nothing about them previously (as in had never heard of them), and was wondering if they'd chosen the name in an attempt to gain legitimacy.

[AUDub 11,158]

Is the American College of Pediatricians not similar to the American College of Physicians?

They were formed in opposition to the AAP over the gay adoption issue. And they're wingnuts.

Are they considered disreputable?

By anyone with any sense. Wingnut news outlets like Fox and LifeSiteNews love to cite them unironically. The proper response is to point and laugh.

telling tiger beat you to it, but thank you for the answer anyway. I knew nothing about them previously (as in had never heard of them), and was wondering if they'd chosen the name in an attempt to gain legitimacy.

Yes. They did. In the same sense as the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons and Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.