For them it’s not even a question
Framing is everything.
Transgender teen bullied for using girl’s locker room
Being a transgender teen at Galesburg High School, Ali Mcdorman, always knew she would eventually encounter hate. However, she never thought that hate would come from an adult.
“I feel like grown people…like adults… wouldn’t target a teenager,” said Ali McDorman, a 16-year-old student who identified as transgender three years ago.
But Ali said she was targeted. In a Facebook post last week, one parent wrote:
“Did you know… that Galesburg High School is allowing a male student (who identifies as a female) to be in AND a change in the same locker room as the girls while they are changing?? #GHS “
“It wasn’t derogatory towards me necessarily. They didn’t say my name,” Ali admitted. “But I am one of the three trans females at the high school. So I assumed it was me. I bit the bullet and I basically announced myself to be that person.”
That’s one way to frame it, but there are others. There is, for instance, “Girls at Galesburg High School forced to change clothes in front of boys.” The needs of Ali Mcdorman aren’t the only needs at issue here, but they are the only ones the story talks about. Ali Mcdorman apparently doesn’t pause for a second to wonder if girls might feel uncomfortable or worse having to share their locker room with him, regardless of how he “identifies.” He seems to think he’s the only person who matters here.
“I believe there was close to 200 shares, and about 800 comments,” said Holly McDorman, Ali’s mother. “I don’t think the original post had that intent (to bully Ali). But it certainly got to the point that Ali was definitely bullied and name called.”
“I think this entire situation blew out of proportions too quickly,” Ali said.
According to the National Center For Transgender Equality, transgender students have the right to use restrooms and locker rooms “that match their gender identity, and can’t be forced to use separate facilities.”
And according to the National Center For Burglars’ Equality, burglars have the right to force open windows and help themselves to whatever they find inside.
In other words the National Center For Gender Equality can assert that “right” all it likes, but the fact remains that such a right conflicts with the right of girls to have some facilities separate from those of boys, specifically toilets and changing facilities. Informing us what the National Center For Gender Equality says doesn’t mean we have to bow and tug our forelock and say “Okay.”
“For us it’s not even a question,” Holly said. “She’s a girl. She’s a female. So, of course, she’d use the locker room. Why would you send another female into the men’s locker room? It’s just that simple to us.”
That’s nice, but the article says Ali is transgender, so Ali is not a girl or female, Ali is a boy who “identifies as” a girl. We don’t all agree that “identifies as” magically changes people’s sex. It’s not self-evident that Ali’s self-identification should overrule girls’ disinclination to change their clothes in the presence of a boy. The girls have feelings too.
Now, both mother and daughter said they just want every student to feel safe and accepted in school.
“We can let everyone know that it’s ok to be themselves and that they can find acceptance in the world,” Holly said.
But what if they’re girls? What if they’re girls who don’t feel safe taking their clothes off with a boy in the room? What about them?
This is kind of off topic, but I noticed something curious the other day in an interview with a musician, who identifies as gender queer. She (hey, she didn’t say what her pronouns are) also said “I identify as an addict.” Is that a thing now? We no longer “are” anything. We “identify as” something.
It’s a little like prayer in the public schools. The kids are all fine with it — where’s the problem? Okay, that particular kid needs to learn to respect the rights of others. If they don’t want to hear the prayer, they can get up and go out in the hall. So we don’t really know if everyone is comfortable. We suspect that the real point is to make everyone comfortable.
That said, I’ll admit to still being on the fence about transgender access to women’s bathrooms. Thinking about it, I don’t think I’d have much objection to men in women’s bathrooms, either. There’d have to be good stalls, of course. Those would be the private spaces. If the woman’s bathroom is crowded, the men’s is available. I suppose that would make the designations friendly suggestions.
I’ve heard/ read impressive counter arguments, though, and think them realistic and convincing until I read counter counter arguments which say they’re unrealistic and paranoid. It’s an issue I’m still thinking over.
It’s super unfair and bullying for girls not to want to take their pants off in front of that creepy dude.
@gary:
I see obvious problems with “ identifying” as an addict meaning anything other than “admitting” you’re an addict. Otherwise, interventions have a new hurtle.
“You’ve lost 2 jobs and fell into the cake at your sister’s wedding.”
“But I don’t * identify* as an addict! I deserve respect for my right to know my own self. Bigot.”
Sastra, it’s easy to say fear of men in the women’s room is unrealistic and paranoid if you are not a woman, are a woman who is bigger and stronger than most men, are a woman who has never been threatened by a man, if you are a woman who has never had to deal with sexual or any other abuse from men…but if you are in those positions, it isn’t paranoia, it’s reality. And you know that not all men are going to behave that way. You know that most men are not going to behave that way (though you also know you may be wrong about that). But it doesn’t matter, because you can only deal with your response that that one man who is standing in front of you right now while you are in a really vulnerable position. You don’t know if this is the man who is dangerous, but his presence in a place where women are so vulnerable makes him suspicious.
@inknlast:
Yes. I’ve never been seriously abused, let alone in a washroom.. So I need to listen to, and respect women who are more cautious. You’re right.
This is of course balanced out by my need to listen to, and respect, abused transgender who were attacked in men’s washrooms. Same problem plus I’m not trans.
I have a lamentable tendency to want to be respectful of both sides. Women have the more legitimate claim to the Woman’s Room because trans women are technically men. Male on male violence should not be dumped on women’s laps. And some women are legitimately nervous or uncomfortable because they’ve been victims of male violence. But trans women have the more immediate claim because they’ve probably all been attacked or bullied in men’s rooms and it’s reasonable for them to expect more of the same. Thus the fence.
Do they? Why? I see your answer, but I find it difficult to accept that there is any reasonable argument for putting girls at risk. The obvious answer is to include some restrooms with single toilets, lockable, that either sex can use. This is reasonable, and doesn’t put either girls (women) or transgender at risk. The fact that they will not accept this extremely reasonable suggestion is…telling.
@Sastra:
There’s a difference between (1) respectfully listening to those who advocate for each side of a discussion and (2) assuming each side’s arguments are equally valid and sound. One can be respectful of transgender people while telling them in no uncertain terms that their arguments are bad, their statistics are junk, and the entirety of their gender theory is anti-feminist.
Women have the more immediate claim to the women’s room. Boys who have been bullied (and boys’ bullying can be horrific) have the immediate claim to disciplinary action against the bullies. That the bullied would feel safer in the girls’ changing room speaks not to where those boys should or deserve to be, but to the fact that they would be less likely to be physically threatened by girls.
In other words, I am saying that the fact they refuse to accept that solution means the argument is not about safety. It’s about something else, which is forcing themselves into women’s spaces, regardless of the desires, wishes, or fears of the women. It is about dominance, pure and simple, it is about them. Women who have real, genuine fear (not hysteria, not panic, not paranoia, but fear) of male-bodied persons are being pushed aside by playing on their sense of guilt about another person’s safety, when that safety could be achieved without risking the safety of women, or the wellbeing of women.
So, no, I can’t straddle that fence.
@iknklast:
The response I’ve seen to the excellent suggestion for third unisex toilets has been twofold. The first is that it’s fine but impractical in most public areas, which haven’t been built with the room for a third bathroom. At best, it’s in the future and trans men and women need a space now.
The second is the song and dance about but- they’re- women-you-bigot which does suggest it’s about validation, if not dominance.
I have some sympathy for the first response, since safety isn’t all that achievable without concessions from the women. What I don’t have much sympathy for is the insistence by the trans activists that the toilet issue is slam dunk — not even a question, as Ophelia put it. It is a question. I’m just not sure of the best answer.
@ Nullius in Verba
I agree. I’m not arguing that an emotional plea trumps a rational case — that because trans girls and women are bullied in the men’s rooms that means they really are women ( or that we’re obliged to bend over backwards to find a way to justify them being women.) Nor am I suggesting everybody’s right.
I’m pointing out that, for me, an emotional plea for safety does make me want to lean over a little bit. Especially when dealing with children. Not that everyone is right, but sometimes it’s wise for both sides to compromise for the common good. The question I’m still asking is whether doing so concedes too much — or risks too much.
Of course, I suspect that when it comes to kids verbal taunting or even honest objections (“you’re not a girl, really”) are being counted as “ violence.” I’m less sympathetic here. Not every challenge requires grownups to the rescue.
Among the arguments against self-ID being sufficient for access to bathrooms is that it removes a tool women can use to challenge a potential predator. Previously it was simple to tell an obvious man that he didn’t belong in the women’s room; now, even asking if someone is a woman is deemed a bigoted statement and possible harassment.
And then there’s the fact that assaults appear to be more frequent in single-sex facilities.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html
This, plus making a point of insisting that boys and men must accept gender non-conforming boys and men, and not behave like abusive assholes towards them.
If you can insist society must pretend males are really females, you can just as well switch your focus and insist on this. Not only is it more in keeping with reality, it is serves the interests of more people (gender non-conforming boys/men who AREN’T trans, and girls and women, as well as trans-identified males).
TRAs seem to assume that males will always bully others, it can’t be helped. And yet we’re supposedly the “gender essentialists.”
@gary #1:
I might have heard the same interview, where the interviewee talked about “coming out as genderqueer.”
I realized I had (and still have) no idea what that means. Are you a lesbian? Are you bi? Bor-ing! I guess it means you’re… what? Just more interesting and complicated than us normies?
Personally I’ve decided genderqueer doesn’t mean a goddamn thing because who knows?
Sackbut, I think you’ve got that backwards. The article you linked to states that assaults are more frequent in unisex facilities, and less frequent in single-sex facilities.
“The data, obtained through a Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times, suggests that unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities.”
Sastra, the unavailability of these restrooms would be more convincing if it weren’t for the giant mobilization that occurred in reference to ADA standards, where restrooms all over the country were remodeled to accommodate wheelchairs and the like. It can be done. It should be done.
The thing is, the disabled make up a much larger portion of the population than trans, and are very visible now. And there was a law passed. So people made the necessary changes. It was inconvenient. It was expensive. It was difficult. It was done.
The thing is, the TRAs refuse to accept that solution, even when available. It isn’t about safety, it’s about validation. And no, women should not have to concede on this point. Not a single inch. Because it is also about women’s safety, and for us to concede a single inch is to concede that women’s safety is less important than safety of those who are not women, even if they identify as such.
We cannot, we must not, make concessions on women’s safety. There needs to be a solution to protect trans people who are in danger. It cannot come at the expense of women’s safety, or women’s wellbeing. We fought too long and too hard to achieve the gains we’ve made, and conceding them at this point will lead to further concessions on other issues.
This should not be an issue. Women need to be protected. Trans people need to be protected. From whom do women need to be protected? Men. From whom do trans people need to be protected? Men.
So why is it women who have to concede? Why is it women who have to sacrifice their own safety for the benefit of…men? Even if those men believe very sincerely that they are women?
An excellent point, well made.
Yes, a lot of excellent points.
From a safety perspective, you can’t just make a traditional public toilet unisex and expect everything will be ok. Most public sexual assaults are crimes of opportunity. I frequently work in design teams working on both indoor and outdoor public spaces. best practice now is to give the impression of privacy in certain areas, while actually ensuring that the area is open to casual public view and does not feel secluded. A best practice unisex toilet would therefore have to be cubicles and wash areas with the public area probably open to view and with more than one area of egress. The space required to fit such a facility into say a school, stadium, airport or whatever becomes large, because of the number of toilets provided. There may be alternatives possible to reduce the number of stalls, such as providing unisex stalls and male only urinal rooms. Iknklast is right thought that this is a fixable issue at a cost. But we don’t see TRA’s campaigning for such facilities, we see them campaigning for access to women’s spaces, which is much more about validation than a solution for all.
@Papito #16
Oops, you are correct. I meant to say unisex, but wrote the wrong thing. Thanks for catching that.
Lady M @ 12 –
That is an EXCELLENT point. It should be made often and loudly until everyone gets it.
Lady Mondegreen @ #12
Exactly. Boys who are not macho enough get bullied in the boys’ bathroom. That’s the BOYS’ problem. Effeminate boys get bullied, too, and gay boys and men are not necessarily safe in the boys’/men’s room. The answer has never been, let the bullied boys use the girls’ bathroom. It’s a problem for the males to solve; it’s not women’s problem. For the trans identified boy at school, it’s not for the girls to escort the boy to the girls’ room, it’s for the BOYS to escort their male classmate to the BOYS’ bathroom. The boys should learn to look out for the safety of other boys, and to NOT BULLY. That’s what should be taught, rather than teaching one tiny class of males — but not others who have the same problem — that it’s okay to run roughshod over the concerns and rights of women and girls. Make the boys’/men’s room safer for boys and men. It’s THEIR problem, not ours.
I would add to that – I think it’s absolutely fine to ask girls to be in solidarity with bullied boys, to link arms with bullied boys and their male friends to challenge the bullies, and similar. It would be kind of great if all the kids who hate bullying got together – think Parkland – to stare it down. That would be quite different from forcing girls to be shields and give up their own safety in the process.
I will agree with iknklast’s scepticisim of this claim – it is not clear to me that this is the case. The article mentions no abuse of Ali being in the men’s rooms, rather it seems this was possibility was skirted by opting for the women’s rooms instead. And going by the video at the source, it seems plain to me that Ali is not bothering with any physical transitioning (unless hair style counts?) – he is assuredly male, in appearance and voice. A male who insists that he is female, sure, but I’m not sure what role this would play in the men’s locker room. It seems to have been assumed that Ali would have been abused in the men’s spaces, but I’m not seeing it.
Have a look at the footage, Sastra. I’m entirely sympathetic to the girls of the school being reluctant to undress in front of this obvious male.
My primary school (and this was back before the old king died) had a unisex toilet meant for wheelchair access as well as ones for boys and girls. In an impoverished school in a part of the country the rest forgot in the worst decade (post-WW2, at least) there has ever been. The school was built decades before the wheelchair access toilet and somehow it managed to be built anyway. Because it was a few bricks, a bit of pipe, a door… It probably took about a day to build.
Nobody tell me that it’s too difficult or expensive to build a separate unisex toilet. I’m not saying that’s necessarily the right answer, I’m just frustrated when people trot out the obvious lie that it’s too expensive or there’s not enough space. Of course there fucking is – just give the boys three urinals instead of five, job done.
O
YES.
latsot
I don’t get out a whole lot, but in my neck of Los Angeles, that seems to be the way big venues are going. There’s a huge multiplex movie theater down the Boulevard that offers three separate restrooms: men’s, women’s, and uni.
It’s doable.
Anecdotally, it seems to me that venues creating unisex restrooms are converting existing women’s rooms, thus decreasing the availability of facilities women can use without the presence of men.