Ill. School district could lose $6M due to transgender locker room access

[mr.MUskie]

      
Feds say locker room policy broke law
Palatine district restricted access for transgender student
BY DUAA ELDEIB CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Illinois’ largest high school district violated federal law by barring a trans-gender student from using the girls’ locker room, authorities declared Monday.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights spent nearly two years investigating Palatine-based Township High School District 211 and found “a preponderance of evidence” that school officials did not comply with Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

The student, who has identified as a girl for a number of years, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights in late 2013 after she was denied unrestricted access to the girls’ locker room. District and federal officials negotiated for months, and a solution appeared imminent as recently as last week, when the district put up privacy curtains in the locker room.

But talks stalled after school officials said the student would be required to use the private area, as opposed to offering her a choice to use it. Although the student said she intends to use the private area or a locker room bathroom stall to change, the stipulation constitutes “blatant discrimination,” said John Knight, director of the LGBT and AIDS Project at American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which is representing the student.

“It’s not voluntary, it’s mandatory for her,” Knight said. “It’s one thing to say to all the girls, ‘You can choose if you want some extra privacy,’ but it’s another thing to say, ‘You, and you alone, must use them.’ That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as girl.”

For the student at the center of the federal complaint and all other trans-gender students at the district’s five high schools, the staff changes their names, genders and pronouns on school records. Transgender students also are allowed to use the bathrooms of their identified gender and play on the sports team of that gender, school officials said.

But officials drew the line at the locker room, citing the privacy rights of the other 12,000-plus students in the district. As a compromise, the district installed four privacy curtains in unused areas of the locker room and another one around the shower, but because the district would compel the student to use them, federal officials deemed the solution insufficient.

The dispute highlights a controversy that a growing number of school districts face. The Department of Education has settled two similar allegations of discrimination against trans-gender students in California, with both districts eventually agreeing to allow the students to use female-designated facilities.

The student’s family first contacted District 211 when she was in eighth grade and was told by the superintendent at the time that she would not be allowed to use a restroom stall in the girls’ locker room, according to the Office for Civil Rights’ investigation. Instead, the student had to use a separate, single-occupancy restroom for physical education, swimming class and sports.

“Student A has not only received an unequal opportunity to benefit from the District’s educational program, but has also experienced an ongoing sense of isolation and ostracism throughout her high school enrollment at the school,” according to the letter from the Office for Civil Rights.

The student told federal authorities that she takes a circuitous route to get to the gym to avoid standing out.

She said she was once the only person in a gym uniform because she was not with the rest of the class when the teacher informed the students they did not need to change.

Another time, the student, who plays for the school on a girls’ sports team, said she broke down in tears after her coaches reprimanded her for using the locker room to change. The coach told her some students felt uncomfortable dressing in front of her.

“All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities — this is a basic civil right,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon said in a statement. “Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.”

Superintendent Daniel Cates remains adamant that the district is not in violation of the law and warned that the Obama administration’s position “is a serious overreach with precedent-setting implications.”

“The students in our schools are teenagers, not adults, and one’s gender is not the same as one’s anatomy,” Cates said in a statement. “Boys and girls are in separate locker rooms — where there are open changing areas and open shower facilities — for a reason.”

He went on to emphasize that the district’s position should not be seen as discriminatory, saying, “We celebrate and honor differences among all students and we condemn any vitriolic messages that disparage transgender identity or transgender students in any way.”

The federal response came as no surprise to district officials, who held a news conference three weeks ago to get ahead of the announcement. At the time, Cates said he hoped to “work collaboratively with the OCR and (that) reasonableness will prevail.”

The district has 30 days to reach an agreement with authorities or risk having its federal educational funding suspended or even terminated. The case also could be referred to the Department of Justice.

The student, who the ACLU said does not want to be identified for privacy reasons, said in a statement that the federal ruling “makes clear that what my school did was wrong.”

“This decision makes me extremely happy — because of what it means for me, personally, and for countless others,” she said. “The district’s policy stigmatized me, often making me feel like I was not a ‘normal person.’ ”

[mr.MUskie]

FEDS RULE TO FORCE HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS TO UNDRESS NEXT TO NAKED BOYS WHO THINK THEY’RE GIRLS

by BEN SHAPIRO3 Nov 201511,335
On Monday, the federal government declared itself fit for the madhouse by mandating that a Chicago high school allow a full biological male into the girls’ locker room for all purposes, including nudity. This biological male, the feds determined, was different because he thinks he is a female.

The feds have ruled that the presence of a twig-and-berries in the girls’ locker room has been mandated by Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. Yes, ladies and gents and non-cisgenders: it turns out that the battle against sexism enshrined in the ill-written Title IX was actually intended to force underage young women to look at the penises and testicles of boys.

Progress.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights spent almost two years checking out the Township High School District 211 because of the transgender “girl.” He filed a complaint with the feds in 2013 after the school refused “unrestricted access” to the girls’ locker room. The district eventually agreed to allow the boy into the girls’ room so long as he used a privacy curtain while disrobing.

That wasn’t good enough. The feds determined that this still constituted discrimination. Why? As John Knight, director of the alphabet-soup LGBT and AIDS Project at the ACLU, stated, this was “blatant discrimination.” He explained (well, we think it’s a he, unless he identifies differently today):

It’s not voluntary; it’s mandatory for her. It’s one thing to say to all the girls, “You can choose if you want some extra privacy,” but it’s another thing to say, “You, and you alone, must use them.” That sends a pretty strong signal to her that she’s not accepted and the district does not see her as a girl.

Perhaps the district does not see “her” as a “girl” because “she” is not a she, a her, or a girl. Nonetheless, the Office for Civil Rights agreed, with Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon averring:

All students deserve the opportunity to participate equally in school programs and activities – this is a basic civil right. Unfortunately, Township High School District 211 is not following the law because the district continues to deny a female student the right to use the girls’ locker room.

The student is not female. But never mind that: the subjective opinion of a person now governs a student body of some 12,000.

So here, in a nutshell, is the government’s new policy with regard to sex and sexuality among youngsters:

If you’re a boy who shows a picture of your penis to a girl in your class, you have likely violated both federal child pornography laws as well as local sexual harassment laws. If this happens consistently in your school, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re a boy who says he’s a girl, the girl must be placed in position to see your penis and testicles. If the school does not allow this, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re an adult who sexually touches a child with the consent of the child, you have committed a crime, since children are incapable of consent.
If you’re an adult who gives a child hormone therapy or surgery to prevent normal development of the genitals, with the consent of the child, you are a hero.
If this all makes sense to you, you should be working for the federal Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

This is what happens when a society loses its moral moorings. In its quest to destroy God, the left unhitched its wagon from eternal truths and, instead, decided to substitute its own idea of utopia. To reach that utopia – freedom from social expectations and standards – objectivity itself had to be destroyed, so as to avoid blame. Objective truth lost all meaning; only subjectivity mattered. Science became the enemy, since it establishes provable truths; it had to be quashed and quelled. Language became the enemy, since definitions exclude people and things not covered by those definitions; it had to be perverted and hijacked.

And so we now live through the looking glass, waiting for the next philosophically incoherent ruling from our masters of time and space. Or mistresses. Or whatever.

[keefe]

This really makes no sense to me. What about all those girls who have an expectation of privacy but who are now forced to share a locker room with a male?

The private facility was a reasonable solution.

[mu03eng]

This really makes no sense to me. What about all those girls who have an expectation of privacy but who are now forced to share a locker room with a male?

The private facility was a reasonable solution.

It was right up until it was mandated that the transgender person use the private facility which marginalizes them.  Rightly or wrongly it's about inclusion.  The really tough part is even if you have the private facility and say it's optional for whoever wants more privacy if all of the non-trans people use it that also excludes the trans person.

I have no idea what the right answer is, I'm guessing it won't be solved until we go to universal/joint facilities(no male or female distinction) like most sci-fi tv shows/movies seem to predict.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Dogs and cats...living together...mass hysteria!

[GGGG]

The right solution is to let them change in the room of their identified gender even if they are trans-gender.  Of the 12,000 students that Palatine has, if 2% of them are gay, which is about what the national average says they are, 240 or so gay and lesbians changing in front of people that they supposedly are attracted to.  Is this a problem?  Have there been incidents of sexual assault, or simple ogling, that have made heterosexual students uncomfortable?  How is this different?

[jesmu84]

The right solution is to let them change in the room of their identified gender even if they are trans-gender.  Of the 12,000 students that Palatine has, if 2% of them are gay, which is about what the national average says they are, 240 or so gay and lesbians changing in front of people that they supposedly are attracted to.  Is this a problem?  Have there been incidents of sexual assault, or simple ogling, that have made heterosexual students uncomfortable?  How is this different?

The minority, and the LOUD minority, wins. Squeaky wheel and all that.

[CTWarrior]

If a boy can identify himself as a girl, then why can't a white woman identify herself as a black woman and run a chapter of the NAACP?

I know I'm an old grouch, but at some fundamental level, you are what you are, not what you want to be.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the world around you, and not expect the world to adapt to you. 

[mu_hilltopper]

I know I'm an old grouch, but at some fundamental level, you are what you are, not what you want to be.  Sometimes you have to adapt to the world around you, and not expect the world to adapt to you. 

+1.   

[GGGG]

So in other words, no one can really come up with any harm that any of the 12,000 students would face if a transgender student changed in front of them.

[MerrittsMustache]

So in other words, no one can really come up with any harm that any of the 12,000 students would face if a transgender student changed in front of them.

It's not a matter of the students feeling uncomfortable or threatened with a transgender student changing in front of them. It's a matter of girls feeling uncomfortable changing in front of a male peer.

[Eldon]

The right solution is to let them change in the room of their identified gender even if they are trans-gender.  Of the 12,000 students that Palatine has, if 2% of them are gay, which is about what the national average says they are, 240 or so gay and lesbians changing in front of people that they supposedly are attracted to.  Is this a problem?  Have there been incidents of sexual assault, or simple ogling, that have made heterosexual students uncomfortable?  How is this different?

Allow me to play amateur sociologist for a post or two.

Differences that come to mind:
1) Sexuality can be hidden, a male sex organ cannot

2) Sexuality is genetic, gender (not sex) is a social construct (which, by the way, is why so many feminists are anti-trans)

[MerrittsMustache]

Allow me to play amateur sociologist for a post or two.

Differences that come to mind:
1) Sexuality can be hidden, a male sex organ cannot

Tell that to Buffalo Bill.

[Eldon]

So in other words, no one can really come up with any harm that any of the 12,000 students would face if a transgender student changed in front of them.

The harm is pure discomfort. The trans student experiences discomfort by having to use a private facility. The female students in the locker room experience discomfort by having to change in front of someone who is a biological male.

Are you criticizing the females for feeling discomfort? It sounds like you are saying to them "ah, suck it up girls, it's not that bad. Your feelings are irrational."

[Pakuni]

It's not a matter of the students feeling uncomfortable or threatened with a transgender student changing in front of them. It's a matter of girls feeling uncomfortable changing in front of a male peer.

They're not required to change in front of a male peer. If they see this particular student in the locker room and that makes them uncomfortable, they're free to step into a private area or go elsewhere. There's no requirement they get naked in front of anyone, or see something they don't want to see. They have an option.

I'm very familiar with this story, and the funny thing about it is that the vast majority of students either don't care or support the transgender student. The opposition here is being driven entirely by a very conservative school board, not the students and not even most of the parents.

[Pakuni]

The harm is pure discomfort. The trans student experiences discomfort by having to use a private facility. The female students in the locker room experience discomfort by having to change in front of someone who is a biological male.

Are you criticizing the females for feeling discomfort? It sounds like you are saying to them "ah, suck it up girls, it's not that bad. Your feelings are irrational."

1. It's not an issue of discomfort for the trans student. It's an issue of being excluded and treated differently/unequally.
2. Preventing discomfort is hardly the standard by which our laws/rights should be created. Some 50-60 years ago, lots of white people in the South were discomforted by having to share lunch counters, drinking fountains and buses with black people. Should their discomfort supersede other people's rights?

[CTWarrior]

1. It's not an issue of discomfort for the trans student. It's an issue of being excluded and treated differently/unequally.

He had the option of being treated equally and chose not to.  He could have changed in the boys locker room like every other anatomical male.

[Pakuni]

He had the option of being treated equally and chose not to.  He could have changed in the boys locker room like every other anatomical male.

The school district recognizes that she is female in every other aspect. She uses the girls' washroom, has a girl's name, participates in athletics as a girl, etc.
Sorry if the increasing acceptance of transgender people is not to your liking. It's happening.

[CTWarrior]

The school district recognizes that she is female in every other aspect. She uses the girls' washroom, has a girl's name, participates in athletics as a girl, etc.
Sorry if the increasing acceptance of transgender people is not to your liking. It's happening.

Now your argument is moving.  You said it wasn't a matter of discomfort, but it is. He is uncomfortable changing in the boys locker room.  So the solution is to make a larger number of people uncomfortable by having him change with the girls. 

I understand the kid feels the way he feels, but the world doesn't need to bend over backwards to accomodate him at the expense of the feeling of other people, because you think his discomfort is more acceptable than those other people.

[Pakuni]

Now your argument is moving.  You said it wasn't a matter of discomfort, but it is. He is uncomfortable changing in the boys locker room.  So the solution is to make a larger number of people uncomfortable by having him change with the girls. 

I understand the kid feels the way he feels, but the world doesn't need to bend over backwards to accomodate him at the expense of the feeling of other people, because you think his discomfort is more acceptable than those other people.

My argument isn't moving. I've never said it was about discomfort.
What you call his "discomfort," the law calls her "legal right."
And, again, you're ignoring the fact that most students support this person. It's the adults that are making a stink.

Why your insistence on referring to her with a male pronoun? Is this simply about your belief that transgender people aren't real? You're completely entitled to your opinion on that, of course. But if your argument here is that this student is and should be treated as a boy, that's pretty much a non-starter on discussing this further. There's an interesting discussion to be had as to what amounts to reasonable/equitable treatment and access, but there's no point in having that discussion if your argument boils down to genitalia.

[GGGG]

The harm is pure discomfort. The trans student experiences discomfort by having to use a private facility. The female students in the locker room experience discomfort by having to change in front of someone who is a biological male.

Are you criticizing the females for feeling discomfort? It sounds like you are saying to them "ah, suck it up girls, it's not that bad. Your feelings are irrational."

Well that's probably not the wording I would use...   

But as others have said, "discomfort" really isn't a good reason not to do this.  And maybe it's because my kids are older, but I think my role as a parent here wouldn't be to protect them from this discomfort, but to let them know how they can adapt.  Because unless there is something physically or emotionally harming them, I don't see the big deal here.  This is stuff they are going to have to deal with eventually anyway.

[Pakuni]

Well that's probably not the wording I would use...   

But as others have said, "discomfort" really isn't a good reason not to do this.  And maybe it's because my kids are older, but I think my role as a parent here wouldn't be to protect them from this discomfort, but to let them know how they can adapt.  Because unless there is something physically or emotionally harming them, I don't see the big deal here.  This is stuff they are going to have to deal with eventually anyway.

Any parent who's worried about what their teenager might be seeing in a high school locker room better take away that kid's Internet access ASAP. Because chances are there's nothing going on in a changing area that kid hasn't seen online already.

[jesmu84]

My problem with this whole debate is how do we address this in an educational setting. Over time, culture will slowly accept different or no gender roles at all. But we still teach children about genders mostly based on biology and specifically anatomy. When you're dealing with children, complex thought is difficult. So what would be the best way to approach this?

Thoughts?

[mr.MUskie]

My argument isn't moving. I've never said it was about discomfort.
What you call his "discomfort," the law calls her "legal right."
And, again, you're ignoring the fact that most students support this person. It's the adults that are making a stink.

Why your insistence on referring to her with a male pronoun? Is this simply about your belief that transgender people aren't real? You're completely entitled to your opinion on that, of course. But if your argument here is that this student is and should be treated as a boy, that's pretty much a non-starter on discussing this further. There's an interesting discussion to be had as to what amounts to reasonable/equitable treatment and access, but there's no point in having that discussion if your argument boils down to genitalia.

and chromosomes.

[mu03eng]

This situation introduces an interesting legal and societal question regarding the engagement with transgender specifically, but identity generally.

You've got a biological male that identifies as female changing in the female locker room with other females.  The trans person is uncomfortable changing in the male locker and she would be uncomfortable changing in a private area of the female locker room.  You could also have a biological female that is uncomfortable with a biological male in the locker room with her and she would be uncomfortable changing in a private area of the locker room.  Who's "discomfort" takes precedence over the other?

It is similar to rights in a legal setting.  I have natural rights as identified by the constitution, etc. however when my rights come into conflict with another person's rights they must be adjudicated and a "win" and "loser" determined.  So in the case of this situation, someone is going to potentially be "uncomfortable" how do we determine who that is.