We Can’t Let Those People Do That. It’s Just Wrong!

1. I can’t wait for the day when the sign on the door only says “bathroom” so you go in and everything is gone. Go at home because they are sick and tired of trying to satisfy the public. That’s what they’ll say.

   Obama will still be irrelevant.

2. David, as a trans man who’s been using the appropriate restroom for almost 20 years now, I appreciate your support. I do, however, wish the media would stop referring to “restrooms of their choice.” They are in truth “restrooms appropriate to their identity” just as they are for everyone else. Despite the F that was originally on my birth certificate, it’s not a choice for me to use the men’s room, it is simply appropriate. Trans men are men and trans women are women. Implying it’s a choice is not helpful to moving society forward on understanding gender identity. Thanks for your consideration. (PS Same is true for “preferred pronouns”. They’re just pronouns. Which pronouns do you use?)

3. It is good that MorphingMichael has been using the appropriate bathroom for so long and has never had a problem, knowing how to exercise discretion. Some, however, may not be so discrete, especially in the larger public areas; those who want to make a grand show of it may be challenged. For example – just Google “Stefonknee Wolscht” and try to figure out the rules anew.

4. David,

   The examples you have used to justify a very different issue are not comparable. The concept of transgender choosing the restroom of their self-identity is wrong.

   Why must we change norms, that have worked well forever, to accommodate an infinitesimally small number of individuals, while presenting society as a whole with potentially difficult situations No to this stupid idea, which must be stopped.

5. @Bisbee – nothing has changed, except for the criminalization of it. Republicans are desperately clinging to anyone they can legally discriminate against, and the transgendered – that “infinitesimally small” number of people they believe nobody should care about – is their latest target.

6. David:

   Most of us who attended graduate school any time after 1985 or so found that among the first things we were asked to read was Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition. To a generation educated with the conviction that the modernist consensus is a thing of the past, arguments like the one you make here seem outmoded and indefensible.

   We live in a stubbornly, persistently pluralistic society. In this context, public school policy makers cannot say: “This is right, this is wrong” on values issues. They can say, like social scientists, “this group believes this, another group believes that.” I’m not talking about what should be taught in the hard science disciplines here, that’s a separate issue. The issue here is whether public school officials have the authority to tell students what is right and what is wrong on issues of gender identity and sexual morality. They do not, and in a self-aware pluralistic society, if public school policy makers are to be responsible, they should be asking themselves not, “How can we convert students to our belief system, which is the right one?” but “How can we structure our schools in a way that is respectful to differences in the beliefs and values of those using them?”

   Theoretical concerns aside, as we look, in Arizona, at how to build support for properly funding the public school system, it’s a pragmatic necessity to ask ourselves how we can structure public schools so that longstanding, constructive cohorts that have contributed much to our communities can all feel respected there. To name a few of these groups: Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Muslims, Jews. Add together the total # of constituents who belong to one or another of these groups. If you want to “save” public schools in a context where their constituency is declining in numbers, is it a good idea to implement policies that will alienate a sizable percentage of those affiliating with these groups? The constitution guarantees freedom of religion: none of these groups should be given reason to lose confidence that the public school system is capable of educating their children without “reprogramming” them; none of these groups should be given legitimate grounds for feeling that the way public schools’ policies are structured gives students the message: “the American government does not respect your belief system and / or your faith community’s belief system.”

   You write that you are concerned about the feelings of transgender students who don’t feel right using the bathrooms designated for a gender with which they do not identify. But public school administrators must also be concerned about the feelings of the majority of students who are not transgender. Who is a public school official to tell non-transgender students that if they feel uncomfortable using the bathroom with students who, according to their belief system, are of a different gender, that their feelings are wrong and to be disregarded, while the transgender student’s feelings are legitimate and to be defended by public policy? That’s a value judgment, pure and simple — and discriminatory against the longstanding belief systems of very large segments of our population. It is not appropriate for officials in public institutions to be saying: “transgender activists are right on these gender issues; Southern Baptists (or any other group that takes a more traditional view of gender identity) are wrong.” Making these kinds of judgments is simply and emphatically NOT the role of a public official in a pluralist society.

   One example of a structural change in public schools that might accommodate all perspectives on this controversial transgender bathroom issue with no disagreement: put bathrooms in individual rooms — one toilet, one sink per room, and make them unisex. Many restaurants do this. It provides complete privacy and entirely avoids the issue of matching gender identity with bathroom usage, making no one uncomfortable. A fringe benefit would be that bathrooms would no longer be places where unsupervised students are free to bully and abuse other students, which too often happens in multi-stall bathrooms in schools.

   If we think we can’t afford to make changes like this, perhaps we should ask ourselves if we can afford NOT to make changes that acknowledge and respect the plural belief systems in public schools’ proper constituency, which should be understood to include ALL of us, not just transgender students and not just those who agree with your particular political commitments and perspectives, which are neither universal nor demonstrably “right” from a perspective that can be considered value-free and legitimate in a way that transcends the values communities to which we all belong. (Postmodernists see secular liberal / progressive as one values community, not a neutral perspective, David.)

   As for Obama, he has accomplished some constructive things like expanding access to health care, but when it comes to education, he has a weakness for the authoritarian imposition of top-down directives that sometimes fail to show proper understanding of education as a profession, may seem obtuse and divisive from a diversity-of-values perspective, and have unfortunately done much damage to our public schools. Race to the Top is one example of this; this is another.

7. Rallying those who agree with him to lob verbal mud balls at ideological opponents seems to be what Safier, as a die-hard partisan of a strictly defined political and social agenda, is best at. If we want to understand various parties’ perspectives and formulate reasonable consensus agreements which will allow all of the groups who should be able to utilize our public institutions to come together in support of them, we’ll need to look to other commenters to help us do that. Meanwhile, Safier and his tribe will continue to produce the impression that public education is and should be a realm owned and operated by card-carrying secular liberals; anyone who disagrees change your views or get the hell out.

   Safier: have you noticed that in Arizona they ARE getting the hell out, and successfully diverting public funds into institutions that they feel better serve their children? Why do you think they are doing that? What kind of behaviors on the part of “supporters of public education” might stop or mitigate the decline in enrollment rates in our public district schools? Hint: ridiculing anyone who happens to disagree with prejudicially secular / liberal public school top-down policy dictates probably won’t get the job done. You can talk out of one side of your mouth about the need to increase enrollment in public district schools and out of the other side of your mouth about how stupid people who don’t share your ideological commitments are to object to this policy and how soon their views should go the way of the wildebeest, but it seems unlikely that that sort of double-speak will persuade parents who disagree with your ideology that they should enroll their children in the public institutions you support.

   Some of us in the “liberal / progressive” crowd understand that our viewpoint is not the only one that needs to be accomodated within the context of public education; others really don’t get it, and their way of interacting with other groups is unfortunately one of the reasons public schools are having so much trouble mustering support these days.

8. I don’t care where you pee, as long as you wash your hands before you shake hands with me.

9. I was upset with what Ducey did because no one asked me. It is purely Republicans trying and successfully stoking fear and prejudice. President Obama was 100% right because people deserve to use the bathroom of their gender identity. There are creeps out there and what is amazing is so many are worried what will happen to the little girls. These same pedophiles have been using the bathrooms with the little boys and no one was worried. The point is, these predators are everywhere and being ever vigilant for them is and always should have been the standard. Now the Republicans have found one more way to pit people against people. Trans are being scapegoated period. Just one more way to have an excuse for hate and not dealing with it personally. Haters are always looking for someone to hate and fear rather than deal with themselves. Equal rights is a value that our schools must accommodate for if we are to support all people and their differences.

   Publics schools should not impose values…. on your note…. yes race to the top has not been successful however President Obama was trying to turnaround “No child left behind” which was a huge failure also. Taking away funding from schools for decades ( especially in AZ ) falls squarely in Republicans’ laps. States like Minnesota are doing well. There is adequate funding and support from the people. there. So this is a big problem and definitely not President Obama’s “Race to the Top” singular failure. Our state gets the gold medal on failing our children for a long time. We have had charter schools for decades and rank #1 in the amount of charter schools ( last I heard) and our state is struggling. I think charter schools and their corporate ownership and lack of oversight are hugely responsible.

10. “Guardians” — The most appropriate response to your post is what was already written by one of the commenters above: “Some of us in the “liberal / progressive” crowd understand that our viewpoint is not the only one that needs to be accomodated within the context of public education; OTHERS REALLY DON’T GET IT, and THEIR WAY OF INTERACTING WITH OTHER GROUPS IS UNFORTUNATELY ONE OF THE REASONS PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE MUSTERING SUPPORT THESE DAYS.” This describes pretty well the commentary of people who look at a complex situation like the one surrounding Obama’s policy recommendation on bathroom usage and the lesson they draw from it is, “Republicans have found one more way to pit people against people […] Haters are always looking for someone to hate and fear rather than deal with themselves.” You are lumping a complex and diverse group of human beings together, ignoring completely the influence of values communities that have hundreds and in some cases thousands of years of tradition and history behind them, making assumptions about members of this group that in thousands of individual cases will be unfair and inaccurate, stamping “Haters” on their foreheads, and relegating them to a category whose perspectives are not worthy to be considered in the formation of public policy. Do you call that an enlightened approach to policy development for public schools?

    I believe you have stated in the past that you are a teacher in a public school. In this capacity, surely you understand that you teach the children of Republicans as well as the children of Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, Independents and the politically apathetic. As a teacher of some children coming from Republican households, do you consider your stigmatizing, public written comments about the parents of many of your students appropriate?

    As for your statements about Minnesota, those who know the political climate, character and history of the DFL, influence of specific immigrant groups on the political ideas that gained currency in the state, and nature of their public schools understand that there is much more besides differences in funding levels in the schools and in which political party controls the legislature and governorship that distinguishes Minnesota from Arizona. Many southern Arizona residents who have been conditioned by experiences of high functioning, responsible, adequately professionalized public education systems in Minnesota and in other states are appalled by some of the governance and administrative decisions made in this region by public officials who call themselves “Democrats.” And many of the decisions in question were NOT forced by inadequate funding. They could, in any funding context, have been made differently. ENTIRELY AVOIDABLE, IGNORANT MISMANAGEMENT gets a good deal of the blame for many of our problems locally, and the sooner we name the CAUSES honestly — causes which include but are not limited to funding cuts perpetrated by members of the opposing political party — the sooner we can begin to correct both the CAUSES of these problems and their sad EFFECTS on our institutions and those who use them. It’s nothing short of tragic that those who depend on our malfunctioning public institutions in Tucson include students whose educations are being mangled by bad actors at the federal, state and local level — and in BOTH major political parties.

11. Please don’t pee on the toilet seat. Women are famous for this! In fact, a woman in a public restroom would be called a pig if it were not an insult to the pig. Women who feel they were in the wrong body and men who feel they were in the wrong body have been with us since time began and this is just another “take us back” non-issue like the tea party saying their ideal “take us back to” is 1953. I’m not exactly sure, but weren’t we in the first of many wars we couldn’t win in Korea about then? Everyone just use a stall. No one is going to do anything any differently than they did before some idiot decided since we couldn’t punish people with a different sexuality by discriminating against them everywhere else, we would take it to the potty where most political issues should be left. Just mind your own business. That transgender person might be your own child or other relative who has to live a secretly miserable life because you can’t live without judging. We just gave away our public school funding so Ducey could keep from paying education what was theirs, that got squandered on private prisons and tax cuts for the rich. Surely, we can concentrate on high quality education for all and leave everyone to live their own life with dignity, which will dignify your life as well.

12. It’s interesting what the Democratic party chooses as its advocacy priorities these days. A grandfather in Tucson wrote this moving letter, which was recently published in the Arizona Daily Star:

    “In 1966, I was able to work during the summer and earn enough money for tuition and books [to put myself through the U of A]. Throughout my college years I worked part time and lived at home, and when I graduated I was debt-free.
    For Molly [my granddaughter], her grandmother and I saved for her education from the time she was born. Currently we have enough college funds for three semesters. If Molly graduates in four years, she will likely have to assume $50,000 in loans.
    Why do our middle and lower socioeconomic students have to suffer with this debt?”

    An excellent question. But what is the political party that is supposed to defend the rights of working people spending its time, money, national PR machine and advocacy energy on, while its probable presidential nominee refuses to turn over the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street, for which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaker’s fees?

    The powers-that-be in the Democratic party can’t defend the rights of millions of students to get an education which will equip them to enter a profession without encumbering themselves with tens and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt, but they can make a huge, toxically divisive issue out of defending the rights of a small percentage of the population to use the bathroom of their choice, and if states comply, they may receive this punishment: they will lose their federal free-and-reduced lunch funding, i.e., the poor will be made to suffer if recalcitrant states don’t toe the line.

    What heroes, what defenders of the oppressed we have in the Democratic party! (Translation: What useless, self-righteous, hypocritical, ineffectual, self-absorbed TWITS. At the local level many of them collaborated with Ducey in ramming Prop 123 through, and at the national level they have shut Sanders out of any chance of the nomination by a rigged system that is anything but “democratic,” with its “SUPERdelegates” and its primaries in which voters registered as Independents are barred from participation, and now they choose to inflame the conservative base in the months immediately preceding the highest-stakes presidential election in the last century over an issue like this…my God. FDR and LBJ must be turning over in their graves watching their party’s willful neglect of the socio-economic issues that used to form the solid core of the party’s concern.)

13. get it righ, their called transvesites and they need mental help.

Comments are closed.