Female students assaulted by transgender students in bathroom

[steve-in-kville]

OJ has a good point. I often wonder if things like autism and ADHD have always existed and we didn't know what it was or have a name for it? Or is it our lifestyles and stuff we ingest that causes it?

Mental health disorders are like that. Years ago, things like anxiety where cast off as having "bad nerves." Now we have all manner of terms for it.

[Ken]

All of this is carefully documented for every child who has any kind of school accommodations. Every teacher has stacks of these. I usually make a big spread sheet to keep track of it all at the beginning of every year until I eventually have it all memorized for every student.

Maybe kids these days have more problems than they used to, or maybe parents are more helicoptery, but it seems like the pendulum is swinging toward a bureaucracy catering to snowflakes. Not that the opposite extreme is better; my grandfather couldn't even get an accommodation to write with his left hand.

Honestly I agree. Every teacher can tell you stories of (usually upscale) helicopter parents insisting on all kinds of special accommodations for their little snowflakes. Sometimes it is purely mercenary like parents who are trying to get extra time for their kids on things like the SAT which was documented in the Netflix movie about the college admissions scandals that caught up the Hollywood elite and sent some to prison. How much of this sort of thing slips through kind of depends on how vigilant the school’s administrators and counselors are. And getting accommodations removed requires the same administrative process as getting them approved in the first place.

Every year I have some students (usually with wealthy pushy parents) who have accommodations that they don’t need. And other struggling students who probably need a lot of evaluation and help but who come from broken homes, are in foster care, or whatever, and there is no one to advocate for them so they slip through the cracks. And you wonder how could this perfectly smart and normal kid have a big file but this other obviously troubled and struggling kid has nothing. But ultimately we are just talking about paperwork here. You still do whatever you can to help every student.

Sometimes it is just extreme. A few years back we had a local case where the police and social services discovered a family where the crazed religious patriarch father had kept all his children literally locked up in their basement where they were abused and completely isolated from the outside world. The mother was apparently abused to and went along with it. Actually it was never clear how much she was a victim or co-conspirator. When the father and mother were arrested and detained, all the kids were placed into foster care and I had one of the teenage daughters in my class. She had a file hundreds of pages thick with all kinds of reports and instructions from psychologists and we were warned never to leave her alone with any other student or with ourselves as she would act out in very inappropriate sexual ways due to all the history of sexual abuse. She had been trained to act out sexually to gain approval. I basically had her foster mother on speed dial and it was an exhausting year.

As a teacher all you can really do is do your best to follow the instructions you are given and hope for the best. It isn’t your place to substitute your judgement for all the other professionals who have come before you. And frankly you are legally vulnerable if you deliberately do not follow whatever authorized accommodations or procedures are in place for a particular child. In this society many parents are quick to file lawsuits if you don’t do your job. That applies to whether the child in question is autistic or transgender. There is no legal difference. And if you can’t or won’t do that you are probably in the wrong job.

[HondurasKeiser]

Ken & Szdfan,

Why have separate male & female restrooms at all?

I honestly don’t have strong feelings or opinions about this either way. I think the primary reason why we segregate bathrooms is social convention and what we are comfortable with.

I do, however, have strong opinions about using bathrooms to demonize a vulnerable group of people. The entire “moral panic” about the supposed transgender horde out to rape your daughters in gender neutral bathrooms began soon after it no longer was politically and culturally acceptable to attack same-sex marriages.

I don’t think any of this is really about bathrooms. I think it’s about attacking queer people and pushing a group further into the margins.

You might try looking into the history of sex-segregated bathroom laws instead of blithely painting people that disagree with your general stance as being motivated by and interested in "attacking queer people and pushing them further to the margins. This from a Yale Law & Policy Review essay:

As for the second theory, which argues that sex‐separation first emerged in the late nineteenth century, the Article establishes that sexseparation well preceded that time and, indeed, dates back to ancient times. Generally speaking, as public policy, the practice was rooted primarily in safety and privacy concerns, although patriarchal norms affected it. Indeed, this Article argues that nineteenth century laws mandating sex‐separation in factories were among the earliest anti‐sexual harassment laws in the nation. These laws fell short in the effort, however, because they lacked supporting legal structures, because the problems of sexual assault and sexual harassment proved enduring, especially for the female‐bodied, and because they did not sufficiently consider the safety of male‐bodied persons who were similarly vulnerable to assault and harassment.

The Article concludes that the alternative bathroom histories fail. As they propose an explanation of sex‐separation that advances the interests of some sexual minorities, they offer a narrative that oppresses women and the female‐bodied. They ignore the stories of women’s lives and, in particular, their struggles with sexual assault and sexual harassment. They similarly ignore the struggles of the poor for safe intimate spaces. Women and others must push back on approaches that contort women’s history, for they are rooted in sexism and patriarchy, even when they may be intended to advance the freedom of other groups.

This, to answer Mike's very simple and straight-forward question, is why we have sex-segregated bathrooms and is hardly the stuff of right-wing fever dreams or anti-queer animus.

FWIW, I still think homosexual marriage is bad for one's soul and destructive to the institution as such with all manner of attendant negative consequences flowing therefrom and I feel no compunction about saying so if asked. Likewise, I think transgenderism and gender-bending is a fun game of deconstruction you all are playing and/or encouraging whose consequences in both people's lives and in the fabric of society we have just begun to perceive (see: detransitioners). I have little interest in attacking people, hating them, doing them violence or pushing them to the margins and simply because I hold positions different from you or contrary to the progressive zeitgeist that usually remains static for all of 10 minutes, does not mean I am hateful, bigoted or disingenuous in my beliefs.

[HondurasKeiser]

I honestly don’t have strong feelings or opinions about this either way. I think the primary reason why we segregate bathrooms is social convention and what we are comfortable with.

I do, however, have strong opinions about using bathrooms to demonize a vulnerable group of people. The entire “moral panic” about the supposed transgender horde out to rape your daughters in gender neutral bathrooms began soon after it no longer was politically and culturally acceptable to attack same-sex marriages.

I don’t think any of this is really about bathrooms. I think it’s about attacking queer people and pushing a group further into the margins.

In Virginia it is actually about the culture war and the current governor's race. I guess we will see in a week or so whether waging war on transgender kids is good politics or not.

I think that’s also been true a lot of the time. Fighting cultural war battles over LGBTQ rights has been good politics for conservatives.

This is straight gaslighting (much as I hate that term). Who has pushed, with alacrity, the redefinition of marriage, neo-pronouns, bathroom rules in schools, abortion-on-demand, trans and gay themes in Y.A. novels, literal pornography in school libraries, drag-queens in story hours, children in drag, gay/lesbian adoption, polyamory, etc.?

We all know the answer - in the name of always increasing freedom and liberation from constraint, progressives push new policies or the abolition of policy, or the expansion and redefinition of policy/language - however the case may be. When some of us point out that liberation from all constraint is bad for our souls, bad for society and destructive of actual culture we are told we're engaging in "phony-culture wars" and for cheap political purposes. That is gaslighting.

[Ken]

In Virginia it is actually about the culture war and the current governor's race. I guess we will see in a week or so whether waging war on transgender kids is good politics or not.

I think that’s also been true a lot of the time. Fighting cultural war battles over LGBTQ rights has been good politics for conservatives.

This is straight gaslighting (much as I hate that term). Who has pushed, with alacrity, the redefinition of marriage, neo-pronouns, bathroom rules in schools, abortion-on-demand, trans and gay themes in Y.A. novels, literal pornography in school libraries, drag-queens in story hours, children in drag, gay/lesbian adoption, polyamory, etc.?

We all know the answer - in the name of always increasing freedom and liberation from constraint, progressives push new policies or the abolition of policy, or the expansion and redefinition of policy/language - however the case may be. When some of us point out that liberation from all constraint is bad for our souls, bad for society and destructive of actual culture we are told we're engaging in "phony-culture wars" and for cheap political purposes. That is gaslighting.

I haven’t pushed for any of those things. But I do recognize that we are a nation of laws and that people do have rights whether or not I agree with their particular ideology or persuasion or whatever. And yes, the arc of history does bend towards an expansion of rights rather than the opposite. Honestly, people made many of the same arguments about women’s suffrage, the civil rights act, immigrant rights, women’s lib in the 1970s, and so forth. Often wielding similar arguments based on biblical texts, conservatism, or whatever. If you want to read some fevered high-pitched moral panic, go read what a lot of southern Baptists wrote about desegregation in the 1950s. Yet somehow the republic has survived. And I suspect it will survive transgender kids using their preferred school bathroom as well.

[Heirbyadoption]

Out of 150 students I have in a typical semester I usually have 20+ who have files of information and accommodations. Everything from documented learning disabilities, medical issues, behavioral issues, etc. etc. For example, at the moment I have one student with a disability who is authorized to use the school elevators as an accommodation while other students are not. I have various students with assorted learning issues that have various accommodations such as "preferential seating in front of the class" "extra time on tests" etc. I have students with asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, and other more uncommon conditions that all have authorizations for using certain medications in class and procedures to follow if they have episodes in class. I have one student with some sort of urinary tract issue who is authorized to leave the classroom to go to the bathroom at any time without permission. I have students on the autism spectrum who have special files and instructions. And when I get the rare transgender student (and they are rare) I get a file listing any accommodations that might accompany that particular child which is usually names, pronouns, and issues like bathroom use. The student I had last year actually had permission to use a staff bathroom rather than either the boys or girls. So had to request a key from me. It really isn't that big of a deal. All of this is carefully documented for every child who has any kind of school accommodations. Every teacher has stacks of these. I usually make a big spread sheet to keep track of it all at the beginning of every year until I eventually have it all memorized for every student.

Students do not ever get to decide for themselves what sort of "accommodations" they are entitled to, whether they are transgender or not. These are negotiated and agreed to in meetings between school administration, parents, counselors, etc. and put down on paper (legal documents) which all the parties involved actually sign and then copies are distributed to teachers and staff. A student can no more decide for themselves that they are entitled to some bathroom accommodation than they can decide for themselves that they are entitled to say extra time on tests or use some prescription medication in school.

Ken, just as an observation here and I don't mean to derail the conversation, but it really DOES seem a bit noteworthy that out of the 8 specific situations you mentioned as being granted accommodations, only 7 of them are unquestionably involuntary conditions. I realize there is much debate about the physiology of gender identity, but frankly, the choice to actively live/present as transsexual (regardless of the moral question) and require specific accommodations really seems to be apples to oranges with the other 7...

You are free to make that argument or observation. I completely understand the point you are making. However that is completely irrelevant to my job as a teacher. There are various laws and school policies that authorize different accommodations for different students. They are agreed to through a formal administrative process involving the school administration, counselors, parents, and students. And I am obligated by law to follow them. It isn’t my call to decide that a particular student doesn’t need a particular accommodation. I frankly have lots of students who don’t really need the accommodations that are in their files. For example, I have HS students who might have gotten tested for ADHD when they were in 2nd grade and their file of accommodations still follows them 10 years later despite the fact that they don’t appear to actually need any of them anymore. It isn’t my job to pick and choose which accommodations I want to follow and which I want to ignore. That is above my pay grade.

I'm not entirely convinced you actually did understand my point (which admittedly may have completely been my fault for not clarifying), based on your response. The fact that you, as a teacher, have to acquiesce to all accommodations equally is irrelevant (or at least secondary) to the separate issue which I was commenting - ergo, I will try to explain my thought better.

The OP addresses the question of female students being assaulted by (originally-male) trans students in a female bathroom; my subsequent comment regarding the specific cases/accommodations you mentioned was aimed at this:

The accommodations for the 7 involuntary needs you pointed out all accommodated those 7 needs without creating any risk to others, unless there was an actual risk and resultant harm from any of those 7 accommodations that you knew of?
The bathroom accommodations for trans students, particular going back to the rape case in question in the OP, allowed for a new/different context of risk where girls could potentially be (and in the case in question, WERE) raped in the female bathroom - within the creation of that risk context, specifically by the accommodation for originally-male trans students to use the female bathroom, the resultant rape happened. My point is not even a condemnation of trans kids, but simply that the accommodation for a voluntary need specifically created a greater risk, and the bad apple in the bunch used the now-existent and greater opportunity to rape the girl.

It can be argued that it could have happened elsewhere, certainly, but staying in the context of the OP - without this particular accommodation of a condition that did not require accommodation to literally perform one's duties in the educational system, logic follows that there would have been less risk and less actual harm done. And you are free to disagree, but that was my thought behind objecting to your lumping of the needed accommodations of involuntary-physical-condition cases with the desired accommodations of a transgender student.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think that’s also been true a lot of the time. Fighting cultural war battles over LGBTQ rights has been good politics for conservatives.

This is straight gaslighting (much as I hate that term). Who has pushed, with alacrity, the redefinition of marriage, neo-pronouns, bathroom rules in schools, abortion-on-demand, trans and gay themes in Y.A. novels, literal pornography in school libraries, drag-queens in story hours, children in drag, gay/lesbian adoption, polyamory, etc.?

We all know the answer - in the name of always increasing freedom and liberation from constraint, progressives push new policies or the abolition of policy, or the expansion and redefinition of policy/language - however the case may be. When some of us point out that liberation from all constraint is bad for our souls, bad for society and destructive of actual culture we are told we're engaging in "phony-culture wars" and for cheap political purposes. That is gaslighting.

I haven’t pushed for any of those things. But I do recognize that we are a nation of laws and that people do have rights whether or not I agree with their particular ideology or persuasion or whatever. And yes, the arc of history does bend towards an expansion of rights rather than the opposite. Honestly, people made many of the same arguments about women’s suffrage, the civil rights act, immigrant rights, women’s lib in the 1970s, and so forth. Often wielding similar arguments based on biblical texts, conservatism, or whatever. If you want to read some fevered high-pitched moral panic, go read what a lot of southern Baptists wrote about desegregation in the 1950s. Yet somehow the republic has survived. And I suspect it will survive transgender kids using their preferred school bathroom as well.

I understand your position(s) Ken as being less-motivated by progressive ideology/utopian dreams and more by a consistent commitment to liberal proceduralism. I don't think mine is fever-pitched moral panic - I am simply dubious of the supposed neutral public square liberalism pretends to create and am convinced of the very sensible and staid notion that ideas, especially ones that deconstruct traditional norms and ways of being in an effort to set people free from constraint, have serious and oft-times unforeseen consequences. I agree with you though that within our system the arc is always bent towards an expansion of rights; that movement towards expansionism seems baked into the system. I wonder though if you can conceive of any such expansion that you might find "too far"? That is to say, do you Ken, in your very consistent commitment to a neutral public square, have some sort of limiting principle that informs you when the expansionist project has arrived or the arc of history has been bent far enough?

[Ken]

Ken, just as an observation here and I don't mean to derail the conversation, but it really DOES seem a bit noteworthy that out of the 8 specific situations you mentioned as being granted accommodations, only 7 of them are unquestionably involuntary conditions. I realize there is much debate about the physiology of gender identity, but frankly, the choice to actively live/present as transsexual (regardless of the moral question) and require specific accommodations really seems to be apples to oranges with the other 7...

You are free to make that argument or observation. I completely understand the point you are making. However that is completely irrelevant to my job as a teacher. There are various laws and school policies that authorize different accommodations for different students. They are agreed to through a formal administrative process involving the school administration, counselors, parents, and students. And I am obligated by law to follow them. It isn’t my call to decide that a particular student doesn’t need a particular accommodation. I frankly have lots of students who don’t really need the accommodations that are in their files. For example, I have HS students who might have gotten tested for ADHD when they were in 2nd grade and their file of accommodations still follows them 10 years later despite the fact that they don’t appear to actually need any of them anymore. It isn’t my job to pick and choose which accommodations I want to follow and which I want to ignore. That is above my pay grade.

If you understood the point I was making, then I'm inclined to conclude you were ignoring it. But having said that, I'm not convinced you actually did understand my point (which admittedly may have completely been my fault for not clarifying), based on your response. The fact you, as a teacher, have to acquiesce to all accommodations equally is irrelevant - ergo, I will try to explain my thought better.

The OP addresses the question of female students being assaulted by (originally-male) trans students in a female bathroom; my subsequent comment regarding the specific cases/accommodations you mentioned was aimed at this:

The accommodations for the 7 involuntary condition cases you pointed out all accommodated their needs without creating any risk to others, unless there was an actual risk and resultant harm from any of those 7 accommodations that you knew of?
The accommodations for the trans student, particular going back to the rape case in question in the OP, allowed for a new/different context of risk where girls could potentially be (and in the case in question, WERE) raped in the female bathroom, and within the creation of that risk context (specifically by the accommodation for originally-male trans students to use the female bathroom), the resultant rape happened. My point is not even a condemnation of trans kids, but simply that the accommodation specifically created a greater risk, and the bad apple in the bunch used the greater opportunity to rape the girl.

It can be argued that it could have happened elsewhere, certainly, but staying in the context of the OP - without this particular accommodation of a condition that did not require accommodation to literally perform one's duties in the educational system, logic follows that there would have been less risk and less actual harm done. And you are free to disagree, but that was my thought behind objecting to your lumping of the needed accommodations of involuntary-physical-condition cases with the desired accommodations of a transgender student.

What you are missing is that this case isn’t an example of any sort of accommodation gone awry. First of all, there was no policy in place when the assault happened. And second, this particular student didn’t have any sort of accommodation allowing him to enter girls bathrooms. These are not things that students get to decide for themselves based on how they are feeling a particular day or how they are dressed a particular day. Any more than they get to decide for themselves whether they are allowed to take prescription meds or do open-note tests if those are accommodations that others have but not them.

To use a parallel example of students being put in danger by an accommodation. Some students with particular medical issues may have an accommodation to carry prescription pain killers and use them at school. Like prescription strength acetaminophen. If some random student without that accommodation happens to acquire or steal such drugs and overdoses at school. That isn’t the result of any sort of accommodation. That is simply a student breaking the rules. And that is why most schools actually require that prescription meds be stored and administered in the nurses office rather than carried by students.The same exact thing happened here. A student with no permission to do so, broke the rules and entered a girls bathroom.

Actually from the reporting what appears to have happened is that the students knew each other and agreed to meet in that bathroom. And then things got out of hand and the assault happened. This sort of thing happens all the time. Student X in 3rd period chemistry class pre-arranges to meet his girlfriend who is in 3rd period English class. They both ask to go to the bathroom at the same time and then clandestinely meet up in some secret corner or stairwell of the school for a little mid-morning physical contact. Kids are sneaky this way. Which is why schools have rules.

[temporal1]

According to a Fox News report, "... a male student in a skirt allegedly assaulted a female student in a girls' bathroom –
while the board was considering a controversial transgender rule."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnew ... r-race.amp

obama talking about world-class ed is a hoot, in itself. he does this stuff with a straight face. (credit: acting lessons)
more accurate to say, “world class replacement of education” with low-grade lib political activism.

but, is this debate about a “male in a skirt” or about just another female with a (presumably maverick) penis? (as now there are “pregnant men,” evidently, with maverick vaginas+uteri, et al.)

these are males, and females, who are hapless victims of their physical bodies. woe is me.

God uses all things for His purpose. It can be impossible to understand at any given moment. Like now.

HK: yes.

[Falco Underhill]

According to a Fox News report, "... a male student in a skirt allegedly assaulted a female student in a girls' bathroom –
while the board was considering a controversial transgender rule."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnew ... r-race.amp

obama talking about world-class ed is a hoot, in itself. he does this stuff with a straight face. (credit: acting lessons)
more accurate to say, “world class replacement of education” with low-grade lib political activism.

but, is this debate about a “male in a skirt” or about just another female with a (presumably maverick) penis? (as now there are “pregnant men,” evidently, with maverick vaginas+uteri, et al.)

these are males, and females, who are hapless victims of their physical bodies. woe is me.

God uses all things for His purpose. It can be impossible to understand at any given moment. Like now.

HK: yes.

I can't remember where, but I just read an article that seriously spoke of "male-bodied persons" and "female-bodied persons."

"Trust the science."