The current president of smith was my favorite professor in college and decades later we reconnected and exchanged a couple of emails…until i mentioned i’d developed some surprising but very deeply thought out “heretical” views on gender. She had just gotten the top job at smith so i like to imagine she was just too busy to write back.
If "trans-girls" don't feel safe in boys' locker rooms, the solution is to stop the boys from hurting these boys, not to put these boys into the girls' locker rooms. Of course, nobody should be physically or verbally abused or discriminated against in housing or employment or education or anywhere based on how they dress or appear and whether they conform to sex stereotypes. This is not really a Title IX issue.
The use of Title IX was a way to get creative in using a federal law to protect vulnerable people who don't conform to sex stereotypes. In a very technical sense, it is sex discrimination if you harass someone or exclude someone from participation in educational activities because they are non-stereotypical for their sex (e.g. effeminate males or masculine females), because you would not treat a member of the opposite sex the same way for the same behaviors or appearance.
However, other than preventing sex-stereotype-based bullying - actual physical or verbal abuse, or preventing individuals from obtaining the benefits of their education because of their non-conformity to sex stereotypes - Title IX should not be used to force males into female spaces (e.g. putting males in an all female Smith College), or force teachers to lie to their students or the students' parents about the students' sex (e.g. referring to a female student as if she is male or vice versa). That is a mis-application of the statute.
As for that small minority of people who really wish or believe they are the opposite sex, they are not actually the opposite sex, so using Title IX to force people to pretend they are the opposite sex is just plain wrong. It is not a win in any sense of the word when we take a confused teenage boy and lead him by the hand into the girls' locker room or bathroom. It is not doing that boy any favors, in addition to being very harmful to the girls in that locker room or bathroom. It is not really a conflict of interest between the confused boy and the girls because it is harming all of them. The way to help that small minority is to educate all students on the fact that some are non-stereotypical and should not be harmed because of it, and to try and get members of their own sex (particularly boys with other boys) to be supportive of them, and to punish those who verbally or physically abuse these vulnerable students swiftly and appropriately so that the abuse never happens again.
We are often told that trans women are unsafe in men's spaces, but are there any data to support this claim? It's accepted as an article of faith, but we shouldn't base policy arguments on faith. If we can't empirically demonstrate a significant danger, I don't know why we're making major accommodations for it.
You are quite correct. And even if they were proven to be unsafe, the solution is not to ship them off to the women’s spaces. It would be to make the men’s spaces safe for them.
Right. I mean, as a gay man, I could also claim to be unsafe in men’s spaces . Does that mean I get to use the women’s facilities, too? Is the only difference that I have not claimed a female identity?
Yes to that too. What about disabled men? What about weird, nerdy men? Should they all be in the women's room because they're "targets?" It's ridiculous!
If another way to say “gender identity” is “wished-for sex,” it becomes clearer that this should not override sex in settings where sex is a relevant characteristic.
Thanks for this, Lisa. I agree with Sue—you’re my favorite writer on this subject.
I agree on your first and third thoughts (no males if it's a women's college - although they are free to open up the college to both sexes [like Columbia, for example, when it started admitting women]; and non-binary is a meaningless nothing).
However, I don't think a woman who cuts off her breasts or takes testosterone should be excluded from a women's college or a women's anything other than sports in the case of testosterone.
I realize my opinion is unpopular. I just think a woman who has medicalized, is calling herself a male, has no place in a woman’s college. If this student stops the medicalization and turns away from the male identity, sure—welcome back.
You are my favorite writer on this subject. Thank you.
The current president of smith was my favorite professor in college and decades later we reconnected and exchanged a couple of emails…until i mentioned i’d developed some surprising but very deeply thought out “heretical” views on gender. She had just gotten the top job at smith so i like to imagine she was just too busy to write back.
Can you write now? With maybe an article by Lisa or Pamela Paul or Jennifer Block or Ben Ryan or Jesse Singal?
I will try!
If "trans-girls" don't feel safe in boys' locker rooms, the solution is to stop the boys from hurting these boys, not to put these boys into the girls' locker rooms. Of course, nobody should be physically or verbally abused or discriminated against in housing or employment or education or anywhere based on how they dress or appear and whether they conform to sex stereotypes. This is not really a Title IX issue.
The use of Title IX was a way to get creative in using a federal law to protect vulnerable people who don't conform to sex stereotypes. In a very technical sense, it is sex discrimination if you harass someone or exclude someone from participation in educational activities because they are non-stereotypical for their sex (e.g. effeminate males or masculine females), because you would not treat a member of the opposite sex the same way for the same behaviors or appearance.
However, other than preventing sex-stereotype-based bullying - actual physical or verbal abuse, or preventing individuals from obtaining the benefits of their education because of their non-conformity to sex stereotypes - Title IX should not be used to force males into female spaces (e.g. putting males in an all female Smith College), or force teachers to lie to their students or the students' parents about the students' sex (e.g. referring to a female student as if she is male or vice versa). That is a mis-application of the statute.
As for that small minority of people who really wish or believe they are the opposite sex, they are not actually the opposite sex, so using Title IX to force people to pretend they are the opposite sex is just plain wrong. It is not a win in any sense of the word when we take a confused teenage boy and lead him by the hand into the girls' locker room or bathroom. It is not doing that boy any favors, in addition to being very harmful to the girls in that locker room or bathroom. It is not really a conflict of interest between the confused boy and the girls because it is harming all of them. The way to help that small minority is to educate all students on the fact that some are non-stereotypical and should not be harmed because of it, and to try and get members of their own sex (particularly boys with other boys) to be supportive of them, and to punish those who verbally or physically abuse these vulnerable students swiftly and appropriately so that the abuse never happens again.
We are often told that trans women are unsafe in men's spaces, but are there any data to support this claim? It's accepted as an article of faith, but we shouldn't base policy arguments on faith. If we can't empirically demonstrate a significant danger, I don't know why we're making major accommodations for it.
You are quite correct. And even if they were proven to be unsafe, the solution is not to ship them off to the women’s spaces. It would be to make the men’s spaces safe for them.
Right. I mean, as a gay man, I could also claim to be unsafe in men’s spaces . Does that mean I get to use the women’s facilities, too? Is the only difference that I have not claimed a female identity?
Yes to that too. What about disabled men? What about weird, nerdy men? Should they all be in the women's room because they're "targets?" It's ridiculous!
If another way to say “gender identity” is “wished-for sex,” it becomes clearer that this should not override sex in settings where sex is a relevant characteristic.
Thanks for this, Lisa. I agree with Sue—you’re my favorite writer on this subject.
Smith is a women's college, so males should never have been admitted.
And if a female student opts out of womanhood via use of testosterone, breast removal...well, she should transfer out of the college.
As for females identifying as non-binary, oh well. No need for separate facilities. This trend will pass.
I agree on your first and third thoughts (no males if it's a women's college - although they are free to open up the college to both sexes [like Columbia, for example, when it started admitting women]; and non-binary is a meaningless nothing).
However, I don't think a woman who cuts off her breasts or takes testosterone should be excluded from a women's college or a women's anything other than sports in the case of testosterone.
I realize my opinion is unpopular. I just think a woman who has medicalized, is calling herself a male, has no place in a woman’s college. If this student stops the medicalization and turns away from the male identity, sure—welcome back.