Colorado parents of transgender 1st-grader file complaint over restroom ban

[Mystical]

When I was really little, apparently my mom was giving me and my brother a bath and he got very distraught and yelled for her to come in the room where he pointed at me and said, "It broke off!"
That's the day we stopped bathing together I don't remember it.

When I was in kindergarden, a boy had everyone in the class come to the back and he showed us his penis. Didn't irreparably damage me, but it did cause my mom to have to explain why his anatomy was different from mine and she felt that meant addressing sex as well. So, I had no idea what it was and no need to know until that moment that kid showed us all his package. I think anyone will agree that part of being a kid is being oblivious to some un-necessary things, and sex is one of them. That innocence since it is so short lived, is priceless.

Last point, when I was in elementary school I had a boy that stalked me. My 'emergency out' was the bathroom as I didn't know how to handle that. And that worked quite effectively, thus making the bathroom my safe haven. Even into high school they were my 'out' and I don't know what I would'v done had imposing boys been allowed into the bathroom and possibly been able to see through the cracks in the door or under the door or above the door. Privacy when peeing is nice, isn't it?

That's my reasoning for separate bathrooms. Other than cleanliness. If guys sat down to pee then I guess I wouldn't mind sharing a toilet with them but that's not fair to them if they don't want to, is it?
I agree with Lilly that it wouldn't be the end of the world, to use the bathrooms with the boys. But as a little girl I was certainly thankful we didn't have to.

I couldn't even imagine what it would be like to be a girl having to use the boys room. If indeed this 6yr old (thats what this thread is about btw to whomever asked) had to use the boys room and those boys ran around the bathroom with their pants down, I would be uncomfortable too as a boy or a girl. The things that Lilly had to endure growing up are things that make my heart sad, and I don't see anything wrong with the parents of this 6yr old fighting for their daughter's minority in seeking a resolution to this issue. Obviously it's an issue or this thread wouldn't be 14pgs long already
What I've seen as resolutions: uni-sex bathrooms requiring re-vamping bathrooms as they exist now, single uni-sex units, redefining 'girls' and 'boys', making exceptions for transgendered students, identifying bathroom use based on sexuality, and--well, that's all I can think of right now.

What's wrong with urinals being in stalls? And toilets as well? And why can't a transgender use a bathroom that inherently has stalls already--like the girls bathroom? ShellB is correct: if a girl wanted to use the boys bathroom it wouldn't be the issue this one is. Personally I can't fathom why the school brought it up in the first place, and blame them. They're the ones who knew this girl's gender, and they're OBVIOUSLY the ones who had a problem with it even though they quote other parents and students (who never would've known and shouldn't have) for their reasoning. Because usually employees of schools have kids in said school: the students know just as much as the teachers, typically.

Personally, I don't think the school needs to know someone's gender, besides the nurse. Medical files should be closed to the medical provider. But that's me.

I for one am glad that this girls' parents brought this up: it obviously does need to be addressed. Especially with the rising awareness and statistics of transgendered individuals in society.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

I can't speak for everyone with a vagina, Lills. I have only ever spoken for myself here. I'm pretty sure that is clear in what I write. Repurposing things is wonderful. It doesn't change that tampons are for vaginas.

Whateverist, my argument does not depend whatsoever on the convenience of said rooms. I only stated that they are made with that in mind. They are not determined by clothing, but by genitals. Why this is still being argued is beyond me.

TEGH, a little girl seeing a penis before it is intended is not necessarily harmful, nor did I state that it is. Most parents would prefer not and I think I defer to them in cases of children being shown genitals.

---

Now the appeal to definition fallacy is as follows (taken from logicallyfallacious.com):


Your argument is similar:

The men's restroom was designed with penises in mind. The women's room was designed with vaginas in mind. Therefore, humans with penises should not use women's and vice versa.

How is that similar? Did I define the bathrooms? I'm not appealing to definition. I'm appealing to function, which has not been shown to be illogical. Furthermore, fallacy or not, you have failed to show me how that is unsound. People are always forgetting that a fallacious argument can still be a sound argument, though they typically are not. Helps if you can spot a fallacious argument, regardless.

A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the inference is correct. Your implicit premise about function (that intended function is authoritative in all cases) is not supported and needs to be backed with more arguments. We use things outside of their intended function all the time because the designers could not possibly every situation in which alternative uses of their design might work well. Just the other day I used a laundry hamper tied to a rolling language carrier as a case to move a piano keyboard. Of course those two things weren't intended to serve that function but why should that stop me? It worked better than me carrying it with my hands.

What you need to do is support your assertion that intended function should be always followed.

---

TEGH, not necessarily harmful. As in, it is not always going to be harmful. That is not a necessary result of the experience. I'm a cunt hair away from comparing the "okay, let's go ahead and sexualize children in the name of freedom" mentality here with the "children can have sex if they want to" mentality I see elsewhere. It really all comes down to whether you think it is okay for rooms where children take their clothes off to be co-ed. If you think that is okay, that is your opinion. I might point out that you have failed to demonstrate why it is okay, but I'm unlikely to get anywhere with you. *please prove me wrong*

Why must I prove it is ok? There's nothing obviously wrong with it to me and there's been no evidence as far as I'm aware to suggest it is harmful. For practicle purposes, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have to assume it's okay. Maybe there are negative side effects but I can't know that. Maybe red colors are harmful too but I don't know that they are or have reason to suspect so I'm going to continue to wear red.

---

Most parents would prefer not and I think I defer to them in cases of children being shown genitals.

So? I'm sure a lot of parents were upset about the desegregation of schools too.

[Shell B]

A sound argument is one in which the premises are true and the argument is valid. For an argument to be valid, there has to be no way that the conclusion can be true if the premises are false. When you have this and the premises are true, you have a sound argument. You can make the assumption that the conclusion is true based on this, but the "inference being true" is not a prerequisite for a sound argument. Boring.

I never said function should always be followed. That would go something like:

1. The function of the gender specific restrooms is to separate people by genitalia
2. Function should always be followed

Therefore, gender specific restrooms should stand

You added the second premise. I did not assert that. I gave my opinion that this particular function is helpful and have stated why I feel that way. That it went soaring over your head is not my problem.