By: Eli Verschleiser
A
society should be judged by how well we treat the vulnerable and minorities in
our midst.
But
society must also be judged by how we balance the rights of all people to
coexist together. Reasonable accommodation for some should never amount to
violation of the rights of others.
When
it comes to the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender Americans,
change is happening quickly and, post legalization of same-sex marriage, in an
almost cascade effect. We must be cautious of the road ahead to maintain that
balance.
 |
The transgender flag. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
|
When
it comes to the accommodation of religious observance, for example, now
required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and similar legislation, a
worker who wants to observe holidays or wear religious garb must be
accommodated reasonably up until a point where an employer can demonstrate that
such accommodation poses undue hardship to the business despite attempts to
compromise.
The
Americans for Disability Act also has exemptions for changing infrastructure or
service provision if it poses undue hardship to a facility.
But
when it comes to fully accommodating youth who identify as transgender, not
only must accommodation be immediate and absolute, but it can be imposed not by
carefully crafted legislation, but by the fiat of the U.S. Department of
Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
In
ordering that an Illinois school district must not dare to interfere with a
biological boy’s unfettered access to the girls’ locker room, this office of
appointed officials has set a precedent for every school in the United States.
And
it will have far reaching implications. Already several other similar cases
have arisen.
What
is most striking about these controversies, from my point of view, is the
tolerance gap.
By
all accounts, school officials and students have proven sympathetic to the
transgender student, while seeking reasonable accommodation. The unnamed
student in the Illinois case was offered a private area to change to avoid the
apparently unbearable scenario of having to use the boys’ locker room, while
still protecting the girls’ privacy.
That
led to the civil rights complaint, with the ruling declaring that this
accommodation violates the transgender student’s rights – despite the fact that
no one questioned the student’s orientation or pointed the student back to the
male locker room.
A
similar case became more heated, in the small town of Hillsboro, Missouri,
where Lila Perry, born male but now identifying as female, has insisted on
using the girls’ locker room for gym class. A large number of students, male
and female, staged a walk-out protest against such an accommodation.
Hillsboro
also offered a private changing area, which Lila refused.
Numerous
students and parents interviewed said they did not question the sincerity of
Lila’s identification as a girl. They just wanted their feelings to be taken
into account in the matter.
One
astute Hillsboro high school senior, Sydney Dye, told CNN: “Some girls
already have insecurity problems getting dressed in front of other girls as it
is, much less having to get dressed in front of a boy."
But
Lila wasn’t having any of it, blanket accusing every last one of the student protesters and their parent supporters as bigots: “I don’t believe
for a second that they are [uncomfortable]. I think this is pure and simple
bigotry. I wasn’t hurting anyone and I didn’t want to feel segregated out.”
And
so we are enmeshed in a rather sudden national debate about whether one’s
desire for locker rooms and bathrooms to be segregated according to biological
gender is akin to hating gays, people of color, Jews or immigrants.
I
suspect that even a majority of liberals won’t get caught in that trap. As many
commentators pointed out, voters in Houston, a city that heavily supported
Barack Obama and elected a lesbian mayor three times, recently defeated an ordinance
that included allowing transgender people to use whatever public bathroom they
wish.
In
the absence of written laws on this subject, or a uniform definition of a
transgender student, school officials are left in the unenviable position of
trying to find the wisdom of Solomon in these cases and, if they’re lucky,
avoid getting sued or federally de-funded.
The
only solution that will satisfy everyone involved is a redefinition of the
contemporary bathroom and locker room. Public men’s and women’s rooms will eventually
give way to banks of private cubicles and stall showers that allow privacy for
everyone, similar to what is being done in private health clubs. This is
especially important in schools. Equal rights means equal privacy for those who
want it.
Only
in that way, in today’s cascade of political correctness and bureaucratic
redefinition of discrimination, can a girl be spared the dual indignities of
being forced to shower with a boy at school, and being labeled a bigot for her
discomfort.
Originally Published: The Algemeiner
