Coy Mathis and the Next Civil-Rights Struggle
The purpose is to protect modesty and eliminate the potential for prurience in the bathroom. But stalls accomplish the first goal and, given the prevalence of homosexuals and bisexuals, segregation by sex doesn’t quite achieve the second. Thankfully, no one seeks to exclude homosexuals from girls’ and boys’ rooms. Allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice wouldn’t make bathrooms any more sexually charged. They are straight and gay in the same proportion as other people, meaning a solid majority are sexually uninterested in the people they would encounter in the loo.
What’s more, it’s wrong to assume that forcing transgender kids to use the bathroom of their biological sex would make other kids feel more comfortable. Surely the average student would prefer to share a bathroom with a transgender student who dresses and acts like him or her than one who dresses and acts like the opposite sex.
The same arguments go for locker rooms and showers. Transgender students aren’t going to insist on using communal showers, but if a school setup allows sufficient privacy, they should be allowed to use the facility of the gender with which they identify.
Even if there is “sufficient privacy,” it’s impossible not to be naked in a locker room environment for at least a short period of time.
Using this line of logic, then two separate locker rooms are unnecessary. If it’s alright for women-living-as-men to shower with men-living-as-men and for men-living-as-women to shower with women-living-as-women, then it’s okey dokey for men-living-as-men and women-living-as-women to shower with each other. It’s like I’ve been saying here, the end game is everyone in one big shower. Because…civil rights.