Massachusetts Eliminates Gender Distinctions in Public Schools
Joe Carter-TGC Blog
The Story: Parents across Massachusetts are
concerned about new public school rules that would not only allow
transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms of their
choice but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or
support their transgender classmates.
The Background: In 2011 the Massachusetts
legislature amended several state statutes to include prohibit
discrimination based on "gender identity." Last week the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
issued guidance for how the law would be implemented in public
schools.
According to the guidelines, "A transgender boy, for example, is
a youth who was assigned the sex of female at birth but has a
clear and persistent identity as male. A transgender girl is a
youth who was assigned the sex of male at birth but has a clear
and persistent identity as female. Gender nonconforming youth
range in the ways in which they identify as male, female, some
combination of both, or neither."
Additionally, the statue says, "The responsibility for
determining a student's gender identity rests with the student
or, in the case of young students not yet able to advocate for
themselves, with the parent."
The guidance states that "determining a student's gender
identity is simple" and that the student should be treated and
regarded by whatever gender they choose. However, the statute
does not require "consistent and uniform assertion of gender
identity." So a student can assert various identities or switch
from one identity assertion to another as long as there is
"other evidence that the gender-related identity is sincerely
held as part of [the] person's core identity." The school can
also not discuss the student's gender with the parents without
talking to the student first. Students are therefore allowed to
"express" one gender at home and another one at school without
the parents being apprised of the situation.
The students are to be referred to by whatever name or pronoun
they prefer (for example, a student whose student record
identified him as a male named John was referred to as "Jane"
and "she."). All school personnel are required to use "the
student's chosen name and pronouns appropriate to a student's
gender identity, regardless of the student's assigned birth
sex."
The students are also allowed to "access the restroom, locker
room, and changing facility that corresponds to the student's
gender identity." If transgender students are uncomfortable with
using a "sex-segregated restroom" then a "a single 'unisex
restroom or the nurse's restroom" must be made available to
them. However, the concerns of other students are dismissed
since "discomfort is not a reason to deny access to the
transgender student."
Why It Matters: In their rush to embrace LGBQTO
political correctness and trying to create gender-neutral
schools, the Massachusetts Department of Education is creating
an environment ripe for sexual harassment and abuse. Any teen
boy can claim, with a wink to his peers and a straight face to
his educators, that he has decided to identify as a female and
will then have unlimited access to the girl's restroom and
locker rooms. As Adam J. MacLeod and Andrew Beckwith note,
"While we doubt that teenage boys will take much interest in the
provenance of gender personality, it's not a stretch to suppose
that they will welcome its implications for co-ed activities."
Indeed, anyone who has spent time around adolescent boys can
foresee the inevitable abuses that will be occurring because of
this policy.
Last week, in an article on pornography, I claimed that rather
than sliding down a slope we are merely waiting for the
diffusion of an idea to spread from a group of individuals to
the larger population. The situation with gender identity is
exactly the same. As MacLeod and Beckwith point out,
Massachusetts lawmakers have for many years been eradicating
sexual distinctions from the law. This result seems to us the
logical consequence of those efforts.
Redefining marriage to eliminate sexual complementarity as an
essential characteristic doesn't automatically commit a state to
forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys. But there is a
logical connection. One of the premises justifying the
redefinition of marriage also grounds these new regulations,
that is, the view that sexual difference is irrelevant to the
practice of marriage.
But if sexual difference is irrelevant to marriage, then how can
it be relevant to any practices? Once the state has determined
that sexual difference is no longer a legitimate reason to
extend special recognition to man-woman monogamy, there is no
reason in principle to maintain sexual distinctions in less
intimate practices. If one's anatomical reality isn't relevant
to one's marriage, it's even less obvious why it should be
relevant to one's bathroom choice.
The idea that sexual distinctions are relevant to public life has
lost almost all support in the medical and legal communities as well
as in academia and many mainline Christian churches. The issue now
is not whether other states will adopt Massachusetts laws against
gender identity discrimination but when they will be
adopted.