Editorial: The bathroom battle and the need for an honest conversation

Well, congratulations, Gator Nation, we made it through a successful first day together. Hopefully you now feel comfortable looking toward the rest of the semester. And even if you’re still feeling kinda “meh” about returning, consider yourself lucky — at least you got to pee in peace.

Our nation’s children and their families woke up yesterday morning to a surprise in their back-to-school bundle. Along with a fresh pair of sneakers and fancy pens, they also got hit with U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s injunction on transgender students’ access to bathrooms. Happy first day of school, huh kids?

After the heated debate we’ve seen over transgender bathroom rights since the Obama administration’s May advisory for school districts to allow transgender students bathroom access based on gender identity, and the subsequent lawsuit filed by a number of states against this advisory, this injunction from O’Connor, dated Sunday, could make the federal guidelines outlined in the administration’s advisory unenforceable until the lawsuit is settled.

Now, we at the Alligator take issue with this injunction for a few reasons. Among other grievances, O’Connor slammed the administration using the federal education law against sex discrimination, Title IX, to justify bathroom access based on gender identity. He argued Title IX unambiguously defines sex as, “the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” But if you actually read the full text of Title IX (which isn’t long at all), you won’t find anywhere an explicit definition of its use of the term “sex.” O’Connor claims Title IX is “not ambiguous” about its use of the word sex, but the law is entirely ambiguous because the definition isn’t implied or assumed. That’s exactly what being ambiguous means.

O’Connor blasting the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX to apply to gender is absurd because of how little hard evidence there is to back his argument. He also argued, “This case presents the difficult issue of balancing the protection of students’ rights and that of personal privacy … while ensuring that no student is unnecessarily marginalized while attending school.” But if we were really concerned about keeping kids from feeling unnecessarily marginalized, we’d be supporting access based on gender identity rather than fighting it.

And as far as protection is concerned, this entire issue involves schools and students: In any school, there should be enough staff and faculty to ensure the safety of students; this bathroom debacle is just noise. Kids are more at realistic risk of harm during recess or walking home from school than in the school bathroom.

With all of these weak side arguments, it seems O’Connor just opposes transgender bathroom access but won’t explicitly state it. If you’re really just genuinely concerned with the motions, than admit it so we can have a real conversation.

We realize transgender bathroom access makes some of you very uncomfortable, particularly because you want your kids to be safe when they use the restroom. No one’s advocating making kids less safe. But we need to be honest and open about the positions we hold and the reasons why.

We’ve argued this point before, and we’ll say it again: Transgender bathroom access shouldn’t be this left-versus-right issue it’s become; it’s an issue of civil rights. It’s one thing to say you support trans people, but that support will only have meaning when we accept them into society — not as people in denial of who they really are or people stuck in transition, but simply as people being people.

Let people be, and let people pee.

(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)