OCR Text |
Show www.dailyutahchronide.com OPINION 5 Monday March 17, 2014 NICK KETTERER / The Daily Utah Chronicle Public bathrooms should be genderneutral to promote safety, equality GEORGIE ZAMANTAKIS Columnist eciding which bathroom to use is not a question people frequently debate. People see the female symbol or the male symbol and subconsciously decide to enter whichever one they have been told to use their entire life. For many, however, the choice of which bathroom to enter can be associated with deep-seated fears. For gender-nonconforming individuals, the decision comes with much anxiety. The choice to use one bathroom over another may lead to harassment, the uncomfortable feeling of watching everyone's eyes turn toward you as you hurry to the nearest open stall, being kicked out of the store, restaurant or gas station you are in, or even a physical assault. In accordance to overt discrimination, individuals are faced with the decision of whether to be a male or a female, when they might be both, neither or another gender entirely. Genderqueer individuals identify outside of the gender binary, the definition of their identity altering from person to person. While their genitals may match the sex dictated by the sign on the door, their gender identity and/ or expression may not. This lack of access for individuals who are neither male nor female is part of the systemic oppression that gendernonconforming individuals face every day. According to the Huffington Post, a recent study on gender-specific restrooms and minority stress revealed that "70 percent of transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents experienced problems in gender-specific restrooms in Washington, D.C., with people of color and people who have not medically transitioned often faring worse than others." The study goes on to indicate that "54 percent reported adverse health effects from trying to avoid using public restrooms, such as dehydration, kidney D infections, and urinary tract infections; io percent of respondents who attended school in D.C. reported a negative impact on their education ... and 58 percent reported that they have avoided going out in public due to a lack of safe public restroom facilities." Restrooms seem so commonplace, so normalized as a part of a person's daily routine, that cisgender individuals often do not realize the trauma, side effects and lifestyle changes that accompany an individual's lack of safety and/or choice in bathroom usage. As the blog "My Door Sign" states, many argue that all-gender bathrooms are problematic, because "men and women shouldn't be forced to share a bathroom; it makes some people uncomfortable; it's too expensive, there's not enough space," among other points. However, the idea that men and women should not be forced to share bathroom space is based upon the premise that everyone is heterosexual and that it would make everyone uncomfortable. This statement is ignorant of the fact that straight people are already going to the bathroom with queer people. If that does not make anyone uncomfortable, then why should it make them uncomfortable to use the same bathroom as the opposite sex? It's also not too expensive. All that would need to be done is change the sign from "male" or "female" to "all-gender." That does not take up extra space or money. While a first step may be to allow space for both all-gender and gender-specific bathrooms, Arizona public defender Abigail Jensen argues, "But when you tell a transgender person that because they're making other people uncomfortable, they now must use a separate restroom, that's segregation." Ultimately, creating separate bathrooms is very similar to the concept of separate but equal. All-gender bathrooms are not a special right, they do not exclude anyone, they are generally cleaner than gender-specific bathrooms and they are not signs of a lack of comfort. They are spaces where everyone is welcome to use the bathroom in safety, comfort and freedom. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Kennedy's bill attempts to make bathrooms 'separate but equal' JACKSON HANNON atit a ) iii...1 Forcing students to live according to their birth certificate is only going to cause more distress. -Jackson Hannon Columnist I t is far from often that I fete the actions of the Utah Republican Party. Even rarer is when the action worth lauding is inaction to avoid affecting the outcome of the state's egregious lawsuit to retain their right to discriminate against gay families. But the quiet death of HB 87, is all that it deserves. The bill and the statements of its sponsor, State Rep. Michael Kennedy (R-Alpine), are insulting both to transgender students and their families. The bill aimed to limit students to using bathrooms that "correspond to the student's gender" according to their birth certificate or, if their birth certificate does not specify, according to a doctor's determination after a "physical examination of the individual's genitalia." Kennedy also argues that his bill will allow students who are uncomfortable to use a separate bathroom. And therein lies one of the main issues with this bill. Transgender students should not be forced to exist in a separate fashion from their peers. Scott Liebowitz, a researcher at Boston Children's Hospital, told Live Science that children and adolescents who experience gender mismatch often "experience such high levels of distress with their changing bodies that it impairs their emotional and social functioning." Forcing students to live according to their birth certificate rather than their own identification is only going to cause more distress in their already difficult lives. Setting them apart from their peers and marking them as "different" is only going to make it worse. It is often said that there few things as cruel as school children, and Kennedy's bill sets up an already vulnerable minority for even worse treatment by their peers and authority figures. While I am sure Kennedy meant his statement in a reassuring manner, declaring that this bill is intended to "make sure people are comfortable," it comes across as callous, insulting and very poorly thought-out. If Kennedy has the comfort of all his citizens in mind, he should have never brought this bill to the table. This bill insults their lives and makes their choices moot and instead forces the opinion of Kennedy onto their everyday actions. The worst part of this proposed law, however, has little to do with what it says or what it demands from everyday Utahns. What is so cruel and useless about this bill is that it was not done because of his constituents' concerns. It was not drafted because there have been issues in Utah schools. Instead, it was drafted because a bill in California allows students to use bathrooms according to their gender preference and play on sports teams of their expressed gender, and Kennedy wanted to avoid seeing that happen in Utah. If Kennedy wants to be a strong representative for his constituents, if he wants to show how the Republican Party can attract more voters, he ought to concern himself with bills that deal with actual issues in Utah. Rather than worry about what the legislature in California is doing, he should focus on his own. letters@chronicle.utah.edu Baby-naming laws prevent regrettable decisions Columnist B rfxxccxxmnpcccc111mmnprxvclmnckssqlbbiiii6. No, my cat didn't just jump on my keyboard. It was almost somebody's name. Are you having trouble pronouncing it? No problem, it's quite simple. The name is pronounced "Albin." Everybody wants their child to be unique. It's inconvenient to have the same name as five other people in your class. The gnarly jumble of letters and numbers above is an extreme example, but baby names across the globe are getting stranger and more impractical. This brings up a dilemma — at what point do we draw the line? How do we go from the made-up but plausible names like Lakynn and Aunistee to the borderline abusive Brfxxccxxmnpcccc111mmnprxvclmnckssqlbbmi6? Some sort of system should be in place to prevent baby names from causing distress to the child. The parents who named the child mentioned above did so to protest a Swedish law restricting what parents could name their children. Of course, the name was rejected. But say it hadn't been. The child would have been burdened with the name for their whole life. The name was nothing more than a prop for the parents to prove a point. That's not the spirit one should have while naming their child, and parents like those are the reason naming laws are considered in the first place. The Jeremijenko-Conleys, parents in the United States, have two kids — one is named "E," and the other is named "Yo Xing Heyno Augustus Eisner Alexander Weiser Knuckles." One has the shortest name in the U.S., and the other has the longest in New York City. Their rationale for "E" was that they wanted her to be able to decide what it stands for. Their rationale for Yo Xing (the couple is Caucasian) was because it was "ethnically ambiguous," according to an article written by Dalton Conley for Psychology Today. There are plenty of ways to express oneself. Drawing, painting, writing creative people can figure out some artistic outlet other than baby names. Giving a kid a weird baby name may seem fun, creative and cute at first — until that baby grows into a grumpy teenager, resentful for the — years of being bullied because their parents named them Apple. A child is not a prop to prove a point or a canvas to make experimental artwork. In some countries, such as Denmark and Iceland, parents have to choose from a set of allowed names. In other countries, such as Germany, names are approved individually by authorities. In Italy and New Zealand, offensive or embarrassing names are banned, but whether or not a name is offensive or embarrassing is up to debate. Perhaps a registry list is too extreme. Some parents like to be creative with the way they spell names. Although it can cause confusion, there is no inherent harm in it. However, the Vital Records office should have some veto power over names. It would eliminate the Apples, Moon Units and Harry Pitts of the nation without being an infringement. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |