Political disputes are never pretty, but in South Dakota a new controversial beast is rearing its ugly head. Last week, a bill was passed through the state Senate which requires students in public schools (K-12) to use the restrooms and locker rooms which correspond to the sex that they were assigned at birth.
The bill was written as an attempt to “preserve the innocence of our young people,” according to Republican Sen. David Omdahl. However, the proposition was met with outrage and labeled as a “discriminatory measure” by Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign.
The transgender issue is an emotionally charged subject. Yet it is one of those topics that is in great need of discussion. To shy away from this debate in attempts to spare people’s feelings would be wrong. It is my belief that this bill is not discriminatory and is well founded.
First off, to ensure the privacy of individuals, public bathrooms ought to be regulated to some extent. There are conditions to which bathroom a person is permitted to use. For instance, a biological male who identifies as a man is not (and should not) be permitted to use a female restroom or locker room.
No right is absolute, including the right to use a public restroom. This bill simply states that restrooms and locker rooms in public schools should be regulated on the basis of biological sex and not of gender identity.
After all, any regulation of bathroom use is geared toward the protection of the user’s privacy. How can gender identity, which is defined by the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) as “a sociological and psychological concept,” be exposed in the same way genitalia can? You cannot hide what you’re unable to see. When privacy in bathrooms is concerned, biology and the exposure of certain genitalia is really the only factor to consider. Mental states are of little concern to issues of privacy.
Many institutions such as the ACP and the American Psychiatric Association have associated Transgenderism with Gender Dysphoria which has been recognized as a mental disorder (formally known as Gender Identity Disorder) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association.
This is why the ACP warns against normalizing transgenderism in public schools. It is the ACP’s opinion that “Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies,” is dangerous and “will confuse children and parents.”
Dr. Paul McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, notes that “policy makers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.”
According to Studies from Vanderbilt University and London’s Portman Clinic, 70 to 80 percent of children who had expressed transgender feelings “spontaneously lost those feelings.” Since statistically most children expressing gender discordance would eventually abandon those feelings, there is not enough reason to violate the privacy of the many for the alleged rights of the few.
Tyler Grudi is a contributing writer to the Bona Venture.
His email is gruditj15@bonaventure.edu
