The United States Departments of Justice and Education have notified state governments and publicly funded schools across the nation that they will lose billions of dollars in federal funding if they discriminate against transgender students. Amidst the flurry of lawsuits, threats, corporate relocations, event cancellations, and propaganda arising from North Carolina’s infamous HB 2, this is the most meaningful of interventions because it is national in scope and it has big teeth. I’ll attempt to describe the federal intervention and the rationale behind it.
I was stunned by the brevity and clarity of the federal correspondence. It’s only 5 pages long. The law is equally understandable and only 9 pages long. The US Court of Appeals decision that documents federal authority to intervene is long and complex but understandable to non-attorneys. The sample practices raised as many questions as answers, and didn’t seem particularly helpful, but they were distributed only as information not as advice or rules. My suggestion is that people who are truly interested read the documents for themselves. Here, in my opinion, are the key points.
From the letter: “The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.” … “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”
From the law (Title 20): Compliance … may be effected … by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance … to any recipient (for) a failure to comply …
The US Court of appeals supported the federal policy that “…a school generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.”
All of the interested parties would be better served by calm and open discussion of the issues. Public policies and laws that protect the rights of transgender people while being sensitive to the modesty, privacy and safety concerns of all parties can best be created when there is mutual respect and trust. Instead we have threats and misinformation. Our national behavior is disappointing but not surprising. It’s consistent with how human rights evolve and social change happens here. Similar events accompanied emancipation of slaves, reconstruction, women’s suffrage, organized labor, school integration, civil rights laws, and marriage equality.
In every case change began in a few local communities and states. Then a conservative backlash brought legislation to embed discriminatory traditions deeply into public policy. Reactionary leaders used fear and traditional prejudices to rally support then used raw power and secrecy to impose their will. In the case of HB 2, a few Republican legislators cooked up the scheme then called an emergency session of the legislature to pass it without public debate. The public, the press, and many of the legislators who voted for it were not even allowed to read the law until the day it was passed.
Similar ideas have emerged in several Republican dominated states. That is the environment into which the federal government has stepped – just as it ultimately stepped into the other human rights issues that I listed. That intervention can create a baseline of fair practices to protect transgender people, but it is far from ideal. Instead of allowing local creativity and cooperation, reactionary intransigence has forced federal intervention and poured gasoline on the always smoldering American culture war. Federal action will, at best, prevent discriminatory practices. It can’t produce ideal local results or tolerance.
The debate is over. Transgender people are entitled to the same protection of laws as people born to that gender. As we learn to collaborate on the best ways to move ahead it is good to remember that during war, safe and nurturing places often become battlefields where innocent bystanders are victims of the conflict. That is true of culture war as well as military warfare. Our best course is to plan and accommodate changes that are constructive and safe for everyone. We can achieve that if we learn together and collaborate toward that goal.
Bob, After finishing it, I think I should copy my comment and send it to the Courier Tribune. Comment follows.
Anyone that argues with those who band together to hold their sacred ground gets placed in categories with the wicked. Very quickly, this is how President G W Bush categorized those who publicly opposed his cruel and cowardly war against Iraq. US citizens enabled his actions against Saddam Hussein because he managed to sell his campaign as saving them from a threat. Al Qaeda fleshed out Bush’s rational when they struck at the heart of Zionist power in New York.
There is a human tendency to fear first and think later and fear is coming to the aid of white North Carolinian’s fight to hold power in this election year. Inclusiveness is a bad word in the vocabulary of the church folk embedded in GOP politics. They embellish their language with labels for people they fear such as other people like “liberals” or “the lost” as did Bush in separating those who were “against us” from those who supported his war.
The war of words and the comprehension thereof is the first battlefield where Americans engage and where many bloody acts can be prevented. To comprehension must be added reason and by blocking reason with fearful declarations the closed minded retreat to their ill qualified leadership. I have set forth my findings on my Facebook page and they appeal to folks like myself who struck out against the “trans” people first and thought about it later.
The courageous Raleigh News and Observer found and went to the heart of the hidden medical field of gender identity at the Duke University Medical Center. So did North Carolina’s popular branch of National Public Radio. Duke’s scientists deal with children born without clear physical gender signs and the parents who try to protect them from being harmed by our ignorant and fearful public. I found out that the confusion of the transgender children is compounded by the fear of those who believe that God hates them for being like they are. Please allow me to insert the online locations of these stories here: http://www.newsobserver.com/living/health-fitness/article35994582.html
http://wunc.org/post/science-and-gender-identity#stream/0
Thank you, John. I do hope you will share this with the C-T if you haven’t already. Sorry for slow reply! I’ve been traveling and missed your comment until today.
I sent it in but not sure what they will do with it. John
I
Bob, transgender issues aside. Does not Mr Miller’s comment about” Al Qaeda fleshing out Bush’s rational when they struck at the heart of the Zionist power in New York” strike you as antisemitic. Why would the CT condone such?
I do not control what the newspaper prints as comments but I do control this website. That said, I certainly allow comments with which I disagree and some that I find offensive. That’s the nature of this kind of debate. In this case, I think both of you have made comments that contribute to the discussion, regardless of whether I personally agree with either of you. My personal observation is that people of various religions and nationalities have been fighting over land and power in the middle east for several thousand years. “Zionist” may be an offensive term to some and one honored by others. It’s historically clear that in the aftermath of WW II there was an outcry for a Jewish homeland and they took Palestine with western support. Since then they have gradually taken more land while dominating and restricting Palestinians, again with western support. They have also survived nearly continuous hostilities by their neighbors. It is also clear that there is a strong pro-Israeli lobby (some would call it Zionist) in the US and that it collaborates with Israel to affect US politics and foreign policy. The nearly-successful Netanyahu campaign to kill the Iran treaty is an example of that. That is all simply history. It’s not antisemitic. The debatable question is whether we should take sides in the ongoing struggles in the middle east, and if so, which side should we take? There’s a third opinion. Thanks to both of you for joining the discussion.
Hello Craig, Are you looking for antisemitism? I strongly disagree with the political leadership in Israel as do many independent Jews. The movement the world is aghast at is the Zionists (in case you don’t differentiate). Now Donald J Trump has given them a free pass in his statements and Clinton isn’t far behind (while running). The nation Israel is at war with; first the Palestinians whom they control and then the greater Muslim so-called supporters of the Palestinians. The world sees what Zionists do as they indoctrinate the Jewish youth and send them out in the IDF to be hardened to Apartheid while “everything” is blessed by Israeli law. I am not going to go any further here because you probably have your mind made up. The Zionists are the embarrassment of peaceful Jews because they keep up the religious home schooling as justification for their desire for more territory in all directions, inhabitants be damned.
So why shouldn’t I say that Zionists power is in New York City, downtown in lower Manhattan? And why shouldn’t I suggest that the World Trade Center was a Jewish owned monument to the heart of world commerce and financial institutions? I was proud of the twin towers, I watched them being built and visited them as a tourist. They were mine and America’s in a sense but that district is highly invested in by prominent Jews and supporters of Israel in US politics and world capitols. The Israeli government is taken over by their Conservatives and they think they own Washington. That’s my observation, I do not hate Jews!