Pardon Me, But Is This Seat Taken? A Few Words About Restrooms and Sexual Identity

As readers of Another Opinion should know by now, there are simply some stories I can't resist commenting on and this is one of them. Recently, the topic of who is allowed in what restroom has come to "head" (military humor intended) when several states having either passed legislation or has legislation pending that would prohibit transgendered individuals and those who identify opposite of their given birth gender from using a public restroom of the gender they identify as. The laws require individuals to use the public restrooms of their gender at birth. As a result, some companies such as PayPal and Deutsche Bank and entertainment types (most notably, Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen and Ringo Starr cancelled concerts in North Carolina, while producer Michael Moore has requested that none of his films be released in North Carolina, so I guess this may be more about symbolism than actual relevance) have decided not to do business there. Could this be, at its heart, an example of political correctness taken to its extreme or is this a legitimate concern or is there something else going on here?

Well, imagine that you're out in public, perhaps at the mall shopping, and you have to go to restroom. No big deal right? You simply find the nearest appropriate restroom. However, what if you're a transgendered individual---a guy or gal who psychologically considers him or herself the opposite gender and may (and most likely) even dresses the part. What do you do? If you're a transgendered female, someone who considers themselves an ordinary male, they would simply go into the men's restroom and do your business. Odds are they would use a stall; shut the door as any considerate individual would do and no one would be any wiser. Now, what if you're a transgendered male who thinks of themselves as a woman? They would most likely be dressed as a woman, and so naturally they would head to the ladies' restroom---or would they?

First off, women's restroom don't have urinals (don't worry, I "Googled" it to be sure), but that doesn't matter since they would likely head to the nearest available stall, shut the door, and get on with the business at hand. Now unless someone happens to catch a glimpse, no one would likely ever know, except perhaps by a close examination of a stubble while washing hands or the absence of an "Adam's Apple" by an extra observant woman, which might give it away. However, some individuals take hormone shots to reduce any male features, but those are usually expense and may be more than some are willing to pay for. So, thus far, it seems like there's little chance of anyone taking much note, so what's the hubbub?

I think the issue lies primarily with the women who fear either being accosted by a gender bending male in drag, or worse---a pedophile dressed as a woman entering a ladies' restroom. As most people know, little children---boys and girls---tend to go in the women's restroom with an accompanying female. Sometimes, if they're old enough, they may go alone. Of course, some young boys go to the men's room unaccompanied as well. This could set up the possibility of either child molestation, voyeurism, or worse...perhaps much worse. Of course, most restrooms---men's and women's---have changing tables for infants in them, but that still doesn't lessen the concern for any parent. While the odds of something happening are probably quite low, all it would take is just one instance of something happening to spark a serious backlash. So, the question is what to do, as a parent with children, a woman, or as a transgendered individual?

First, women tend to be more vulnerable to attack since men usually have stronger upper body strength. Secondly, women with children are obviously more vulnerable, while young children alone are the most vulnerable of all (I should point out that while this is something of a concern to men, it's much less likely to be viewed as a "threat" and more of simply an uncomfortable one). True, cameras , more security staff and/or more vigilant employees would help cut down on the threat, but what about the simply removing the threat altogether as these recent laws are attempting to do? Simply by banning any anatomically male or female from the restroom of the opposite sex would eliminate much of the threat, but what about the rights of the transgendered individuals to freely use the restroom? Tell them to "hold it" until they get home? We both know that's not going to work, and as local laws practically everywhere dictates, there has to be equal access to public restrooms, anyone attempting to institute a ban for one segment of the population is opening themselves up to a lawsuit (there are, of course, certain exceptions to restroom availability to the public---but not employees---which has to be uniformly enforced).

Well, one possible solution would be to mandate a certain number of single occupant/gender neutral restrooms like you might find in a office or medical building which either gender may use. This would allow anyone regardless of gender or gender preference to use the restroom in privacy. This has proved to be successful over the years and is employed pretty much everywhere. What if this idea was expanded? Perhaps multiple stall restrooms could be employed, such as having a certain percentage of restrooms designated for women, men, and all genders. The obvious downside to this could be that it indirectly discriminates as "Separate by Equal" , which the Supreme Court struck down back in the 1960's as unconstitutional since it would keep them from using the restroom of their gender choice. It could also be argued that by, even unofficially, designating a restroom for anybody, the fact that transgendered individuals are limited to only one restroom, could be viewed as sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, plus I would imagine they could also plead some form of "psychological trauma" by feeling "singled out" and "put on view" by a restroom restriction.

While this might be an problem for employers, who may have to consider single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms, how would it work in public facilities like malls? Again, single occupant/ gender neutral restrooms could be used in any small business location such as a restaurant or clothing store, whereas in a place such as a mall, sporting venue, or other large facility, few, if any, would pay any attention where you were going into or out of a men's or women's restroom as opposed to a either/or one (of course, these absolutely must be clearly marked), but this obviously doesn't eliminate the possibility of someone simply ignoring the signs on the door or wall, and walking into the restroom of their choice. Then again, existing laws anywhere in the US doesn't preclude someone from doing the same thing.

So, what does this all boil down to and is there any solution all side can be happy with? If you look at where most of the new laws or pending legislation are, places like North Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, they are in the deep South, which is traditionally very conservative----politically, socially, and religiously. That's not going change no matter how many transplants move to the South. This then would be make the issue more of a cultural one; one where people's actions are governed more by a defined sense of right and wrong with not a lot of gray in between; you're a male or female. You don't get to choose. Period. They are perfectly willing for the most part to accept national reticule and economic boycotts if they believe what they're doing is right. This mentality has, and will continue to result in butting heads with the federal government. Nothing new there. There is also the nature uneasiness, primarily among women, of knowingly being in the restroom with stranger of the opposite sex. There is the fear of an invasion of privacy, of rape, molestation, voyeurism, and of potential pedophilia. No amount of judicial rulings or legislative decisions will ever change that. It's hardwired into us. In fact, there's an almost automatic revulsion at the mere thought of it, and even among harden criminals, it's considered the lowest of the low.

Federal, state, and local laws already make sexual discrimination illegal, and that includes sexual orientation. There's no getting around that. At the same time, judicial rulings dating from the 1960's have struck down most "separate but equal" laws, though these have usually pertained to matters of race but some enterprising attorney could...and will likely...try to apply the same legal theory to sexual orientation and the use of public restrooms. There is also the fact that the LGBTQ community is large and very politically active, especially in the media and entertainment industries. This can bring a lot of pressure down on not just the states or legislators in question through lobbyists and lawsuits, but by creating a negative public image and promoting some form of economic impact, such as jobs or tourism.

Lastly, there is the human element. Everyone of us is born a male or female. As we grow and mature, and that includes emotionally, physically, intellectually, and chemically, we begin to establish our own individual identity, which includes our sexual identity. Some, and there are many, who would argue that anything other than heterosexuality is simply "not natural" and those who "deviate" have somehow made a conscientious "choice" ; that by the same token, they can be "cured" if only they'd make a different "choice". I don't think it's, for the most part, a matter of "choice". I think for most, it's a bio-chemical. Something in the brain says one thing while biology says another. Perhaps it's a matter of acting on what your brain is telling you. I don't know. I'm strictly a hetero kind of guy, but I can say that I have never met someone who was gay---or bi, lesbian, or transgendered---that said it was simply a choice they made one day. The only "choice" they made was in not fighting who they were. As an aside, homosexuality has been around since the beginning of civilization in one form or another and with varying degrees of acceptance.

Yet, none of this changes the central question at hand---should someone not biologically male or female be allowed to use the same restroom or other facilities of the opposite gender? If so, how do we adapt as a society? How do we adjust to our natural instincts to protect ourselves, our children, and our loved ones who we perceived---rightly or wrongly---to potentially be threatened? I think the only answer to adopt some form gender neutral/single occupant restroom for small businesses, offices, and/or medical buildings as well as designate certain, multi-occupant, restrooms gender neutral for transgendered individuals and those simply not bothered by who is standing (or sitting) next to them. It's not a perfect solution. Perhaps there never will be. There have been and will always be those individuals who will dress and act according to a certain gender for the wrong reasons just as there has and will always be those who have done so because that's who they see themselves as. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about trying to force our prejudices or beliefs---whatever they are ---on others just because we agree or disagree.

For the last 20 or so years now, we've been dealing with an enemy who has no tolerance for other religious beliefs or social attitudes outside of their narrow parameters and has no qualms about murdering to enforce their own moral guidelines. Unfortunately, this same mentality reared its head a mere 83 years---within the lifetime of our parents or grandparents or great grandparents as it has down through Man's history. Perhaps this is some inherent indication that such deviations are not "natural" or "normal" within our species and it's our hardwired instincts which cause us to lash out periodically at any social or biological deviance, even under the guise of a divine mandate. Naturally, that's not to imply that individuals with strong religious or moral convictions are plotting to throw people off roofs or roast anyone, but neither should they be forced to abandon their beliefs either. As long as we value the individual, free choice and all the baggage that carries, we have to seek a middle ground that everyone can accept. That's the compromise that civilization must make if it's to survive.



North Carolina governor says he wants bathroom law partially changed....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/04/12/deutsche-bank-halts-north-carolina-expansion-due-to-transgender-bathroom-law/


Corporations push for LGBT legislation in North Carolina
http://walshfreedom.com/corporations-push-for-lgbt-bathroom-legislation-in-north-carolina/


Sex Discrimination, Gender Identity, and Title VII
http://www.sgrlaw.com/resources/trust_the_leaders/leaders_issues/ttl17/824/


New Title VII and EEOC Rulings Protect Transgendered Employees
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/TitleVII-Report-Final012414.pdf


Parents Outraged Over Transgendered Bathroom Law
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/uncategorized/parents-outraged-over-transgender-bathroom-law.html


Florida Law Would Make It A Crime For Transgender People To Use Public Bathrooms
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/09/florida-transgender-bathroom-law_n_6645910.html


Georgia, North Carolina bills are about LGBT discrimination. Period.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/25/opinions/georgia-religious-freedom-law-threatens-lgbt-rights-holbrook/index.html

Gay Marriage: Should It Be Legal?

Did hear the comedian Wanda Sykes was gay? Well, it’s been all over the entertainment news sites recently, but frankly I don’t care. Don’t get me wrong. I like Wanda Sykes. She’s a hilarious comedian, but I really don’t think I need to know who she or anyone else for that matter likes to sleep with. And as for folks like Rosie O’Donnell (remember when she was considered sooo sweat and nice? She even had her own doll. Now we have “mean” Rosie), Ellen Degeneres (a friend of mine calls her “Ellen Degenerate”), Clay Aiken, and all the rest. Who cares? Get over it.

Sexual preference is about as personal and private as it gets. What you like is your business and no one else’s as long as it involves consenting adults right? However, children are another matter, and one that should never ever be tolerated. Punishment of pedophiles should be swift and severe. I couldn’t care less if it’s “humane” or not---that’s my opinion at least. You don’t abuse kids. Period). So, where am I going with this? The answer is gay marriage. Should a couple of the same sex, who happen to be in love, be allowed to marry just like everyone else?

Certainly gay relationships have been around since the beginning. Remember Xerxes of Persia and his Immortals? How about King Phillip of Macedon and his Companions? Of course, there was his son, Alexander the Great. In fact, Socrates, Plato, and most of the Greek philosophers were believed to be gay, or at least bisexual. It wasn’t out of the norm at all in ancient Greece. The great Homer wrote about it in his epics. In Rome, it wasn’t unusual, though a bit more frowned upon in certain circles. Gay relationships were all but unheard of in the more “barbaric” lands occupied by the Germans and Celts, and later, among the Vikings and Huns (for that matter, in the Mongol East either).

Throughout the Middle Ages, gay relationships existed, though (ironically) hided from view from the Catholic Church (where it ran amok or is that a monk?). In fact, it continued down through the Victorian and Edwardian Periods where it was slightly vogue and risqué (does Oscar Wilde rang a bell?), down to the modern period. But throughout, it almost always in the shadows. Many an actor and actress was rumored to be gay, but “forced” to marry as “cover” by the Hollywood studio moguls eager to cash in on their stars. The point I’m trying to make is that gay relationships have and continued to exist, but never, to my knowledge, did gay marriages ever take root. Why?

Marriage has always been seen as a fundamental building block of civilization. It provided the safety net for creating, nurturing, and protecting a family. But many of those aspects have gone. No longer is it necessary for a male to provide for or protect a female. No longer is necessary for a female to even be married when deciding to have children. A doner is all that is required. Women today are quite capable of taking care of themselves in every way, and men are just as adapt as roles traditionally set aside for women. So, does marriage, therefore, carry the same weight that it did originally? For that matter, does it carry the same weight it did just 50 years or 25 years ago?

From the gay perspective, they are just like anyone else in love, and should be allowed to marry…just like everyone else. Recent ballot initiatives seem to indicate that voters disagree. While there are sporadic exceptions, voters have come out in huge numbers to reaffirm that marriage is between one man and one woman. In California for example, where you would expect the gay marriage initiative to pass, voters defeated Proposition 8 by 52%. In 2004, Kentuckians voted 74% against gay marriage, along with 10 other states (Arkansas, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah). Why?

Frankly, I don’t know. I think political scientists and all those talking heads on the various news programs will be analyzing the results for months and perhaps years to come in some cases. I don’t think the vote was meant to be “anti-gay”, but it may be that people still believe in the institution of marriage as it was originally intended. It could be a reflection of their parent’s morals or dogma taught by their churches or synagogues, either of their youth or where they currently attend (especially among mainstream and conservative religious institutions). Those on the Religious Right would say that G-d (or Allah, Buddha, etc) abhors homosexuality and by extension, the concept of gay marriage.

However, those who support gay marriage would argue that they shouldn’t be held to the criteria of someone else’s religion. Besides, what if there was a church willing to marry them? After all, should the government be allowed to impose restrictions on religion? What about the concept of separation of Church and State? I think that until the US Supreme Court finally rules on the issue, we will see other states open marriage to those of the same sex, only to be reversed later. What will prove to be interesting to watch is if whether a gay marriage from one state will be recognized in another state where it’s still illegal.

While we’re on the topic, what about private businesses who want to offer insurance to same sex couple like they do to heterosexual couples? Should a company be allowed to provide the same health or survivor benefits to a couple regardless of gender? After all, we’re talking about an estimated 1.2 million gays in the US according to the 2000 Census. Should this be strictly an internal corporate decision? What about gays teaching in public schools? Is it appropriate, and if so, should there be any restriction on who or what grades or subjects they teach? How about adopting children? Of course, there is the question of whether gays should be allowed in the military.

Personally, I could care less about someone’s sexual orientation. I believe in treating someone as I want to be treated (as a disclaimer before proceeding further, I’m strictly uber-hetro). I believe in the traditional roles of marriage between a man and woman. I think a male and female role model is critical to the well rounded upbringing of a child. Two daddies or two mommies just aren’t going to get it from my point of view. The law already provides for survivorship. Caretaker or “next of kin” issues are up to the individuals in involved (or should be). If a board of directors decides to provide insurance that cover same sex couples or live-in hetro couples that‘s their decision. Of course, that also means that you or I don’t have to frequent these same institutions if we disagree. When I was in the military, all I cared about was whether the person next to me did their job. What they do on their on their own time and off base was none of my business so long as it doesn’t affect unit cohesion and efficiency. Teachers are there to teach. In short, my main focus is keeping government and other groups out of my personal life as much as possible. Of course, I’m the first to acknowledge there are exceptions to most everything I’ve said. So, now, I’d like to hear from you. Do gays have an inherent “right” to marriage? If not, what about civil unions? How did you arrive at your decision?



Fluency: Leading in the Midst of Change
By Phoebe Eng, keynote speaker at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009

Some of you may remember the 1985 hit song, "We are the World," produced by Quincy Jones and an inspiring cast of musicians who sang about working together, past our differences. Or perhaps you remember the tremendously successful United Colors of Benetton ad campaign back in the 1980s, celebrating young faces of every color, signaling the look and feel of a world without borders. Media images like these showed us the world and nation, as we wanted ourselves to be -- pictures and soundbites of many races cooperating, communicating, and sharing opportunity and fortune.

If only it were that simple. Almost 25 years later, we are still struggling to make that vision real -- in our business practices, in the running of our cities, and, now, in the context of great cultural, demographic, and economic changes brought on by globalization.

As 21st century leaders, you know that building, guiding, and sustaining truly diverse communities is tremendously difficult work. Over the last decade, city populations and workforces have changed faster than at any point in history -- job relocation, mobile commerce and ease of travel have changed our cities' demographics quickly and often. Immigrant and new communities continue to influence and change the culture of our cities. Young families and children supplant the aging baby boomer generation, again, changing the character and priorities of a community.

At the same time as we become a more diverse, more prosperous nation, our cities have also become more segregated. In fact, studies from SUNY Albany, UCLA, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education have reported that segregation of our children has worsened over the last decade, even as we live in more integrated areas. As newcomer groups grow in critical mass, so does the tendency to organize along racial, ethnic, or other group-affiliated lines. Changing demographics and the growth of ethnic enclaves have made race awareness and identity politics an effective means of voicing the needs of some of our cities' otherwise marginalized groups.

Amid all of this, civic and corporate leaders are confronted with difficult choices every day. Worthy projects from different community sectors must compete for limited resources. Appointments and commissions must be assigned in ways that satisfy all the interests represented in our constituency groups, assuring each of them adequate representation. From time to time, leaders also face crisis-fueled change, forcing them to guide their communities quickly through controversies.

Does this sound stressful? Indeed, scenes of a diverse community can be those of chaos, fiefdoms, even balkanizing, as some futurists and scholars predict. Alternatively, some see these times as momentous, opening the door to the grandest and most inspiring of challenges.

How does one lead a community, whether local or global team, in the midst of huge demographic and economic shifts? How do leaders create communities where all constituents feel included, counted and equally receiving of the opportunities offered by a community? And how do we have difficult conversations that turn our best intentions into action and accountability, not only from our leaders, but from ourselves?

The answers to these questions are certainly many and varied, depending on a community's specific composition and the issues it faces. Nevertheless, one of the most important skills of a leader through changing times will be a skill set of cultural fluency. This is not necessarily language fluency, as that term is usually used. Fluency is the skill set of understanding and being understood past apparent borders. To know one's constituents and address their needs effectively, 21st century leaders must practice and hone their fluency skills.

Over the past few years, I've talked to many fluent leaders: opinion shapers, thought leaders in business and communities, artists, teachers, media creatives, all who understand that their ultimate success depends on how deeply and quickly they can identify common ground and transcend boundaries between their constituents. Fluent leaders are servant leaders who willingly assume the place of liaison, the diplomatic negotiator, the arbiter of compromise.

What are some of the qualities of a fluent leader? They understand the value of nuance. They readily deal with complexity, knowing that solutions to real problems require many levels of information and analysis. Every one of the fluent leaders I've interviewed is also insatiably curious. They are lifelong learners who have honed their vision and their life's purpose through constant exposure to different experiences.

Perhaps most importantly, these leaders also understand that the practice of fluency is not a Pollyanna-esque, naive vision of the world, where a handshake, a kind word, or a dabble into a diversity program will suffice. It is quite the opposite. Fluency work is hard "detail" work that requires courage. To be a fluent leader means having some enemies, crossing boundaries, and entering into the necessary struggles to challenge leaders and systems that benefit from closemindedness, fear, and simple formulae.

As we work toward uniting our communities, we have shown that we want to trade together, learn about one another, work side by side, make money together, and even build our families -- across cultures and across our differences. Yet without knowing how to bridge what are often daunting chasms across race, religion, class, and culture, creating workable diverse alliances can often be impossible. Basic misunderstandings can thwart our earnest attempts at generating commerce and a vibrant exchange of ideas. Communications break down. Relationships fail.

In our quickly changing communities, the art of fluency becomes a crucial leadership approach for anyone wishing to become an aware global citizen and an effective global leader. And it is the only way forward if we are truly committed to creating a world, and a nation, where all can flourish to their fullest potential.


Author Bio
Phoebe Eng is the Director of Creative Counsel and the 1000 Voices Archive, a national collection of leadership stories from cities across America. As a strategist, she has presented to and advised a wide range of groups from the US Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, many Fortune 500 companies, chambers of commerce, and universities. Eng has worked with the Ford Foundation and the Ms. Foundation for Women and on several UN World Conferences. Eng will be presenting a keynote address at Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta on March 16-18, 2009.

Linkage’s 10th Annual Summit on Leading Diversity in Atlanta, GA, March 16-18, 2009, is the nation's premier event on best practices in diversity and inclusion. For more information or to register call 781.402.5555 or visit www.linkageinc.com/div


Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Survivor Corps is a global network of people helping each other to overcome the effects of war and conflict and give back to their communities.

In 2008, Survivor Corps grew from Landmine Survivors Network. The organization has expanded its mission to help all survivors of war. Landmine Survivors Network was co-founded in 1997 by two landmines survivors, Jerry White and Ken Rutherford. From the late Princess Diana of Wales to Her Majesty Queen Noor of Jordan the organization received support, praise and partnerships at the highest levels.

Survivor Corps focuses on the unique contribution and leadership of conflict survivors because we believe no one is better equipped and motivated to break cycles of violence than those who have survived war.

Our programs currently help survivors in: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burundi, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Georgia, Jordan, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Uganda, Rwanda, United States and Vietnam.

Our signature peer support program connects survivors with survivor role models to offer encouragement and motivation. This is crucial to helping new survivors find hope, get jobs, and get on with their lives.

Through our community building programs, survivors rebuild communities broken by war by connecting diverse survivor groups and former enemies through collective action.

By training and organizing survivor advocates to campaign for their rights, survivors change the world by raising their voices together and addressing the challenges they face in life after war and conflict.

Our Campaigns Make History:

• The Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines. (The 1997 Mine Ban Treaty survivors helped negotiate what was the first arms control agreement in history to include provisions to help victims of the weapon.)

• The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to end discrimination and bring equal opportunity to 650 million people with disabilities around the world.

• The Convention to Ban Cluster Munitions being negotiated in 2008 to end the use of cluster bombs and help victims of this indiscriminate weapon.

Survivor Corps
2100 M Street, NW, Suite 302
Washington, DC 20037
Yahoo! Map | MapQuest Map | Google Maps
(202) 464-0007 - Telephone
(202) 464-0011 - FAX

Geneva Office
rue de Cornavin, 11
1201 Geneva
Switzerland
+41-22-732-2841 - Telephone
+41-22-732-2842 - Alternate Telephone
+41-22-732-3882 - FAX

Please direct email contacts to: info@survivorcorps.org

Web Address: http://www.survivorcorps.org