MACS.... I actually used to take that line of thought as well. But gender and sexuality is much more complicated than that. I mean, you have genetic gender, which is generally binary but has a number of outliers (infrequent, but exist)... XXY (a 1:500 male births, so likely at least one in every high school) can present as male or female physically, but the genetics are a bit more ambiguous. More interestingly is the Androgen Insensitivity, which while rare (1:50k, or 80 born per year) will result in genetically male, but physically female children. These children have been found to identify as male or female depending.
So, stepping away from genetics, even ignoring that the most fundamental building blocks, the instructions for how our bodies are build, can deviate from the simple binary, we can look at the phenotype of the child. You're starting with the basic assumption that the best thing to do is to separate all the pen3ses from all the vag!inas. We already know that the presence of a pen@s doesn't necessarily mean they're attracted to vag#ina (and vice versa)... And we know that the presence of a pen#is doesn't necessarily mean the person owning it is identified as male. So what are you trying to accomplish from separating the pen#ses from the vag#nas? Are you trying to keep high school kids from the genitals they're turned on by? In that case, locker rooms should be divided by attraction, not gender. Are you trying to keep all the pen#ses in one room and all the vag#nas in another room? Then the locker rooms are just a phenotype separation and not "males/females" but "pen#ses/vag^nas" and perhaps the signs should indicate such. Unknowningly, we've traditionally separated by a male/female "identity", because we've had very binary gender roles, so people who had female equipment were expected to have the entire female identity accompany it, and as such the separate rooms were wrapped up in a complete gender identity, not just equipment. As such, under the current situation, it makes some sense that a person identifying as female (phenotype be damned) is more suitable in the female's locker room. I'm not saying it's simple or without issues, but these issues are much more complicated than just what's dangling between your legs
Additionally, a number of people discuss this from a "rights" idea, which I think they really mean "comfort".. as in, the comfort of the people who use the women's bathroom vs the comfort of the transgender who wants to use the women's bathroom. This is a valid discussion, as the entire purpose of a bathroom is to provide a level of comfort for people while they get butt naked or do whatever they need to do. If people were simply comfortable changing in public, locker rooms wouldn't be necessary. But that in mind, the idea should be to maximize comfort across the board, not just in respect to the women in the locker room. How many boys do you think are going to be comfortable when a girl walks into the men's locker room to get changed, just because she's still got a d!ck? More interestingly, I don't know what your locker-room experiences were when you were in high school, but I don't remember anyone running around butt-nekkid with their genitalia swinging in the breeze. Kids generally got their underwear on/off pretty quickly because everyone is embarrassed of their bodies at that age. From that standpoint, is their greater discomfort to everyone involved if someone dressed as a woman is in the men's locker-room, or if someone who has male genitalia is in the women's? I don't know the answer, but those who just want to compare the women vs the transgender are missing an important part.
victor809 wrote:
