is my transgendered coworker using the right bathroom?

[Shana A]

Friday, May 7, 2010
is my transgendered coworker using the right bathroom?

http://askamanager.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-my-transgendered-coworker-using.html

A reader writes:

I have a question of how/if/when transgendered coworkers get to be treated as such in the workplace. Specifically, there is a man in our office (widely known as such) who wears women's clothing, hairstyles, shoes, makeup, etc. every day, and refers to himself as "she". Some women in the office have been claiming that his use of the women's restroom constitutes sexual harrassment. Employees of both sexes have claimed that if he is male, he's violating company conduct and dress codes by wearing women's clothing to work.

The problem is, we have no idea if he is fully transgendered, ie, with a legal right to be treated as female in the workplace, or if he's just a guy that likes to crossdress and use the wrong restroom.

[tekla]

Interesting, well written (yikes, how rarely do I say that?) and the comments are interesting also.  It's interesting to see this written about in a very 'values' free' kind of manner.

[Tammy Hope]

I suppose I'll alienate the folks who argue that recreational crossdressing is as deserving of protection as true ->-bleeped-<- but I, for one, wouldn't dispute the idea that an employer would be in the right to question whether or not the employee in question was transitioning 24/7 or just taking advantage of legal protections to indulge himself at work.

It shouldn't be that hard to build a credible case that you are full time. Not that I'd argue for specific "markers" like "must be in therapy" or "must be on HRT" as proof - just for a common sense assessment.

I DON'T think that someone who has no intention of transitioning to a full-time female status and likes being male and wants to be male but happens to enjoy crossdressing should be recognized and protected in the same way as a transgender individual.

That said, I do think it's legitimate to protect a crossdresser from retribution at work for what they do when NOT at work.

Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 11:48:56 AM
In specific reference to the link, there seems to be a misunderstanding:

Most employers have a meeting with co-workers to explain the company's non-discrimination policies and how they affect the workplace in the situation of gender transition on the job. It's extremely unusual to hear of a situation where a co-worker starts wearing clothing of the opposite sex and starts using the other restroom without any notice to employer or co-workers. 

Actually, in the question as quoted - the questioner does NOT say that the co-worker STARTED presenting female after employment, she may well have been hired while presenting female.

Otherwise, though, it's still a good answer - the company should be out in front on the situation.

[tekla]

All the law really is, is a matter of definitions.  And now the law is going to have to define some things that even on these boards over the last 18 or so years have failed to be agreed to.

If you are going to protect some, and not others, then how do you draw a line to set them apart?  There seems to be three options.

First, the status-quo, which is pretty much, "because I say so."  GID, TG, TS and all that were pretty much self-defined, and left to the individual to places themselves in that spectrum.  This is going to be the old way I'm afraid.

Second, we can have a medical model, which is part-way engaged at this point, where medical professionals attest to your fitting their criteria and also attest that you are under some sort of medical care and 'making progress' of some sort.  Since we love doctors, this is going to be the new way.

Third, and in the end it might come to this.  Change the door from "men" and "woman" to read "penis" and "vagina."  Lot of support for this idea really.  Gets bonus points because most post-op women feel this way.

[FairyGirl]

It almost seems as if the woman in the article, who has always identified as female and gone by a female name, could very well be a natal female, a hypothesis born up by the fact that HR has been silent on the matter. There are masculine looking natal women, just as there are feminine looking natal men. In that case the poor woman herself could have a case for harassment if she has been confronted about the bathroom issue in a negative manner.

[Tammy Hope]

An interesting thought

My thinking regarding future options would be something more along the lines of a mandate (similar in application to the mandates for handicap access) that certain public facilities and large enough businesses and companies be required to provide a Unisex restroom in parallel to the "mens" and "ladies" rooms.
Anyone who wanted to could use the unisex room, and no one in there would have grounds to complain about who else might come in.

In application, I presume few ciswomen would enter, but I've shared the rest room with more than a few who were not disturbed by my presence (and had reason to know of my genetalia) so I don't think it would be a ghost town.

Plus, are there not a lot of places that already have such restrooms? I recall there was some comment on it when a TV series featured such a restroom (who's name I'm having a brain cramp on...the "dancing baby" show)

[tekla]

The reality is that the unisex is a single person facility marked for both sexes.

[glendagladwitch]

I've long advocated that employers should be required to provide unisex single occupancy restrooms for narrow minded bigots to use who don't want to share the ladies room with their transgendered colleagues.

[KaleisGood4U]

Honestly, it would disturb me far more deeply to see an actively transitioning FtM in the ladies' room than an MtF in women's clothes.  Presenting as a male and going in the WOMEN'S room, or vice versa, is creepy.  Presenting as a woman in the women's head is fine. 


Post Merge: May 10, 2010, 02:37:44 PM

I've long advocated that employers should be required to provide unisex single occupancy restrooms for narrow minded bigots to use who don't want to share the ladies room with their transgendered colleagues.

I've long advocated people should get over it.  If someone is not prepared to share a restroom with a colleague of the same gender, then they should probably go into a field where they work in a more solitary environment.

[LordKAT]

I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.

[glendagladwitch]

I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.

We could even package it as a "Family Restroom,"  complete with changing table.  What should we call this bill?  The "Family Protection Act?"  The Fammily Assurance Act?"  The "Family Non-->-bleeped-<- Affiliation Act?"

[Jasmine.m]

The article is well written and open minded. To me, it shows progress. This is a touchy subject. We, here, can't even agree on the answer.

My opinion? I believe any person suffering from a doctor diagnosed medical condition (per the DSM) should be allowed to use the washroom of their current presentation. As far as I know, most cross-dressers rarely get diagnosed as such, while most TG's seeking to transition do. Is it a litmus test? Yes; but progress is incremental, whether we like it or not. Asking everyone to accept everything all at once may be a bit overwhelming. Providing safe guards to those fearful of the "man in a dress" syndrome may not be such a bad idea...

[LordKAT]

No factory would install a 'family' bathroom. No way that would work.

[glendagladwitch]

No factory would install a 'family' bathroom. No way that would work.

That's why we need this legislation!  Write your congressional reps now to demand the accomodation of families by mandatory provision of suitable unisex one occupant restroom facilities wherever restrooms are provided.

This is not the time to mention that such mandatory provision eliminates the concerns of "moderates" regarding transgendered people and restrooms.  We can simply point that out AFTER the Family Accomodation Act becomes law.

[Arch]

As I read through the first few comments, I found myself thinking, "I know what Aria Blue would say to all of this."

Speak of the devil...

[PanoramaIsland]

true ->-bleeped-<-

Sorry, Laura, but I'm not a "true transgender person," and neither are you.
You just don't get to put trans people on a hierarchy, with transsexuals who've completed every surgery known to science at the top, and crossdressers at the bottom. That's not logical, and not okay. There's nothing "truer" about my gender variance, or yours, than the gender variance of crossdressers.

This is like how haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jewish theology refuses to acknowledge non-Orthodox Jews as "real Jews;" it's actually considered against halacha (religious law) for them to pray in a Conservative or Reform synagogue. This, of course, bars my lubavitcher relatives from attending shul with us on holidays, and they didn't come to my bar mitzvah (adulthood ceremony) for this reason. Of course, it's fine for us to attend their services. Sigh.

So no, there's no such thing as "true ->-bleeped-<-."

[Kay]

I liked the idea of a bathroom for any employees who feel uncomfortable sharing with the trans person.

.
I'll second that sentiment. (many already have single-stall handicap bathrooms for handicap-accomodation purposes already)
.
.
On a side note, this issue has always been more about presentation than genitals.  If someone can pass, people don't tend to notice.  If they don't, that's when people throw a fit.
.
I met someone a week ago at a transgender meeting that illustrated this point rather well.  For the purposes of anonymity, lets call her Callie...but she goes by the androngynous short-form of her name "Cal."  Born genetically female, raised female, F on her license and birth certificate.  She's still deciding how to identify herself.  She's always had a rather high level of T in her bloodstream.  She thinks she may be IS of some sort, but nothing conclusive has ever been found except for the high level of T.  She has a moustache, and fairly masculine features.  Despite her genetics, she can't pass for female at all.  She loves going to museums and other public places in a nearby major city...but they won't let her use the bathroom there.  Other women scream at her to leave the bathroom because of how she looks.  Even after being presented with her ID, the security/management won't let her use the public restroom (ie.  it's not about the genitals at all).  To avoid the issue, she's gotten into the habit of just going in the men's room...though when it's that time of the month...she really hates having to resort to that.  She's fairly butch, and doesn't put much effort into looking female.  Even if she did though, she'd come off more as a crossdresser than a woman.
.
Definitely a difficult situation.  Very similar to being trans...just flipped on its head.  Like transgender individuals, she didn't ask to be that way...she just is.  Like many of us...there isn't anywhere that she really fits completely.
.
To me, this is about public accomodation of certain varied minority groups.  I think Tekla is right about the 'medical model' as being the likely method of determining who will be legally allowed to.  As much as we like to be all-inclusive, there need to be some lines drawn somewhere.  The public at large likes structure.  "Anything goes" scares the hell out of them.  And accepting that anyone under the broad umbrella of 'transgender' can use whatever bathroom they wish...is essentially "anything goes."
.
The difficulty of such legislation is in balancing the rights of those who need to use the bathroom (Like Cal above), with public at large's need to feel safe in those same spaces.  Actively transitioning TS's and IS individuals should obviously be included...but after that there is a vast amount of grey area.  Anyone who wants the grey area to be included needs to seriously consider where they think the line should be drawn to address the concerns of both groups, instead of merely protesting with indignation that all such grey areas aren't being included.  Cal above obviously needs to use the women's restroom (especially when she's on the rag)...just as a TS individual does....while Joe Smith heterosexual crossdresser out for an occasional night on the town  may want to use the women's facilities...but will be more than happy to return to the men's facilities the following day.  "Need" vs. "Want" is a key here...and there are many different shades of TG people in between those two extremes that make drafting such legislation difficult.  Law is about 'Yes you can' or 'no you can't'.  You can't say "yes you can tonight because you're wearing a dress...and tomorrow you can use the other one because you're wearing pants"...because it's tantamount to "anything goes".  Or at best its structure is so murky that it's completely unenforceable.   Law defines things and sets limitations.  "Anything goes" is it's antithesis...it's seen as anarchy.

Eventually a line has to be drawn somewhere...and cutting off part of such a vast group of peple (transgender) who want certain privelages...but may not need them...is never a popular or fun thing to do...but that's what "reasonable accomodation" is all about...emphasis on "reasonable."
.
A multi-stall "family bathroom" for both sexes isn't the answer.  That's exactly the situation that many people are afraid of the current structure becoming.  Nor is it fair to force IS and TS individuals to use a multi-sex bathroom because of a medical condition.  That solution fails to address their similar safety concerns, and would have the result of likely outing the medical condition of some that may not want others to know.  (concerns of conflicts with anti-discrimination law, harassment law, and possibly even HIPPA...depending on the situation).
.
Damn this got long fast.  Sorry about that.

[PanoramaIsland]

I can't write a long reply right now, but I'd like to point out that the centrist "mainstream" types in the LGBTetc. rights fight like to leave out rights for trans people as part of compromising and reaching a "reasonable" solution. You know, throw the most vulnerable LGBTetc. population, with the highest suicide rate, most trouble getting jobs and so on, under the bus. Reasonable. Very.

Of course, compromise is a real and unfortunate need in many situations, but politically-speaking, in issues of rights I tend to view it with suspicion.

[Ashley Allison]

My answer to the question asked: Of course she is... Identifying as a gender opposed to the gender assigned at sex, can mean that it is extremely uncomfortable/ unsafe to go into the restroom of one's birth gender.  The fears of cisgender females/ males (sexual harassment/ rape) are greatly exaggerated.  One would be hard pressed to find a incidence of this type of occurrence in the record where a transgender person rapes/ harms someone in the restroom in this manner.  These fears are created out of misinformation and ignorance.  It is unfortunate that this occurs, but nevertheless it does.

[tekla]

Most public settings, like a factory, have to comply with health codes, so there must be X number of bathrooms per X amount of workers, or seating, or whatever.  Though it's possible to have new construction accommodate newer unisex bathrooms, particularly if they count both ways and thus lower the construction costs.  But, to retrofit is very expensive, and would be opposed by the people/companies that you would be forcing to pay for such a retrofit.  What they are going to come up with - or what's its going to come down to - is to call for 'reasonable accommodation' like the American's with Disabilities Act.