Kozlowski: Pitt’s transgender policy necessary

The debate over where transgender students may or may not use the bathroom has produced some strong reactions. The debate over where transgender students may or may not use the bathroom has produced some strong reactions. The Pitt News’ own editorial board condemned the position of the University — that everybody goes to the bathroom in accordance with the sex listed on their birth certificates — as regressive.

While I think that the University should do more to accommodate transgender students, the policy adopted by the University is simple, absolute and avoids legal and political problems that would be caused by the blanket alternatives available to it, which we must examine from the University’s perspective.

What are the alternatives? First, the school could have continued to study each individual case as it came up. Second, the University could have allowed transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice. Part of the problem with a case-by-case decision-making process is that it is difficult to see how individual cases can be evaluated to the satisfaction of all involved. Does the transgender person have to take a quiz? Solemnly swear that he or she really, truly identifies as the opposite gender? Submit to psychiatric evaluation? Any of these things would make people unhappy. For instance, the alternative of having a health care provider submit a letter certifying that a person is really transgender might not be optimal. If some doctors refuse to provide these kinds of letters, we would witness exactly the same kind of controversy as with doctors who refuse to prescribe the morning-after pill. Such a process wouldn’t eliminate the problems I noted with a case-by-case basis, it would only shift them onto doctors. I will grant, though, that this is probably not a bad compromise measure.

If a transgender person were to request the right to use the bathroom of his or her choice and have that request refused, no matter what the circumstances, a legal firestorm and media circus would result. A case-by-case approach would therefore effectively mean that anybody who bothered to ask would be granted the right to use the preferred bathroom.

So why not save the paperwork and allow anyone to use the bathroom that he or she identifies with? This would render the difference between a ladies’ and a men’s room meaningless: Who’s to question your decision to go into a particular restroom, anyway? There is thus the potential for abuse, with one hypothetical situation being that a man could enter a women’s bathroom, harm a woman in that bathroom and claim that he had the right to be there because he identifies as female. Of course, that man could still commit the same crime under current policy. The difference would be that in the lawsuit that the woman’s lawyer would file, it would be much easier to convince a jury that the abuse was “all Pitt’s fault” if Pitt’s policy held that the male assailant had a right to be in that bathroom. The University would have to justify why the man was allowed to be there, both in court and in the court of public opinion. That would get ugly.

The policy the University adopted, that everyone use the bathroom that’s listed on their birth certificates, is simple. It rests on a legal document. It is possible to change one’s legal standing through sex reassignment surgery, which is a case-by-case arbiter, as it demonstrates that someone is truly serious about his or her sexual identity in a way that all the affidavits in the world couldn’t.

Also consider the University’s political position, in a completely Machiavellian way. Now is not a good time for the University to suddenly show its progressive bona fides. This is especially true as some conservatives around the country worry that public financing for education is really financing for liberal indoctrination. Sudden policy changes on the transgender issue could have cost Pitt vital political support right as it was fighting against budget cuts in Harrisburg. The question would arise: Why are we paying for transgender bathrooms? A private school could do that much more easily than a public one.

There are better ways that Pitt can accommodate its transgender students. It could start by giving its undergraduates some credit. When I was living in the dorms, we occasionally had women who were familiar to us using our communal men’s room. Nobody really made a big deal about it, and, from what I understand, a similar mood predominated on women’s floors. Earlier in my life, I had a transgender middle school principal. Some parents caused a racket, but largely the kids didn’t care.

I see no reason why a similar mood of tolerance wouldn’t be extended to transgender students, or why RAs in charge of particular floors can’t ensure this tolerance. In other words, the University could set it up so that, officially, everyone uses the bathroom of his or her legal gender while RAs informally make sure that transgender students use the bathrooms of the genders with which they identify. This insulates the University from political problems, it gives it plausible deniability in court, and the end result is that transgender students use their bathroom of choice. It’s worth considering.

I would urge the University not to just let the restrooms issue rest with its latest policy. University policymakers should also consider the provision of more unisex bathrooms, housing for transgender students in places like Bouquet Gardens or Ruskin Hall where bathrooms are private or the establishment of Living Learning Communities for transgender students. The policy the University adopted was the best of difficult alternatives, considering its position. That considered, I urge it to quietly adopt other policies that would make being a transgender student easier.

Write kozthought@gmail.com.