Second Post- Gender Identity Disorder and Accommodation of Gender
Sacha M. Coupet in Children, Sexuality, and the Law; Chapter 8: Policing Gender on the Playground discusses the challenges that transgender children face. One of these challenges includes some form of gender discontentedness (189). Research suggests that by the ages of 2-3 children can label their sex and place themselves amongst those of the same category, by age 3 begin using gender pronouns, and by age 5 begin categorizing by gender and begin “gender policing” or pointing out when other children are acting against gender norms (189). It is expected that all children engage in some form of gender non-conforming behavior but when a child experiences significant distress (otherwise known as “dysphoria”) then there is a good chance they may be diagnosed with Gender identity Disorder (GID) (189). This is significant because the implication is that there is something wrong the child and determines how they will be treated from their on out. Most likely, they will be considered flawed in some way and need to be “fixed” (191). As Coupet states, “children are becoming increasingly vocal about perceived gender incongruity and gender fluidity and are articulating their needs and interests at younger and younger ages” (193). All this is to say that transgender children must navigate in a world in which a gender dichotomy is enforced from an early age and run the risk of being considered mentally ill and may even become depressed as a result (197). However, children are expressing their needs at a higher rate and Coupet explains how they may be accommodated in the education system.
Coupet states that there is various ways schools may attempt to offer accommodations for transgender children. Some of these include: “personal privacy, bathroom and locker accessibility, gender-segregated activities, dress codes, and discrimination and harassment” (209). Discrimination and harassment is a large issue for transgender children with over half of the students in a 2011 National School Climate Survey reporting that they experienced physical harassment because of their gender expression (209). Unfortunately, a large number reported being unaware that their schools had anti-discrimination policies that were supposed to protect them (209). Coupet also describes how schools have changed their policies through state and federal legislation in order to accommodate students. As an example, the state of Oregon enacted the Oregon Equality Act (OEA) which defined gender identity as “what a person believes his or her gender to be” (209). As the law extends to children, schools complied with the act, which states gender identity is protected from harassment and eventually the Oregon Safe Schools Act was passed the same year (210). Included in this act was the protection from harassment and the right for students to be addressed by the name and pronoun that they choose (210). States such as Oregon have enacted model policies that other progressive states have followed. California for example, passed a bill in 2013 that allows students to participate in programs and activities and use facilities that align with their gender identity and became the first state to enact legislation specifically for children in public schools (210).
While these are important steps towards accommodating transgender and gender variant children, there is still much to be done. A controversial topic in recent years has been the inclusion of unisex bathrooms and whether or not students may use the restrooms that align with their gender identity (210). A notable case is that of a transgender fifth-grade girl named Nicole Maines who was not allowed to use the girl’s bathroom. Her family attempted to take legal action against the school but the state of Maine in 2013 found that the school did not need to make such accommodations and was perfectly reasonable in allowing Maines to use the staff bathroom (211). Conversely, in Colorado a transgender first-grader named Coy Mathis was also not allowed to use the girl’s bathroom. However, when her parents took legal action in 2013 the Colorado Civil Rights Division ruled in Mathis’ favor under Colorado’s Anti discrimination Act (211). These disparities are indications that there is more work that needs to be done but as far as gender-affirming practices are concerned, Coupet highlights that these are important actions taking place.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt15r3zmf.12