A comment - A few days ago an article appeared on Mimikama, which was criticized by people critical of gender identity as one-sided and tendentious ( see here : Randolph High: Surge of transphobia due to incident in girls' locker room). With this self-critical comment, I would like to call for a fair discussion on the topic of “transgender”, but at the same time I would also like to attempt to reflect on the problems.
The initial situation: The article we published was written as a one-sided article. It wouldn't reflect the need of a girl who doesn't want to change in front of "boys." Instead, this position would be described as hostility and, moreover, the girls’ perspective would be “forgotten”.
As a counterpoint to our existing article, I would therefore like to deliberately play the much-quoted “devil's advocate”. I'll just build a thesis: The fears of parents or young students are not mentioned in the article. We’re writing this entirely from the perspective of an “out-of-touch, childless progressive left.”
I'll just change the perspective and ask the question openly to everyone who has children.
Even more, a question for everyone who has daughters: Just imagine your daughter coming home from school crying. The explanation she gives is that from now on there will be a boy playing sports in the girls' locker room who feels like a woman. And he can watch her changing clothes and now she no longer dares to go to sports class. How would you have reacted?
These are positions that we did not include in our published article. With all neutrality. Also our wording in the article. The term “transphobic” is written throughout, which represents negative framing or could suggest a position. Here too there would be the possibility of using terms such as “gender identity critical”. This term can then be accused of euphemistically concealing “hostility”. I notice the dilemma and I notice that at the moment one cannot move on from the topic of “transgender” without criticism from third parties. I won't be able to do that with this article either.
Transgender and the question of modernity
But at this point we will try to find an answer to the question asked. How would you have reacted to your daughter's statement? “The explanation she gives is that from now on there will be a boy playing sports in the girls' locker room who feels like a woman. And he can watch her changing clothes and now she doesn’t dare go to physical education class anymore.”
I'm speculating. If this had happened here in the 80s or perhaps 70s, I could imagine that many young students would have reacted like this! But today, maybe things are different today? Young people (probably also depends on who, where, how they were raised) are more open to the topic and might not have a problem with it.
Some schools even offer “mixed locker rooms,” just as there are unisex restrooms in different areas. Many things emerge as a kind of “new normal” because they grow slowly. But at the same time I also have to examine this statement self-critically, because is everything really different these days? Doesn't a natural sense of shame exist among pubescent people? But various factors probably also apply, such as age itself or how a child was raised and raised.
For example, I think mixing changing rooms on a voluntary basis is a nice idea. Also voluntary unisex toilets (generally). It wouldn't matter to me at all. But we must never forget that there are many people who have a (completely justified) feeling of shame and who are also entitled to privacy .
In response to my question and the topic of transgender, a colleague from the Mimikama team wrote to me that when she was a teenager she generally found it unpleasant to have to change in group changing rooms in front of other people. She was teased and stared at by the other girls. In her opinion, she didn't necessarily know whether she would have been less ashamed in front of a "biological boy" who felt and acted like a girl than in front of the other girls. But of course it's easy to say that now, years later. From today's perspective, she still prefers individual cabins and individual showers.
Now the first somewhat deeper questions arise: What is the reason why people feel uncomfortable in front of others? Because she is still biologically male? What goes into that? The fear that the person might just be faking it to see naked girls and that there might be a sexual aspect involved? Then you would have to exclude lesbian girls too, right?
Don’t we also have a “general feeling of shame”? So where people (including young people) have to change clothes together? Like in swimming lessons, where you can see them completely naked? The topic of body comparisons, including body shaming, also comes into play here, completely apart from transgender people.
Talking to each other can be key. Can be, not necessarily. But also carefully explore and approach things and not present people with a fait accompli. As I said, it can, not necessarily. On site and in individual cases, it might be helpful to identify problems and resolve the fears and discomfort. It can be, but it doesn't have to be that way.
Transgender: Safe spaces for everyone?
“I still prefer individual cabins and individual showers,” my colleague wrote to me.
Things are about to get exciting! I come to a point where there is also a problem. It is also due to the lack of infrastructure! I interpret the ideas of the voluntary mixed changing rooms, the voluntary unisex toilets and the individual cubicles that it is basically just about the real (protective) space.
If voluntary unisex areas or individual areas exist, everyone has a choice. If these do NOT exist, there are no real places of retreat and protection. Regardless of gender and identity. If we look at the content of our criticized original article from this perspective, a third space for everyone who feels uncomfortable with the trans person would be a possible solution. Perhaps.
But here too there is a possible problem: we are talking about teenagers. Important social structures are formed here, and young people often follow what the “popular” people within their group are doing (although: it's not just young people who do that. Everyone does it somehow. More or less). But they also often do what their parents tell them or what their parents want.
Depending on the group structure, if I follow this idea, trans people can also be excluded through isolated changing rooms. We are now noticing more and more that there are many different (including purely practical) problems that need to be weighed up, but that obviously cannot be easily eliminated at first glance. Inclusion is one of them.
self reflection
I have several friends who are transgender. Well, now I'm coming around the corner with anecdotal evidence. But this is a comment, so I'm allowed to do that. When I talk to them, I sometimes notice clearly how biologically male they are. For some more, for others less. With a friend who couldn't necessarily be identified as transgender at first glance, I even said "All the best to you, my dear" when saying goodbye. The next moment I realized what had happened to me. But my voice, gestures and stature are still partly male and therefore have a subconscious effect on me.
Our society is certainly becoming more and more open, or at least wants to become so. Transgender can be lived openly in everyday life (by law) and is accepted differently depending on the environment. On the other hand, many people are not really ready to integrate transgender people into everyday life, which for some is probably due to a lack of contact.
Perhaps origin also plays a role here. One might speculate that transgender identity is more a part of the cityscape of a big city than “in the country”. Because we know from the past that the “gay couple with a child” was already a sensation in the village area. At least until you had direct contact with the family for the first time. After that no more.
This can also apply to transgender people. Can, not must. When there is direct and friendly contact, hurdles quickly fall and a situation becomes less strange.
But now we have arrived at the next wording: We are talking about “not ready yet”. With this we imply that those who are critical of gender identity/transphobic are “backwards”. But are they? Or do they represent legitimate interests? People who are critical of gender identity / transphobic are often and quickly labeled as “right-wing” in order to defame them. The spectrum of the group is large and (of course) there are also right-wing conservative people in it. But they are just “located” there. I wouldn't necessarily be able to pinpoint a political direction at this point, even if there is a risk that this issue will become politically biased.
As a rule, I also have the choice of which people I let into “my life”. I can choose who I have contact with. On the other hand, we also have to look at the situations where this is not the case. Such as at work or in schools. At the same time, we must not lose sight of the fact that all people have their rights. There's no way around it.
This brings us back to the point that a “compulsion”, even if it is only of an architectural nature, to move/stay in a room with people when you do not feel comfortable is fundamentally problematic. And now the head starts to go towards an explosion: Who has to or should leave the room? The person who has a problem with transgender identity or the person who is causing the problem at that moment?
So yes, inclusion for everyone, but if you absolutely can't handle it, you have to avoid situations in which you are confronted with it? Worst case scenario, quit the volleyball team if there is no other option? I realize I can't come up with a solution because there are different interests involved.
But perhaps an analytical point at this point: A development is taking place that, for many people, happens too quickly or too radically beyond a moderate point. In any case, and this is also my conviction, all people, regardless of their identity, have a right to live their identity. Clearly. On the other hand, we also have to explore where other people feel harassed. Isn't it also about finding a socially practicable consensus or developing it together? I don't know it. It can be. Hence my impulse at this point.
In conclusion
I know, as already noted, that this content will also be littered with reviews. In this case, this is intentional because the text is intended to serve as an impulse for discussion. I often find myself overwhelmed. Finally, after consulting with the author, my colleague Walter, I can only summarize the few facts he mentioned from the article “Randolph High: Surge of transphobia due to incident in girls’ locker room”:
1) The mother and trans daughter didn't just move to Randolph, it worked fine for a while
2) The regulations in Vermont stipulate that a trans person is allowed to change in the room of the gender to which they feel they belong
3) Anyone who - whatever the reason - feels unwell, has the right to a place where you can change on your own
4) The interview with the classmate highlights that the parents insisted that this was a problem
5) The girl affected is in the Article deliberately not discussed or characterized further because she is only 14 years old
Cover photo on the subject of transgender by Gerd Altmann on Pixabay
Note: This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication
.
The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic.

