Although it is impossible to estimate the total number of bathrooms at a place as big as Harvard, the study [1], which encompassed first-year dormitories, upper-class houses, major classroom buildings and libraries, identified a mere 38 gender non-specific bathrooms and 24 single-occupancy bathrooms assigned to either men or women. The study further found that these oases of relief are mostly, and ironically, located in the “River Houses,” ignoring the needs of students that are in class.
“There are basically no options in classroom buildings for transgender or gender variant people who need to use the bathroom,” said Jordan B. Woods (class of 2006), the organizer of the study and BGLTSA political chair. “In terms of [sic] Harvard, I don’t think we are doing as good of a job [sic] as we could,” Woods said. Nor, evidently, are the teachers of English Grammar 101.
BGLTSA issued four major demands in connection with the study: 1. the “neutralization” [sic] of all gender-specific, single occupancy bathrooms; 2. Proper labeling and designation of all bathrooms; 3. Inclusion of at least one acceptable gender non-specific bathroom in any future buildings; and 4. Immunity from disciplinary action for using a bathroom that a student deems appropriate for his or her (or its?) gender.
BGLTSA spokeshuman Stephanie M. Skier said that these recommendations are “necessary to ensure the safety and rights of transgender members of the Harvard community.”
“There are transgender students at Harvard,” Skier said. “It would be a much safer and more welcoming place for students, staff and faculty if bathrooms were accessible, gender non-specific and marked as such, and if people know they are not going to be taken to the Ad Board or fired from their job for just using the bathroom as they normally do.”
Skier said that the dearth of gender non-specific bathrooms near classrooms forces transgender students to avoid using the bathroom for extended periods of time, leading to severe health consequences.
“There have been studies done that show that transgender people are at a higher risk for bladder infections and dehydration as a result of not using the bathroom,” she said, although some might argue that Ms. Skier is on a slippery slope regarding her causation arguments.
Skier said that many of these students simply cannot use public restrooms for fear of harassment, or even arrest.
Although insisting that “there have been a lot of cases where people have been arrested for using the bathroom,” BGLTSA conceded that there were no documented cases or studies of such harassment at Harvard, much to the chagrin of hungry ACLU lawyers everywhere.
Hope remains, though, that this can yet be ginned up into a court case. Woods said that he is “aware” of students who have run into trouble. “Even if they are not documented, I know people who have bad experiences in bathrooms here,” Woods said, demonstrating that his grasp of logic is just as good as his grammar.
Furthermore, while the BGLTSA officers admitted that the number of students who require gender non-specific bathrooms is relatively small, they stressed the fact that “basic civil rights” are at stake, which, of course, instantly renders all other considerations secondary.
“Even if it is a small number of people that this affects, it is important to recognize that this is something that is central to these peoples’ daily lives,” Woods said, adding American Constitutional History to the number of undergraduate courses he evidently didn’t find time to take.
Undergraduate Council President Matthew W. Mahan (class of 2005) agreed with Woods’ statement.
“When something has to do with fundamental rights and needs, it doesn’t really matter how many people it affects,” Mahan said. “I don’t think I would be representing the student body if I wasn’t interested in the issue.” Bookmark this young man’s name: He will doubtless be a Blue State Senator in the next 10 years or so.
Skier said that much of the opposition to gender non-specific bathrooms is—shockingly—a result of “bigotry.”
“I think that most objections to this very reasonable modest proposal are blatant transphobia,” Skier said, coining a new word. “Saying that people don’t deserve to go to the bathroom which is a basic student life or workplace issue is equivalent to saying that transgender people shouldn’t be at Harvard and that is just wrong.”
Not that this is anything new, mind you. Back in 2001, Jimbo here on PR reported of another such tempest in a (tea)pot in “An Ivy League Bathroom Crisis” [2]. Also, for this writer’s own experience with a “transgendered” person in a restroom, go here [3], and scroll down to the fourth post.
However, the Harvard controversy will doubtless wind up in court. How would WE resolve it, O fellow members of the Supreme Court of PoopReportia?
