Coy Matthis – and Excuses to Exclude

I wanted to write a bit about a big local news story. But I also wanted to write about how different populations (in this case, trans people and autistic people) face too many of the same stigmas and excuses when we’re excluded.

As an autistic person, I’ve seen plenty of excuses to exclude. Of course we’re not the only group of people excluded from places and activities, as a long history of exclusion in the USA demonstrates. Today, one group that frequently loses their rights is transgender people. As autistic people, we should be concerned anytime anyone’s rights are infringed – we know what it is like.

Coy Matthis is a (now) second grader. She successfully brought a complaint against the Fountain-Ft. Carson School District (Fountain is a town directly south of Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family and several other right-leaning political-religious organizations). Her complaint was that the school district prohibited her, a transgender girl, from using the girl’s bathroom, and suggested (initially) that she used the boy’s bathroom, or, (later) a staff restroom.

Predictably, the Division of Civil Right’s decision (pdf) angered a lot of people, with predictable complaints, as it affirmed Coy’s right to use the girl’s bathroom. As you read through some of the complaints I’ve seen below, as I paraphrase them below, think about what other populations you’ve seen these complaints used against. This is one reason it’s important to ally ourselves with other communities – their struggle is remarkably similar to our struggle, so it’s useful to learn from each other. Of course Coy and others like her have plenty of different struggles than autistic people generally have, but there are some commonalities even where the specifics are different.

I don’t believe she’s really trans, her parents are using her

This argument comes down to “I don’t believe her.” How many times have we heard that about autistic people in the autism community? The minute an autistic speaks out against something someone is saying or doing to autistic people, we learn that we aren’t really autistic. Denial of our identity is a pretty basic way of trying to silence an opponent. And plenty of autistics are told that they are only pretending to be autistic.

But, that aside, I’ll make one suggestion: if you know a 6 year old boy (Coy was 6 at time of the bathroom ban), see if you can get him to wear girl’s clothes to school, tell people he’s a girl, and otherwise do “girl things.” I’ll be mightily impressed if you can do this. After all, society strongly encourages gender stereotype conformity.

How can a 6 year old know she’s trans?

Likewise, we’re (autistics) are too often dismissed when we relate our experiences interacting with the world. “How can you be bothered by a fluorescent light?” It’s basically, “My experience was nothing like yours. I never went through being trans at 6, so I can’t see how that’s possible. I never was bothered to the point of pain by a fluorescent light, so you’re making it up.”

The answer to this question turns out to be pretty easy. From a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatricians!) policy technical report (pdf) on treating LGBT children:

Awareness of gender identity happens very early in life. Between ages 1 and 2 years, children become conscious of physical differences between the 2 sexes. By age 3, children can identify themselves as a boy or a girl, and, by age 4, gender identity is stable. In middle childhood, gender identification continues to become more firmly established, reflected in children’s interests in playing more exclusively with youngsters of their own gender and also in their interest in acting like, looking like, and having things like their same-sex peers.

Clearly, children know they are boys or girls at a young age. When that knowledge is significantly different than the apparent sex of the body, to the point where the person can’t accept living according to the stereotypes of their body, it’s a serious – potentially life threatening – problem (it can create such unhappiness that people feel suicide is their only way of dealing with this). The solution to this problem is to live as you are, not as people might want you to be. This, in Coy’s case, was confirmed medically through her doctors and therapists. I imagine the “Is she really?” question crossed these experts’ minds. I also imagine they investigated that and got a good answer. Probably a better one than someone without knowledge about gender identity can come up with, particularly without knowing Coy!

Finally, again, ask a random six year old if he’s a boy or girl. Hopefully you’re not surprised that the child provides an answer quickly (well, unless the child may be questioning, in which case it’s very healthy). Children generally know what they are. Really!

Boys have Penises, Girls have Vaginas

We have expectations about “obvious” things. Lots of people have expectations about autistic people – “They don’t talk” or “they couldn’t live without 24×7 help” are two obvious ones (I’ll note that the 24×7 help isn’t something people get even in institutions, but that’s not the point of today’s post, so I’ll move on). It’s another way to say, “NO, you aren’t. You’re what I think you are.”

I’m not sure where Arnold’s kindergartener learned about penises and vaginas, but as the decision by the Division of Civil Rights states, it’s a bit more complex than that. The decision cites the presence of intersexed people as examples of people that don’t conform to the overly simplistic “boys have penises, girls have vaginas.” Enforcing some sort of uniform standard is yet another way of dismissing someone’s identity. “You’re what I think you are. I know better than you. Or your parents. Or your doctors. Or the State of Colorado. Or the US Department of State” (all of the above recognize Coy as a girl). I’m going to pick the sex trait *I* think is important to determine your gender (note that gender and sex are different – I’ll mention that later).

It’s a way of saying, “There can’t possibly be any girl who has a penis, because, well, I say so, that’s how I’m defining girl. No penis.” (Ironically these same people probably would pick a different trait if Coy was ever to have genital reassignment surgery – part of the proof that they aren’t really concerned about genitals nearly as much as making sure they voice their disagreement with the person’s identity) That simplistic, genital-based thinking not aligned with most current research or thinking on gender. Just as someone can believe man-made pollution has no or extremely little impact on climate, you can believe whatever you want about gender. But that doesn’t make you right. With the vast degree of diversity in the human condition, it’s pretty hard to say anything with absolutes, particularly with something as complex as gender. We might all like absolutes (penis = boy, XY = boy, or whatever else), but absolutes just don’t fit the realities of humans. We’re complicated. And trying to make it simple might make you seem smart to yourself, but really exposes your ignorance.

Ah, we’re not discriminating on the basis of gender, we’re discriminating on the basis of sex

Again, autistic people see this type of hair-splitting. We’re told, “We’re not refusing to hire autistic people, we’re refusing to hire people with (insert some autistic trait).”

Likewise, trans people face this as a result of sloppy language used by politicians, lawyers, and the general public.

Quick, if you’re asked if you’re “male or female”, should that question be entitled “sex?” or “gender?” If you said gender, you’re wrong. Gender is identity and/or expression (depending on context). Man, woman, girl, boy are words to describe gender. It’s how you interact with society, which generally doesn’t involve genitals or chromosomes (I don’t ask someone for a genetic test before calling her “Ms” or ask someone to drop their pants before I call them “Sir”). Sex, on the other hand, is biological (and complex!). It’s the combination of traits, such as brain structure, gonads, genitals, secondary sex traits (height, bone structure, muscle structure, fat distribution, breasts, baldness, voice pitch, etc), hormones, and chromosomes – any one of which can point towards a different sex than the others (hence why it is complicated!). So, if you’re interested in a person medically, you may want to know their sex, but if you’re interested in whether you call the person “sir” or “ma’am,” you’re interested in gender (and then you should ask “man or woman” generally, not “male or female”, or better yet, allow the person to fill in the blank in case they don’t identify either way).

Unfortunately for Coy, Colorado, in addition to making transgender a sexual orientation (huh? Trans people are straight, gay, bi, and otherwise – it’s like making transgender a skin color, it makes no sense), confuses sex and gender throughout its laws, to the point where the Civil Rights Division concluded they are synonyms and the meaning has to be discerned through context. Both parties (the school district and Coy’s lawyers) agreed that sex and gender are distinct. But of course our laws are muddy, because legislatures are not quite so clear. Other examples are the Colorado “Change of Sex” form which is used to record a change on Colorado ID cards and driver’s licenses. The State form titled “Change of Sex” doesn’t, outside of the title, ask about the person’s sex. It asks for the person’s gender! Or, the famous, “One man, one woman” standard for marriage. They don’t really mean man or woman (gender), they mean one male, one female (sex). Courts have all agreed that they mean sex, even when they said man and woman (and didn’t define what makes someone a man or a woman) – it was a ban on same-sex, not same-gender marriage.

This is unfortunate because you have statements in law that allow creation of some single-sex (or single-gender, depending on the regulation or law – both terms are used) facilities. For instance, having a “men’s bathroom” is not illegal in Colorado, but the legislature absolutely intended to make it illegal to prohibit trans men from using it (even female men). So, is it sex or gender discrimination to ban a man from the men’s room, when single-sex (or is it single-gender) facilities are allowed?

It turns out that the saving grace for trans people is that the law is otherwise clear – the law was clearly intended to allow trans people to use a bathroom that matches their identity. But there’s going to be a lot of pointless debate in the future due to imprecise language. While advocates might agree that women need to be treated like women on paperwork and in laws, we probably should ensure we don’t muddy the waters by letting laws pass using the word “sex” when “gender” is meant, or vise-versa. The argument could have been avoided with precise language.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…

Okay, it makes for a good movie. But it makes garbage public policy. This argument was essentially the argument used in every single case of widespread discrimination in the USA. Why were Americans that had Japanese ancestry locked away in interment camps? Because trampling on their rights was seen as an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of security it gave the majority of citizens. It’s today used against autistic people to argue for segregation in school or institutionalization.

This argument used towards trans people implies that use of a bathroom by a trans person (or whatever other right they might have) is somehow interfering with the rights to another. There’s this idea that just being in a bathroom or other place with someone with different genitals is somehow hurting the other person – that it’s an infringement on rights. This is probably only true if you value a “right to discriminate”, which sadly some do value. The only right violated is your right to violate someone else’s right.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I would hope the school would do something about two male boys showing each other their penises in the boy’s room rather than using the room for it’s intended purpose. You go in there to do your business. And by all accounts, that’s exactly what Coy did – her business and nothing more. Now if someone was showing their genitals, you deal with that. It is inappropriate behavior to do that in public restrooms, but it’s equally inappropriate if it is two boys (with penises) doing it. Or two female girls.

And there is a solution for the person who really does feel uncomfortable (no students reported feeling uncomfortable with Coy, it should be noted; it was a couple of school administrators that felt uncomfortable with the idea of Coy using the girl’s room). You let them use a more private facility. Problem solved – now both kids can pee in peace.

She can use the boy’s room…or the staff bathroom, so she can pee

Again, this is used in other areas of discrimination. With autistic people, we’re told that there are other places we can, other activities we can sign up for, etc. We can be somewhere else, just not here. So it’s all cool, right? Of course not.

There’s more to bathrooms than just peeing. While it’s not a place to wave your genitals around in front of others, it has a social component – actually several of them. People do socialize in bathrooms (particularly, from what I hear, women). And, more importantly, bathrooms have a gender confirmation purpose. Some people are violently attacked simply for not following society’s expectations for their presumed sex. Sometimes someone will watch someone use the bathroom, just to determine, “Is that person a man or a woman?” The door they use tells them. If they use a third door, or a door not in conformance with their expression, that confirms, “This person really isn’t a woman, ‘he’ is a man” rather than, “Oh, this person might just be a tall woman.” Someone that already drew a conclusion may not be swayed by this, but for people that were unsure, this can confirm or exclude that a person is dressing and acting appropriately. Equally bad, if people thought the person was a woman, and had no doubt about her being a woman, but she uses the men’s room (or a third bathroom), now she’s obviously and visibly different – and very likely the conclusion will be, “She’s not a real woman.” That’s a risk to her. (it can work the same way for trans men) It’s a risk she should evaluate, not someone else.

Finally, asking any student to do something different just because of who they are (rather than a choice they make), such as using a third bathroom, will say to other students, “This person is different.” Now, difference isn’t bad in itself, but too often that message is communicated too. In this case, the message is, “This person isn’t a real girl.” That contradicts the message the school was properly trying to send when it used feminine pronouns and otherwise treated the girl as a girl.

I don’t think I could ever understand what it is like for someone who has went through pain of being trans, and having a body that didn’t match their being. But I imagine it’s incredibly humiliating and triggering to be told, “No, I think you’re really something else.” A life of people not accepting who you are probably becomes very painful to many. It implies that the trans person is a liar, cheat, fake, evil, sinner, and whatever else. Imagine the pain that it must feel like to have people constantly remind you that they don’t see who you are. Imagine that someone has chosen to live who they really are, not the lie that was killing them, only to be told they are wrong for choosing life over death.

What about safety?

Again, this happens for autistic people. People have stereotypes about what is safe and what isn’t. Someone screaming in a meltdown is “unsafe”, whether or not they intend to do violence. As is someone saying things that an autistic person might to an authority, like, “What you’re doing isn’t safe, it could get you hurt if someone didn’t like what you were doing” (something an autistic person I know did to someone without authority or training who was trying to enforce zoning codes). It feels like a threat, either the meltdown or the concern about a person’s safety. So it must be. Even when it’s not.

Likewise, discussion about bathrooms always comes around to safety. There is an idea that a rapist or molester would never rape or molest someone with the same body parts as themself, and would never enter a place where he or she shouldn’t be – but once you let them in, they’ll now rape or molest. This is problematic for a bunch of reasons, such as assuming that people who have the “wrong” parts would only be in some places to cause problems. But it’s also wrong – we still have extremely strong laws to protect people against rape and molestation. They aren’t always applied or used, but the laws themselves are generally pretty strong and carry severe penalties. If that’s not going to keep someone from doing wrong, no sign on the door will.

Even more significant, however, is who’s safety is seen as important to protect. The idea is that this hypothetical wrong-bathroom-rapist (I know of no case where this has actually happened – where someone raped someone after entering a bathroom and claimed he or she had the right to be in a bathroom because he or she was trans) is a bigger concern than the safety of trans people (who are raped, molested, beat, and killed for using the “wrong” bathroom). The concern wasn’t about making Coy comfortable and safe (part of that is showing that she’s normal and a real girl, not a fake or liar in need of correction). It wasn’t empowering (by letting Coy and her parents make decisions about what is safest for her). No, it was treating people like Coy as the threat – if she uses the bathroom, then people are unsafe because hypothetically someone else might. So the threat needed to be removed.

Likewise, forcing Coy to use a different bathroom doesn’t make her safe either. While a private bathroom may be more safe than a shared bathroom, it can also be less safe. It’s more safe when it’s a non-stigmatizing option that everyone might (and do) use, but it’s less safe when it serves to “out” someone or communicate she isn’t a “real” girl.

If you’re really worried about everyone’s safety, then worry about it (start by giving people privacy in anyplace where they may be partially or fully undressed, privacy even from people with the same sex parts). It means also worrying about rapists that have the same genitals as their victims. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse.

Other Excuses

I’m sure there are other excuses. All of the above were excuses I recall hearing, either in the formal determination by the Civil Rights division, or by commentators about this. The reality is that none of them get to the root of the problem: they are justifications, not the real problem. The real problem is dislike for how someone else lives their life. The excuses are simply attempts to justify bad behavior on the part of the person making them.

How to Create a Bully in an “Accepting” Environment

A lot of autistic people like black and white rules.  We want rules that make it clear what is, and what isn’t, acceptable.  Unfortunately, not all the world works that way.  While clear, concise, easy-to-summarize rules are ideal, they simply don’t fit in every situation.  In fact, they can make things worse for autistic people (and others prone to being victimized by others’ abuse).

One of the favored technique of my childhood abusers (the bullies, I.E. those who assaulted and battered me) was to provoke me to violence or meltdown.  They would simply learn the rules of the classroom and manipulate those in a way that was a bit more socially cleaver than I could.  For instance, they might know that a certain sound was nearly unbearable for me, while the teacher didn’t.  They might also know that this sound wasn’t considered a violation of rules (perhaps it was free time or lunch).  And they might know that my reaction to the sound would render me unable to clearly communicate.

So, the abusers, knowing this information, would provoke the meltdown.  When I screamed, punched at the abusers (note that I was much, much smaller than them and couldn’t have done any physical harm to them even if I wanted to when not overloaded), ran from the room, or otherwise responded in the only ways that I could – note I say ONLY ways, and this is important – I would then find myself in trouble, sometimes serious trouble.  And of course I wouldn’t be able to defend myself eloquently (or likely any way other than screaming incoherently).

So what happened?  I stayed after school.  The abusers may have even been seen as victims of my unpredictable violence.

Yet my “violence” wasn’t unpredictable.  The abusers predicted it, and, in fact, sought it.  They were hardly victims of an unstable, mentally defective kid.  No, they were already showing the signs of sociopathic behavior.

Yet, what, objective, verifiable, non-subjective events occurred?  Two did – and this is why a non-subjective, black-and-white evaluation is not sufficient:

  • The abusers made some sounds, which were allowed by school rules (some noise is of course allowed at some times of the day!)
  • The victim reacted violently, loudly, and incoherently, against school rules

To solve this with central authority (I.E. teachers, principals, etc), the central authority would need two things.  First, they would need to have empathy and a deep social understanding of the situation, including the motives that were at play.  Secondly, they would need the ability to articulate that to others in authority and to the abusers.  They would need to show that they weren’t going to be a tool the bully uses to abuse their victim.

Most teachers fail at that.  So do most organizations that claim to be supportive of disabled people.  It’s hard, and true social understanding a rare gift among both autistics and neurotypicals.

I see this behavior online frequently.  Someone will try to skirt the rules of a forum or group, and provoke others.  When there is a lack of moderator or SIGNIFICANT community opposition to intentional provocation, it’s only a matter of time before someone is provoked and violates a formal, black-and-white rule.  Yet the destructive element in the community was not the formal rule violator.  Rather, the problem was the guy (or gal) that walked-the-line and stayed just shy of crossing it.  That person had malice.

When rules don’t recognize the difference between provocation (malice) and response, the bully has been given a true weapon.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to put malice into a black and white rule.  And often when a leader or community stands up to such bullies, the bully will publicly, loudly, and, often, successfully claim to actually be the victim!  After all, they “didn’t violate even one rule, but are now being excluded.”  Particularly in communities where people have been excluded for inappropriate reasons, people will sympathize with the person claiming to be unfairly excluded.

In autistic circles, there’s a further element.  The destructive bully will know the community norms.  He’ll know we want black-and-white rules, because we have trouble sometimes with following, with good, non-malicious intentions, the fuzzy rules.  So he’ll point out that he violated a fuzzy rule, to gain our sympathy.  It’s easy to see his side and say, “Wow, I could have done that too.  It’s hard to know what the rules are if they are fuzzy, and if they are going to throw people out for that…that’s unfair.”  Ironically, this typically leads to a call for black-and-white rules, which are the exact tool that the bully needs to cause even more havoc in the community!

We need to be cognizant of this in our communities.  It’s okay to exclude someone who intends to destroy a community, even if they are clever and able to walk just inside the line of what is covered by black-and-white rules.  We don’t need people operating under malice.  We don’t need, nor should we tolerate, the bully.  But we need to recognize what bullying looks like.  It’s not the autistic child provoked to meltdown who then strikes out at their antagonizer.  Yet, that’s exactly who the black-and-white rules would say was the bully.

We must not enable bullies by immediately sympathizing with them.  We need to recognize that it’s possible to follow the black-and-white rules, yet be a very destructive and dangerous person.  Yes, dangerous.  And we need to agree we don’t want those people in our midst, or at least we don’t want to give them the weapons to inflict damage.

Yes, people are excluded for bad reasons too.  When an autistic misunderstands a rule and unknowingly violates a fuzzy rule, this is not the time for exclusion.  And we need to fight against that exclusion.  But throwing out all fuzzy rules isn’t something that creates an inclusive environment.  It creates bullies.  Intention can be everything.

Racism and Accusations of Racism

Button that reads "Once you VOTE BLACK you NEVER go back - OBAMA 2012I hate political crap during election years.  You hear from party loyalists on both sides about how great their candidate is and how the other guy is the spawn of Satan (both Presidential candidates, literally, have been called the anti-Christ).

But the racism allegations were too much for me to pass on by. (note that this post is US-centric, since that’s the political system I know something about)

The botton shown next to this article, “Once you vote black you never go back – Obama 2012” was sold to attendees at the 2012 by an enterprising guy that runs a storefront selling a variety of similar merchandise.

While that button is decidedly off-message for a Presidential candidate (google “once you go black you never go back” if you don’t believe me), and has caused the right to stir up allegations of racism…well, it’s not quite so simple.  Sure, many people would love a society in which any reference to race was simply irrelevant.  But a humorous button is hardly the same thing as the systematic racism that has affected blacks since the founding of the nation (and well before).

For instance, here’s some historical differences between blacks and whites:

  • Blacks were slaves.  Whites were slave masters.
  • Black marriages were “until death or distance do you part.” White marriages were “until death do you part.”  (the reason for this was that slaves could be sold, and they might be useful to the new owner for breeding)
  • Blacks often had to sit at the back of the bus.  Whites could still decide to sit at the back of the bus, making a black stand.
  • It took the Voting Rights Act in 1964 to make good progress towards equal access to polls for blacks.  White men could vote since the founding of the country, white women could vote in 1920.
  • In 2009, the average net worth of a black household was $5,677.  The average net worth of  a white household was $113,149.
  • We’ve had 1 black president.  We’ve had 43 white presidents.

That’s a bit of difference here.  Certainly, slavery is gone, but sadly many of the problems of slavery remain.  Yet many right-wing (and nearly always white) people in my social circles are insisting that race shouldn’t matter in the election, and bringing up race is just trying to bring up racism.

But, first, the buttons.  It’s clear that whites don’t have much to seriously fear about a bunch of buttons telling us that we won’t go back to voting for white people after voting for a black one.  I suspect us white people will still have a reasonable chance of getting elected.  So, white people: grow up and get some humor.  But if the button was reversed, “once you vote white, you won’t go back,” not only would it not roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but that would be racist.  The difference is that blacks are disenfranchised at the polls and far fewer blacks are in office than one would expect based on the share they represent in the general population.  In other words, blacks already find it much more difficult than a white to get elected.  So, no, the button is not racist.

As for bringing up race, it sure sounds like we haven’t moved past that as a country.  When Martin Luther King Jr’s words, “I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”  It should be noted that segregated schools are still constitutionally mandated in Alabama – a constitutional amendment that would have removed that hate from the state’s constitution failed in 2004.  (note that the segregated school requirement of the constitution is unenforceable due to Brown v Board of Education, but would become enforceable immediately should Brown ever be overturned – a hope some apparently have)  They are going to try again this year to remove some bigotry from their constitution.  Let’s hope they’ve changed a bit.

And, to answer some of my Republican friends, No, it’s not reasonable to claim Martin Luther King Jr. as a Republican.  But I’m not getting into that now.

Meanwhile, we have both Democrats and Republicans comparing things they don’t like to Nazi symbols and acts.

For instance, who could have known you could offend both Germans and Jews in about a paragraph?

Not that it’s not a good idea to give students loans, it certainly is a good idea to give them loans. But if you can ignore the Constitution to do something good today, tomorrow you will be ignoring the Constitution to do something bad. You could. There are more people in our, in America today of German ancestry than any other… . The Holocaust that occurred in Germany — how in the heck could that happen? And when you start down the wrong road, it can be a very slippery slope.

That was a “charming” statement, both equating people with German heritage as potential mass murderers (only if student loans are given by government!) and completely missing the point about the nature of the Holocaust and it’s effect on Jews and others, has been walked back a bit.  Representative Bartlett (Republican, not that it matters) has sort of apologized.

There’s real racism, and real reason for outrage.  But it’s not a bunch of off-message buttons at the Democratic convention.