Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

Also, there's a human component to take into consideration.

Yes, you must follow the law. But when following the law, mentors can respectfully take time to listen to their students, discuss the situation, and make sure that the students still feel valued, as opposed to dismissed.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

Also the time to be starting this conversation is early in the season, not when the mentor is scurring to make all the arrangements two weeks before worlds. (We like many teams didn't qualify until week 7) :]

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

"Racist" implies that there was some sort of disrespectful or harassing behavior occurring to allow you to identify this individual as a racist to begin with, hence, the removal of this individual from the team. The "transphobe" situation is different (seeing as how they're still on the team implies you're using the term to describe someone who is uncomfortable rooming with some of the opposite sex that identifies with as the same sex as opposed to someone who has regularly been disrespectful or harassing to others). That said, people of the same sex are generally roomed together, unless there is some sort of known issue or incompatibility. People of the opposite sex are not roomed together, no matter their gender. Push comes to shove, the whole travel team could end up in individual rooms.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

I wrote up a whole post about this, but I hate it when people make LGBT+ entirely about what people spend <1% of their lives doing with their bits. So instead, I'm first going to ask:

Why is it a hard and fast rule that people of opposite physical gender are not roomed together? Exactly what goal is this meant to accomplish?

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

<1%, you say? Good point, definitely shouldn't separate anyone based on any sexual attribute.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

And that is the fundamental point where we disagree, Madison. I do not (can not) know what it feels like to be "trapped in a man's body", to “have no choice”. If I showed up to a FIRST event in a dress, to me, I would feel like nothing more than a man wearing a dress. I would still have a man's body, underneath the dress. To me, I would still be a man. Until I made the choice to undergo a complete physical change to transform my body, I do not think I could feel like a woman, and I would not identify myself as a woman until the transformation was complete. For me to do this would be my choice. Unlike some, I do not know what it feels like to "not have a choice". What I know about how I feel determines my stance on this issue, and the way I see it, it seems to me like a choice. I think that the best way I to determine gender of a person is to use the gender of a person's body. This is just my opinion, and it likely won't change until I see scientific fact that proves otherwise. I hope that my explanation can help everyone else to understand my thought process in reaching my opinion and my point of view on this.

Agreed Madison, there is no reason to treat people differently based on their gender (or any other aspect of their appearance). However, the societal norm regularly draws gender lines, for example, gender-specific restrooms. How do you feel about sharing a public restroom with everyone, not just women?

Maybe instead of "recipe for disaster", I should have phrased it "lawsuit waiting to happen". As adult mentors, liable for the well-being and safety of the students that we chaperon, it just doesn't seem like a good position put ourselves, or the students we look out for, in. It would definitely make me very uncomfortable to be in a situation like that. And yes, I value the well-being of myself and my family above that of others around me, regardless of the gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation of those around me. Don't we all?

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

The problem here is that without knowing the reasoning behind such a rule, it's hard to explain why it might be problematic and counter-productive. I mean, maybe it's a perfectly appropriate rule that efficiently achieves its goal and I'm just unclear on the intended goal. Anonymous123 says going outside that rule is a "lawsuit waiting to happen". What would this lawsuit be about? We're all FIRSTers here, gimme a blue box on that "No opposite sexes rooming together" rule.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

I really don't follow this logic at all. You're essentially saying that because you are cisgender, you can't understand the experiences of transgender people, which in and of itself is fair. But you then conclude that transgender people don't exist and have a choice? Because you're cisgender, and if you "decided" to be trans it would be a choice, it must be a choice for everybody? How can you reach that conclusion, particularly when you know and freely admit that your experiences are different from those of trans people?

Ultimately what I'm trying to get at here is this - why do you feel unsafe around trans people? The implications of posts like yours are that trans people are somehow threatening to the safety and security of cis people. You don't come out and say that directly but you keep bringing up safety and comfort so I have trouble figuring out a different meaning behind your words. Trans people are not more dangerous than cis people; they're not more likely to violate or abuse their peers (much the opposite actually - more likely to be the victims). What is the fear here? What harm do you expect when trans boys room with cis boys, or trans women room with cis women? To be completely honest, I think your worldview is informed by some prejudiced misconceptions of what trans people are actually like.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

I agree. Why should we separate students based on gender? Is it for the comfort of the students? If so, I would point the the many anecdotes from this thread and from my own experience that high school students can be mature and handle rooming with members of the opposite sex. Is it for the mentors' piece of mind? If so, why do we see so many cases of gay cis women rooming with other women? Why do we see cases of straight trans men and women being forced to room with the opposite gender? Is it for the school? If so, where is the rule that says that kids must room with the same sex? I know I've personally read my school's handbook back to front and never seen a rule like that. Is it for FIRST? If so, show me a page in the admin manual.

I understand in some cases, there are rules in place about this kind of thing. I am inviting you to challenge your beliefs. FIRST is about learning and growing. One of the ways we do that is to challenge ourselves and what we know to be "true" or "real". Please, have the courage to open your mind and consider another reality.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

The prevailing rules regarding teenagers are based on the rulemakers' memories of being teenagers, and on the societal norm of what is considered "inappropriate" contact between minors.

I think that's a reasonable summary of why we do. To address why we should requires evaluating and perhaps reconsidering a couple of assumptions. One big assumption is that "gay" is not a thing. I think the implications of not making that assumption need to be looked at and separated from assumptions about gender identity before a transgender policies discussion can get very far.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

"Sex-confirmation surgery" is unnecessary. It's an expense many, many trans people cannot afford. This is a really, really skewed perception of what it means to be transgender, and I hope you allow yourself to read more personal trans experiences to learn what it's really like.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

Note: This rambles entirely away from my original point, but feels like a good post instead of whatever I was deleting earlier today, so I'm posting anyways.
I feel I should point out that you've already, scientifically, lost on this point. There's SO much complication, subtlety, and gray area just in how gender genotype translates into realized phenotype:
XX males
XY females
Genetic Chimeras
Various other Intersex Humans

Welcome to biology, where all your engineering notions of sharp lines and strict categories are about as useful as a calculus book in a jungle. "Gender of a person's body" is a scientifically vague concept. And if your answer is "I knows it when I sees it"... well that doesn't seem like a useful way of organizing a society.

Which is really what it comes down to. The whole notion of gender as a binary and gender roles as immutably tied to someone's assigned-at-birth gender is a social construct. It's like how paper money is valuable only because society as a whole has "decided" it's useful to think a piece of paper with a dead person's portrait is a fair trade for a ham sandwich. Traditional gender identity and gender roles were presumably useful to society at some point. We're just pointing out they have little connection to fundamental reality, are actively harmful in many ways, and are thus becoming less useful every year. They're purely a social construct, and it's time to re-think them and update them to work better for everyone.

Since there isn't some board of Managers of Society to petition about this, the next best (only) option is to talk about LBGT+ issues openly and explain to anyone who wants to listen how those traditional* ideas are harmful and less than useful.

*Shouldn't forget that the traditions we hold so dear are pretty US/Christian/Euro Centric and will vary in other places and cultures. Which, again, social constructs.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

Others have addressed the scientific aspect that you brought up, so I won't bother with :deadhorse:

I want to look at the liable aspect though:
I don't believe anyone in this thread has recommended breaking the law. In fact, it's been said a few times that it's important to be educated about what the law is in your state (or country) and your individual school district. I don't think any student would want their mentors and team to be put into a situation where the team is at risk due to breaking the law.

But, we can follow the law (even if our opinion is that it's archaic), and we can treat our students with respect and love by listening to them and respecting them.

There simply is no safety or liability issue here. Unlike when we're talking about paper airplanes; now THERE'S a lawsuit waiting to happen, when someone gets hit in the eye with one of those things...

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

In response to the request for advice from a mentor who has travelled with trans students, here is my experience.

Last year, we had one trans student and a number of out gay or lesbian students travel to Utah. Initially, we arranged for our trans student to stay in his own room, but after talking with him, his family, and the family of one of the lesbian students, the two of them decided they wanted to room together. Everyone agreed, and it worked out fine, no issues.

If we hadn't had the open communication with parents (and I understand that is often the case), we would have had him room on his own, much as we've had students take a single room who have any other reasonable motive. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, and we plan these rooms into our budget. I agree that the old gender binary norms don't give much guidance on these things, and that school rules are often less than helpful. It's frustrating to me that folks talk about this as though it were a safety issue.

Re: FIRST LGBT+ (A blog by and about LGBT+ people in FIRST)
 

I'm glad that people seem to have settled that discussion civilly. It's a topic that, while not every team has to deal with it, happens enough to waren debate and rethinking of how thins generally work.

-----
Blog news time!!
Last I counted we had 27 applications, most of them from the US, one from Australia!!
If I counted right we're now at 31 and excited about that. We're currently looking at staff applications, so if anyone wants to apply before we finish going over them you should do it now!!