【时代周刊 20160519】卫生间之战

满仓

【中文标题】卫生间之战
【原文标题】Battle of the Bathroom
【登载媒体】时代周刊
【原文作者】Michael Scherer
【原文链接】http://time.com/4341419/battle-of-the-bathroom/?iid=toc_051916


为什么有关跨性别者权利的斗争会进入到最私密的公共区域？



卫生间幽默在政坛依然有用武之地，至少对得克萨斯州副州长丹•帕特里克说是这样。2016年5月的共和党全国大会上，他用孤星那样趾高气昂的步伐走上讲台，旁边还有吉他伴音。他的笑话就像是上膛的子弹：“非常高兴能够参加世界上最大规模的共和党大会，另外，男人可不想上女厕所。”

笑声和掌声充满了房间，帕特里克拿起话筒，又是一轮扫射：“你可不要搞错，当你上卫生间的时候，M并不表示‘下定决心’，W也不并不代表……”他在这里停了一下，用高昂的语调说，“管他呢。”

帕特里克所谓“搞错”的那些人，在会议房间里并没有，其实这是人类中很小的一个群体。根据一项研究结果，这类群体占1％成年人中的三成。他们是男人，也是女人，是男孩，也是女孩，他们认为自己的性别并不是出生证明上所写的性别。几十年来，他们躲在阴暗处，忍受着嘲弄、侵害、无家可归、暴力、消沉和自杀的伤害。但是阴影逐渐褪去，他们逐渐站在了阳光下。

在最高法院裁决同性婚姻合法之后，民间的争论焦点转移到新的问题上。凯特林•詹纳和拉佛恩•考克斯等明星让“跨性别”现象得到了流行文化的关注，公司的高层都在保护自己的跨性别员工。奥巴马政府借助联邦政府的权力，宣布所有的学生无论其性别认同如何，都要被平等对待，明确个人对性别的认同受法律保护。

“我们看到你们了，我们支持你们，我们会不惜一切代价保护你们前进！”美国司法部长洛丽泰•林奇在5月9日面对众多美国跨性别人士做出这样的表态。对于一个不到6年前还禁止同性恋参军的政府来说，这是一番了不起的言论，当然，它目前依然禁止跨性别士兵公开自己的性别认同。

道德风向的迅速转变就是帕特里克笑话的来源，同时引发了州政府与联邦政府的激烈争论。几个星期之前，沃思堡的校内警官发布了一项新政策，配合联邦的法令。政策内容是，例如，一名学生出生时的性别是男孩，但他认为自己是女孩，那么他就可以在符合自己认同性别的卫生间里小便。帕特里克要求这位警官辞职，并且要求他在一年之内颁布新政策，推翻原政策内容。他在共和党大会上说：“这是常识，是人所共知的伦理道德。”又是一片掌声。

他的意思是说，他的关注点不在那些遭受戕害的少数群体身上，而是大多数人将会遭遇到的威胁。帕特里克一改开玩笑的口气，说：“我们不想让任何孩子由于任何原因遭到骚扰和欺凌。”他继续说，女性需要在卫生间、更衣室、公共浴室内得到保护。“我们要为美国和得克萨斯州的女性伸张权利，”他的讲话得到了更多的欢呼声，“你们应当享有隐私权和尊严，当你们进入卫生间的时候，你们应当享有舒适和安全的权利。”

奥巴马总统和他的助手用同样的词语——尊严、安全——来描述另一方的主张。于是，在一个各自为政的国家，社会矛盾焦点再一次出现在公共场所中最隐秘的地方。州立法机构遭到围攻，学校委员会中的意见不统一。牧师在教堂中阐述带有政治倾向的意见，同性恋权利活动群体也一改遮遮掩掩的态度，转而拥抱跨性别思想。法院案头上堆满了动议申请表，某些内容看起来会一直提交到最高法院层面。政治与法律、个人与群体之间的战争才刚刚开始。得克萨斯州长格雷格•阿伯特发推文说：“肯尼迪把人送到月球上，奥巴马想把人送到女卫生间里。”

就像所有的政治斗争一样，这项政策的特点在于两党一致的决议，高调、彻底地提出这个问题，并把它强加给美国民众。对奥巴马来说，在最后几个月任职期间采取的民权改革是对他摆放在办公室里的马丁•路德•金半身像的致敬。对反对者来说，最可怕的事情已经发生，就是一个冷面的政府侵入他们的社区、学校和厕所，威胁他们的孩子和价值观。

事情总是这样，那些每天都在努力试图让周围环境接受自己的跨性别美国人，很快就变成了一场级别远远超过自身命运的战争的傀儡。2016年的卫生间之战绝不仅仅是针对公共设施，而是有关性别的角色、社会改变、联邦制度、人身危险、政治分化，以及更重要的是，这个国家所有人对分歧的认知能力和寻求人性的渴望。帕特里克对于21世纪的卫生间战争的观点是：“这决不会在美国实现，这或许会决定下一任美国总统的人选。”在此之前，这个国家的命运将再一次接受考验。

公共卫生间或许可以共用，但那毕竟不是一个公共空间。那是一个少见的、人们感觉到易受伤害的场所，我们的不安全感和排泄物与陌生人的声音和气味混合在一起，恐惧感挥之不去。自从美国在19世纪末开始使用分性别的厕所以来，它就带有了不完全与解决生理问题有关的色彩。犹他大学法律教授特里•科根说：“人们或许会这样理解，卫生间之所以按性别区隔，是因为生理上的基本差异。但这是完全错误的。”

马萨诸塞州在1887年首先要求修建区分性别的厕所，原因是为了缓和新英格兰大工厂中女工们焦虑的情绪。19世纪的政策制定者们认为，女性属于弱者，在充满雄性激素的环境中需要被保护。早期的女卫生间有帘子和长椅。之后的30年里，几乎所有的州都效仿这种做法，还为男性和女性专门设计了便池的类型。

当厕所作为年轻女性易受伤害的象征出现时，对于变化的恐惧情绪再一次弥漫在公众的视野。堪萨斯州一家崇尚种族隔离政策的报纸在1957年刊登了一幅广告，说：“白人女孩不得不和黑人女孩一起洗澡吗？”之后声称要进行医疗索赔：“黑人是性病高发群体……白人孩子必须和黑人共用休息室和厕所吗？”当联邦军队扛着雪亮的刺刀进入校园时，阿肯色州州长奥瓦尔•福伯斯毫无证据地宣称，联邦士兵“入侵了女孩私密的‘更衣室’。”

几十年之后，卫生间之战转移到另一个社会变革的前沿阵地——女权主义。共用厕所成为了平等权利修正案反对者手中的武器，这项宪法修正案力图禁止针对性别的歧视。平等权利修正案的支持者不顾法律学者的反对，把提案改名为“公共厕所法”。1976年纽约的一位抗议者甚至打扮成共用厕所的样子，把“他的”和“她的”字划掉，改成“他们的”。

今天，这种恐惧的气氛可以在全国各地学校委员会的会议中被感受到。在加利福尼亚州格洛斯特，当地官员在2014年允许二年级学生加文•格里姆使用男卫生间。他的出生证明上写的是女性，但他自认为自己是男孩，因此使用女卫生间让他觉得尴尬。格里姆回忆道：“人们会觉得困惑，会有人跟着我走进女卫生间，以为是男卫生间，还有人让我离开他们的卫生间。”

当学生家长发现了这样的安排，他们向格洛斯特县学校委员会抗议，并正式警告这样的安排会给年轻女性带来潜在的性骚扰威胁。一位愤怒的男士说：“一个年轻男人说：‘我是女孩，我要上女厕所。’这完全是骗人的。”另一位母亲说：“把卫生间和更衣室变成男女共用的场所，可能带来的后果是灾难性的。”

格里姆讲述了他目睹一场有关他外生殖器的公开争论的痛苦过程，他说这是“一场噩梦”，充满了“不可言状的尴尬和羞辱”。学校委员会取消了他使用男卫生间的权利，给他安排了一个专用的卫生间。他把学校告上了法庭，最终赢得了第四巡回上诉法院的判决。法官认为，教育部判定法律中的“性别”术语不仅仅代表出生证明上的字迹，而且还体现了性别认同感，这是符合逻辑的。至于他或者其它人会利用这种机会攻击别人的观点，格里姆依然表示不赞同：“我从来没有遇到过这样的人，他们忍受着屈辱和排斥来改变名字、转换性别、恳请别人用另外一种性别的代词来称呼他们，仅仅是为了在卫生间里和别人调情？”

但是，对于性骚扰滥用对跨性别人士友好的法律条款的担忧，依然笼罩着整个讨论过程。休斯敦保守派人士在2015年用投票的方式成功地推翻了这个城市的公平法案。当时，电视台在播放一个虚拟场景的广告，一个蒙面男人在卫生间里侵犯一个女孩。“女卫生间里不可以有男人”是一个简洁、有效的口号。


公共设施的中性卫生间标志告诉使用者，任何性别的人都可以在这里方便。

在加利福尼亚的格洛斯特，格里姆胜诉的消息让牧师艾尔文•“杰克”•坎宁安在他的第一次政治内容的布道中讲述了这个问题，他领导着有750名成员的世界主恩堂。58岁的坎宁安曾经为遭受性虐待的人提供咨询服务，他说：“我有一个5岁的孙女，还有一个35岁的女儿，我决不想让任何男人和她们共用一个卫生间。我们再也不能舒舒服服地袖手旁观了。”

FBI和地方执法部门并没有公共卫生间犯罪数量的统计数据，所以无法进行深入调查。巴尔的摩大学犯罪学家杰弗里•伊安•罗斯说：“我们所说的或许是某种攻击性行为，也或许是不那么严重的窥阴癖，这种事情往往不会被记录在案。”但性犯罪者利用跨性别法律的漏洞做坏事的数量，以及暴力和性侵犯的非官方统计数据，似乎也没有上升的趋势。多年来，男人有时会在女卫生间或更衣室中被抓住，要么乔装打扮，要么以本来面目示人，做一些偷窥或者偷拍的勾当。规定男女分用卫生间的法律并没有震慑这种行为。

洛杉矶联合学区下辖55万名学生，他们自2005年开始允许跨性别学生使用自己认同性别的卫生间。负责当地人事关系、多样化和平等事务的茱莉•查森说：“从未出现过跨性别学生行为失检的事件。很多人有各种各样的担忧，但我们从来没有，这样的事情从未出现过。这个政策已经实施了11年，效果很好。”

跨性别人士在使用卫生间问题上所承受的压力人所共知。2016年，一项针对2000名跨性别大学生的调查分析结果显示，那些曾经被拒绝进入卫生间的人群尝试自杀的比例上升了40％。另一项针对华盛顿特区100名跨性别人士的调查显示，70％的人说曾经被拒绝进入卫生间，或遭到骚扰。58％的人说他们尽量避免外出，因为害怕上公共卫生间。加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校威廉姆斯研究所的学者乔迪•赫尔曼主持了这项调查，他说：“有时候，他们会觉得不值得因为要应对上厕所的问题而外出。”

但这种不便是双向的。从3月份开始，曼哈顿上西区纽约市政公园管理处的一个游泳池的更衣室外，贴上了一个通知，说“任何人不可以被要求出示身份证明、医疗记录或者其它任何证据来证明性别”，而且“利用这项规定从事袭击、骚扰、威胁或其它干涉个人权利的行为”的人将被起诉。

4月底，一队女孩遇到了一个秃头、满面胡须的人，腰上缠着一条围巾，从女淋浴室中走出来。据一个女孩的母亲爱伦•范德沃特说，女孩们向游泳教练反映了这个问题。教练建议她们使用家庭更衣室。游泳池的一位工作人员后来在接受《时代周刊》的采访时说，那个人的外观看起来绝对是个男人，“我们无能为力”。事实并非如此，任何人都可以向警方报告可疑的犯罪行为。

当时在游泳池，双方没有交谈，即使在自由主义盘踞的曼哈顿上西区，有关这种最基本的文化变革沟通也少之又少。社区活动人士梅尔•维摩尔也是一位跨性别人士，他出面让游泳池恢复了正常运作。他说，更多的对话会有所帮助，“我从未见过任何一个跨性别人士想给别人添麻烦，这本来就不是一个愉快的话题，双方需要更多的耐心。”

当各个社区在为改变而争论不休的同时，同样的变化也出现在上层的自由活动人士中。跨性别人士多年来一直是游离于LGBT组织边缘的概念，因为这个问题更加棘手，公众对此基本一无所知，或者漠不关心，而且这个群体的人数很少。争取同性婚姻的斗争获得了广泛的支持，但是跨性别问题未能引起足够的关注。

但是在今年1月，当17个州的立法委员会打算立法限制跨性别人士使用公共卫生间时，LGBT组织发起了全国范围内声势浩大的抗议活动。目前只有密西西比州和北卡罗来纳州通过了这项法律，而后者遭到了来自布鲁斯•斯普林斯汀（译者注：美国摇滚乐手）和NBA的抵制和威胁，美国司法部还提起了一项民权诉讼。5月18日，200多家公司宣布他们将提交一份法庭之友诉书，要求北卡罗来纳州停止限制措施。诉书的提交人是曾经就职于乔治•W•布什政府的副检察长泰德•奥尔森。甚至美国有色人种协会也在州立法委员会加入了同性恋权利组织，抗议这项法律，因为它也会导致针对种族和性别的歧视现象。

查德•格里芬是曾经领导婚姻平等运动的活动人士，现在被普遍认为即将成为希拉里•克林顿政府的内阁秘书。他在3月31日与北卡罗来纳州共和党州长帕特•麦克罗里会面，后者是当地卫生间法案的签署者。格里芬事后说，他对州长表明：“你的限制法案会玷污你的名誉，将会是你今后所背负的沉重包袱。”州长的回应是：“别威胁我！”在麦克罗里看来，这是一次直截了当的会议。他说：“查德立场非常坚决。”与格里芬一同参加会议的是坎迪斯•考克斯•丹尼尔斯——罗利达勒姆国际机场的一名跨性别雇员。考克斯•丹尼尔斯被公司告知，她必须要在家办公，因为州法律禁止她使用女卫生间，尽管公司的政策保证了她的这项权利。她回忆与州长的谈话时说：“他的话不多，从未正面回应我们所提出的合理、合法的观点。”州长在今年秋天将面临严峻的选举挑战。

但还有其它一些组织在反抗这项政策，力度非常强烈。当同性婚姻问题尘嚣落定，有关婚礼蛋糕烘烤师的法律斗争淡出媒体的头版头条之后，社会谈论的焦点落在了卫生间上，尤其是当教育部在5月份发布了全国学校卫生间使用的规定之后。美南浸信会的主席罗塞尔•摩尔说：“奥巴马政府的这项举措在福音会信众中引起的反响超过了任何其它的事情。”

在共和党全国委员会中，人们希望这个问题可以在11月份号召起选举人。委员会负责信仰机构的查德•康奈利说：“我参加过的每一次会议中，人们都在谈论它。我觉得这是政府的过分干预行为，目的是转移人们对更紧要事情的关注力。”

总统候选人对此的态度更加模棱两可。唐纳德•特朗普以他标志性的风格拥护双方的意见，他曾经对教育部的联邦法令表示愤怒，但又在凯特琳•詹纳（译者注：前奥运会冠军、金卡黛珊的继父，2015年宣布自己的性别认同为女性）来访特朗普大厦时邀请他使用女卫生间，因为他觉得这不是什么大事。他还谴责北卡罗来纳州的卫生间禁令，说它没有必要，并且用公司的反抗态度来证明这项禁令损害了国家利益。他说：“人们会说，他们要使用自认为恰当的卫生间，从来没有问题。”而克林顿则承诺，如果她最终赢得竞选，会延续奥巴马的政策。

有关卫生间战争的根本问题是一个复杂的讨论，内容有关跨性别意味着什么，以及为什么会出现这样的问题。从科学角度上看，问题基本已经明确。跨性别人士的经历——正如得克萨斯州的帕特里克开玩笑所说——无关乎选择，不会有跨性别人士站在写着W的卫生间门口想，管它呢。

哈佛大学生物学教授凯特林•杜拉克说：“我们必须要接受的一个事实是，一度被我们认为处于对立状态的男性和女性，存在着二元性，这比较复杂。”官方的诊断结果是性别不安症，美国医学会、美国精神病学会和主要的医疗机构都认可这种诊断结果。由于受到同性的吸引，目前没有可以缓解症状的治疗方案。很多负面效果并非来源于个人的经历，而是来源于社会的反应。

然而，在很多参与争论的人看来，这些事实都是废话，是自由派学术人士为达成自己的价值目标所使用的工具。佛罗里达州马里恩县校委会的成员南希•史塔西在谈到学校的跨性别问题时说：“孩子们有各种各样的幻想，这完全是成年人强加给天真儿童的结论。”她投票否决了一名跨性别学生使用男卫生间的请求，在她看来，改变卫生间的使用规则以满足特定学生的需求，会导致灾难性的后果。“就好像我说：‘噢，一个孩子觉得自己是灰姑娘，好吧，我们在操场准备好马车。’”

尽管史塔西的观点在马里恩县得到了认可，但这个地区正在遭到法律诉讼和奥巴马政府停止联邦财政资助的威胁。与此同时，当地西港高中的校长杰妮•埃尔斯波曼努力让她的学生都可以找到归属感。有鉴于历史上的废除种族隔离制度，她相信跨性别卫生间之战迟早会尘埃落定。她说：“我们的学校也承担着指引社区和社会方向的责任。我知道我们曾经经历过什么，我也知道我们必将做出另外一个历史性的变革。”

她说，在校委会投票否决一项规定之前，她的学校在学生使用符合自己性别认同的卫生间问题上从未出现过麻烦。在投票之后，她让那些纠结于自身性别认同的孩子们所受到的关注度和敏感性并非改变。尽管并非所有的卫生间都可以使用，但是当学生的家长来到学校时，官方对性别的区别态度依然显而易见。埃尔斯波曼说：“底线是，所有的学生都要在学校感受到安全和舒适，我们不能对边缘化的孩子置之不理。”

暂且不管斗争的走向如何。这种情绪就表明了我们的国家已经改变了很多。



原文：

Why the fight for transgender rights has moved into the most intimate of public spaces

Neutral bathroom signs in public facilities indicate to patrons they are free to pee, regardless of their gender

Bathroom humor still works in politics, at least for Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor of Texas. A talk-radio host with Lone Star swagger, he took the stage at the 2016 Republican state convention in May to the sounds of a slide guitar, packing one-liners like slugs in a six-gun. “It is great to be in the largest Republican convention on the planet,” he began, “and not one man wants to use the ladies’ room.”

Laughter and applause filled the room as Patrick paced with a microphone, chambering another round. “Now just so you are not confused, when you go to the restroom, the M does not stand for ‘make up your mind,’ and the W does not stand for”–here he paused, changing his voice to a higher register–“‘whatever.'”

The people Patrick had labeled “confused,” the ones he did not see in the room, are a small fraction of humanity, perhaps three-tenths of 1% of adults, according to one study. They are men and women, boys and girls, who identify with a gender that does not line up with the sex that is recorded at their birth. For decades they have lived, sometimes literally, in shadows, the subject of taunts, the victims, disproportionately, of homelessness, violence, depression and suicide. But that shadow is fading, and the evidence is everywhere.

In the wake of a Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage, the social battleground has shifted to new frontiers. Stars like Caitlyn Jenner and Laverne Cox have brought a pop-culture spotlight to trans issues, and corporate leaders have closed ranks to protect their transgender employees. With the power of federal purse strings, the Obama Administration has declared that all students must be treated equally regardless of gender identity, defining innate feelings of male and female identity as legally protected facts.

“We see you, we stand with you, and we will do everything we can to protect you going forward,” U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told transgender Americans on May 9. It was a remarkable statement from an Administration that less than six years ago lifted the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, but continued to ban transgender soldiers from publicly identifying themselves.

This rapid remaking of the social fabric was the reason for Patrick’s jokes, and the fuel for a furious debate pitting state leaders against the federal government. Weeks earlier, the schools superintendent in Fort Worth had issued a new policy, in line with federal guidelines. It said, for instance, that students once raised as boys who identified as girls could pee in the bathroom that matched their gender identity. Patrick demanded that the superintendent resign and vowed to pass a new state law to overturn the guidelines within a year. “It’s common sense,” he told the Republican convention, to more cheers. “It’s common decency.”

By this, he meant his focus was not the interests of a much-maligned minority but the perceived threats, as yet unfounded, to the majority. “We don’t want any child for any reason to ever be harassed or bullied,” Patrick argued, despite his introductory jokes. But, he continued, women need protection in the bathrooms, the changing rooms, the shared showers. “We will stand up for women and girls in America and in Texas,” he thundered to more cheers. “You deserve your privacy, you deserve your dignity, you deserve your comfort and your safety when you go to the ladies’ room.”

President Obama and his aides use those same words–dignity, safety–to describe the fight from the other side. And so in a divided country, the social battle lines have been drawn once again in our most private of public places. State legislatures have been besieged, and school committees have split. Pastors have become politicized in the pulpit, and the gay-rights lobby has abandoned its past hesitancy to embrace the transgender cause. Courtrooms are filling with legal motions that are certain to end up at the Supreme Court. The fight–political and legal, personal and collective–is just getting going. “JFK wanted to send a man to the moon,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted on May 17. “Obama wants to send a man to the woman’s restroom.”

Like all great political battles, this one is distinguished by the decision on both sides to commit loudly and completely, to elevate the issue and to force it on the American public. For Obama, in his final months in office, the late embrace of the issue as a civil rights crusade is a nod toward the Martin Luther King Jr. bust he keeps in the Oval Office. For opponents, the fight confirms their worst fears of a faceless government elite, reaching into their communities, schools and toilets to endanger their children and threaten their values.

As so often happens, the thousands of transgender Americans who struggle daily to find acceptance may soon become figureheads in a fight bigger than their fate. The 2016 battle over bathrooms is, after all, about far more than public facilities–it’s about gender roles, social change, federalism, physical danger, political polarization and, most strikingly, a breakdown in the ability of anyone in this country to speak across our divides, or appeal to common humanity. “This will not stand in America,” Patrick argues of the 21st century bathroom wars. “And this is going to probably define who the next President is.” Before that, the nation’s own character will be put, once again, to the test.

The public bathroom may be shared, but it is no common space. It is a rare place of forced vulnerability, where our insecurities and excretions mix with the sounds and smells of strangers, where our individual and collective fears can linger. From the founding of America’s sex-specific toilets in the late 19th century, they were symbols for concerns unrelated to their immediate purpose. “One might think that it makes perfect sense, that bathrooms are separated by sex because there are basic biological differences,” says Terry Kogan, a professor of law at the University of Utah who has studied the topic. “That’s completely wrong.”

The first state to require separate toilets was Massachusetts in 1887, and the reason was anxiety over women entering the workplace, in the large factories of New England. Policymakers in the 19th century argued that women were weaker and needed protection from the harsh realities of men’s spaces. The early ladies’ rooms were equipped with curtains and chaise longues. Within 30 years, almost all states had followed suit, with plumbing codes enshrining basic standards for His and Hers.

Fear of change was once again in the air, when toilets returned as symbols of vulnerability for young women. “Will the white girls be forced to take their showers with Negro girls?” asked a prosegregation Arkansas newspaper ad in 1957, before going on to peddle false medical claims: “Because of the high venereal-disease rate among Negroes … [will] white children be forced to use the same restrooms and toilet facilities with Negroes?” When federal troops arrived bearing bayonets, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus claimed without evidence that federal soldiers “had invaded the privacy of girls’ dressing rooms.”

Decades later, the bathroom battle shifted to feminism, the next frontier of social change. The specter of unisex stalls became a weapon for opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed constitutional change to ban discrimination based on sex. Over the objection of legal scholars, anti-ERA activists renamed the proposal the Common Toilet Law. One activist in New York in 1976 even dressed as a unisex outhouse, with the words his and hers crossed out and replaced by theirs.

Today, the fears can be found expressed in the tapes of local school-committee meetings across the country. In Gloucester, Va., local officials in 2014 allowed Gavin Grimm, then a sophomore, to use the boys’ room at his request. Labeled a girl at birth, he identifies as a boy, and it had become awkward in public settings when he appeared in the girls’ stalls. “People would get confused, or they’d walk in behind me and think they had stepped into the boys’ room, or they’d say I needed to leave,” Grimm remembers.

When parents found out about the arrangement, they protested to the Gloucester County school board, filling the official record with warnings of the coming sexual predation of young women. “A young man can come up and say, ‘I’m a girl. I need to use the ladies’ room now,'” testified one outraged man. “And they’d be lying through their teeth.” Another mother argued, “To combine male and female in the same bathroom and same gym room, you are opening up a door that is going to be disastrous.”

Grimm describes the ordeal of watching a public debate over his genitalia as “nightmarish,” filled with “untellable embarrassment and humiliation.” When the committee rescinded his bathroom rights, sending him to a converted utility closest to relieve himself, he sued, eventually winning a ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judges found that the Department of Education was reasonable in ruling that “sex” in public law does not mean just the marker on a birth certificate, but also gender identity. Of the idea that he or anyone else would use his accommodation to attack others, Grimm remains mystified. “I don’t know of many people who would endure the humiliation and ostracization of changing your name and changing your gender presentation and asking people to refer to you with pronouns and mannerisms of the opposite sex just so they could go into a restroom and ogle men or women,” he says.

Yet the specter of a sexual predator abusing transgender-friendly laws continues to frame the debate. Conservatives in Houston successfully overturned a city equal-rights ordinance in 2015 with a ballot measure passed after television ads re-enacted a hypothetical scene in which a faceless man barges in on a schoolgirl in a bathroom stall. “No men in women’s bathrooms” was the simple and effective campaign slogan.

In Chesapeake, Va., news of Grimm’s courtroom success pushed pastor Irvin “Jack” Cunningham, leader of the 750-active-member Bible World Church to preach about the issue in one of his first politically focused sermons, which have included calls to register to vote. “I have a 5-year-old granddaughter, I have a 35-year-old daughter. I just simply don’t want anybody that is male going in the restroom with my family,” says Cunningham, 58, who has counseled people through sexual abuse. “We just no longer have the luxury of sitting back and doing nothing.”

The FBI and local law enforcement do not keep consistent stats on the number of crimes committed in public restrooms, so there is no way to track every claim. “What we’re talking about is probably some sort of assault, maybe some sort of low-level kind of voyeurism,” says Jeffrey Ian Ross, a criminologist at the University of Baltimore. “That stuff goes underreported all the time.” But there is not yet any anecdotal evidence that trans-friendly rules have been abused by predators, or that incidents of violence or sexual assault have increased. For decades, men have sometimes been caught and prosecuted for entering women’s restrooms or dressing rooms, either in drag or dressed as men, to watch or film women. The laws and rules requiring sex separation did not prove a deterrent in those cases.

The Los Angeles Unified School District, a community of 550,000 students, has allowed transgender students to use the bathrooms they identify with since 2005. “I have never had misconduct by a transgender student. A lot of fears people expressed, we have never realized those, we have never seen them,” says Judy Chiasson, who runs the district’s office of human relations, diversity and equity. “We’ve been doing this for 11 years. It works.”

The burden for transgender people when it comes to bathrooms is less disputed. A 2016 analysis of a survey of more than 2,000 transgender college students found the rate of suicide attempts increased 40% among those who said they had been denied access to a bathroom. In a separate survey of 100 transgender people in Washington, D.C., 70% said they had been denied restroom access or harassed, and 58% said they had avoided going out in public because they feared being able to find a bathroom. “At some point they had just decided it wasn’t worth it to go out in public and have to deal with the bathroom situation,” says Jody Herman, a scholar at UCLA’s Williams Institute, who authored the study.

But the discomfort can go both ways. Since March, a sign has been posted outside the locker room at a New York City parks-department swimming pool on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It says that “individuals cannot be asked to show identification, medical documentation or any other form of proof or verification of gender” and that anybody “who abuses this policy to assault, harass, intimidate or otherwise interfere with an individual’s rights” can be prosecuted.

In late April, when a girls’ swim team encountered a bald person with facial hair and a waist towel leaving the ladies’ shower, they brought their concerns to the swim coach, according to Ellen Vandevort, a mother of one of the girls. The coach suggested that they use the family changing room instead, and an employee at the facility later told TIME that the individual in question appears to present as a man. “Our hands are tied,” the worker said, which is not exactly true. Anyone can report concerns to police if there is even suspicion of criminal intent or wrongdoing.

But no words were exchanged at the pool, because even on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a liberal bastion, the ability to communicate about these most basic cultural changes has broken down. Community activist Mel Wymore, a transgender man who helped restore the pool in question, says more dialogue will be the solution. “I’ve never heard of anyone [in the trans community] who wants to make other people uncomfortable,” he says. “It’s an uncomfortable time, and we have to be patient with each other.”

While local communities struggle with the changes, a parallel transformation has taken place in the upper ranks of liberal activists. Trans individuals for years were often an afterthought to LGBT groups, since the issues were thornier, given public ignorance or indifference, and the population in question far smaller. Additionally, the same-sex marriage fight raised huge amounts of money, while transgender causes have been less of a fundraising boon.

But in the first months of this year, when lawmakers in 17 states proposed laws that would restrict transgender people’s access to public washrooms, LGBT-rights groups have mobilized costly state campaigns. Only two states, Mississippi and North Carolina, have so far passed such measures, and the latter has been hit by a deluge of boycotts and threats that stretches from Bruce Springsteen to the NBA, in addition to a civil rights lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. On May 18, more than 200 corporations announced they were filing a friend-of-the-court brief asking North Carolina to end its restrictions. Its author: Ted Olson, U.S. Solicitor General under George W. Bush. Even the NAACP joined gay-rights advocates at the statehouse to protest the law, which also could limit protections against racial and sexual discrimination.

On March 31, Chad Griffin, an activist who helped lead the fight for marriage equality and is now mentioned as a possible Cabinet Secretary in a Hillary Clinton Administration, met with North Carolina’s Republican Governor, Pat McCrory, who had signed the bathroom bill. “What you do in reaction to this will not just stain your legacy, it will be your legacy,” Griffin says he told the governor. “Don’t threaten me,” the governor responded. For his part, McCrory said the meeting was direct. “Chad was extremely assertive,” he said. With Griffin at the meeting was Candis Cox-Daniels, a trans employee of American Airlines. Cox-Daniels has been told by her company to telecommute from home instead of coming to her office at Raleigh-Durham International Airport because state law barred her from using a women’s bathroom, a guaranteed right under the company’s corporate policy. “He didn’t say very much,” she recalled of her conversation with the governor, who faces a difficult re-election fight this fall. “He never actually addressed any of the valid and legitimate arguments that were being brought up.”

But other groups are fighting back, far more forcefully. With same-sex marriage settled and the legal fights over wedding-cake bakers fading from the headlines, social conservatives have latched onto the bathroom fights, especially after the Department of Education in May sent strict guidelines about restroom use to schools across the nation. “This particular move by the Obama Administration has registered a level of concern among evangelicals that I have not seen with anything else,” says Russell Moore, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s public-policy arm.

At the Republican National Committee, there is hope that the issue could mobilize voters in November. “People are certainly talking about it, every meeting I am going to,” says Chad Connelly, the RNC’s director of faith engagement. “I think it’s the whole government-intrusion idea, trying to take over something that ought to be decided at the state level.”

The top of the ticket, however, is more ambiguous. Donald Trump, in his trademark way, has been on all sides of the issue, at once expressing outrage over the federal guidance from the Department of Education while inviting Caitlyn Jenner to use the ladies’ room at Trump Tower during a recent visit because he did not see it as a big deal. He has also chastised North Carolina for its bathroom ban, calling it unnecessary and pointing to the corporate backlash as evidence that it was hurting the state. “People go, they use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate,” he said. “There has been so little trouble.” Clinton, for her part, has promised to carry on Obama’s efforts should she win the White House.

Underlying the battle over toilets is a complicated discussion about what it means to be transgender and why it happens. As a matter of science, the issue is largely settled. The transgender experience is not—-as Texas’ Patrick joked–a matter of choice. No transgender American stands before the W on the restroom door and thinks, Whatever.

“What we have to accept is that the duality–male or female, which we see as a very clear dichotomy–it’s a little bit more complicated,” explains Catherine Dulac, a Harvard professor of biology. The official diagnosis is gender dysphoria, and it is recognized by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association and major medical institutions. As with same-sex attraction, there is no treatment to reverse it, and many of the negative effects arrive not from the personal experience but from the social reactions to it.

For many in this debate, however, these facts are hogwash, peddled by liberal academics with different value systems. “Children have vivid imaginations. This is nothing but an adult agenda being pushed on the backs of innocent children,” says Nancy Stacy, a school-board member in Marion County, Fla., of the transgender experience in school. She recently voted to deny access to a transgender student who wanted to use the boys’ bathroom. For her, the act of changing bathroom rules to match the preference of a student is just the start of a slippery slope. “That would be like me saying, ‘Oh, a child believes she’s Cinderella today, so we’re going to have a horse and carriage on the playground.'”

Though Stacy’s position carried the day in Marion County, the district is now threatened with both legal action and a cutoff in federal funding from the Obama Administration. In the meantime, Jayne Ellspermann, the principal of West Port High School in the county, has remained focused on making all of her students feel they belong. As with racial desegregation before, she believes the transgender bathroom fight will pass with time. “They’re really community and society issues that we navigate through our schools,” she says. “I know we’ve made it through what happened previously, and I know we’ll make it through this historical change as well.”

Until the school board voted against a policy of accommodation, she says, her school never had any issues with transgender students’ using the bathrooms where they felt most comfortable. And since the vote, the degree of attention and sensitivity she brings to children struggling with gender identity has not changed. Though all bathrooms are not accessible, there remains an official recognition of gender difference that was unthinkable when the parents of these students went to school. “The bottom line is that each student needs to feel secure and comfortable in the school that they’re going to attend,” Ellspermann says. “We can’t leave out the marginalized students.”

Never mind the fights to come. That sentiment alone is a sign of how much our nation has already changed.

hegieer

还有比卫生间更值得关注的很多事呢