To the editors:

I am writing to lend my voice to the chorus of those who oppose the views expressed by The Crimson editorial board in the recent editorial “Rethinking Privacy,” published on Feb. 11. The issue concerns the Cambridge City Council’s resolution that the City Manager appoint appropriate city staff, including the City Solicitor, to work with the Cambridge GLBT Commission to create a city-wide ordinance on gender-neutral restrooms.

Evidence abounds that as a group, transgender people and others who are gender non-conforming have suffered rampant discrimination in public accommodations such as public restrooms. In the results of a recently released study of more than 6,000 transgender individuals, the National Center for Transgender Equality reported that 63 percent of respondents had experienced a “serious act of discrimination that would have a major impact on a person’s quality of life.” Cambridge’s visionary efforts to counteract this very real form of anti-transgender discrimination are thus truly laudable.

Contrary to the editorial’s position, there is no evidence that allocation of gender neutral restrooms results in an increased risk of sexual violence for women. The Harvard College Women’s Center affirms the right of all to access safe restrooms, and as a gender-inclusive center, we encourage all members of our community to bring us any concerns or ideas they have about this or any other gender issue.

SUSAN MARINE

Cambridge, Mass.

Feb. 13, 2011

To the editors:

It might be helpful to define “gender-neutral bathroom,” before concluding that “gender-neutral bathrooms would most likely create more issues than [they solve].” A gender-neutral bathroom, simply, is a single-stall bathroom that’s open to individuals of any gender.

I fail to understand how a modest smattering of such single-stall bathrooms across campus increases the risk of sexual harassment or sexual assault, or even the perception of increased risk. By this logic, Harvard should convert existing single-stall bathrooms into janitor closets. Do you advocate that, too?

In support of your opinion, you cite, without contrary evidence, language from the Massachusetts Family Institute, an organization which also believes as a core principle that “all sex outside of heterosexual marriage is detrimental to families and that includes homosexuality.” Do you advocate that, too?

You do seem to recognize how important it is for transgender students to feel comfortable in their own spaces. After all, you recognize that transgender students can live in rooms with en suite bathrooms. Surely they can return to their dorm rooms every time that they feel the urge. Do you advocate that, too?

There are not many students on campus who are gender non-conforming; this much is true. But for those few, a few thoughtfully located single-stall bathrooms significantly add to one’s personal comfort and safety.

MATTHEW S. MEISEL ’07

Somerville, Mass

Feb. 13, 2011

To the editors:

The editorial is shameful for suggesting that dignity and access to facilities for a basic human need should be allocated based on what body type, clothes, and other gendered qualities the Crimson Editorial Board has subjectively deemed as acceptable to have. Inclusion is about valuing each and any gender and gender expression as fundamentally valid, legitimate aspects of one’s constructed and inherited cultural, social and biological identity.

The move toward creating gender-neutral facilities represents the expansion of the basic rights to safety, access, and comfort to individuals of all genders and gender expressions. The creation of additional bathrooms with the gender-neutral option does not displace current restroom options. The laudable point of gender-neutral bathrooms is that they represent a step in the direction of full gender inclusion. For individuals for whom the regulated gender expressions demanded of sex-segregated bathrooms have caused discrimination, discomfort, and shame, gender-neutral bathrooms provide the safe and accessible facilities that people of other genders already have. It’s about time.

EMMA WANG ’12

Cambridge, Mass.

Feb. 13, 2011

To the editors:

As one of these “very few transgender, intersex, and non-gender identified students at Harvard,” briefly mentioned in the staff editorial “Rethinking Privacy” published on Feb. 11, I have a few thoughts on the conclusions drawn by The Crimson’s editors. I think it would have been preferable if some of these thoughts could have been shared before the article was written, whether by me or by another trans or gender-queer person, but I understand if we were too difficult to find.

First of all, as noted by comments posted online, the existence of gender-neutral bathrooms does not mandate the use of gender-neutral bathrooms. If you’re not comfortable with it, walk into a door with a suit or a dress on it. Maybe I’m misinformed, but unless this city initiative is a lot more radical than it appears, all of those “normal” bathrooms aren’t going to disappear overnight.  And I personally don’t want them to disappear, either. From all the public restroom discomfort I’ve experienced, I certainly wouldn’t want to make that a reality for all the cisgender folks out there who like their designated spaces.

As for why gender neutral bathrooms are important to me, it’s a matter of feeling comfortable when my private excretory practices simply must be taken care of in public spaces. As things are now, I keep close tabs on bathrooms that are low-traffic or single-stall. I will sometimes walk to Canaday from class to use the gender-neutral bathrooms in the basement. There are always the “private en-suite bathrooms” in the dorms, where the Crimson editorial board would clearly prefer for me to take care of my business, but I think we can all agree that sometimes one just can’t hold it all the way home. And I’m not just talking about my comfort here. What about the discomfort of the women who hear “Trust me, I’d pee standing up if I could,” when they inform me that I’ve accidentally walked into the ladies room? Or, what’s more often the case, the discomfort of the women who don’t say anything at all and shuffle out, maybe fearing that they’ve narrowly escaped a case of the public restroom sexual assault that the Crimson article is concerned with?

As a final note, stepping back from the debate at hand, I’d like to express my surprise and appreciation that the issue of gender-neutral bathrooms is even on the table. It’s not an obvious thing, and administrations like the Cambridge City Council and that of Harvard are clearly making a deliberate effort to enact changes that take everyone’s concerns into consideration, not just those of the majority.

ANNA MURPHY ’12

Cambridge, Mass.

Feb. 13, 2011

To the editors:

I am writing in anger at your ignorant editorial, “Rethinking Privacy,” which argued that the University should not implement gender-neutral bathrooms because doing so would promote sexual assault.  I have a number of problems with the editorial.

First of all, you argue, without citing a single statistic, that “the risk of sexual assault is simply too high.” On the contrary, the Transgender Law Center states that San Francisco Police have not received a single report of assaults on cisgender (i.e., non-transgender) women in public gender-neutral bathrooms.

Secondly, The Crimson did not contact QSA, the Trans Task Force, or University administrators to support their hollow claim that “there are very few transgender, intersex, and non-gender identified students.”  I can only conclude that you thought of your friends, and failed to recognize any trans people among their ranks.

Finally, The Crimson’s recommendations would result in bad University policy.  They don’t address the issue of what their policy means for library bathrooms or bathrooms in the Science Center. Do you really believe that the only safe space for trans students is, and should be, in their bedrooms?

As a bisexual woman who has dated, partied, played sports, and studied with trans students at Harvard and in the wider world, I am disgusted by the faulty reasoning and insensitivity that underlie the editorial.

In the 1950s, segregationists used faulty arguments about sexual assault to justify racial segregation. In the 1980s, radical conservatives used faulty arguments about the imagined horrors of gender-neutral bathrooms to defeat legislation that would have made gender discrimination, like racial discrimination, illegal in America.

Is Phyllis Schlafly comping the Crimson? If so, I hope she fails the comp.

KATHERINE WALECKA ’11

Cambridge, Mass.

Feb. 13, 2011