Marcus Vincent Brown
[email protected]

South Dakota has become the battleground for the future of LGBTQ students, specifically those who identify as transgender in public schools.

On Tuesday, South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill that would have mandated students use facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms that coincide with their birth gender as opposed to the gender they identify with.

Daugaard’s decision has the potential to set a precedent for future discrimination toward transgender students in public schools and confirms the stance of the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Title IX antidiscrimination law.

The motivations for supporters of the bill are understandable. The idea of a person who is (anatomically speaking) identified by the majority of the population as a male using a woman’s bathroom is a difficult concept for many to wrap their minds around. The division between the sexes is part of the foundation of our society and an idea that is cemented and propagated in our minds from infancy onward.

The framework of our society has taught us to view the world in a gendered, discrete dichotomy that is at times mutually opposing and at the very least mandates that the sexes remain separate. As a result, the debate on whether those who identify as transgender should use bathrooms that agree with their sex or identity is actually an implicitly dual argument.

The debate is not simply whether it is discriminatory to force students to use restrooms that do not agree with the gender they identify with. The second part of the debate regards the effects of allowing individuals who wish to use a restroom that does not correspond with their birth sex. What impact will this have on those who abide by the traditional relationship between sex and gender? The decision to allow transgendered individuals to use bathrooms that agree with their identified gender does not exist in a vacuum, and as a result, the conversation becomes about how best to limit discrimination of the minority while still comfortably accommodating the majority. Herein lies the problem.

Discrimination does not require malicious intent to manifest itself. People do not need to set out with hatred in their hearts in order to perpetuate discrimination in their actions. At a certain point, the enacting discrimination becomes an issue of priority, not intention. The cost of accommodating the minority is more often than not deducted from the comfort of the majority. In order for transgendered individuals in public schools to receive the peace of mind that would come with being able to use the facilities that correlate with their identified gender, the majority must come to terms with the prospect of a corresponding loss in peace of mind if they choose to view the issue from the perspective of the traditional gender dichotomy.

It is the prioritization of the majority’s aims and comfort over the equality for the minority that breeds discrimination. Even if lawmakers and elected officials do not intend to implement discriminatory practices, they still run the risk of doing so when the mentality is centered on deciding between the diverging opinions of their constituency. The decision that Daugaard made in South Dakota rejects the discrimination that can result when the preferences of the majority are pitted against the rights of the minority.