Cornell University Assembly Votes for Gender Inclusive Restrooms and Locker Rooms

Cornell’s University Assembly (UA) voted 9-0 to create gender inclusive restrooms and locker rooms across campus in a meeting on Tuesday.

The resolution, titled “Adoption of an Inclusive Restroom, Locker Room, and Gender-Specific Facility Usage Policy”, specifically calls for the conversion of “all existing single-occupancy or single-stall facilities in all Cornell-owned buildings on the Ithaca campus be converted from gender-specific to all-gender facilities” where not prohibited by law by the beginning of the fall 2016 semester.

In it report, the Cornell Sun omitted the fact that the resolution also calls for gender inclusive locker rooms, and, though the language is unclear, possibly also changing rooms and showers.

The resolution’s first stipulation is that the University adopt a formal policy or written statement allowing anyone on campus to “use the restroom or other applicable facility that corresponds to their gender identity, without a letter or other burdensome items from a therapist or doctor or proof of transition-related services and procedures.”

The UA resolution also calls for the University’s Division of Infrastructure Properties & Planning to design “consistent signage for all universal facilities”, including restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers, by the end of the spring 2016 semester.

Justifying the proposed policy changes, the resolution, authored by UA executive committee member Ulysses Smith ’14, cites University policy; President Obama’s Executive Order 13672, On LGBT Workplace Discrimination; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rulings and Department of Justice reports; and previous Cornell assembly resolutions calling for similar policies, including one adopted in 2011 and finalized in June 2015 that created unisex restrooms and locker rooms across campus.

The issue of transgender people using bathrooms which conform to their gender choice rather than their physical sex has been a growing controversy as of late. In early November, outrage arose after federal education authorities told an Illinois public school district it had violated anti-discrimination laws when it “did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls’ sports team to change and shower in the girls’ locker room without restrictions” according to the New York Times.

The resolution at hand seems to only directly call for the conversion of single-occupancy and single-stall facilities to becoming gender inclusive. The language regarding multi-person facilities of all types is unclear, though it suggests they too are to be deemed gender inclusive or come under review for possible conversion. If that is the case, the resolution’s implementation could lead to the situation where anatomical males are changing and showering in front of anatomical females, and vice-versa.

Such a policy is highly objectionable and inappropriate. Primarily, the privacy concerns of students who wish not to share restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers with those of the opposite sex are at risk.

Nationally, it is estimated that the proportion of transgender people in the country is between 0.1% and 0.3% of the adult population, which translates to 30 to 90 adults among Cornell’s student, faculty, and employee population of roughly 30,000 who could possibly be transgender. Surely, the availability of unisex facilities, which are even referenced in the resolution, can satisfy the needs of this incredibly small portion of the Cornell community.

Furthermore, the resolution contends that requiring letters from medical professionals affirming the transitioning status of a transgender individual before letting such a person into the opposite-gender restroom or locker room is “burdensome” and therefore unnecessary. This is quite absurd. In what way is obtaining such a document “burdensome” if the medical issue is one so important to the individual at hand? And, how can the University prevent trouble-making students from simply entering, for mischievous reasons, whichever bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers they choose?

The Illinois school case is not exactly applicable to Cornell’s situation, since that case involved a transgender male student whom the school district permitted to play on a female sports team. One case cited in the resolution, Lusardi v. McHugh, also doesn’t exactly apply since the transgender male employee, Lusardi, was already legally recognized as a female, if not yet fully biologically transitioned, when the dispute arose. For Cornell students or employees whose situations mirror those two, then it seems Cornell policy would have to permit them to use whichever facilities they choose. For others, it is not as evident what the outcome of refusals to create or objections to gender inclusive facility policy would be.

At the time of writing, a request for comment was delivered to Cornell Fitness Centers.