Sample 1
Student Sample
Professor Example
ENC 1101
May 15, 2018
The Fight for Transgender and Gender Variant Bathroom Rights
Two simple signs, “Women” and “Men,” hang on the doors of almost every public
restroom in the United States. While they may seem simple to some, easily delineating if you go
left or right to use the facilities, these little signifiers can bar many from a space free from
harassment, discrimination, and even violence. These signs do not account for individuals who
are not of cisgender orientation, or people whose gender identity directly correlates to their birth
sex. Many transgender or gender variant individuals feel excluded from these highly segregated
spaces, as their sex and their gender are not always in strict definitional agreement as denoted by
the bathroom signs. The question arises whether these individuals should be required to use the
restroom in accordance with their birth sex or if they should be permitted to use the restroom in
accordance with their gender identity. This question has sparked heated debates across the
country and fueled many legal battles over the past decade. The critical conversation, including
scholars, researchers, and medical professionals, is trending towards protecting transgender and
gender variant individuals’ rights to use the bathroom of their choosing without discrimination,
harassment, or violence by continuing to fight for a national legal precedent.
The problematic rhetoric most frequently used by those in opposition to anti-discrimination
or inclusion laws is based on the protection of ciswomen and children from the predatory male.
Authors Kristen Schilt and Laurel Westbrook explain, “The opponents are making an argument
against any bodies perceived as male having a legal right to enter a woman-only space because
Sample 2
they imagine such bodies to present a sexual danger to women and children” (27). Researcher Jill
D. Weinberg agrees with Schilt and Westbrook in that these fallacious concerns and general fear
mongering spread two problematic concepts: those transgender individuals are violent or
perverse individuals, and that cisgender women and children’s safety is prioritized much higher
than trans or gender variant individuals. There is, in fact, a striking dearth of violent or predatory
incidents perpetrated by trans or gender variant individuals in bathrooms, or even by cismen or
ciswomen using trans rights to enter restrooms with predatory intent.
It is actually the trans and gender variant community who is most at risk. For example,
Emanuella Grinberg and Dani Stewart, writing for CNN, report on a survey conducted by the
University of California, Los Angeles’ Williams Institute in 2013 that found that 70% of
transgender and gender non-conforming American respondents reported “being denied access,
verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms.” Judith Halberstam, seminal
scholar in gender and sexuality studies, characterizes such harassment through a personal story.
She explains that when she entered a women’s bathroom as a male-presenting individual, it
resulted in ciswomen mocking her and teasing her, openly questioning her sex. These women
called security on Judith, not because they felt afraid or at risk, but because they wanted to
publicly “out” Judith as a non-gender-conforming deviant (20). Halberstam avoided issue
because her higher voice passed as a feminine marker of sex, though she describes the case of a
gender variant individual named Remedios who was not able to offer feminine presenting
markers and was subsequently thrown violently from an establishment for using a bathroom that
correlated to her sex but not her gender presentation (24). These stories complicate a law that
only allows trans or gender variant individuals to use the other restroom when their genitals
correspond to their gender presentation. Weinberg’s discussion of the “gate-keeping function” of
Sample 3
proof of sex validates why stories like Remedios’ are so important, as such laws do not account
for those who are in the process of transitioning, cannot afford the procedure, have transitioned
but do not choose the genital procedure, or remain between genders as a gender identity (150). It
also does not account for the violation of mandating that an individual must disclose proof of
genitalia for legal protection, or the violence often experienced by those entering the male
restroom that are “caught.” This leaves an entire community at risk.
This risk ignites a fear that pervades transgender and gender variant communities of all ages,
which creates other points of risk for a vulnerable population. Catherine Jean Archibald, in an
article for the Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, discusses that trans and gender variant
students are facing this fear of ridicule, harassment, discrimination, and violence every day in
school, which can lead to significant health concerns. She explains how these students manage
this risk by not drinking or eating at all during the school day, holding their elimination needs, or
foregoing afterschool activities to avoid the necessity of using the school’s facilities (16). She
points out that this can risk a student’s ability to concentrate and learn, but also can risk health
problems such as faintness, kidney infections and gender dysmorphia (16). Gender dysmorphia,
a condition “characterized by a clinically significant distress over the discord between the gender
assigned at birth and the gender the individual identities with,” is considerably exacerbated by
such fear of discrimination and can even lead to increased risk of suicide (Archibald 15-16).
These risks have resulted in “medical and psychiatric recommendations for the protection and
inclusion” of trans and gender variant individuals (Archibald 16). The severe consequences that
come from failing to implement such protections are what lead Halberstam to maintain that “it is
crucial to recognize that the bathroom problem is much more than a glitch in the machinery of
gender segregation and is better described in terms of the violent enforcement of our current
Sample 4
gender system” (Halberstam 25). The problem, then, is violent in many ways, from forced
exposure to assault to self-harm. The distress and fear experienced by those most affected by this
problem, the trans and gender variant communities, could be resolved by a national legal
precedent protecting such individuals from discrimination, including bathroom use.
The debate surrounding bathroom segregation has become a legal one. While antidiscrimination policies like Title IX exist, they do not specifically encompass gender-based
bathroom use discrimination. Weinberg equates the forced segregation of the sexes in bathrooms
to the racial segregation of bathrooms through the Jim Crow era, and specifically posits that this
segregation “privileges certain groups of legally protected minorities (race and disability) over
sex, gender, and gender identity” (149). What’s more, Weinberg points out that the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act does not include “provisions regarding bathroom accommodations for
transgender employees,” and so “permits employers to impose restrictions on bathroom usage
and to discriminate against transgender employees without the risk of liability,” which can
include employment termination (148). A number of states have argued that the shortcomings of
current anti-discrimination laws and policies need to be addressed through the creation of new
legal protections for trans and gender variant bathroom use, such as in California and Colorado
in 2013. It seemed this effort was making significant progress towards trans rights protection
when, in 2015, the Department of Education issued an opinion letter, “stating that when a school
has sex-segregated facilities based such as bathrooms and locker rooms, students should have
access to the sex-segregated facilities based on their gender identity” (Archibald 4). This was
supported in mid-2016 by the “Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students,” which stated
that " in order to be in compliance with Title IX and its implementing regulations, schools
receiving federal funding should treat transgender students in all respects as the gender that they
Sample 5
identify with” (Archibald 6). While these were major steps towards transgender and gender
variant rights, they were only interpretive guidelines for the language in Title IX and not
specifically legal. Based on the ability to interpret the language of Title IX, the Trump
Administration was able to rescind the Obama Administration era’s recommendations of
interpretation, as in February 2017, the Departments of Education and Justice issued a “Dear
Colleague Letter” which overturned the guidance extending sex discrimination protections under
Title IX to discrimination of gender identity. A Department of Education spokesperson, Liz Hill,
confirmed to National Public Radio that “‘Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,
not gender identity” (Kamenetz & Turner). Correspondents Cory Turner and Anya Kamenetz
account that Hill conceded while “complaints about harassing, bullying or punishing transgender
or gender nonconforming students would fall under Title IX,” restroom procedures would not be
considered protected under this anti-discrimination act. Grinberg and Stewart report that as of
March 2018, only a mere 19 states have implemented anti-discrimination policies protecting
transgender and gender variant individuals’ right to use facilities that correspond with their
gender identity. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, the “wave of antitrans state bills introduced across the country” were largely unsuccessful, and while there remain
only a few states that protect the trans and gender variant community, the fight continues to
increase those numbers in the years to come.
While the debate regarding whether bathroom segregation should be maintained along
lines of sex or gender continues, the fight is not over for transgender and gender variant
bathroom rights. The overwhelming support from scholars, researchers, and medical
professionals alike for integrated bathroom use is a strong force, but until there is an undeniable
refutation of the concerns voiced by those in favor of sex-based segregation, large-scale legal
Sample 6
change remains unlikely. Future research into this topic should consider bolstering the empirical
data already in circulation, which proves no correlation between trans and gender variant
bathroom rights and a rise in predation on ciswomen and children. In addition, future research
may consider ways of shifting the current sex-segregated bathroom system to an integrated
system, perhaps modeling future changes on France’s gender-integrated system. When people
see that the fears surrounding a potential change are unfounded, that there are real world
consequences of failure to make a change, and that changes are reasonably possible, we can
work towards a future where no one is discriminated against, harassed, or assaulted based on
something as simple as whether they go left or right to enter a bathroom.
Analysis: B. To improve, your thesis should reflect the actual content of your paper. If you do this, then your
topic sentences can remain the same.
Evidence: A. To improve, use a combination of quotes, paraphrases, and summaries. Use less quotes that simply
define your issue.
Organization: B. As mentioned above, if you improve the thesis, then there's no issue with your topic sentences.
To improve the organization, include more synthesis of the main points from your sources in each body paragraph.
Format & Style: A. To improve:
1. Font shift in header
2. Check tabs at beginning of paragraphs
3. Check proper in-text citation format
4. Check concrete pronoun use throughout
Endnote: To improve, you'll need to work on the rubric areas of analysis and organization. Right now, there's a
discrepancy between your thesis and your paper--I've given you ideas for editing your thesis, since it's probably
easier to do that than change the entire paper. You'll also need to revise your topic sentences, as I've outlined
throughout.
Letter Grade: B+
Sample 7
Works Cited
Ali, Diana. “The Status of Trans Rights in 2018.” NASPA, 1 Mar. 2018.
www.naspa.org/rpi/posts/the-status-of-trans-rights-in-2018. Accessed 11 May 2018.
Archibald, Catherine Jean. “Transgender Bathroom Rights.” Duke Journal of Gender Law &
Policy, vol. 24, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-31.
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1311&context=djglp. Accessed 13
May 2018.
Grinberg, Emanuella and Dani Stewart. “3 Myths That Shape the Transgender Bathroom
Debate.” CNN, 7 Mar. 2017. www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/health/transgender-bathroomlaw-facts-myths/index.html. Accessed 14 May 2018.
Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Duke University Press Books, 1998.
Schilt, Kristen and Laurel Westbrook. “Bathroom Battlegrounds and Penis Panics.” Contexts,
vol. 14, no. 3, 2015, pp. 26-31. SAGE, doi:10.1177/1536504215596943. Accessed 10
May 2018.
Turner, Cory and Anya Kamenetz. “The Education Department Says It Won't Act On
Transgender Student Bathroom Access.” National Public Radio, 12 Feb. 2018.
www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/02/12/585181704/the-education-department-says-it-wontact-on-transgender-student-bathroom-access. Accessed 14 May 2018.
Weinberg, Jill D. "Transgender Bathroom Usage: A Privileging of Biology and Physical
Difference in the Law." Buffalo Journal of Gender, Law & Social Policy, vol. 18, 2010,
pp. 147-175.
heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/bufwlj18&div=8&id=&page=.
Accessed 14 May 2018.
ENC1101
7 November 2018
Underrepresentation of women: Examining the reality and the rhetoric
Many years of preaching the need for equity and diversity in the society have resulted in
organizations trumpeting gender equity as part of organizational value. However, despite multiple studies that demonstrate the fact that women and men have the same capacity more research
into gender equity reveals the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions.
Major key issues
I.
Women continue to hold fewer leadership positions in organizations in today’s society.
A. Obstacles to women leadership
1. Many organizations are not ready to hire women for top executive positions despite accepting the say ladies first (Scott and Brown 308).
2. Women have more family responsibilities which means they do not
have time to focus on top executive duties.
3. Women do not have the same corporate connection as men leaving
women at disadvantaged position (Stolzoff, Simone).
B. Lack of democracy
1. Women are not included in decision making especially in executive positions which means women’s interests are ignored in policy making.
II.
Despite the fact that women have the same professional capacity they receive less pay
compared to their male counterparts in the same position.
A. Family reasons
1. Women have more family duties so they spend less time in office hence
the justification for low pay (Stolzoff, Simone).
B. Academic performance
1. In general, most high-end professionals such as engineering are dominated
by men, and this comes from their better academic achievement, and that
is why it is so hard for a male-dominated panel to be controlled by a
woman (Stolzoff, Simone).
III.
The construction of the leadership metaphor supports the myth of male style of leadership rather than a transformative style that typically identifies women.
A. Deconstructing the male metaphor
1. The leadership role has been traditionally prescribed to men, and this has become a metaphor difficult to change.
2. According to Biddle, “if a woman wants to succeed in the upper echelon she
must transform and exhibit male characteristics” (Biddle, Matthew).
B. Leadership vocabulary
1. Titles that refer to leadership use male pronouns without apologies and this
further the male metaphor (Biddle, Matthew).
C. The binary gender norms
1. According to Biddle, “Men are still likely to be perceived as leaders because
when we concentrate on women leadership, we are revealing the weakness of
women which concludes they are not worthy of the leadership position” (Biddle, Matthew).
IV.
Glass ceiling prevents women from understanding their potential, and this prevents
them from reaching out to leadership positions.
A. Women consider themselves as incapable of the leadership positions
1. According to Stolzof women with the same academic qualification as men still
prefer fields that offer lower income (Stolzoff, Simone).
B. Women are risk aversive as compared to men.
1. Women have different attitudes toward the concept of risk and are taught to
avoid risk at all cost.
C. More family responsibilities for women
1. Family responsibilities fall on women heavily, and with top-level executive
positions they require more commitment which women feel is a job position
beyond their reach.
V.
Theories contributing to gender perspective continue to delude the society that women
are incapable of leading.
A. Leader categorization theory
Leadership stereotype does not change even when the gender factor is introduced, and this explains why leadership categorization theory supports
the idea that women are of lower status.
a. Attribution
Gender bias comes from the encoding of leadership behavior that
comes from what has been initially ascribed by society.
b. Social identity
Once a particular gender group has been identified with a specific behavior, it becomes their identity, and the case with women is they are
considered weak subjects that are not fit to lead (Scott and Douglas
320).
c. Social expectation
Gender operates under the concept of status characteristics which is
influenced by social status ascribed to the gender expectations where
women are considered having lower status compared to men (Scott
and Douglas 320).
Works Cited
Biddle, Matthew. “Men Are Still More Likely than Women to Be Perceived as Leaders, Study
Finds.” Phys.org - News and Articles on Science and Technology, Phys.org, 7 Aug.
2018,
phys.org/news/2018-08-men-women-leaders.html. Accessed 17 Sept 2018.
Stolzoff, Simone. “The Other Gender Pay Gap: Women Hold Only 20% of Employee Equity.”
Quartz, Quartz, 18 Sept. 2018, qz.com/work/1393193/the-other-gender-pay-gap-womenonly-hold-20-of-employee-equity/. Accessed 17 Sept 2018.
Scott, Kristyn A., and Douglas J. Brown. “Female First, Leader Second? Gender Bias in the
Encoding of Leadership Behavior.” Discovering Leadership, 2009, pp. 308–322., doi:
10.1007/978-1-137-24203-7_22. Accessed 17 Sept 2018.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment