My wonderful Gender and Sexuality Commissioner has spent the semester working on a motion to align washrooms in the SSMU building with McGill’s Policy on Gender Neutral Washrooms at McGill. The motion adds a sentence to the Internal Regulations of Operations and Sustainability: There may be at most one designated ‘men’s washroom’ and one designated ‘women’s washroom’ in any building operated by SSMU.
The Commissioner identifies two phases to implementing the amendment. First, consulting with the Building Department to determine restrictions imposed by McGill and Montreal, and then implementing those changes. More gender neutral bathrooms was already approved as a goal in the Transgender Advocacy Plan, and the change would also allow parents of all genders to use baby changing stations, and people of all genders to use menstrual products.
The motion comes at a time where using any gendered bathroom is becoming criminalized across the United States. Canada often follows these bills a few years behind. It is a frightening time for trans people, binary and non-binary.
Getting this motion to the floor was heartbreakingly difficult. I gave the Commissioner the name of three Legislative Councillors to act as a second. Two ignored the email, and the third responded saying she was concerned about getting rid of ‘women’s spaces’. This councillor does not have a right to privacy, and it’s out of pity that I will omit her name here. Unrelatedly, trans science students should probably contact their Legislative Council representatives to inquire about their stance on trans people.
The commissioner sent the motion to the SSMU Steering Committee. The Steering Committee responded and said it had come to their attention that “the proposed changes are not in accordance with McGill policies”. Although they didn’t name him, it was immediately obvious that this friction was coming from Wallace Sealy, SSMU’s Building Director. When he was approached by the Commissioner, he identified that there would be some logical barriers, but seemed enthused to help. He can’t have been that enthused, though, because afterwards he went behind the Commissioner’s back to complain to the Steering Committee, who uncritically took him at his word. The motion was referred to the Building Operations and Management Committee.
So I did what the Steering Committee didn’t bother to do and I looked at McGill policies regarding bathrooms. I found the McGill Building Design Standards. These say all washroom renovations must “ensure that there is at least one multi-stall gender-inclusive washroom per building, and at least one gender-inclusive washroom (either single-stall or multi-stall) per floor, on floors where there is a washroom”. McGill imposing restrictions was a lie.
Despite Steering Committee’s refusal to put the notice of motion on the agenda, I proceeded to give it regardless. At the most recent Legislative Council, I moved to amend the agenda to add this motion. A few hours before, I saw the report from the Building Operations and Management Committee. The report said, “The amendment does not follow provincial building code. *building code info*”. Only after I stated that this was unacceptable did the Committee hunt down Wallace to get him to provide his source.
Wallace came up with S-2.1, r.13 – Regulation respecting occupational health and safety. It’s a regulation that lists the occupancy of buildings, and how many bathrooms it must have for a certain number of men and women. However, the legislation being written in gendered terms does not mandate that the bathrooms must be uniquely gendered. If so, then many McGill buildings and the PGSS buildings would be in violation of it.
There was no acknowledgment that this regulation is from Quebec, and not from McGill as Wallace originally claimed. It wasn’t mentioned in the Buildings and Operations Committee that this link had been added in only hours before Council and hadn’t been seen by Committee members.
There have been multiple failures here. First, the Steering Committee took Wallace at his word, despite the fact that he was unable to produce the McGill policies he was referring to. Next, the Operations Committee also echoed Wallace’s points, also without asking for a source. I wonder if it occurred to either groups of people that there might be transphobia at play.
When I presented the motion, I summarized these points. There was no debate. 18 Councillors voted in favor, 5 opposed the motion, and one abstained. Because those opposing the motion didn’t bring points to debate, I have no idea what their reservations are. I can only presume that, if they were ashamed to articulate their reservations, it must simply be transphobia. In the chaos of voting, I identified only 4 of the 5 ‘no’ votes: Emma Chen, Rishi Kalaga, Pauline Jolicoeur, and the proxy for Seraphina Crema-Black. If you belong to the AUS, MUSA, or SSMU, feel free to send them a line and ask them why they voted the way they did!
I’m sick of transphobia undercutting the efforts of my staff. It’s extremely demoralizing and is personally insulting. It makes me question my place at SSMU as a whole. I dread the process of working with the Building Director who tried unsuccessfully to sabotage this motion. I expect there will be many veiled excuses stalling or cancelling this project. And I expect it will fall to the tiny minority of trans workers at SSMU to make progress.