ABSTRACT The experiences of trans and gender non-conforming people in public restrooms confirms what feminist scholars have been saying for decades: public space is not a neutral space, rather it is where power is enacted. In this intervention, I extend Foucault’s analysis of docile bodies to gender, suggesting that sex-segregated bathrooms are technologies of disciplinary power, upholding the gender binary by forcing people to choose between men’s and women’s rooms. The resulting lack of safe access to public restrooms is an everyday reality for those who fall outside of gender binary norms. Faced with a built environment that denies their existence and facilitates gender policing, I argue that trans and gender non-conforming people sometimes engage in situational docility. Bodies are adjusted to comply with the cardinal rule of gender – to be readable at a glance – which is often due to safety concerns. Changing the structure of bathrooms to be gender inclusive and/or neutral may decrease gender policing in bathrooms and the need for this situational docility, allowing trans and gender non- conforming people to pee in peace.

Punto de vista Orinando bajo vigilancia: baños, vigilancia de género y violencia de odio RESUMEN Las experiencias de las personas trans y género-disconformes en los baños públicos confirma lo que lxs académicxs feministas han estado afirmando durante décadas: el espacio público no es un espacio neutral, sino que es donde se ejerce el poder. En esta intervención, extiendo el análisis de Foucault de los cuerpos dóciles al género sugiriendo que los baños segregados según el sexo son tecnologías de poder disciplinario, sosteniendo el binario de género al forzar a las personas a elegir entre baño de hombres o de mujeres. La resultante falta de acceso seguro a los baños públicos es una realidad cotidiana para aquellos que caen fuera de esas normas binarias de género. Enfrentadxs a un ambiente construido que niega su existencia y facilita la vigilancia de género, sostengo que las personas trans y las personas género-disconformes a menudo se ven envueltas en una docilidad situacional. Los cuerpos se ajustan para cumplir con la regla cardinal del género –para ser legible en un vistazo– lo que a menudo se hace por cuestiones de seguridad. Cambiar la estructura de los baños para ser género-inclusivos y/o neutrales podría disminuir la vigilancia de género en los baños y la necesidad de esta docilidad situacional, permitiendo a las personas trans y género-disconformes orinar en paz.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 23 June 2014 Accepted 15 April 2015

KEYWORDS Bathroom; transgender; hate violence; panopticon; surveillance; gender policing

CONTACT Kyla Bender-Baird [email protected]

PALABRAS CLAVES Baño; transgénero; violencia de odio; panóptico; vigilancia; vigilancia de género

⅚揬媋㵛⮋��巏『−��Ắく㚛⊂�� ⅏㙖䚸䋘��䚸妭��『−亇⯆

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a

t 1 1:

34 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

984 K. BENDER-BAIRD

In April 2011, a video went viral on social media. The video showed a trans woman beaten by two other patrons after entering the women’s restroom at a McDonald’s in Baltimore, Maryland (Browning 2011). The attack went on for several minutes as customers and employees stood by, some capturing the incident on their cell phones. Finally, another woman intervened and stopped the attack. By then, the victim was beaten so badly, she had a seizure. Unfortunately, this incident is not rare. Over 2000 incidents of anti-LGBT hate violence were reported to the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs in 2013; trans people were six times more likely to experience discrimination than non-trans people (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs 2014). The largest national study of trans discrimination found similar results with 53% of respondents reporting verbal assault and 8% physical assault in a place of public accommodation (Grant et al. 2011). The experiences of trans and gender non-conforming people in public restrooms confirm what feminists have been saying for decades: public space is not a neutral space, rather it is where power is enacted (Gardner 1989). Bathrooms are no exception.

Discipline is concerned with the regulation of bodies and the division of space (Foucault 2004). Disciplinary power operates through bathrooms in three ways: (1) the division of space allocated for specific functions; (2) the panoptic design that facilitates and encourages surveillance; and (3) the production of docile, appropriately gendered bodies. It divides space through enclosure and partitioning in the creation of functional sites. Each space has a specific purpose and is there- fore set off from other spaces; within these enclosed, functional sites, people are partitioned into smaller units: ‘each individual has his own place; and each place its individual’ (Foucault 1977, 143). Given this understanding of space, bathrooms are a technology of disciplinary power. They are an enclosed space that people enter for specific functions not considered appropriate for other spaces.

In this viewpoint, I extend Foucault’s (1977) analysis of docile bodies to gender, suggesting that sex-segregated bathrooms are a technology of disciplinary power, upholding the gender binary by forcing people to choose between men’s and women’s rooms. The resulting lack of safe access to public restrooms is an everyday reality for those who fall outside of gender binary norms. Built environments deny their existence and facilitate gender policing. I argue that trans and gender non-conforming people sometimes engage in situational docility by adjusting their bodies to comply with the ‘cardinal rule of gender’ (Halberstam 1998, 23) – to be readable at a glance – due to safety concerns. The cardinal rule of gender is based on cisgenderism or the assumption that gender presentation, identity, and biological sex are linked. One way that I experience cisgender privilege is that almost always people read my feminine gender presentation and correctly attrib- ute a female gender to me. As such, I do not have to worry about being challenged, yelled at, or attacked when entering spaces marked for women only.

墀㽷 ◦䖏墄᳉⫍墡濣㰲⩢Ʊ⻥⃩䵞⪝濕ᶣ⊈ᶅ⼦㕲⅙ ㌖堿巏『−᷵『−杅Ḣ㴨ạ例✏⅓⅘⍼㈧䙫亶橳Ə䡕宋ṭ⥚『ḢḰ⭍俬㕗⌨ ⹛㝌䙫Ḣ⼇Ɲ⅓⅘䩡旛⹝杅Ḕ『䩡旛Ə俳㘖㜪⊂ᷱ㻻Ḳ⣫˛ㇸ⯭✏㭋刓 Ẳ⅌ḔƏ⯭⁬㟖⯠ṵ妫宔䙫庒ἺḲ⇭㝷⻝἟凚『−ƏḢ⼇Ọ『⾜⇹⇭䙫 ⍼㈧Ə㘖妫宔㜪⊂䙫㉧㜖Ə忶微⼡忒ạồ✏䔞『᷵⥚『䩡旛Ḕ⁁⇡忰㋐Ə仛㊋『−ṳK⯠䪲˛俳⯠ṵ吤✏『−ṳK⯠䪲⸟妫Ḳ⣽䙫ạồ俳姧Ə⅝㈧⯣凛䙫伡Ḷὦ䔏⅓⅘⍼㈧䙫⭰⅏䮈怺Ə∀㘖ẽồ㮶㗌㈧杉ḛ䙫䎗⮅˛ㇸḢ⼇Ə巏『−᷵『−杅Ḣ㴨俬✏杉⯠␍宋⅝⬿✏˚⹝ᾪㇷ『− 亇⯆䙫⻡ㇷ䎖⡪㗝Ə㛰㗝ἁ㵰⅌妭ガ↜俳⮁䙫桡ẵ˛ẽồ㗝⸟⟡ṵ⭰⅏ 俪憶俳寪㕛庒ἺƏὦ⅝䬍⏯⟡㜓䙫『−妫勪ăăὦḲḴ䛲Ḳᷲ僤⤆墒徏宋˛㔠⎿⍼㈧䙫人㝫ƏὦḲㇷḡ『−⋬⮠⑳ƒㇽḔ『Əㇽ僤↶⯸⍼㈧Ḕ 䙫『−亇⯆ƏỌ⎱㭋刓妭ガ↜俳⮁䙫桡ẵḲ⾬奨『Ə宐巏『−᷵『−杅 Ḣ㴨俬僤⤆⹚⑳✗⯶姊˛

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a

t 1 1:

34 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

GENDER, PLACE AND CULTURE 985

Tactical architecture: bathrooms as panopticon

Surveillance mechanisms become the apparatus of disciplinary power as they ‘make it possible for a single gaze to see everything constantly’ (Foucault 1977, 173). Foucault recognized bathrooms, like Bentham’s panopticon, as mechanisms of surveillance. While discussing the construction of school buildings for the purpose of discipline, he included a description of bathrooms: ‘latrines had been installed with half-doors, so that the supervisor on duty could see the head and legs of the pupils, and also with side walls sufficiently high that those inside cannot see one another’ (Foucault 1977, 173). Surveillance, however, is not limited to officials like school wardens disciplining students, but rather it is internalized and dispersed. People do not wait for appointed figureheads to surveil bodies moving about in designated spaces. Instead – and as a function of the panopticon – they start disci- plining themselves and policing each other via the surveilling gaze. Not waiting for a security guard to indicate which bathroom to enter, people check the signs, decide which space is meant for them, and then watch each other, ensuring that the unwritten rules of accessing public restrooms are being followed. Bathrooms are also a place where people feel vulnerable. In bathrooms the ‘solid body’ is temporarily displaced by its own bodily functions (Browne 2007; Longhurst 2000). Therefore, people may be defensive and wary of those who seem ‘out of place.’ In this environment, they are less shy about speaking up when someone, seemingly of a different gender, enters a space where they expect to only see people of their same gender (Cavanagh 2010; Kogan 2009). Bathrooms become a space where gender is policed more stringently.

Furthermore, the very architecture of public bathrooms is panoptic. The enclosed space clearly demarcated by signage, stall doors that do not always reach the floor, mirrors and other reflecting surfaces – all add to the panoptic feeling of being watched from nowhere and everywhere simultane- ously (Cavanagh 2010). As one of the last socially (and often legally) sanctioned sex-segregated public spaces, bathrooms invite surveillance of gender norms (Gershenson and Penner 2009; Molotch 2010).

The operation of disciplinary power in bathrooms can be understood as a social performance. Doan (2010, 639) writes, ‘each performance is subject to the performer, the observer, and the space in which it is performed.’ Therefore, in each performance of disciplined gender in public restrooms, there are three performers creating the scene: the person entering the restroom, their fellow patrons, and the space itself. All three of these actors are part of the surveillance. The performance will change as the three actors shift. What does not change, however, is the disciplinary power structure.

Production of docile bodies

Disciplinary power exerts constant coercion on the body, dictating its movements and gestures. The ultimate aim of discipline is the production of docile bodies: bodies that are compliant, normalized, and intelligible. I extend Foucault’s analysis of docile bodies – which focused on the production of ‘good’ students, workers, patients, and prisoners – to gender. Part of being docile is being appropriately gendered (i.e. falling clearly and completely into one of the two categories). In order to be properly gendered, one must be intelligible as either a man or a woman (Butler 1990). Halberstam (1998, 23) refers to this as the ‘cardinal rule of gender: one must be readable at a glance.’ Thus, a docile body will not only be identified as either man or woman but also be easily read as such by others. How gender is performed in spaces like the bathroom creates docile bodies. Obviously, this creates a problem for those who fall outside of the gender binary, either through their non-binary gender identity or through their non-normative gender presentation (or both).

Sex-segregated bathrooms are conceptualized technologies of disciplinary power, upholding the gender binary by forcing people to choose between men’s and women’s rooms (Cavanagh 2010; Goffman 1977; Halberstam 1997; Kopas 2012). If disciplinary power ‘divide[s] everything according to a code of the permitted and the forbidden’ (Foucault 2004, 46), then sex-segregated bathrooms permit only two genders and forbid all other possible permutations of gender. Some have even suggested that the construction of sex-segregated bathrooms sends the message that those who fall outside

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a

t 1 1:

34 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

986 K. BENDER-BAIRD

of the cisgender binary system are not normal, have no right to access public facilities, and are therefore abject (Doan 2010; Kogan 2009; Overall 2007). The mapping of gender onto public space (Cavanagh 2010) creates what many have termed ‘the bathroom problem’ for trans and gender non-con- forming people (Browne 2007; Doan 2010; Halberstam 1998).

Bathrooms are part of everyone’s daily ritual of bodily needs. Thus, every time a person must choose between the men’s and women’s restroom, they are subjected to the gender binary system. For trans and gender non-conforming people, this choice requires a self-surveillance of how they are presenting their gender that day and what kind of reception they may receive in public restrooms. When cross- ing the threshold into a public bathroom, people are forced into compliance with the gender norms operating in the sex segregation of these spaces or face possible violence. This forced compliance produces a situational docility. Even while trans and gender non-conforming people buck gender norms through their daily life, they may adjust their presentation when entering public restrooms out of safety concerns. Bodies as a site of disciplinary power also become part of an agentic response to this power. Trans people are not simply reinforcing the power structure; rather, they are responding to it and making conscious decisions regarding how to operate in the situation they are forced into. Their bodies, as subject to disciplinary norms, are also what trans people often use to alter their gender performance when engaging in situational docility.

One does not have to look far to find examples of trans and gender non-conforming people sharing tales of responding to situational docility in bathrooms. Lucal (1999, 787), a woman often mistaken for a man, writes, ‘encounters in public restrooms are an adventure.’ She never knows what kind of reaction she will get. As depicted in an image that circulated around Facebook of a gender ambiguous person standing before two bathroom doors, the reactions may include being yelled at in the women’s room or being beaten up in the men’s room. Courtney, a trans man, echoes these reactions:

Try go into the boys’ bathroom and somebody stops you and says you have to go into the girls’ bathroom, you know. You go into the girls’ bathroom and someone screams at you because you’re in the wrong bathroom. You’re in this in-between thing where you don’t know where you fit (Bender-Baird 2011, 85).

Trans and gender non-conforming people often use various techniques of docility in adjusting their gender so that they are more easily read as men or women before entering public restrooms. For instance, those entering the women’s room may adjust their clothing to make their breasts more obvi- ous, borrow a purse from a friend, or ask a feminine-presenting friend to accompany them (Browne 2006; Cavanagh 2011; Devor 1989; Lucal 1999). Another technique of evading gender policing in public bathrooms is to avoid them all together. A genderqueer friend of mine only feels comfortable in gen- der-neutral bathrooms and has to be reminded to use the bathroom; otherwise, they forget because it’s such an ordeal to access a space that does not recognize their gender (personal communication 2011, used with permission). After experiencing harassment, threats, or violence in a public restroom, it is not surprising that some trans and gender non-conforming people change their routine in order to avoid these encounters. In a recent online article, Syrus Marcus Ware (2011, 2), a visual artist and community activist, shared his experience of being threatened by a co-worker in a bathroom and how that changed his daily routine:

As a transsexual man who only sometimes ‘passed’ as male, the troubles I had in using the men’s washroom started shortly after I began [a new job] … I entered the men’s staff washroom the same time as another man … As I locked the stall door behind me to pee, the other man in the bathroom began expressing concern about why I was using the men’s facility … For 15 min, he berated and screamed at me from outside the stall … I huddled silently in the corner of the stall, fearful for my safety, as the man tried to peer inside the stall through the crack and even over the door. Eventually, he left the bathroom, but not before yelling that I was ‘disgusting’ and that I was ‘doing something wrong in there’ … Over the next three years, I went all the way home during the day to pee.

Here is a clear example of a fellow patron policing a trans person in a bathroom with such gusto that the regular ritual of relieving oneself while at work becomes a problem to be solved. In this case, Ware chose not to risk another violent encounter at his workplace and found an alternative, one that is obvi- ously not convenient. Faced with a built environment that denies their existence and facilitates gender policing, trans and gender non-conforming people exercise various strategies, including avoiding public bathrooms or engaging in situational docility by adjusting their bodies, to comply with gender norms.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a

t 1 1:

34 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

GENDER, PLACE AND CULTURE 987

Transgressing the norm: Hate violence as punishment

When trans and gender non-conforming people do not engage in situational docility, they may face punishment for violating gender norms. Punishment is used to re-establish the norms as ‘power passes through individuals’ (Foucault 1997, 29). Hate violence targeted against trans and gender non-conforming people is a form of punishment designed to reaffirm gender norms as binary (Jauk 2013; Lynch 2005). Bathrooms, as sites where gender norms are policed, also become sites of hate violence against trans and gender non-conforming people.

Juang (2006) provides a possible explanation for why gender is policed in bathrooms with such ‘exuberance’ as Cavanagh (2010) describes it. He notes, ‘In the transphobic imagination, the bathroom becomes the extension of a genital narcissism’ (Juang 2006, 247). In other words, people believe that there is always a correlation between genitals and gender presentation and that the gender segregation of bathrooms is based on genital configuration. A reading of a trans woman in the women’s restroom as ‘really’ a man in feminine attire is therefore very threatening to this belief structure.

Due to this supposed match between genitals and gender, trans people are often labeled deceiv- ers and blamed for the violence enacted upon them when the farce of this system is unveiled (Bettcher 2007; Juang 2006). Bettcher (2007) noted this intersection in the murders of Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena. Both trans teens were murdered following the forced exposure of their geni- tals in a bathroom. In the subsequent murder trials, the defendants used the ‘trans panic defense,’ claiming that the trans person had deceived them and discovery of genital anatomy shocked them into a violent reaction.

When a trans or gender non-conforming person is questioned or ‘found out’ in the bathroom, the reaction is not to reassess the arbitrary nature of segregating bathrooms by sex but to violently eject the trans or gender non-conforming person. Entering a public restroom becomes no simple matter for trans and gender non-conforming people. Dru Levasseur, a trans lawyer at Lambda Legal, explained to a reporter how he was afraid to use the men’s room while he was transitioning and his identity documents still classified him as female, but he was physically assaulted when he entered the women’s room at an airport (“What’s It Like” 2012). His story and the story of the woman in a Baltimore McDonald’s illustrate the violent power dynamics operating in the sex-segregated spaces of bathrooms.

According to Foucault (1977), power is everywhere and always recreating itself. This, however, does not mean the status quo must go unchallenged. Rather, there are opportunities for resistance that may not transcend power relations but could shift them enough to make life more livable. For instance, one option is to reconsider the structure of public bathrooms. Anywhere there is a single-user bath- room, replacing the ‘men’s room/women’s room’ signs with ‘bathroom’ is a simple change. Integrating multi-user mixed-gender bathrooms is another possibility. The newly opened CUNY Law School in Long Island City, Queens, offers a thoughtful model for this integration. Outside each of the gender-specific multi-user bathrooms, a plaque specifies that anyone who identifies as the gender listed is welcome in this space. The plaque also directs people to gender-neutral bathrooms on a different floor if they feel more comfortable in that space. This approach discourages gender policing by setting a tone of inclusion while also offering multiple options for accessing bathrooms. These structural changes may decrease the need for situational docility, allowing trans and gender non-conforming people to access bathrooms without adjusting their gender performance.

Acknowledgments Thanks to Lynda Johnston and the reviewers for their feedback and edits, which were helpful in the revision of this article. Thanks also to Monica Varsanyi, Rosalind Petchesky, Barbara Katz Rothman, and Daniela Jauk, as well as my writing group (Hamad Sindhi, Darren Kwong, and Carlos Camacho) for their comments on the early drafts of this article.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a

t 1 1:

34 2

8 A

ug us

t 2 01

988 K. BENDER-BAIRD

Notes on contributor Kyla Bender-Baird is a PhD student in Sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center and author of Transgender Employment Experiences: Gendered Perceptions and the Law (SUNY Press, 2011).

References Bender-Baird, Kyla. 2011. Transgender Employment Experience: Gendered Perceptions and the Law. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Bettcher, Talia Mae. 2007. “Evil Deceivers and Make-believers: On Transphobic Violence and the Politics of Illusion.” Hypatia

22 (3): 43–65. Browne, Kath. 2006. “‘A Right Geezer-Bird (Man-Woman)’: The Sites and Sights of ‘Female’ Embodiment.” ACME: An

International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 5 (43): 121–143. Browne, Kath. 2007. “Genderism and the Bathroom Problem: (Re)materialising Sexed Sites, (Re)creating Sexed Bodies.”

Gender, Place & Culture 11 (3): 331–346. Browning, Bil. 2011. “Transgender Woman Severely Beaten at Baltimore McDonalds as Employees Watch.” The Bilerico

Project [website], published April 22. http://www.bilerico.com/2011/04/transwoman_severely_beaten_at_baltimore_ mcdonalds.php.

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Cavanagh, Sheila L. 2010. Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality and the Hygienic Imagination. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press. Cavanagh, Sheila L. 2011. “You Are Where You Urinate.” The Gay & Lesbian Review 18 (4): 18–20. Devor, Holly. 1989. Gender Blending: Confronting the Limits of Duality. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Doan, Petra L. 2010. “The Tyranny of Gendered Spaces: Reflections from Beyond the Gender Dichotomy.” Gender, Place &

Culture 17 (5): 635–654. Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, Michel. 1997. ‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the College de France, 1975–1976. New York: Picador. Foucault, Michel. 2004. ‘Security, Territory, Population’: Lectures at the College de France, 1977–1978. New York: Picador. Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1989. “Analyzing Gender in Public Places: Rethinking Goffman’s Vision of Everyday Life.” The American

Sociologist 20 (1): 43–56. Gershenson, Olga, and Barbara Penner, eds. 2009. Ladies and Gents: Public Toilets and Gender. Philadelphia, PA: Temple

University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1977. “The Arrangement Between the Sexes.” Theory and Society 4 (3): 301–331. Grant, Jaime M., Lisa A. Mottet, Justin Tanis, Jack Harrison, Jody L. Herman, and Mara Keisling. 2011. Injustice at Every Turn:

A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Halberstam, Judith. 1997. “Techno-Homo: On Bathrooms, Butches, and Sex with Furniture.” In Processed Lives: Gender and Technology in Everyday Life, edited by Jennifer Terry and Melodie Calvert, 183–193. New York: Routledge.

Halberstam, Judith. 1998. Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press. Jauk, Daniela. 2013. “Gender Violence Revisited: Lessons from Violent Victimization of Transgender Identified Individuals.”

Sexualities 16 (7): 807–825. Juang, Richard M. 2006. “Transgendering the Politics of Recognition.” In Transgender Rights, edited by Paisley Currah, Richard

M. Juan, and Shannon Price Minter, 242–261. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Kogan, Terry S. 2009. “Transsexuals in Public Restrooms: Law, Cultural Geography and Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority.”

Temple Political and Civil Rights Law Review 18: 673–697. Kopas, Matthew. 2012. “The Illogic of Separation: Examining Arguments About Gender-Neutral Public Bathrooms.” M.A.

thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Washington. http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/Kopas.pdf. Longhurst, Robyn. 2000. Bodies: Exploring Fluid Boundaries. London: Routledge. Lucal, Besty. 1999. “What It Means to be Gendered Me: Life on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender System.” Gender

and Society 13 (6): 781–797. Lynch, Ami M. 2005. “Hate Crime as a Tool of the Gender Border Patrol: The Importance of Gender as a Protected Category.”

Presented at ‘When Women Gain, So Does the World’ IWPR’s Eighth International Women’s Policy Research Conference, Washington, D.C.

Molotch, Harvey. 2010. “Learning from the Loo.” In Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing, edited by Harvey Molotch and Laura Noren, 1–21. New York: NYU Press.

National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. 2014. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in 2013. http://www.avp.org/storage/documents/2013_ncavp_hvreport_final.pdf.

Overall, Christine. 2007. “Public Toilets: Sex Segregation Revisited.” Ethics and the Environment 12 (2): 71–91. Ware, Syrus Marcus. 2011. “What Exactly Are You Doing in There?: Sheila Cavanagh’s Queering Bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality,

and the Hygienic Imagination.” Fuse Magazine, January 11. Accessed September 10, 2012. http://www.fusemagazine.org “What’s It Like to Vote as a Transgender Person?” 2012. The Daily Beast, November 2. [Video]. Accessed January 19, 2013.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/11/02/what-s-it-like-to-vote-as-a-transgender-person.html

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [S

yr ac

us e

U ni

ve rs

ity L

ib ra

ry ] a