If the policy of MIT or any other institution states that certain spaces are designated as single-sex only, then no, people of the opposite sex do not have the right to use these spaces.
I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really not that difficult to understand what sex you are and where you're allowed to be. Children learn this quite early on.
(Edit: My account is now rate-limited because of downvotes, so I can't reply to any responses. However I would like to point out that if MIT is currently allowing staff and students to use single-sex spaces that are designated for the opposite sex, this is very likely to be a Title IX violation. Unfortunately, sexism is rife in institutions of higher education, and MIT is no exception.)
> If the policy of MIT or any other institution states that certain spaces are designated as single-sex only, then no, people of the opposite sex do not have the right to use these spaces.
Correct, but this is not MIT's policy today, responding to your edit, I do not believe your understanding of title IX is correct, See [0].
>I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really not that difficult to understand what sex you are and where you're allowed to be. Children learn this quite early on.
But in places that do have such policies, people who are using the correct bathroom get harassed. Given that you assume this is easy to understand (and I think I agree), would you support laws that codify harassing people about using the incorrect bathroom as criminal, given that you assume these don't need enforcement, we should discourage vigilantism, right?
[0]: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10953 suggests that there is a circuit split on whether policies banning students from using gender-identity matching bathrooms would be a Title IX violation, with the 4th and 7th circuits saying that disallowing students from using their preferred bathrooms is a violation, and the 11th saying it is not. Currently there is no circuit split around the opposite question: the 3rd and 9th (and presumably also the 4th and 7th) circuits agree that allowing students to use gender-identity matching bathrooms would not be a Title IX violation, and the 11th Circuit's argument doesn't appear to preclude to a school or district choosing to allow gender-segregated bathrooms, it just allows sex-segregated bathrooms. MIT is under the 1st circuit and I can't find any federal cases at the district level, so it is technically not required to act in any particular way, but given other circuit precedent (and, I think, supreme court precedent under Bostock which says basically the same thing for title VII), I would suspect your interpretation would open MIT to legal risk.
Regarding Title IX, there are still cases working their way through the courts, so we will have to see.
I would be very surprised if colleges letting males enjoy women's locker rooms, and therefore not providing women any single-sex place to change, isn't ruled as being sex discrimination.
Keep in mind this issue is about privacy and dignity and safety for women, not about giving men whatever they want whenever they want.
While you may have whatever feeling about any issue, legally this isn't about "privacy and safety and dignity for women", it's about discrimination. And it's extremely difficult to contort shared facilities into "discrimination".
How do you propose preventing situations such as these?
“The couple said they were in the women's lobby bathroom when a male security guard came in and started banging on the stall doors. Baker said she was in one of the stalls while Victor waited for her near the sinks… Baker was born a woman and identifies as a woman.” [1]
“Gerika Mudra, 18, went to dinner in April with a friend in Owatonna, about an hour south of Minneapolis. When she went to the restroom, a server followed her inside and banged on the stall door while saying: “This is a women’s restroom. The man needs to get out of here,”… Mudra said she felt she had to prove to the server that she is a woman, so she unzipped her hoodie to show she has breasts.” [2]
“Dani Davis was in the women’s restroom at the Walmart where she worked when she heard a man’s voice shouting from outside the stall. The man yelled a slur for transgender people and said he was going to beat them up, Davis said. She was the only person in the bathroom at the Lake City, Florida, store… Davis waited for the man to leave before exiting the bathroom and finishing her shift. Her immediate supervisor was supportive when she reported the incident, she said. So she was shocked and confused when she was fired around a week later for not reporting the incident to the right managers and creating a “security risk.””[3]
“She said that she had entered the restroom with her ex-girlfriend, who handed her a tampon, when two male deputies stormed in, shining flashlights into the stall and demanding she exit. Morton, still using the toilet, was stunned... When she finally exited the stall, she said she lifted her shirt to prove she was not a man, expecting the ordeal to end. Instead, she said one deputy continued to question her appearance, insisting she “looked like a man.””[4]
It would be unfair of me to presume that you believe that all women should wear skirts, keep their hair long, and perhaps shave down any overly square facial bones so as to not invoke any hint of possible masculinity. But if there is a rule in place, then the rule requires methods of being enforced. Expecting women to expose themselves to a security guard or some other investigatory party in order to prove that they should be allowed to pee there is a guaranteed violation of their dignity, whereas the occasional transgender woman using the next stall over is not.
Those already very rare instances will become even rarer when males stop insisting they have a right to access women's spaces based on supposedly womenly thoughts in their minds.
Thankfully, this fad is on the way out, and with it, the overvigilance that has led to unfortunate misunderstandings like you mention in your comment - none of which are justification for males to impose themselves on female spaces.
Your comment still offers no solutions as to how these rules will actually be enforced. For example, do you consider the ordinance in Odessa, TX, to be sufficient? Is offering a minimum bounty of ten-thousand dollars to report on alleged men in the wrong restrooms going to incentivize a reduction in vigilance, or does it encourage yet more of it?
The driving force behind these “unfortunate misunderstandings” is not a worthy justification for increased scrutiny and violence done towards women, either. Can you help me understand what damage is done even if a fully masculine manly man strolls into a woman’s restroom without paying attention, relieves himself in a toilet, (hopefully) washes his hands, and then leaves? And is this violation of the sanctity of a female space more or less violent than a woman being harassed or beaten for using it?
I don't expect people to have a problem with understanding this, in practice. It's really not that difficult to understand what sex you are and where you're allowed to be. Children learn this quite early on.
(Edit: My account is now rate-limited because of downvotes, so I can't reply to any responses. However I would like to point out that if MIT is currently allowing staff and students to use single-sex spaces that are designated for the opposite sex, this is very likely to be a Title IX violation. Unfortunately, sexism is rife in institutions of higher education, and MIT is no exception.)