He wrote a long essay explaining who he is and he did provide a letter from the doctor overseeing his hormone treatment.

For personal reasons, he doesn’t seek to be diagnosed with “gender identity disorder” (or any other mental disorder, for that matter — who would?) and he doesn’t seek surgery.

The University shouldn’t force people to have medical procedures like sexual reassignment surgery, especially when it isn’t needed.

However, that is not the case with Kourt. He provided them with enough documentation (his driver’s license states that he is male) and was still denied housing because he hasn’t had surgery. Shouldn’t the driver’s license have been enough? Does any institution have the right to say what medical procedures should be done to meet their definition of male or female? Perhaps they will start checking in everyone’s pants to make sure they are up to university standards?

Kourt was honest and up front with them. It’s like the university is punishing him for his honesty. Their stance is only encouraging other transgender students to be less than honest.

Hi Brian! It’s good to hear from Kourt’s fellow Equality Riders. You all did awesome work!

Should the university bar a student if the other residents don’t find him/her male/female “enough”? What if they him/her *too* gay? What if they’re uncomfortable with a person of color? Which prejudicial discomforts do we accommodate and which do we say “No, you will have to adjust” to?

In Kourt’s case, Kourt is seeing a doctor and is on monitored hormone treatment. In fact, when I first met Kourt and he told me that he was transgender, I thought that he was pre-transition MTF. I don’t think a certain “level of passing” should be required to be considered a certain gender, but in Kourt’s case there is little room for discussion: He is a guy. I can be pretty sure that all of the guys in the dorm I lived in freshman year would get along great with him.

I do think that this particular instance can give SUU–and organizations and individuals around the country–the opportunity to consider what they mean by “non-discrimination.” While Kourt’s case, to me at least, seems very cut and dry, I see this as an opportunity for SUU to wrestle with some of the questions Dennis raised: how do we judge gender?

And I echo Karel’s sentiment: Don’t assume that students will be uncomfortable or that they won’t be able to overcome their initial concerns about the unknown.

BTW Karel, it’s nice to hear from you! I was the Equality Rider permanently attached to the video camera.

I’m Kourt’s mom. I am not extremely knowledgeable about transgender issues, but am deeply concerned by the treatment Kourt has received from the housing department. Nobody should have to have any kind of surgery to be allowed to live in on-campus housing.

Just because they have had other transgendered students live in on-campus housing by providing “proof” does not make their policy acceptable.

Mr. Dean O’Driscoll’s statement about Kourt’s application not even being considered is completely inaccurate. I have heard the voicemail from Mr. Nueman Duncan, the housing director. He is clearly denying accommodations for Kourt. Perhaps Mr. O’Driscoll did not thoroughly do his homework before making his statement.

Even if SUU did offer Kourt female housing, how would that make it right? Kourt totally identifies as male. He would have been identifying as male from the age of 2 if I had known about transgenderism then. Just because Kourt doesn’t have the correct genitals to live in male housing doesn’t mean he should have to live in female housing. Kourt should be able to live where he feels safe and comfortable.

And finally, how can SUU assume that students would feel uncomfortable living with Kourt? How dare they try to make the students as small-minded as the administrators!

SUU is a good school and I hope they change policy as a result of Kourt’s experience.

I hope that these are nothing more than growing pains as SUU learns how to deal with diversity. I’m glad Kourt is helping them along!