Introduction
The issue to be considered is transgender bathroom rights since this problem is urgent and requires discussion. As a comparison of opinions, two conflicting positions will be presented. Archibald (2016) supports the initiation of the separation of bathrooms by the person’s ideas concerning his or her gender. In the paper by Rudin, Ruane, Ross, Farro, and Billing (2014), the authors oppose this idea and provide arguments against such a decision.
Authors’ Research Question
In both articles, the subject of the study is the right of transgenders to access bathrooms according to the preferences of these people. The research question is the following: should transgenders be allowed to use bathrooms according to their preferences? All the arguments are based on this discussion and touch directly on this topic.
Hypotheses
Archibald (2016) claims that the government should allow transgenders to have access to the bathrooms of the type that they prefer. Rudin et al. (2014) note that the majority of the population surveyed against such measures, which allows talking about the illegitimacy of such innovations. The positions of the authors are the opposite, and both opinions should be considered to make appropriate conclusions.
Statistical Information
As Archibald (2016) remarks, all the fifty US states had “the right to have a same-sex marriage” in 2015 (p. 1). However, according to Rudin et al. (2014), “only 27 percent of students recommended unisex bathrooms” (p. 724). Also, 194 businesses took part in the latter research, which the proof of high social activity (Rudin et al., 2014, p. 724). All these data are trustworthy as they are documented and confirm the difference in opinions and the relevance of the issue under analysis.
Measures to Improve the Credibility
To improve the credibility of the findings, it is possible, for instance, to cite the real answers of people who took part in the polls and voted for or against the analyzed innovation. Also, to describe in detail the views of the government concerning this issue would also be the right decision. Thus, Archibald (2016) mentions the position of the Federal Government, but Rudin et al. (2014) do not provide appropriate information.
The Use of the Findings
Some of the research findings may need to be used to review the positions of legislation. For example, a large percentage of people against the legalization of transgender bathroom rights cast doubt on the legitimacy of such an innovation. Also, despite the government’s point of view, this issue can cause serious social disagreements, and riots and rallies can erupt. Therefore, all the opinions should be taken into account in the decision-making process.
Personal Response
When talking about personal opinion about both positions, the study by Rudin et al. (2014) is possibly more grounded and confirmed with facts. Certainly, respect for human rights and freedoms is an integral component of modern society. Nevertheless, if the rights of one stratum will automatically infringe on another one, it is possible to speak about affirmative action. Therefore, the argument in support of the revision of the unconditional decision to legalize transgender bathroom rights should be reviewed.
The Perception of the Authors’ Arguments
The perception of both the authors’ ideas directly depends on the quality of their analysis regarding the question under consideration and also on the degree of data reliability. Perhaps, the article by Rudin et al. (2014) more coincides with personal beliefs than the paper by Archibald (2016). The arguments of the authors allow understanding their positions; however, the decision to reconsider the statements of the new law looks more reasonable.
Conclusion
Thus, the analysis of both the conflicting articles allows concluding that in these works, the positions of the authors are argued, but there are detailed statistics concerning the opinion of the interviewed people in one of the papers. The findings can be used for their implementation in the legislative framework. Certain measures to improve credibility can be taken.
References
Archibald, C. J. (2016). Transgender bathroom rights. Duke Journal of Gender, Law, and Policy, 24, 1-32.
Rudin, J., Ruane, S., Ross, L., Farro, A., & Billing, T. (2014). Hostile territory: Employers’ unwillingness to accommodate transgender employees. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 33(8), 721-734.