Transgender Policies: True & False
In the wake of Minnesota State High School League's 2014 "Transgender Student Athlete Policy," and St. Paul Public Schools' 2015 consideration of a broad transgender policy, it is important to understand what these types of policies actually do. These "transgender policies" will become a growing trend in culture--if we do or say nothing to stand up for all our kids, including those who identify as transgender.
St. Paul Public Schools has also been distributing "Myths & Facts" related to their transgender policy. Sadly, their "Facts" leave out a lot of important information.
Check out the TRUE & FALSE below to get an accurate picture of what these types of Transgender Policies actually do...and share with friends!
These are not "transgender policies." They are "gender inclusion" policies and benefit everyone.
"Transgender policies" actually give students struggling with their gender identity rights above and beyond everyone else, ultimately harming everyone, including them. That's what makes these policies so harmful and hypocritical.
All students can participate in athletics, provided they meet the school's other requirements for participation. And, right now, female students can try out for male teams. No male students are permitted to participate on female teams. Transgender student athlete policies, however, permit biologically male students to participate on female teams. This gives them rights above and beyond other students, hurting the fairness in competition and safety for female teams.
Similarly, students use the bathroom, shower, and locker room facilities that correspond with their biological sex for privacy and safety reasons. Transgender policies permit students struggling with their gender identity to choose the facility opposite their biological sex. This gives them rights above every other student, and violates the privacy rights of everyone involved.
There is no correlation between unsafe school environments and permitting students struggling with gender identity to use the bathrooms, showers, or locker rooms opposite their biological sex.
Do we really even have to explain this?
St. Paul Public Schools makes this assertion without any evidence. Furthermore, they're missing the bigger point. Even if no one's safety rights are violated, EVERYONE's basic physical privacy rights are violated when students are forced to use facilities where a member of the opposite sex may see them in a state of undress.
ALL students have basic physical privacy rights, and schools have a duty to protect those privacy rights. Most everyone understands that it makes no sense to place biological males in female bathrooms and locker rooms, and that it makes no sense to place a biologically female student in all-male bathrooms and locker rooms.
Common sense and basic privacy and safety for our students surely must prevail over a politically driven agenda.
Treating students with dignity and respect means permitting students struggling with gender identity to use facilities opposite their biological sex and participate on sports teams opposite their biological sex.
Actually, treating all students with dignity and respect means making sure that no student's basic physical privacy and safety rights are violated, and that students participating in athletics will be provided with fair competition.
Schools can accommodate a small number of students with different needs without violating the privacy rights of all students. MN schools generally do a great job of addressing individual student needs, so they are fully capable of providing access to a private facility for a student struggling with gender identity who does not feel comfortable using the facilities that match his/her biological sex.
There's absolutely no need (and no requirement under any state or federal law for that matter) to violate everyone's privacy rights by forcing students of the opposite biological sex into intimate settings together.
In fact, St. Paul Public Schools admits that all their schools already have a private restroom facility that a potential student struggling with gender identity could use. St. Paul schools can address that student's need without violating the privacy rights of all students.
Students and/or their parents do not have the right to know the sex or gender identity of a specific student, so therefore parents do not have the right to know if a transgender student is using the same bathroom as their child.
It is true that students' medical records and gender information are considered private data, so parents do not have the right to know the "gender identities" of the children sharing bathrooms, showers, hotels, and locker rooms with their children.
However, parents DO have a right to know that their children's basic privacy rights are being protected, particularly when their children are in intimate settings away from home.
Transgender policies are required by law in order to avoid "discrimination" against transgender persons.
Actually, no state or federal law requires schools to permit biological boys to use girls' showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms; biological girls to use boys' showers, locker rooms, and bathrooms; or biological boys to participate on girls' athletic teams in order to avoid being "discriminatory."
In fact, schools are likely at a far greater risk of creating an environment ripe for lawsuits by permitting students of the opposite biological sex to see each other in various states of undress, or by permitting biological boys to compete on girls' teams.
Multiple federal courts have upheld privacy rights. The federal Eighth Circuit court, which has jurisdiction over MN, has specifically even held that a transgender person's use of a women's restroom violated female employees' privacy interests (Sommers v. Budget Mkt., Inc. 667 F.2d 748, 750 (8th Cir. 1982)) . And that was in the context of adults in a work environment. How much more so is this principle true in schools when we're dealing with minors?
Transgender policies do not threaten fairness in student athletic competition or give rise to potential issues of biological boys gaining access to athletic scholarships or other awards intended for girls.
Again, it seems odd to need to explain this, but with "transgender policies" becoming the latest in the LGBT activist agenda, we will.
The MN Legislature specifically passed law stating that female teams can be restricted to only females for obvious reasons--in order to provide fair competition, to address issues of discrimination against female students, and for females' safety. (Minnesota Statutes 121A.04 and 363A.23). Allowing biological males on female-only teams seems a step backwards in the push for rights for women, doesn't it?
Furthermore, pediatricians agree that in general, boys tend to be taller, heavier, and have more skeletal mass than girls by age 18. Check out this great infographic from North Star Law & Policy Center on that topic.
Most anyone who's been an athlete or coach will agree that it doesn't make sense for girls to have to compete against boys for spots on a team or playing time, or to have to compete against boys on an opposing team in an athletic competition. The idea certainly doesn't pass the fairness test, and the potential safety issues for girls should concern everyone.
It is foolish to think that if "transgender policies" go into effect, a scenario where a biologically male student competes athletically as a female and receives a school athletic scholarship or award intended for female students, could not happen.