According to the Associated Press attorneys for a group of concerned parents have forced a Colorado school district to seriously consider taking up an anti-trans school policy:
The Florence-Penrose School District is reviewing a draft policy on privacy from attorneys who represent families concerned about their teenage daughters sharing bathrooms and locker rooms with a transgender female student at Florence High School. The authors say the policy seeks to reconcile assertions of gender identity with constitutional privacy rights. The school district is refusing to release a copy of the draft report.
According to the Canon City Daily Record (http://tinyurl.com/lzc95ya ), several Colorado high school girls are alleging harassment because a transgender student is using the girl’s bathroom. The complaints allege that the student is a biological boy using a girl’s bathroom in violation of the rights of other students.
What might one learn from the above short article? Let’s review:
- Parents of Florence High are “concerned” about a “biological boy using a girl’s bathroom.”
- When a trans girl uses the restroom, the privacy of cis girls is violated.
- There is a valid conflict between “assertions of gender identity with constitutional privacy rights.”
- The trans girl may very well be harassing cis girls in the bathroom.
- These policy recommendations are presumably new.
Let’s review some critical facts that are MISSING from this AP article:
- The ex-gay group, the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) is behind the “policy,” not one group of “concerned” parents.
- The school investigated if there was any truth to PJI’s harassment claim. There wasn’t.
- PJI hounded Jane Doe, the one trans girl they’re targeting with this “policy” to the brink of suicide.
- These “policy suggestions” aren’t new. PJI sent the Board these “suggestions” months ago. PJI’s own press release makes it clear that this policy isn’t new: “This week, an attorney for the school district acknowledged that the policy proposal had been received (after being submitted by PJI before Christmas)… “
- The Board is currently considering PJI’s policy suggestions in the same way they considered them in 2013.
The policy that PJI wants is that should anyone, at any time, for any reason, object to the mere presence of a trans person, the trans child – not the person who objects to trans people – must be removed:
In any case where a sincere objection is raised to the use of a gender-specific facility by an affected person who uses such facility on the basis of anatomical gender identity, the District shall reasonably accommodate such objection and provide alternative facilities for persons claiming gender based on non-anatomical factors. – Proposed PJI Policy
Click the header link to read the full article.