Surprisingly late to the table, the social engineers over in the Keene school district have joined 6 other NH school districts in presenting a policy addressing the needs of transgender and gender nonconforming students. Transgender is defined as a person whose gender identity is different from their gender assigned at birth. The policy recognizes the privacy of transgender students as well as sets protections against possible harassment.
No doubt these protections are meaningful. But they are unnecessary. NH law already protects against discrimination based on sexual orientation and I don’t believe there is a public school out there that doesn’t already have some sort of anti-bullying policy in place.
Those two points aside, the policy gets a bit more controversial in its statement concerning restroom accessibility: “A student shall have the right to access the restroom or locker room that corresponds to the gender identity consistently asserted at school.” So in other words, boys who identify as girls would have the right to use both the girls bathrooms and locker rooms and vice versa. The policy also permits transgender students to participate in competitive sports in a manner consistent with their gender identity.
Undoubtedly, this move by NH schools and many others across the country is fueled by the Obama administration’s directives in May 2016 forcing schools to allow students to use the bathroom of the gender that they identify with or lose federal funding under Title IX; thus proving how easily the federal government manipulates the political climate in our country not by force of law, but force by checkbook.
There is also the timing of this policy which is somewhat suspicious. The second reading of this policy was placed on more time in December and will likely not be voted on by full board until February. The reason given was to lessen the caseload at the upcoming budget meetings in January. But, it may also be a strategy by school administrators to prevent anyone from submitting a warrant article focused on repealing said policy; which is exactly what Candia is doing this year. A similar policy was adopted by their school district early last year despite overwhelming opposition from Candian residents. In response, a few hundred concerned residents have submitted a warrant article to appear on the upcoming ballot in March. Its aim is to repeal the policy entirely.
This has become an extremely emotional issue this past year with fear mongering from both sides. The right claims that such a policy is not only immoral but opens the door to sexual predators–except criminals don’t obey laws. A sign on a door isn’t going to stop some pervert from walking in the girls locker room and exposing himself.
The left argues that this all about protecting the rights of certain minority groups; that transgender lives matter. They do, but those protections must go both ways. This policy would allow an extremely small percentage of the population certain protections while completely ignoring the rights and privacy of the majority.
Personally, as a father whose daughter spent some time in public schools, I draw the line at shared locker rooms. That one just doesn’t sit well with me. Most public bathrooms already have private stalls available, and there are plenty of single stall unisex bathrooms out there. But locker rooms; not so much. We’re talking about young children who are most likely undergoing a very sensitive time in their physical development and are probably having a hard enough time in the company of their own gender.
Also, in the case of fairness, I do not support allowing transgender persons with a biological advantage who have not undergone hormone therapy the ability to compete in sports that don’t align with their biological assignment.
Perhaps the biggest question that concerns me is where did this all come from? And why is this even a thing? Is this new policy really about protecting the privacy of some students and preventing possible discrimination or is it just the latest move by the left in their ongoing war on our culture? Or is it about the money? Maybe the school should spend more time educating our failing student population and less time creating unnecessary policies.