That the guy was twerking in the girls’ locker room is funny, but the least of the problems. That high school girls were compelled to share a locker room with a biological male is one issue. That they were forced to do so because some administrators decided they were going to change everything to create their version of Utopia is another. And this complaint, filed in federal court in the District of Minnesota, does an excellent job of spelling the issues out.
The first paragraph of the complaint provides a good overview (broken into paragraphs for readability) of the claim:
1. This case is about protecting the privacy of every student within Independent School District 706 (“Virginia School District” or “District” or “District Defendant”)—privacy that the Defendants violate each school day through their new rules and policies that radically changed the meaning of “sex” in Title IX. Defendants have unilaterally rejected the Title IX meaning of sex, which for 40 years has meant male and female: two objective, fixed, binary classes which are rooted in our human reproductive nature. In lieu of this unambiguous meaning of sex, Defendants inject a distinct and altogether different concept of gender identity which is subjectively discerned, fluid, and nonbinary.
The Department of Education and Department of Justice (“Federal Defendants”) acted without regard for statutory authority or required rule-making procedures, and created and promulgated a new ultra vires rule (“Federal Rule” or “Rule”) through the artifice of issuing “guidelines” (“Federal Guidelines” or “Guidelines”) and then enforcing those guidelines against several schools. And those enforcement actions notified all school districts nationwide that they must treat a student’s gender identity as their sex for the purpose of Title IX if they wish to retain federal funding.
The Federal Rule redefines “sex” in Title IX and requires school districts to regulate access to sex-specific private facilities such as locker rooms, restrooms, shower rooms, and hotel rooms on overnight school-sponsored trips by gender identity rather than by sex. Virginia School District fully adopted and implemented the Federal Defendant’s Rule as their own policy (“District Policy” or “Policy”).
The consequence of the Federal Rule and District Policy was ineluctable: adolescent girls, in the midst of disrobing within their private locker room, found an adolescent male in their midst. The risk of such encounters, and the encounters themselves, merit prompt judicial intervention to strike the Defendants’ rules and policies and protect Plaintiffs’ bodily privacy.
The generic reaction is that it’s wrong to discriminate against transgender students, and indeed, it is. But that’s where most people stop thinking, to the extent there is any thinking involved. Sorry that issues demand more, even if it causes you a headache or makes you want to cry.
The complaint raises the issues that have been raised here, perhaps a bit too often, that this isn’t just about gender neutral bathrooms, but locker rooms and dorms/hotel rooms for school children ages 3 through 18 which would no longer be separated by biological gender. It’s about some bureaucrats in the waning hours of the current administration fundamentally changing law with a bludgeon to suit their gender politics.
What the transgender “guidance” fails miserably to do is accommodate the nuanced balance between a child’s personal physical privacy and the desire to accommodate the needs of transgender students. The “solution” of providing transgender students with a private place of their own is off the table, as that would stigmatize them.
If boys identify as girls, then they must be treated as such in every way. There is no middle ground allowed to protect the sensibilities of young women who don’t want to share a locker room or hotel room with someone who feels like a female but has the other gender’s genitalia.
Is it time for American society to address the needs of transgender students? Sure. They deserve to be protected. But so do females. So do males. So does everyone. How many times must it be explained the clash of rights results in a zero sum game, where expanding the rights of one identity group comes at the expense of another?
The Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, has made its decision that the tail will wag the dog, that the rights of transgender students transcend those of everyone else, and that schools will change everything to accommodate their needs. Your daughter’s safe environment just went up in smoke to meet the needs of a transgender student?
OCR says tough nuggies, suck it up. Your daughter’s safe environment, so important in every other circumstance that they’re willing, no, thrilled, to sacrifice innocent boys on their altar of eradicating sexual harassment, completely disappears when there’s a transgender student around. Go figure.
This is an exceptionally well-written, well-conceived and comprehensive complaint. It’s not that transgender students don’t deserve protection from discrimination, but that this was never the way to accomplish it, by sacrificing the rights of others. The madness of the bureaucratic bludgeon must stop, and we as a society need to deal with this issue thoughtfully, to accommodate everyone’s rights and needs, not just the favorite identity group of the month.
Regardless of how you feel about this issue, other parents and children, the ones who have to live with the consequences of OCR’s agenda, are entitled to feel differently. They are entitled to want personal privacy, just as transgender students are entitled to want the same. The way to deal with all interests isn’t to have it rammed down society’s throat by progressive bureaucrats, but to use the legislative process to achieve a comprehensive and thoughtful approach that accommodates everyone’s rights.
AB and AB’s Mother do not want men sharing such facilities with AB. They fear not only the increased risk of sexual assault on AB, but the embarrassment, humiliation, anxiety, and loss of personal dignity because they will have to share such intimate spaces with men while in various stages of undress.
Are females entitled to some privacy? Of course. Does that disappear at the mention of the word transgender?