Protect the Vulnerable
Oppose those who mean them harm.
Late last month, a female-identifying transgender student in Minnesota lost teeth and had to undergo jaw surgery after taking a beating from a boy in the high school’s men’s room. Apart from such a violent incident, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and other health organizations noted in a 2019 amicus brief a broader harm that can befall trans individuals excluded from using bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity:
Exclusionary policies expose transgender individuals to harassment and abuse by forcing them to occupy gender-segregated spaces where their presence may be met with hostility, harassment, and abuse. For example, transgender men are visually recognized as men by other individuals; the presence of a transgender man in a women’s restroom would be just as alarming as the presence of a cisgender man in the same women’s restroom. Exclusionary policies thus force transgender individuals to disclose their transgender status, because it is only transgender individuals who must use facilities that are incongruent with their gender identity and how they live and are recognized in the world. Because some youth will have transitioned before they arrive in a particular school, exclusionary policies may be the only way that they are forcibly “outed” to their peers as transgender.
The brief also noted a consequence of exclusionary policies one might not have considered:
Exclusionary policies have more immediate health effects as well. Though most of us take it for granted, all individuals require regular access to a restroom. Exclusionary policies that preclude transgender individuals from using restrooms consistent with their gender identity put transgender individuals to a difficult choice: (1) violate the policy and face potential disciplinary consequences; (2) use the restroom inconsistent with their gender identity or single-user restrooms that no other students are required to use, which undermines their health care needs and risks discrimination or harassment; or (3) attempt not to use the restroom at all.
This difficult choice produces heightened anxiety and distress around restroom use, which may make it difficult for transgender individuals to concentrate or focus at school or work and potentially cause them to eschew social activities or everyday tasks.73 At least one study of transgender college students associated being denied access to restrooms consistent with one’s gender identity to an increase in suicidality.74
Studies also show that it is common for transgender students to avoid using restrooms.75 That avoidance can have medical consequences, including recurrent urinary tract infections and constipation, as well as the possibility of more serious health complications, including hematuria (blood in the urine), chronic kidney disease or insufficiency, urolithiasis (stones in the kidney, bladder, or urethra), infertility, and cancer.76
I share this as background to an unfortunate development at the meeting this past Tuesday of Colorado’s Douglas County School Board. A major agenda item was consideration of proposed policy revisions that are intended to protect trans students, consistent with new requirements under state and federal law.
This past April, the federal Department of Education issued new regulations for the Title IX law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in schools that receive federal funding. Last year, Colorado enacted SB23-296: Prevent Harassment And Discrimination In Schools. Both the Title IX regulations and the Colorado law are controversial because, according to opponents, their requirement that schools provide to transgender individuals access to bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity compromises the safety and privacy of people (particularly girls and women) who are not transgender.
The Colorado law requires that school districts comply by this coming July 1, and the federal Department of Education’s new Title IX regulations require that schools that receive federal funds comply by August 1. On Tuesday, the school board tabled consideration of the policies, a move that all but guarantees that the Douglas County School District will miss the state deadline. Prospects for making the federal Title IX deadline are unclear.
I empathize with people whose opposition to the policy revisions stems from a genuine concern for those whom they believe would be adversely affected by them. People operating in good faith can disagree about how much weight to give such concern.
Clearly, though, some who oppose these policies find motivation not in genuine concern for some students but in antipathy (or worse) for the trans students that the policy revisions are intended to protect.
The current representative of Colorado House District 39 was among the loudest voices in opposition to the policy revisions. As Colorado Community Media reported:
A group of parents, elected officials and others are opposing proposed changes to Douglas County School District policies meant to protect transgender students from harassment and discrimination.
Rep. Brandi Bradley, a Republican representing part of Douglas County at the state Capitol, called on her supporters to speak against a proposal on the school board’s agenda tonight. In a post on X, Bradley said the school board should “be scared of the parents who will burn them at the stakes,” if the board approves changes.
The representative’s suggestion that school board members ought to fear community members enraged by their vote echoes a similar statement she made in February, which I noted on a different platform:
If you are receiving death threats for the way YOU voted, that has nothing to do with me…
This latest outburst of belligerence follows fast upon her endorsement earlier this month of the Colorado Republican Party’s declaration that “God Hates Pride” and its call to fellow bigots to “Burn all the pride flags in June.”
The people of Colorado House District 39 deserve better.