S.D. passes transgender student bathroom ban bill


South Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to approve a law requiring transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their sex at birth if the governor signs a bill passed Tuesday by the state Senate.

The Senate voted 20-15 to send the bill to Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard, who initially responded positively to the measure but said last week he’d need to study it more before making a decision.

Advocates say the bill is meant to protect the privacy of students, but opponents say it discriminates against vulnerable adolescents. CBS affiliate KELO in Sioux Falls reports that those opposed say that in addition to the likelihood it will lead to bullying, they also question the constitutionality of the bill and fear it will cost the state millions in lawsuits.

Under the plan, schools would have to provide a “reasonable accommodation” for transgender students, such as a single-occupancy bathroom or the “controlled use” of a staff-designated restroom, locker room or shower room.

Republican Sen. David Omdahl urged other legislators Tuesday to support the bill to “preserve the innocence of our young people.”

Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans unsuccessfully opposed the measure in the Senate.



Does the Church have a stance on this bathroom issue?

And before people get TOO excited, isn’t there a provision in the bill for unisex bathrooms?


I’m surprised the difference between surgically transgendered students and students who have transgender feelings wasn’t a complication for the bill. Hopefully of course not many South Dakotan parents have put their kids through transgender surgery…


Not directly, but I would think it’s teaching on the immutable and inseparable relationship between gender and biological sex would apply. Since she sees sex and gender as the same thing then bathrooms segregated by sex would seem to be the norm regardless of what someone identifies as on any given day.

I agree that provisions for individual, unisex bathrooms seem to be the only reasonable compromise. That being said, the LGBTQ lobby wants normalization. By that I mean they do not want to segregate the students because it implies that transgenderism is something that should be hidden and they want everyone to accept that a penis (or lack therefore of) has zero to do with being male or female.


I think intersex bathrooms are the only reasonable solution to this predicament that can be hoped for. Unfortunately for us (though fortunately for plumbers) public spaces will require a lot of renovations in the future… :rolleyes:


In the past in the USA, I’ve heard that LGBTQAI students can use the bathroom in the nurse’s office.

If I were still a kid (physically :D)., that would rock in my book. :thumbsup:

But I fear the other commentators are right: The way this kind of big government activism goes is that whatever accommodations/resources supplied are never enough, and there’s always someone who just HAS to have a new project/cause…:rolleyes:

The exception may be disabled folks, who by far and away require such assistance.


If transgender kids have started, for example, to use hormones even without surgery, wouldn’t it be disturbing to girls to go to the restroom and have someone enter who looks like a boy, perhaps even having facial hair? Or what about the boys having someone enter who looks and is dressed like a girl?


Perhaps the lawmakers heard about the guy in the women’s locker room up in Seattle?
The link to the TV newscast and afticle are on this CAF thread:



Until recently, no doctor would have considered it before sexual maturity. Teenagers already have a ton of hormones coursing through their brains so dumping in opposite sex androgens would seem to be a very bad idea. It’s a little like remodeling a house when you aren’t finished building it yet.

That being said, wasn’t it Oregon that just passed a law that allows kids down to 15 to get state funded “reassignment” surgery without parental consent? Heck you can’t even get an aspirin in the school clinic without parental permission, but it’s no problem flooding your body with hormones.

We don’t let kids drive, smoke, drink, get tattoos or sign contracts at 15, but have your body radically altered? Sure why not.


What’s the real reason women are being incited to go into men’s toilets?

Those who genuinely can’t go into the ordinary toilets are being catered for very well by having an extra one, that exactly is a “reasonable adjustment”.


I believe the solution is to do away were separate facilities for men and women. Instead there be should be facilities for people with penises and people with vaginas .


Twenty years ago such a distinction would have been a great source of humor. More to the point, it would have been incomprehensible. Someone asked if the Church has a position on this. Younger people especially need to understand how incredibly new all these theories on gender are. The concept of modern genders is neither theological or scientific. Rather, it is driven by politics and psychology. I fear that the psychology of gender has left the ranks of scientific disciplines. “Procreation” of modern gender understanding by nature must come from political conversion, as true procreation has not changed since the beginning of time. The lack of biological procreation combined with the high suicide rate among these converts to modern gender theory will insure its demise.

In a few generations we are likely to look back on this period of time with amazement.


The first thing that came to my mind is enforcement. Usually, if the person is transgender and especially if they are on hormones, you may not be able to tell by the outward appearance their sex at birth.
For example if you go to a new school in SD, will you be required to disclose your sex at birth? I am just thinking if a parent had a transgender child in SD, they could just not disclose the fact that they are transgender to the schools to get around the law.
And as for adults in the public restrooms, will you have to show ID to prove your sex if required?


Most times it is usually free while the line for the female bathroom is too long.:smiley:


That’s why the bill requires schools to provide a single-occupant bathroom or another alternative.

Despite all the hue and cry, this bill is one of the first things I have seen that truly tries to balance the rights of all of the citizens involved.


Why have bathrooms become a battle ground? After all, what we all do inside bathrooms is not exactly attractive (at least for those going in to relieve themselves). So, why is it so hard to just use the bathroom that aligns with your plumbing? It makes no sense to me, it honestly does not. If a transgendered person gets surgery to change the appearance of their sex to align with the opposite sex, then, at that time, they would still use the bathroom that aligns with their “new” plumbing.

This country’s collective soul is broken–we can’t even think with common sense.


When you first enroll in school, you must provide a birth certificate which indicates your sex. That information would be on your record, even if you transfer school. While some state allow a person to petition to change his/her sex on a birth certificate after full transition, I don’t think any allow a minor to do so.

As for adults and public restrooms, I don’t think it’s about checking at the point of entry but rather to give businesses and individuals something to stand on when there is a disturbance or complaint. Just this week, there was a situation of a man entering a women’s locker room in Seattle and undressing twice. Based on Seattle’s law (which allows people to use the facility in which they feel most comfortable), the women in the locker room and the staff could do nothing about it since he asserted he was protected under the new law.

Under a law such as S.D.'s he would not have been allowed to return (the second time being when a group of young girls were dressing for swim practice).



The problem is that gender theory has zero to do with a person’s plumbing. There are transgender individuals that never have surgery and never intend too. They are perfectly fine with being a “female” that lives in male body. They might even sleep with women, but identify as a lesbian. :shrug:

I think the restroom itself isn’t such a problem, but more when you talk about locker rooms and showering facilities. In some places the toilet and shower facilities are only in the same connected areas. Given the number of people who have no problem walking nude through locker rooms is where the issue happens. My wife doesn’t like when she turns around and sees full frontal female nudity 3 feet from her face and if it were a male she would be furious.

Now if you reversed it and said she disliked it if it were male nudity but female nudity made her furious because she identified as male (regardless of her external features) then who is right? Based on gender theory based approaches it is the individual that defines it, not what every other person impacted would.


I get all that. I just think we’ve lost our collectives minds and souls because we cannot even let bathrooms and showers be assigned to those with a given set of plumbing.

** sigh **


I know what you mean and many a time my fellows have said “that’s fine dear you go ahead” (on her way to a closet). She knew the score and we all knew the score.

I did say incited. Those cases weren’t incited.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.