School Board set to impose bathroom ban on transgender students

The Marion County School Board on Thursday reached a consensus that they want to restrict school bathrooms to students based on birth sex, not gender identity.

The proposed resolution, which goes against many national court rulings and opinions handed down by The Office for Civil Rights, would ban transgender students from using the bathrooms for which they identify. The resolution will be placed on Tuesday’s agenda as an emergency item, which will be when the board can legally vote on it.

The resolution states that transgender people are “not a protected class under federal or state law or under Marion County Public Schools (MCPS) policy. Male and female users of MCPS single-sex facilities reasonably expect not to be exposed to persons of the opposite sex while using those facilities.”

This will just lead to bullying

Its a shame :frowning:

Hey how have you been? Haven’t seen you for a bit. :slight_smile:

This is a good move. We wouldn’t want cross-dressers in the bathroom of the opposite sex.

Personally, the best resolution in my opinion is to request that they use unisex bathrooms instead out of respect to other students that might feel uncomfortable (ie. one-person bathrooms for use by anyone).

Asking transgender people to use bathrooms of their birth gender will only lead to confusion, because they will appear to be *defying * the law when they come in.

Naturally, you can’t exactly check to see whether they are actually male or female just by looking, so the best solution is to set up single use bathrooms and ask transgender people to use those. Then just leave it alone. If anyone complains about a man in the female bathroom or vice verse, just ask the offending party politely to use the unisex bathroom as to not disturb others. Complaints will be few and far between (because no one wants to bother with that unless they are actually uncomfortable) and everyone should be relatively happy. As a bonus, these unisex bathrooms would allow people who are for whatever reason uncomfortable with being in the normal bathrooms feel safer, would be an easy way to make wheelchair accessible bathrooms, and would help parents with small children of the opposite gender.

As long as the left is intelligent and doesn’t add a stupid “transgender bathroom” sign, no body will even feel that entering such a bathroom would be proclaiming themselves transgender. It would just be a single use bathroom for anyone.

Well, unfortunately that is something that could happen either bathroom they choose :frowning: (and in some schools, anyone who doesn’t agree with transgenderism, even if they are completely kind to transgender people, could get bullied – bullying is universally present and universally dumb).

Another reason single-use bathrooms might be better - protection against bullies grouping in bathrooms *and * both sides are allowed to feel comfortable.

This is all such a non issue and these laws are ridiculous.

Most people have likely peed beside transgendered people and didn’t even know- because it’s a non issue.

How does this make anyone safer? If everyone is so worried about men dressing as women just to go into the bathroom, With this law what would stop men from just walking into women’s bathrooms and saying “oh, I’m not biologically a man, I’m a transgendered male”. It works both ways.

is or has people being assaulted in bathrooms ever been an issue?

Bottom line is this ridiculous law has NOTHING to do with protecting people in bathrooms.

This isn’t an assault, but there were claims of voyeurism in the “gender-neutral” bathrooms at the University of Toronto. Two women claimed they were filmed. The number of such bathrooms was “decreased”:

There is an incident in a swimming pool locker room where a man entered a locker room in Seattle when girls were changing. He didn’t claim to be a female, so I assume he didn’t clam to be transgender either :

There are other instances in which men dressed up as a woman and entered certain areas, perhaps they dressed like that in order to access certain locations but otherwise indentify as men or perhaps they did indentify as transgender but take the case of Jason Pomare for example, who dressed as a woman and filmed in a restroom:

Now, if you have bathrooms with no gender allocation, these bathrooms are open to abuse.

I agree with you - this is the ideal solution. :thumbsup:

Good move. Boys need help if they really think they are meant to be girls.
Same for girls who think they are supposed to be boys.

We are talking high school here, for fully matured adults, self id is fine, but there are enough headaches and discipline issues in high school as it is!

Agreed. These laws are nonsense.

Actually there have been many instances of men peeping at women in the bathrooms and in locker rooms. Up until now, it has been illegal, but now, what are you going to charge them with?

Now that you can’t get them on just peeping, you need to catch them taking photos or committing some form of assault.

You are ignoring the fact that this is not just about bathrooms but includes locker rooms as well, where kids are in various stages of undress and even showering. Boys do not need to be in the girls bathrooms and vice versa. That is ridiculous.

The installation of more single person / family bathrooms which are also configured for families and physically disabled people is a good thing.

But making existing public places build new bathrooms just for transgender people is a financial hardship schools, companies, etc shouldn’t have to forced into retroactively doing.

However, I agree that in the long run, single person bathrooms might even be the safest thing for our kids.

For example: The gym in my office has several single person “locker-rooms”. There are 5 or 6, each equipped with a sink and shower. The lockers are in a public area. And each floor has 3 bathrooms - 1 for men, 1 for women, and 1 single person bathroom orginally meant for physically disabled people of either sex. Any transgender people could use that single person bathroom. So while I doubt my office was configured with transgender people in mind, it can work for them.

Unfortunately, yes, but I’m afraid such economic necessities are sometimes unavoidable. Small business will probably just be able to convert their two bathrooms into unisex bathrooms anyway, and larger organizations will hopefully be able to figure out something. The same thing happened with the passage of disability rights acts. Businesses had to install elevators and other devices for the disabled in buildings that frankly were not designed for them. I am still not sure how the architects who renovated the ancient college library managed to stuff them in, but it was accomplished somehow or other! Obviously, as with the disability rights laws, it would have to be phased in slowly, allowing time for certain places to catch up with the times (all while crossing our fingers and hoping that no conflicts occur in places that are not able to transition quickly).

Why do we have sex segregation to begin with? I personally believe in it. But what is the rationale for people who want to open up bathrooms and locker rooms? And why is it not a fraud to have sex segregated bathrooms that aren’t really sex segregated? If you put up signs segregating by sex that creates an expectation of privacy. In my opinion the only reason advocates of ‘transgender’ folks want to keep sex segregated facilities is to use them to further their claim that such a person really is the sex he imagines himself to be.

There’s a general objection against unisex bathrooms in that it still puts trans people an an “other” category instead of allowing them to by part of the gender with which they identify.

For newer buildings that I see in some areas they’ve gone with a group of independent single toilet bathrooms that anyone can use; they are not assigned to gender. Unfortunately I don’t see this being applied to existing buildings and existing bathrooms.

Yep. It isn’t about tolerance it is, like same sex marriage, about forcing people to acknowledge something as true. If heresy laws were bad then this is in a sense worse. It not only forces someone to have a belief but it forces them to have a belief contrary to nature.

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