Oppose! Your rights end when others' begin
Your rights end where others’ begin. Thomas Jefferson said, “There can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest public Good.”
These policies are big changes that would infringe on the rights of many other people. I think they would be very unhealthy for a multitude of reasons. They are offensive to many people and will not accomplish what you want, but create a more hostile environment.
The policy treating it like other discrimination and harassment (Draft policy pg. 10)- complaints could be weaponized against other students and/or teachers. This could be exploited by any student by changing their minds and ‘gender’ at will, any number of times.
Particularly offensive and illegal – a blatant violation of parental rights – is the idea of the school helping a student to explore, facilitate, and make decisions without the parent’s knowledge or consent! (Recommended standard, Pg. 12) This would be opening up schools to lawsuits, not to mention political suicide.
In addition it is the RIGHT OF THE PARENTS to nurture their children as they see fit. It would be blatant and illegal over-reaching to interfere in this area of parenting and report it as abuse, if they disagree with radical ideologies. The ideas that you propose to set forth as policies are not proven to help children with gender confusion. There is much evidence to the contrary. (Recommended standard, pg. 13)
I have cited multiple Supreme Court cases below upholding parents’ rights to nurture their children as they see fit.
The policies would also put many girls at risk for harassment, abuse and violence. What about the rights of all of the girls in these facilities – their right to feel secure in restrooms and locker rooms. What parents want their 9th grade daughter entering a bathroom, or locker room, with a 12th grade biological male? (I do not know of any!) Again, you would be responsible for opening up the schools to lawsuits.
The policy would essentially “tie the hands” of school staff: “School staff should not confront students about their gender identity upon entry into the restroom.” (Recommended Standard, p.18)
You are forcing a worldview that is based in feelings, not based in facts. Transgender is not biological reality. Human sexuality in binary. Females have X,X chromosomes, males have X,Y. Someone who identifies as transgender, that is not in their body, that is in their thoughts. Thoughts and feelings, are not hard-wired; they are subjective. They can be factually wrong, or factually correct. (Delusions are a real thing, and the definition is a fixed, false belief.) You would be doing more harm than good and it seems these policies are intended to create more confusion about gender in students, than to actually solve any problems. (https://sexchangeregret.com/how-to-debunk-transgender-madness-in-2-minutes/)
One of the world’s leading authorities on gender confusion, Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins University Hospital warned, “…policymakers and the media are doing no favors either to the public or the transgendered by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” (https://fwipetitions.org/fwi/16-facts-on-gender-confusion/)
For children who experience gender confusion, family therapy can help. Dr. Kenneth Zucker, head of the Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, Canada and one of the leading authorities in the world on gender disorders, has treated over 500 children with gender confusion. He has documented that in the vast majority of cases, therapy focused on reducing the psychopathology within the family and child and has resulted in the child’s acceptance of their birth sex. (Zucker, K. and Bradley, S. Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents, The Guilford Press, New York, NY, 1995) (https://fwipetitions.org/fwi/16-facts-on-gender-confusion/)
Just a few SUPREME COURT CASES regarding parents rights involving their families:
Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) - A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based on a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit. (And this has much broader implications than a foreign language!)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) - A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) - Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families .
Jones V Barlow (UT Supreme Court, 2017) The Court upheld the right of parents to raise their children. It held that a lower court’s award of visitation rights to Barlow’s ex-partner wrongly interfered with Barlow’s “right to direct the upbringing of her child”.