Considerations to address
Page 20 of the document implies that parents would only be included in a "multi-disciplinary school team" if the parents are affirming of a non-cisgender identity. Even if they are not affirming, they should still be included in discussions with the school system about their child.
Page 19 says “local school boards may need to review agreements and processes with community partners for any activities taking place on school grounds to ensure consistency in practices.” Does that mean a church would not be allowed to rent space in a school facility if they are not transgender-affirming?
In the name of including non-cisgender students in sex-segregated activities and use of facilities with cisgender students (Pages 17-18), it is not clear that full consideration has been given to the cisgender students and the effects of these policies on their participation. For instance, if a biological male is changing clothes with biological females, what about the effects that has on the biological females? Having a few individual private areas does not sufficiently account for the effects on, for instance, the majority of young female middle school students having someone who is still biologically male in the same room while they are changing clothes. What about times in those circumstances when there is no adult supervision in the room such as when a teacher's role is being covered by a substitute teacher?
The activity policies (Page 16) are being implemented in the name of inclusion, yet in many instances the net effect may result in excluding gender-based activities altogether.
With regard to bullying (Pages 9-11), there are many of us who agree on principle that bullying is wrong and should not be allowed. The question is what constitutes bullying? My concern is does or could it include disagreeing with transgender ideas in general? If someone were to claim that what is called “cisgender” or “sex assigned at birth” is the only gender, would that count as bullying? It should not.