After victory for trans student rights in Cumberland, all eyes turn to Westerly
As the Cumberland School District wrestled
with and ultimately
declined to pass changes to its transgender student policies last
week, Westerly School Committee Solicitor William
Nardone provided a freewheeling and imaginative overview of a
recent United States Supreme Court decision, West
Virginia v. B.P.J., regarding the eligibility of transgender
athletes in female sports at last Wednesday’s meeting during his “solicitor’s
report.”
Credit: Mel Woods/Xtra
In the decision, SCOTUS ruled that under Title
IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may maintain
women’s and girls’ sports teams based on “biological sex.” The decision
permits—but does not strictly mandate—the exclusion of trans girls from female
sports, said Solicitor Nardone. The solicitor advised the School Committee that
the district should align itself with the court’s decision, even though the
ruling did not affect Rhode Island General Laws or the Department
of Education’s mandated Guidance
for Rhode Island Schools on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.
Nardone went even further than the court’s decision,
interpreting the ruling’s “umbrella” to apply to spaces such as locker rooms
and bathrooms. Christian nationalist Committee member Peter Nero was
quick to point out the difficulties of enforcing a ban based on “biological
sex,” noting that birth certificates can be legally altered in many states.
Solicitor Nardone dismissed the concern and noted that the Supreme Court
decision does not address the issue of verification, and that the “day-to-day”
policing of the policy is up to the district administration.
Committeemembers Seth Logan and Lori
Wycall cited Mirabelli v. Bonta, the case that was
at the center of the kerfuffle in Cumberland. Unaware that Cumberland would
conclude that altering their policy was, at the very least, premature (if not
dangerous for the health and well-being of students), they suggested the
district ensure parents are informed if a student begins to socially transition
at school (that is, adopt names, pronouns, or the dress of a gender different
from the one assigned at birth. Committeemember Logan is fairly new to the
Committee, but Committeemember Wycall has long wanted to impose policies to
discriminate against trans children. (See: here, here,
and here.)
Though the opponents of trans girls playing sports couch
their arguments in terms of competitiveness, safety, and fairness, their true
agenda is Christian Nationalism, complete with Christian prayers
and Bibles in public schools.
Committeemember Peter Nero formerly served
as the Superintendent of the Cranston Public Schools until
his retirement in 2012. During his tenure, an atheist student, Jessica
Ahlquist (full disclosure, Jessica is my niece), was a plaintiff in
a successful
case brought against the city by the RI ACLU to
remove a Christian prayer banner from the auditorium wall of Cranston
High School West:
“We wanted to keep the banner,” said Committeemember Nero at
Tuesday night’s meeting. “We thought it was the relic. It was Christian, and
I’m a practicing Catholic, so I didn’t find a problem with it. We ended up
getting a pro bono [lawyer] from the Diocese, but the [ACLU]
won the case…
“…if the Supreme Court was empowered back in 2012, that
prayer banner would still be up … because you can see now they’re putting
Bibles in some schools, Bible studies… I had the prayer banner cut down from
the wall, and I’ve had it hidden. And someday, if [the Supreme Court] turns
that around, I’ll have it put back up.”
Here’s the transcript of the relevant parts of the committee
meeting. You can watch the video here.
Committee Chair Leslie Dunn: Our next item is our solicitor’s report.
Solicitor William Nardone: The committee members
have had some brief discussion regarding transgender athletes. It’s not new,
but there’s some news surrounding it. The conclusion you reached as a committee
was to wait and see what the Supreme Court does because they’re going to hear
the case. Well, the Supreme Court heard the case, actually combined two cases,
made a decision, and I’m going to give you a brief overview of a very lengthy
decision. It’s actually fairly simple. It’s very focused.
And I’m going to read from the decision. The question before
the court in these cases is whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection
Clause of the 14th Amendment, schools may maintain women’s and girls’ sports
teams for biological females. In other words, may schools determine eligibility
for female sports based on biological sex?
Very simple question, right? Wrong.
So what’s happened in recent years? Some biological males
who identify as female have sought to play on women’s or girls’ sports teams,
and that development has triggered national and international concerns mainly
around safety and competitive fairness among athletes, as well as related
concerns about preserving equal opportunity for women and girls to play sports.
For those reasons, 27 states have passed laws banning
biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ sports. Not only states,
but also the International Olympic Committee, the United States Olympic
Committee and Paralympic Committee, and the NCAA have instituted bans.
The question that the court had to deal with is, under Title
IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, may schools maintain
women’s and girls’ sports for biological females? In other words, can schools
determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex?
The court’s answer was yes; they can. Biological sex can be
a basis for determining eligibility to participate in women’s and girls’
sports, strictly based on biological sex, and there was discussion with respect
to biological sex and its definition. Justice Kavanaugh wrote the decision.
There was a concurring opinion by Justice Thomas. Thomas said that men and boys
with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they
are. Sex is an immutable biological characteristic. It is binary. And man and
woman, boy and girl, are the terms that correspond to adults and children of
each sex. To use language to obscure reality, to show indifference regarding
the truth, to lie to the public, and to cease to treat our fellow citizens as
equals.
That’s pretty strong language.
Again, the court made this decision based upon what they’ve
reiterated as safety concerns and fairness. They said you can use that as the
basis, but it doesn’t say that you have to use that as the basis. Throughout
the decision, there are continued references to safety, fairness, and fair
competition. Reading between the lines, the decision doesn’t say you have to
[exclude trans girls from sports]. What it says is you should, and if you
don’t, you’re at risk.
Now, I say to this group often that my job is to keep you
out of trouble, not get you out once you get yourselves in. Does this case say
that the remaining states have to pass similar statutes to the 27 that already
have it? No, but it says you’d be well advised. You probably should follow
those rules. Now, irrespective of whether you agree with the decision or not,
It’s the Supreme Court, and it’s the current status of the law with respect to
this narrow issue.
One of my sayings with respect to the Supreme Court is
they’re not last because they’re right. They’re right because they’re last.
That’s it. That’s the decision. Now, there are other cases on similar topics
that are in lower federal courts. Those will probably wind their way up to the
Supreme Court. So this is a continuing, evolving area of law, and it’s going to
continue to evolve. One question that immediately comes to mind is: Does this
extend to the same kind of privacy and protection with respect to physical
areas, spaces, bathrooms, girls’ and women’s rooms, and locker rooms? Do those
have the same kind of protection? This case doesn’t say specifically that it
does, but you could certainly, and I would interpret it to be included under
the umbrella of this decision.
Will it be challenged? I’m sure it will. Somehow, someone
will do something to get a different branch of this tree before the Supreme
Court. Maybe that’s the topic; I’m not sure.
That’s what the Supreme Court has said. I can answer any
questions that you have, but I’m not one of those justices. And if you are
suffering with a little insomnia some night, find a copy of this case and start
to read it.
Committeemember Peter Nero: I read the decision,
and I’m not a lawyer. I’ve read a lot of special educational decisions over the
years. What is the proof of the student’s gender?
Solicitor Nardone: The proof?
Committeemember Nero: Yeah.
Solicitor Nardone: According to this, it’s
biological sex, period. End of discussion. You’re either born a girl or a boy,
and I’m not trying to be.
Solicitor Nardone: I know. You’re either born a
girl or a boy.
Committeemember Nero: Correct. So decisions are
made on what?
Solicitor Nardone: I would imagine they didn’t
get into the fine details. They said that it’s based on biological sex. And in
1970-ish, when Title IX was written, and then the Javits Amendment, which was
in ‘72, the common sense definition was sex at birth. It meant that the word
sex meant biological sex.
Committeemember Nero: So if I’m inclined to vote
against transgender athletes participating in sports, I want to know what
protections the committee or I would have if they were inclined to go in that
direction because in 44 states, you can change your sex on your birth certificate.
And in a lot of red states too, you can do that. So we would be in a
predicament of leaving it up to who had their sex changed on their birth
certificate and says, “I’m going to participate in a female sport,” when they
were born a biological male.
Solicitor Nardone: The decision doesn’t get into
that minutiae. It doesn’t address that. The administration would have to decide
based on the information before them, the best information they have. If
there’s any suspicion, concern, or inkling that a birth certificate has been
altered, then they’d have to pursue that however they do it. Remember, you are
the board of directors. You establish the policy, the protocol, or the rules,
and then it’s up to the administration to implement those policies and rules.
Committeemember Nero: I get that part, but if
they implement it incorrectly or the situation is such that you have to ask the
question - you know, these permutations in my mind that they’re outed, okay? Or
whatever the reason is, if someone said, “I’m not going to tell you who the kid
is,” because of the outing of the kid. But if we’re in a situation where
someone’s making that decision in the administration, well, the folks on this
panel would be sued, not the administration, because we are the board of
directors.
Solicitor Nardone: No, they would be sued as
well.
Committeemember Nero: Yeah, well, let’s put it
this way: I’ve said this to two committees over the years. It all looks good
until the constable shows up at your door and you’re being sued, and they’re
calling me up in my office when I was superintendent. I just wanted to confirm
that the inclination is to follow what the Supreme Court said: How do we police
it? And again, that’s going to be the tough question.
Solicitor Nardone: And that ends up being a
day-to-day issue, a case-by-case issue, but if you have the appropriate policy,
protocols, and procedures in place to protect you, you’ve done everything you
can to that point.
Committeemember Nero: I’m saying, as we do with
every other policy, is we go to boards to find out what effective policies are
out there. We do it for just about anything. The other thing is, all our
student athletes, male and female (and I don’t know how it is now with the
Supreme Court decision), sign an assumption-of-risk form before they can play
any sport. So that’s in place. I’m looking at this from different directions.
After I read the decision - again, I’m not a lawyer - I looked at this as
saying, from the position of the coach, the athletic director, and up the chain
to the assistant superintendent, superintendent, and school committee, [are the
ones] policing that if we were not to allow transgender students to participate
in sports.
Solicitor Nardone: There are going to be several
actions that end up at the Supreme Court, and several pending in the lower
federal courts; the best advice I can give you at this stage in the process and
in the evolution of this law is to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Now, what does that mean? I’m not sure, but you need to do it.
Committeemember Nero: As you know, I don’t take
up too much time here, but we had a situation that received worldwide
attention: the Cranston prayer
banner at Cranston High School West. It was a prayer banner put up
in 1959. It started with, “Our Heavenly Father” and ended with “Amen,” and we
ended up being represented [by legal counsel]. We wanted to keep the banner. We
thought it was the relic. It was Christian, and I’m a practicing Catholic, so I
didn’t find a problem with it. But we ended up getting a pro bono [lawyer]
from the Diocese. But the [ACLU] won the case. You’re not going to have a
parent suing us if we decide to go against it. The ACLU is going to sue us, and
if we lose, we’d have to pay their legal fees. So there are a lot of different
tentacles to this, and I want to be clear: It’s not just a simple matter of
saying, “No, they can’t do it.”
Committeemember Timothy Killam: None of us here
are lawyers, except you [William Nardone]. We’re paying you to keep us out of
trouble. If you’re telling us that...
Solicitor Nardone: Just to be clear, I’ve never
been to the Supreme Court.
Committeemember Killam: Right. I think it is in
this body’s best interest, at least in my opinion, to have [William Nardone]
put together [policy language] on what will keep us out of trouble and what we
should be doing. Whether we agree with it or not, it doesn’t matter. This is
about following the law, and none of us are here to write [policy language].
That’s not our job. If it’s something we have to follow legally, it needs to
come from [William Nardone], and we review it and go from there. But we’ve got
to be careful with this. We really do.
Committee Vice Chair Ober: We currently have a
protocol in place. It’s not a policy. It’s not a rule. Can we work with this to
start forming a policy?
Solicitor Nardone: My first suggestion is to ask
Dr. Garceau, who’s the boots on the ground every day, to come up with
something, in concert with me, or on his own if he prefers, that is compliant
at this point.
Superintendent Garceau: That’s what I was
charged to do a few months ago, and I wrote and presented it, and the
recommendation was that we do nothing, take no action. The other thing that I’m
hearing from other attorneys in the state is that what this decision says is
that if your state has that law in place, you’re not in violation of Title IX.
And as you said, it doesn’t compel anybody to establish new laws, correct? So I
want to be clear on that so I can resurrect that language for sure and run it
by you.
Solicitor Nardone: That’s probably a good place
to start. Take a look at that.
Committeemember Seth Logan: I have a question.
Are there any other districts in states with laws similar to that of Rhode
Island that are at risk of losing their federal funding because of Title IX
violations based on this latest ruling?
Solicitor Nardone: I can’t speak specifically to
that, Mr. Logan. That would be a consequence of violating Title IX. But again,
the states that have these laws now are not in violation of Title IX by doing
this.
Committeemember Logan: Can you take a look
at Meredith
v. Jefferson County, if you get a chance?
Solicitor Nardone: Jefferson County?
Committeemember Logan: Correct.
Committee Chair Dunn: Thank you for that
explanation. I think we should have a policy like this in place. Now that the
Supreme Court has ruled on it, we need to protect ourselves, since the plane
has shifted on where the lawsuits would come from; I think we need to have a
policy in place for the sports aspect of things. Since the protocol came up,
and I was doing a little bit of looking around, there was also a Supreme Court
decision on a case in California back in March, Mirabelli v. Bonta,
regarding notification to parents if students are identifying in school as
transgender and the way our protocol - that RIDE (Rhode
Island Department of Education) has pushed on us - that we have on our
website reads, at the secondary level we do not have to notify parents.
We’re going to have to make some adjustments or remove some
things from the protocol on our website. If we’re being told to comply with the
Supreme Court, this other case from back in March, we also need to comply with
that. And again, common sense prevails, and parents should know what’s going on
with their children if they’re under 18. And common sense is now prevailing in
sports.
I’m looking forward to seeing what Dr. Garceau and Solicitor
Nardone can pull together for us as a policy.
Solicitor Nardone: I’ll take a look at that case
as well. There may have been a carve-out for students who are over 18, but
other than that, I’ll take a look at that as well.
Committeemember Nero: We’re going to be damned
if we do and damned if we don’t, because some parents are going to turn around
and sue us anyway if we follow our attorney’s advice. The bottom line is we may
be one district that says we’re going to follow the Supreme Court decision.
Other districts may not. We may find that our kids are going to be playing
against, you know, in that situation in other places too.
[Note: Here, I think School Committee member Nero
is talking about Westerly students playing teams from other municipalities that
allow transgender students to participate in sports.]
But you know... all I want to know is what’s going to keep
us out of jail. I’m 75 years old. I don’t need to be sued at this point.
Committeemember Wycall: But the Supreme Court...
I mean, at this point, if we were to have a lawsuit going in the opposite
direction, it would go to the state; we might win; it might go to a district
court, and it might win there. Still, the final decision is the Supreme Court,
so anything is going to end up there, and this is their decision that we have
to follow. The other thing is that the Cumberland School District is
considering a policy that will address the Supreme Court’s decision in Mirabelli
v. Bonta, and maybe we can get our hands on that. We’ll ensure that parents
are notified if the child is under 18 and that we take into account all the
other provisions of this court ruling that had to do with not dictating how
students treat other students, but rather how staff deals with students, how
it’s reported, and how parents are informed.
Solicitor Nardone: Those are some examples of
the branches I referred to coming off this tree. One thing you mentioned is
that you can’t control how students address each other. But you can control how
teachers and administrators address students. Again, I have to take a look at
that case, but the more you look, the more complicated it becomes.
Committeemember Nero: If we were able to be in
that situation, we wouldn’t go to the Supreme Court. Back in the day when we
had our prayer thing, they told us in 2012, which was 14 years ago, it would
cost you over $2 million to go to the Supreme Court between all the filings and
everything you have to do, so we have to find something that’s going to work
for us and work right.
Committeemember Killam: I agree, we have to
figure out what’s going to work. The thing is: the proof. The problem is the
birth certificate. I mean, I’ve personally experienced it. It can be changed,
so it’s not proof. That’s part of the problem: an original birth certificate, if
changed, is gone forever. That’s just the way it is. My family has an adopted
child, and I can tell you for sure that’s what happens. It’s gone. So you’re
stuck with that; that is not proof, and that’s a problem.
Committeemember Lori Wycall: We will have to
determine what we want or what Dr. Garceau thinks is the best way to follow the
policy. If we were to say it’s a birth certificate, and somebody’s going to use
a falsified or a changed birth certificate, so be it. But we will have something
in place so that it’s uniform throughout the district. It’s following the law,
and it makes sense.
Superintendent Garceau: I would remind you,
though, that we can do that within our own district about our own kids. As
we’ve been advised before, if a bus pulls up, we don’t have any control over
other districts that are coming to us and what they have in place. We’ll have
to figure out how we police that.
Committeemember Wycall: We are leading the
charge with electric buses. We were leading the charge with something else,
some other pilot program. Why don’t we lead the charge on following the law and
doing the right thing? The other districts in the state may follow suit.
Committeemember Angela Goethals: I was struck by
the word evolution. I remember when Mr. Nardone presented, based on the draft
policy that Ms. Wycall had asked for, the evolution of thought, the evolution
of words, the evolution of language, and the evolution of the way that we
define certain things. I believe it was you who talked about the nuance there
and talked about the fact that you take a phrase like biological sex; what it
meant 20 years ago or 50 years ago is not what it means today, and what we
understand about it as far as evolutionary biology, as far as the spectrum, is
vastly different than what it once was.
The second thing is that you mentioned the evolution of the
law. I seem to recall some of the justices who voted on this were also those
who swore that Roe v. Wade was the law of the land
during their Senate confirmation hearings. Then they turned around and voted to
overturn it. You [William Nardone] mentioned that executive orders are tied to
the administration that issues them. It seems to me that there is an evolution
in the interpretation of law and in the decisions of this Supreme Court.
The composition of the court shifts and changes as we well
know. If we’re going to tie ourselves to decisions that are mutable and don’t
have permanence, I’m inclined to agree with Dr. Garceau that we should work
with what we have and recognize that we’re trying to keep our district out of
trouble. Still, we’re also going to protect all of our students and families.
That’s where I stand on that.
Committeemember Logan: No offense, but how about
protecting our girls?
Committee Chair Dunn to Seth Logan, about the
argumentative and accusatory nature of his question: We’re not going
to do that at all.
Solicitor Nardone: My only response to some of
those comments, Angela, is that, as I said, currently we have a particular
Supreme Court, and that’s the one we have to deal with. That’s the one that’s
making the decisions at the highest level in the United States. And as I said,
they’re not last because they’re right. They’re right because they’re last. Can
this decision, or pieces of it, be overturned? Of course it could. But unless
and until that happens, this is the status of the current law. And they
determined the definition, for purposes of this decision, of biological sex.
Your memory is correct. I did explain [executive orders]
with several different adjectives and terms, because those exist, but
apparently not for purposes of this decision. That’s what they just decided.
Committeemember Nero: On what you just said, if
the Supreme Court was empowered back in 2012, that prayer banner would still be
up because we would have had a shot, even with $2 million, to keep it still up,
because you can see now they’re putting Bibles in some schools. Bible studies,
versus... That’s the evolution, and that’s the way it is. So I had the prayer
banner cut down from the wall, and I’ve had it hidden. And someday, if they
turn that around again, I’ll have it put back up again.
Committeemember Goethals: Sure. Okay. One last
thing: You did also say that whatever the federal law is as it pertains to
this, whatever protections are in place through Rhode Island General Laws are
moot.
Solicitor Nardone: There are some instances
where Rhode Island General Laws would prevail, depending on the topic and the
issues, but typically not.
Committee Vice Chair Michael Ober: We always
follow the law. I mean, that’s why Mr. Nero said on several occasions, we’re
going to wait for the courts to get done before we make changes, and that’s
what we’re going to do. We’re going to follow the law. We’re going to come up
with a policy to adhere to it. I want to remind people that we’re talking about
lawsuits, and there was potentially one transgender athlete in the State of
Rhode Island. That’s it. There aren’t a whole lot of issues that are going to
come up.
A lawsuit can be expensive, whether it’s one or many. We
need to put this in perspective. This is a policy change that will affect very
few people. When it comes to pilot programs, electric buses, and things like
that, those things connect. We’ve done that before.
The law today may change tomorrow, and we have to keep that
in mind, but we should always follow what the law says.
Solicitor Nardone: Remember, I give you advice.
Whether you follow it is your choice.
I don’t make those decisions. I give you advice. I try to
provide you with the appropriate options.
Committeemember Wycall: How do we go about
making decisions and having some policy? Do we have a consensus? Do we need to?
Superintendent Mark Garceau: I just pulled up
the language that I had proposed back in December, re-sent it to [Solicitor
Nardone], and copied the committee on it. I’ll be happy to speak with
[Solicitor Nardone]in the coming days, and we can put it back on the agenda.
Committee Chair Dunn: In this conversation,
we’ve spent more time on a solicitor’s report than we ever have. We keep going
around and around in a circle on this. We all have our personal feelings
towards it. Obviously our goal is to protect our kids, but now this makes me
say, let’s look at all of our sports policies. If it’s also about
competitiveness and fairness, and we’re playing against a private school that
maybe has different training facilities and different trainers, is that fair to
our kids that are going to have to compete against them? Let’s take everything,
put it on the table and talk about it. As far as students who are trying out,
if they’re going to a private coaching session, should they be trying out for a
public school team against the other kids? It’s an unfair advantage.
We have to do what the law says, but we have to start
looking at other spaces as well, because it’s not just going to be about
targeting a certain individual group of kids and making them feel unsafe and
uncomfortable. With that, we’re going to move to our first open forum here.
This one is limited to school agenda and school committee agenda items only;
speakers are given five minutes. Is there anybody who wishes to address the
committee?
Robert Chiaradio: Two weeks ago, on June 30th,
the Supreme Court of the United States, as Attorney Nardone said, ruled in
favor of the 27 states that currently prohibit boys identifying as girls from
participating in girls’ sports. This was a giant win for fairness and truth and
proof that the highest court in the land will not allow our girls and women to
be erased. The majority opinion stated that those 27 states did not violate
Title IX by not allowing boys to participate in girls’ sports. Why? Because
they’re not girls.
In effect, the court put the stake in the ground as per
Justice Thomas’s...
Committee Chair Dunn: Excuse me, Mr. Chiaradio,
which agenda item does this relate to?
Robert Chiaradio: To the solicitor’s report.
It’s on the agenda, right, Madam Chair? Can I address the solicitor’s report?
It’s an agenda item. I’m going to continue. I’ll reclaim my
time as well.
In effect, the court put the stake in the ground that there
are only two sexes: male and female. Also, if those 27 states are not in
violation of Title IX by not allowing boys to participate in girls’ sports,
then the other 23 states, it can be inferred, are, and would lose in court.
To be clear, Title IX has nothing at all to do with anything
other than discrimination based on biological sex. It’s very easy to read and
understand. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States affirms it. Those who
would perpetuate this lie, this erasure of girls, have nowhere else to go.
Great line. They’re not... whatever it was, they’re not... right, because
they’re last; whatever it was, it was spot on.
That’s why several districts in our state are drafting
policies that conform with Title IX and the Supreme Court decision as we speak.
Based on Solicitor Nardone’s words this evening, as well as statements from
some on this committee that you were waiting for the SCOTUS to rule, it’s over.
Now, the good school committees in Rhode Island, as well as this one, need not
fear being sued and losing because of doing the right thing and protecting our
girls.
For telling the truth, for obeying the law, you now have the
Supreme Court of the United States behind you. Many or all of you are aware of
the numerous incidents regionally and nationally where males identifying as
females have taken team spots away from females, stolen victories from them, or
injured them during competition. Anyone with any athletic experience knows
firsthand, or can read about, the superiority, strength, and endurance males
have over females. That is why the NCAA, the IOC, the USOC, 27 states, a
federal judge, and a presidential executive order have all banned males from
participating in female sports. Now, the Supreme Court affirms them all. It’s
over for those who perpetuate your and RIDE’s trans protocol lie. This is in
clear violation of Title IX, not only on the athletic side, but on the privacy
side as well.
This has been the case since it was adopted; you all know
this. It not only allows boys to compete with girls athletically, but also
allows them to violate girls’ private spaces like bathrooms and locker rooms.
The policy basically states that if the girl is uncomfortable with a boy in her
private areas, she can move and go somewhere else. That’s wrong and
discriminatory against our girls based on sex, thereby violating Title IX.
Again, you all know this. I don’t know what RIDE will do. I don’t know what the
Attorney General will recommend. I do know that individual districts are
beginning the process of protecting our girls, not only the girls, but
themselves as well, which you need to do. No kids should be bullied.
No kid. This is why kids confused with their sexual
identities should be rolled into the district’s anti-bullying policy. No
special rules for them, just a mandate that they, like all other kids, be
treated respectfully and not bullied. Let truth be your guide. Remember, you
must protect kids, and you must also protect Westerly taxpayers from being
sued.
Lastly, as I told you back in 2024, or the school committee
at that time, the Supreme Court would make your decision for you if you did
not, forcing you to do the right thing. When you knew what you should have done
all along, which is to protect and respect girls, that time has come. Get this
on your next agenda. And implement a policy that protects girls and complies
with Title IX and the Supreme Court ruling before the 2026-2027 school year
begins. Thank you for your time.
Gail Barrington: I wasn’t expecting to do this,
but I think you have to tread lightly when it comes to the definition of
biological sex. I’m a registered nurse. I have almost 40 years of experience.
I’m a labor and delivery nurse. I have been at deliveries where the biological
sex is not always clear. Over the years, many more patients are having genetic
testing done. What shows up in that genetic testing and what shows up on a
physical exam are contrary to each other.
You’re going to have parents who have to make a very
difficult decision when their child is born: How they choose to raise that
child. But then when that child gets older, genetics weigh in, and they feel a
different way. In terms of biology, you have to look at that definition when
you’re creating these policies.
Committee Chair Dunn: Thank you. Is there
anybody else?
Okay, seeing none, I will open it up for any committee
members who wish to respond.
Committeemember Goethals: I just wanted to thank
you for that clarification. I have always said that there are experts in these
fields who understand things that we as laypeople do not. You, as a nurse in
the labor and delivery space, have provided incredibly valuable clarification.
Committee Chair Dunn: Thank you to everybody who spoke this evening.
SteveAhlquist.news is a reader-supported publication. To
receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid
subscriber.
