Reid Email

[Anonymous]

I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

[Anonymous]

In her recent vague email, Superintendent Reid neglects to clarify and reassure the community how Governor Youngkin’s updated transgender model policy is not only protecting students who identify as transgender but how it also includes provisions to protect the rights of those who don’t.

Ultimately, there is more to the presence of boys who identify as female in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. The FCPS current policy also allows any male who identify as female in shared rooms during school sponsored overnight trips. Let’s keep in mind that in some instances, students not only share a room and bathroom, but also share a bed. Moreover, the inclusion of males in female’s private spaces would also include male adults who identify as female, such as is the case of school staff, chaperones, and volunteers. Currently, schools don’t have any obligation to notify all parents of these arrangements to protect the privacy of the person who identifies as transgender.

Furthermore, during activities in school grounds open to the public, any adult who claims to identify as opposite to their sex can easily use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender of their choosing.

Judging by the ambiguity of the email, it would appear that Superintendent Reid’s stance in this issue continues to be as she recently stated it: “Honestly, the majority doesn’t always dictate, right?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In her recent vague email, Superintendent Reid neglects to clarify and reassure the community how Governor Youngkin’s updated transgender model policy is not only protecting students who identify as transgender but how it also includes provisions to protect the rights of those who don’t.

Ultimately, there is more to the presence of boys who identify as female in girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. The FCPS current policy also allows any male who identify as female in shared rooms during school sponsored overnight trips. Let’s keep in mind that in some instances, students not only share a room and bathroom, but also share a bed. Moreover, the inclusion of males in female’s private spaces would also include male adults who identify as female, such as is the case of school staff, chaperones, and volunteers. Currently, schools don’t have any obligation to notify all parents of these arrangements to protect the privacy of the person who identifies as transgender.

Furthermore, during activities in school grounds open to the public, any adult who claims to identify as opposite to their sex can easily use the bathroom that corresponds to the gender of their choosing.

Judging by the ambiguity of the email, it would appear that Superintendent Reid’s stance in this issue continues to be as she recently stated it: “Honestly, the majority doesn’t always dictate, right?”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

No, the new policy says they must use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex. Most agree with this but of course Reid doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

I like the new policy.
She/her for girls, he/him for boys, they/them for a group of people. This is every language art book says.
I don't want my kids be suspended for using pronouns correctly.
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/fairfax-school-board-votes-to-suspend-students-for-maliciously-misgendering-other-students/

https://youtu.be/IzNGkwGYE4E

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy.
She/her for girls, he/him for boys, they/them for a group of people. This is every language art book says.
I don't want my kids be suspended for using pronouns correctly.
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/fairfax-school-board-votes-to-suspend-students-for-maliciously-misgendering-other-students/

https://youtu.be/IzNGkwGYE4E

Thank you for sharing! The video made me laugh as I drank my coffee, but I almost chocked once I realized it reflects the reality our children face daily at FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

No, the new policy says they must use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex. Most agree with this but of course Reid doesn’t.

Correct. Most agree with the new policy presented under Governor Youngkin’s administration because the issue here is not limited to protecting the vulnerability of female students undressing in the presence of a student who has male reproductive body parts. It also involves protecting female students who identify as male who can be vulnerable in male private spaces, such is the recent case of this Virginia student:
https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/sages-law-va-school-transitions-girl-without-telling-guardians-she-ends-sex-trafficking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy.
She/her for girls, he/him for boys, they/them for a group of people. This is every language art book says.
I don't want my kids be suspended for using pronouns correctly.
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/fairfax-school-board-votes-to-suspend-students-for-maliciously-misgendering-other-students/

https://youtu.be/IzNGkwGYE4E

Some staff members use the opposite pronouns for themselves. Does it apply to them too?

[Anonymous]

Guess it’s time to leave Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy.
She/her for girls, he/him for boys, they/them for a group of people. This is every language art book says.
I don't want my kids be suspended for using pronouns correctly.
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/fairfax-school-board-votes-to-suspend-students-for-maliciously-misgendering-other-students/

https://youtu.be/IzNGkwGYE4E

Some staff members use the opposite pronouns for themselves. Does it apply to them too?

What does this mean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

No, the new policy says they must use the bathroom that corresponds to their biological sex. Most agree with this but of course Reid doesn’t.

Good. Keep boys out of girls bathrooms. This is common sense regardless of what Reid and trans activists want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about instead of the Civil Rights parallel, which I agree is a stretch, we think about how horrified people were about gay people being in locker rooms with heterosexuals or having to room together on school trips or being in the military at all. Those things have all been completely fine and were blown out of proportion when first being discussed. I think trans people in locker rooms that are opposite to their bio gender will be the same in a matter of time. No one will think anything of it. By and large our kids already don’t think anything of it. It’s the parents who operate in worst case scenarios that haven’t even happened.

I don't think that girls should ever be subjected to being immodest in front of boys. It is not acceptable to expect that from them. Not everyone has the same beliefs and morals and we should have mutual respect for one another's beliefs and find a compromise that is respectful to all. Perhaps have a few private changing rooms for those that have the gender incompatibility.

+1 the idea that girls should have to get used to changing with boys in their locker rooms or they will be labeled a bigot is sickening.

+100

So now for all this policy wrangling. How many biological males were in girl changing rooms in FCPS?
Changing in locker rooms at all is relatively rare.
My kid in FCPS HS has never even changed for PE anywhere. They just go out in their regular clothes. Kids who do change often do it in the bathroom. I'm pretty sure no biological males are changing openly in the girls' locker room before or after this policy.

In the thread about MS PE, students at some middle schools change into uniforms and some don't. At our middle school, they do. So your experience, where your kids never changed clothes, is that this issue wouldn't ever come up. But what about other experiences? Those girls just need to get used to it?

Really?

So has it ever come up? That's the question. Has any child in FCPS been required to change in front of another child of someone of a different biological gender?
Or all you all up in arms about hypotheticals?

Currently, FCPS "Ensures students can use the locker room or restroom that aligns with their gender identity and forbids forcing them to use only a private area, single-occupancy accommodation, or other single-use facility."

Why are private areas or single occupancy accommodations not allowed? It seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the new policy. It seems pretty middle of the road. It doesn’t make being trans a problem, just brings parents back into the discussion. It also keeps biological males out of female bathrooms and lockers, which I am also happy with. From what I saw, it does not force trans students to use the bathroom of their biological gender, but allows for a safe space for them as provided by the school. Everyone talking about it in real life are happy with the policy. I think only the extreme left is unhappy. It seems pretty reasonable.

I consider myself a moderate Democrat and I disagree. I think it uses the language of "reasonableness" but it puts the onus on parents to opt in to have their child called by whatever name they want to be called by. It's very controlling. And given a time period where some states have rapidly discussed criminalizing parents of transgender children I think you are being disingenuous about how moderate this all feels to anyone involved.

With lawsuits from detransitioners starting to come out now, if I were a school staff, I would prefer parents being responsible for the gender-affirmative care that led to the irreversible damage done to the student rather than me. More importantly, it would be in everyone’s best interest to have a parent initiate the gender-affirmative care at school because minors don’t have the cognitive ability nor maturity to understand the consequences down the road of their gender-affirming care procedures and choices. They rely on the adults who are supposed to guide and protect them. Because parents know their kids best, and are the only ones who will be in the student’s life long after they have departed school, it makes logical sense that they be the ones initiating the gender-affirmative care, and not a third party who is a rather transient presence in the student’s life. Besides, a parent who loves his/her child, and truly believes in the claim that they are the opposite sex than the body they were born in, will make any sacrifices to support the child’s choices. A parent’s love is such that it would endure anything.

I'm not going to get into the science/ethics of medical transitioning. But the vast, vast majority of kids who socially transition are not even considering medical transition--they are exploring broader gender identities. Many transgender people never seek surgery or hormone treatments. This policy forces parents to either not support their children's current gender identity exploration or to put in writing in a formal record about their exploration. Not fair to parents who are already navigating challenging situations with their children.