California district reverses course on locker room privacy exemptions

A Southern California school district is changing course after initially telling girls they would need a mental health or religious exemption to avoid changing in front of biological boys in locker rooms.

The Temecula Valley Unified School District had proposed requiring middle school girls to seek a religious exemption or mental health accommodation to avoid sharing bathrooms and changing facilities with transgender students.

The controversy erupted after a male student began using the female locker room during P.E. at James L. Day Middle School, prompting a student walkout earlier this month. Three girls testified at a recent board meeting, with one explaining that she didn’t need a waiver because she wasn’t mentally ill or especially religious – she just wanted basic privacy.

The board, which had previously voted 3-2 in favor of requiring exemptions, voted unanimously on Tuesday to explore other options for parents and students who desire sex-specific spaces, the Southern California News Group reported.

The new plan would allow parents or students to request a privacy accommodation, which could include a private changing space or an alternative changing time, according to the report. The board is expected to vote on the plan Sept. 30. District officials said the new policy would inform families of their rights and choices.

The issue stems from a 2013 California law that allows students to use facilities based on gender identity instead of biological sex,” the Christian Post reported. Members of the community said it is not right to subject middle school girls to such an invasion of privacy.

“It’s very shameful that children should have to come up here and defend themselves to adults,” said parent Gabriel Babin. “Nobody on this panel ever had to go to school and worry about the opposite sex coming into the restroom. You’ve opened the door to unlimited scenarios where boys can start going into the bathrooms and touching girls, and vice versa … this is children.”

Requiring mental health or religious exemptions could also have been legally problematic, attorney Erin Friday told the California Family Council.

Friday, the president of the U.S. branch of Our Duty, a group that opposes transgender medical treatments for minors, said the policy would have pathologized privacy by treating the desire for single-sex spaces as a disorder, risked creating a mental health record for children, targeted them for counseling possibly outside parental control, and allowed the district to deny accommodations by citing discrimination or “undue hardship.”

School board member Joseph Komrosky, who opposed the initial policy, said most families in the community share traditional values.

“What’s happening at this middle school, when a biological boy enters the girls’ locker room, is anything but traditional. It’s social and political activism,” he said. “I want every child to have a good and safe education. Parts of this aren’t safe, and students feel their innocence is being robbed. I will continue to fight this moral battle to defend the innocence of children and empower parents.”

Sonja Shaw, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction, urged parents and community members to make their voices heard.

“California politicians and the teachers’ unions have been hellbent on telling boys and girls they’re ‘born in the wrong body.’ We continue to stand for truth and fight against this insanity,” she posted on Instagram.

“Telling other students they need a mental health accommodation just to protect themselves … this is pure madness. It’s all backwards. It’s all messed up. The girls are treated as the problem.”