Policy 443 does not require a parent to be notified when their child expresses confusion about their gender, chooses an alternative gender, or identifies as transgender. We believe it should be required.

Board VP Dean Rose, who previously has taken a stance against parental notification based on the possibility that a child may not be in a supportive household and experience rejection or abuse, has shifted his arguments justifying support of the restrictions on parental notification and sports participation by chosen gender to one based on court cases. We think this is avoiding what should be the focus of any decision on this topic.

We believe that the best way to decide is on what is best for the child and the family is by reviewing what the science and medical community is telling us, what we’ve learned from the experience of other countries, and common sense. We’ve made repeated requests for time with the BOE to present our data, the science, the rationale, and answer the board’s questions but they have been refused our offers. Despite our invitation to the BOE and Dr. Dyson to our public forum to hear our data and the scientific and medical rationale for our positions, only one board member showed up. One letter from a BOE member let us know they will “not speak with us” and are “done discussing the topic,” which seems odd because we haven’t been able to have a discussion yet. Now the board has gone one step further and “put aside the science” to make the case that the law is on their side.

Members of the BOE, in a written response, have indicated they are focused on the court cases that have been found in favor of transgender groups and against parental notification. Mr. Rose informed us that he was “putting aside the debate of the science around gender dysphoria and transgender persons, and looking at the issue from a legal perspective.” Mr. Rose cited four cases, accused us of ignoring the legal rulings, and went a step further in the April 19 BOE meeting stating that based on these legal rulings he is not currently considering any changes to existing policy.

Click here to listen to his comments.

Mr. Rose is right about the Grimm case, but only in part. Per the Fourth Circuit, the ruling found that transgender students get the locker room of their choice, but the Eleventh Circuit has recently ruled to the contrary. We know the 11th Circuit doesn’t include Maryland, but it is an example of the ongoing, unsettled nature of the rulings. Title IX, which is the law that lists gender identity as a protected class, does not address sports team participation choices by chosen gender; however, the Department of Education, under guidance from the White House, has proposed changes that would allow transgender women (biological men) to compete on a female sports teams. Parents are pushing back as they correctly recognize that this would destroy women’s sports. These and many other cases, including one in nearby West Virginia are unsettled and will likely be debated and adjudicated for years.

Putting aside the science around gender dysphoria to decide to maintain the policy, as Mr. Rose suggests, ignores precisely what the board should do – look at the science. The current shift to a focus on legalities instead of looking at the impacts the current policies have on both transgender/gender dysphoric students and all other students is the wrong approach. Doing what is right for all students and their families should be how the board assesses what to do. The arguments that the board members and opponents have thrown out against even considering the proposal we submitted have been refuted with science, experience, and data which we assume is now why the legal arguments are the primary concern.

In the interest of transparency, we have asked Mr. Rose whether he supports interscholastic sports participation by biological sex or chosen gender. Mr. Rose’s response was that he awaits the ruling in the West Virginia case. We pointed out that he made his position clear about opposing parental notification while dozens of court cases were active on that subject, so why hold back due to pending court cases on letting us know where he stands on sports participation.

Let the BOE and Superintendent Dyson know how you feel by sending a brief email stating your position on parental notification and sports team participation at [email protected] and [email protected].