Students at Perkiomen Valley in Pennsylvania staged a protest last month. Usually, students walk out for progressive causes. But in this instance, hundreds of high school students left the school on a Friday afternoon to protest that the district had not passed Policy 720. This measure would have required students to use the bathroom that matched their biological sex.
This meant, of course, that the district would allow students to use the bathroom of their choice. “Kids are upset,” said one student. We wanted to protect the girls. They were angry. “They didn’t want to see men in their bathrooms.” Another woman said that she was uncomfortable with seeing men between the ages of 18 and 19 in the women’s restroom.
Hmm. Boys who are trying to protect girls. Girls who want their own space. All of this sounds reasonable to a sound mind. Such things are in direct opposition to the progressive agenda. The sanity of the situation seems to have won out.
The student protest is not known to have played a part in the board’s decision. However, WFMZ reported that, after weeks of heated debate, the board voted on Monday to approve Policy 720. The district now requires students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender, not the way they identify. Some board members called it an attack on transgender children.
One man who opposed the policy said, “We’re asking that a person that’s in a minority that has civil rights, we’re asking them to give up those rights because a majority — whether that be the population or on the board — feels that their rights aren’t as important as theirs. That is totally un-American.” However, another man countered, “We need to come together again for the kids. There’s a commonsense solution on the table, and that is for transgender students to use the single-stall bathrooms. This does the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest amount of time.”
Students who claim to be of a different gender can now use the majority of single-sex restrooms in schools. Originally, these restrooms were available only to teachers. This compromise could work.
A second proposal that was rejected by the board would have allowed students to use the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity. The catch in this case is that it must be the gender that the student consistently identifies with.