By Michael Howell
The Hamilton School District Board of Trustees gave clear direction to their representative to the Montana High School Association (MSHA) that he should vote against the association’s proposal to amend eligibility by-laws in consideration of gender identity to read:
“The MSHA allows all students, regardless of gender identity or expression, the opportunity to participate in a safe, competitive environment free of discrimination. The MHSA Executive Board shall designate criteria under which transgender student-athletes may request to participate in an activity sanctioned for a specific gender that differs from the student’s sex assignment at birth.”
The rationale given by the association begins by noting that “transgender students are being identified in middle schools and high schools. There will be requests to participate in MSHA sanctioned athletics, and it is imperative that the membership adopt a policy that will be applied consistently in regard to gender identity eligibility.”
It goes on to state that MSHA will establish criteria and approve an application that meets the criteria. The application will stipulate the following progression for any student requesting eligibility under the gender identity section of the By-Law:
• Notice to the member school by the student
• Completion of the official MSHA Gender Identity Eligibility Application and collection of required documentation by the member school
• Notice to MSHA and submission of application and supporting documentation
• Referral to Gender Identity Eligibility Committee (to be comprised of a physician, a mental health worker, and a gender identity advocate, with a resource liaison from the MSHA staff or board assigned by the Executive Director)
• Initial determinations to be made within fourteen days of receipt of application
• Appeals to be filed within seven days of the initial determination
School Board Chairman David Bedey gave the board what he called a “cursory analysis” of the proposed amendment. He said many people who contacted him seemed to be confused as to what the proposal really meant.
“In the simplest terms it means a boy who thinks he’s a girl can go out for girls’ sports, subject to criteria that MSHA has yet to specify,” said Bedey.
Bedey noted that the definition of sex was a biological fact related to body parts but the definition of gender was related to attitude and behavior and cultural expectations.
He addressed the issue of why girls and boys were separated for sports activities.
“I think the answer is sexes are segregated so we get more girls that have the opportunity to participate in sports. This is so because of the biological fact, on average, men are bigger and stronger than they (women) are. Generally speaking a boy participating in a girls’ sport would have an unfair advantage,” said Bedey.
Another key question, according to Bedey, is, “Does the current system deny transgender students the opportunity to participate in sports?”
“The answer to that is, no,” he said. “Each student may participate in sports according to his or her sex. There is not an exclusion based on policy.”
Bedey also noted that while Title IX addresses discrimination based on sex, “it is silent on the issue of gender.” He added that, according to legal counsel, there was no legal risk to the district associated with its current policies.
Bedey summarized his analysis, saying it leads him to believe that, “(1) under current policy transgendered students are allowed to participate in sports, (2) females might be disadvantaged by adopting the new policy, (3) at present there is no compelling legal reason to adopt a new policy, and (4) I’m concerned about adopting this policy particularly without vigorous debate in the public square which will erode public confidence in the management of our public schools.”
He asked for a motion to have the district’s representative vote against the proposed amendment of the MSHA By-Laws. He asked for board comment but got none and then opened the meeting to public comment.
Elaine Bridge expressed her agreement with Bedey, saying that she believed girls would be placed at a disadvantage if boys were allowed to play in girls’ sports. She said fewer girls would get to play and would also be at risk playing against bigger, stronger boys.
Another woman said that the number of transgendered students was very small and it was not a question of some kid wanting to be a champion but unable to do it on the boys’ team.
“We are talking about who believes he’s a female. It’s about young people who are truly misidentified in their gender,” she said. She noted that the school district does allow girls to play on the boys’ teams in football and basketball.
John Schwartz said that the Office of Civil Rights had issued a memorandum to the Department of Education regarding the issue and “it appears the executive branch intends to treat transgendered students as a protected class.” He said he knows some transgendered youth and they are shy kids who have real questions about how they fit in and how they are going to get through school. He said they are at high risk for bullying, for drug abuse, for homelessness, and for suicide.
“That’s the kind of level we are talking about,” he said.
Joan Carlson said that she was concerned about the bathroom situation and the showers, saying that these things needed to be figured out first. She said if there really are just a few students who are transgendered, “we are changing the whole system for the few over the rights of the majority.”
Bedey said that legal counsel had expressed concern about the lack of specificity about criteria and practical details.
“It’s sort of like buying a pig in a poke,” he said.
Alex Steadman said that he was not transgendered but he was a homosexual and had faced great difficulties at school including bullying. He said he did not feel accepted or welcome at many of the events and activities.
“I can’t imagine what it must be like for someone who is going through that but also not feeling at home with themselves,” said Steadman. “For these people this amendment would mean the world to them to just be vindicated for being who they are.”
A few more people commented pro and con and then Bedey asked the board for comment once again, but no one on the board responded. A vote was taken on the motion to direct the school’s representative to vote against the amendment and it was approved 6 to 1 with Corrine Gantt casting the lone dissenting vote.
MSHA subsequently announced that the transgender amendment has been dropped from the convention’s agenda. The organization released a statement, saying, “In reference to the gender identity proposal that is slated to be considered, the proposal was brought forward by the Executive Board with the intent to be proactive regarding emerging questions from some districts about transgender participation in extracurricular activities. However, straw polls at various regional administrative meetings recently held throughout the state tend to indicate an overall lack of support for this amendment. A poll of the MHSA Executive Board indicates they intend to withdraw the proposal based on insufficient support required to achieve a two-thirds majority of members present and voting. All Annual Meeting proposals are voted on only by representatives of the 179 member schools in attendance. Once a proposal is withdrawn, there can be no further discussion on the floor.”