Gilford approves transgender policy amid support and remaining concerns

GILFORD — Before a room of more than 30 residents, including supporting and opposing voices, the Gilford School Board voted 5-1 on Monday to approve a transgender inclusion policy that’s been in the works since 2016 – and debated hotly since September.

“We’ve given it a good amount of thought at open policy meetings and taken consideration of that input and made adjustments to the policy,” Gilford school superintendent Kirk Beitler said Tuesday. “Our practice has been to be inclusive of children and act out of concern for children.”

“I’m proud of the work that our board has done,” said school board vice chairwoman, Gretchen Gandini in a text message. “When we make decisions on policies, we are well-informed and make them confidently, knowing that every decision we make will not only impact our own children and grandchildren, but also their friends and classmates.”

School board chairman Chris McDonough was absent and Gilmanton board member Malcolm McLeod voted against the policy, citing reservations related to athletics. The board adopted its most recent draft, giving transgender and gender non-conforming students access to facilities, activities and sports based on their consistently-expressed gender identity. Gender identity is who you feel yourself to be – male, female, somewhere between or an identity that changes – as opposed to sex, which is based on male or female physiology at birth.

Despite the board’s resounding endorsement, local reservations persist. They include fairness and safety related to sports participation, privacy and security in shared bathrooms and locker rooms, parents’ rights to know, and clear definitions of consistently-expressed gender identity versus gender-fluid, which is also protected in the rules.

Beitler said the board heard from community members supporting and opposing the districtwide guidelines at policy committee and school board meetings before making its decision, which applies to Gilford schools and Gilmanton Elementary School.

For supporters, the vote came as vindication of core beliefs that it’s ethically right to include transgender students in sports, activities, and in facilities that match the gender they feel themselves to be, not their sex at birth. Supporters also agreed that single-occupancy restrooms and privacy options within locker rooms would be ideal to protect the interests of all.

But for critics of the policy, the board vote came as a blow. They expressed ongoing reservations about the policy’s legality and certain elements, including the safety and fairness of including transgender students in restrooms and locker rooms that have until now been single-sex, and participation in girls’ sports that are limited to biological females under Title IX, a federal law passed in 1972 – which was intended to equalize athletic opportunities between males and females.  They also argued for a revision that would protect a broad range of students’ rights related to sex, sexual orientation, disability, religion and other categories enumerated in state law.  In July, SB 263 allowed school districts to be sued for discriminating against transgender students, and many districts redoubled their efforts to design policies to line up with the new law.

“I think we just got railroaded,” Denise Wallston of Gilford, whose elementary school son is disabled, said in an interview after the vote. “This is not equal rights for all. I feel all the classes need to be protected, and they don’t have the accommodations in place, or plans to do it.  There’s too much stuff in there that’s not the law. The places that have done this successfully have had single-use restrooms and (private areas for changing in) locker rooms in place.”

“All people have a free will and should be able to express themselves,” said Kyle Sanborn, another Gilford parent.  “This disregards the rights and privacy of a majority of students.  It goes beyond SB 263. Locker rooms and bathrooms are also protected by sex.”

The state law “called for a comprehensive plan for all protected classes.  Do what SB263 actually calls for, and then revisit this to cover all protected classes,” said Skip Murphy, a resident and conservative activist who runs the statewide website GraniteGrok.com.

Murphy also said he’s concerned about the policy’s recommendations for pronoun use that honors gender identity. “If there’s a student who continues to use a legal name and not a preferred pronoun, is that going to be harassment?”

“I don’t think there’s a major divide” in the town, because everyone wants to include transgender children, said Angelo Farrugia, a Gilford parent.  “So far this has been detrimental to all kids, transgender and non-transgender, the way it’s been implemented.  We need to make a policy that’s right for all. Kids lives are confusing enough. Nobody’s safe and comfortable, and everybody’s feeling discriminated against.”

Supporters celebrated an ideological victory, and an important change they believe will protect a beleaguered minority.

Nicole Hogan urged parents and residents to “not rely exclusively on our own feelings. I hope to see increased acceptance in the community for transgender students. There will always be a minority that needs advocacy. Transgender people are the current minority that’s misunderstood. It’s about doing the right thing. It’s an important step in creating a just society in which all can thrive.”

“The policy acknowledges the reality that some people have a need to express themselves differently from the conventional  gender,” said Gaye Fedorchak of Gilford, a retired school psychologist and special education director.  “It’s important that we acknowledge it, because the consequences (of ignoring it) for people going through it are too dire.”

“Gilford, why are we afraid of people who are different?” asked Bethany Cote, a mother of three who said she supports equal rights for all students. “We all know the suicide rate for people who are transgender. Nobody wants that on their conscience.”

“I don’t think equal rights for transgender students is going to cause an increased risk to any of my daughters” or increase their feelings of being uncomfortable, Cote said. “Times have changed, and change is different for anybody.”  Single-stall facilities will afford privacy for everyone, she said. “It will take time and money, but it will happen.”

Matthew Wood said he was concerned about the potential cost, which has not been estimated or made public. “This can be quite a hefty bill and should be discussed openly and readily for taxpayers to know.”

Betty Tidd congratulated the board for passing the policy. “Now it’s time to implement the policy.  I’ve heard elementary school staff won’t be addressing (transgenderism) because it’s not in the curriculum. The teachers are capable of dealing with the new policy. I say, let them do it.”

“There seems to be a fear of talking about it," Fedorchak said, "but there are sensitive and appropriate” ways to discuss it.

“At the elementary level we are not teaching gender orientation at the moment,” Beitler said. “Are we having conversations with children and families if they are children that are transitioning? We absolutely are.”

He spoke to the issue of parents’ rights. “If a child is in a guidance counselor’s office and they’re having a one-on-one conversation, if their safety is not in jeopardy,” it’s kept private. “With adolescents things are constantly changing in their minds. If we’re talking about making accommodations, we’re absolutely having parents at the table,” Beitler said.