MD County Votes to Allow Coed Locker Rooms; Pro-Family Groups Outraged

Coed locker rooms could be a reality now that a new statute to allow people to “choose a gender” has been approved in Maryland. But the measure, given the green light by elected officials in Montgomery County, will soon be the subject of a court challenge, according to a non-profit public-interest law firm.

“The definition for ‘gender identity’ is so vague that no individual of ordinary intelligence can possibly know when they are violating Chapter 27,” Robert Tyler, general counsel for the Advocates for Faith & Freedom, told county officials in a letter. “Pursuant to the definition of ‘gender identity,’ an individual can choose a gender without limitation whatsoever,” he said. Tyler’s comments referred to the newly approved county law 27-03, which creates a protected class of citizenry for those individuals who claim a “gender identity” issue.

These were my exact sentiments to a previous blog that explained that California’s new policy in schools were to include allowing those who perceive their gender to decide which restroom to use accordingly. While I do think it’s important to protect our minority citizens and more specifically are children from undue physical, emotional, and psychological harm based on race, gender, and sexual orientation, these laws have the potential to do more damage that good. No one should be forced to undress in front of a person of opposite sex, regardless of what that person says or believes their gender is. And when people are give examples of others abusing the law, supporters say that the opponents are listing extreme examples. But who is really going to be able to stop the adolescent young man who claims that he identifies with females and wants to use the girls locker and restroom? Or even worse, if this moves into the general public realm, those sexually deviant individuals that already violate women by taking clandestine up skirt camera shots? While I don’t agree with the notion of separate but equal for most situations, this is one of those that I have to support it. The reality is that people (intersexual individuals excluded) are born either male or female; this is a fact that SEPARATES us. Instead of taking away the rights of the majority, there needs to be more accommodations made for the minority. There should be a third room in which those that may identify with a gender or sex opposite of that, which they were born as, can safely use. If not, who’s to say that it will just stop at locker rooms? Why not include co-ed dorm rooms?