Preserving Modesty for Children in South Dakota

No parent wants to hear their school-aged daughter saying, through sobs, “A boy walked into my locker room at school and saw me changing after gym.” The people of South Dakota have an opportunity to make sure that doesn’t happen.

The South Dakota Senate is about to consider HB 1008, a bill that is designed to protect the privacy of our school children. If the bill passes, and Governor Daugaard signs it, it will require every elementary and secondary public school in the state to protect the privacy of boys and girls by ensuring that boys and girls do not use the same restrooms, locker rooms, or shower rooms together. Rather, if a child has the physical attributes of a male when he’s born, he will need to use the facilities for males. And if a child has the physical attributes of a female when she’s born, she will need to use the facilities for females.

This is only sensible. Everyone knows that males and females have different anatomy and that these differences call for the longstanding, legitimate privacy precautions we see in society when people must be in a state of undress-such as when they are using a restroom or locker room. Adults expect that no one of the opposite sex will come barging in on them in these sensitive areas, and we should demand no less for our children who are often especially vulnerable and sensitive about their developing bodies.

Despite the indisputable physical differences between boys and girls, some argue that a child with a boy’s anatomy should be able to use the girls’ restroom and locker room as long as the child identifies as a girl. And this is not just an “academic” argument. In states across the nation, schools have already caved to pressure to allow biological males and females to use the same restrooms and locker rooms. But that path makes no sense. Even if a biological male sincerely identifies as a girl that does not change the child’s bodily characteristics. And when kids are in situations where bodily privacy is compromised, what is under their clothing, not what is in their heads or hearts, is what matters.

This is not to negate children struggling with gender dysphoria-a situation in which a person’s biological sex does not align with the gender they identify with. HB 1008 takes a compassionate approach and requires public schools to provide reasonable accommodations for these children, such as single-occupancy restrooms. This way, the physical privacy interests of all public school children are advanced.

Ultimately, children shouldn’t be forced to see-or be seen by-children of the opposite sex when they are changing clothes, showering, or using the restroom. South Dakota is about to decide whether we will be a state that protects the privacy of our children or whether we will allow people to force boys and girls to use the same restrooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms despite the obvious physical differences between them. HB 1008 is designed to protect the privacy of all the children in our state elementary or secondary public schools and deserves your support. If you won’t ask your South Dakota State Senator to protect the privacy of our children by voting YES on HB 1008, who will?

Dale A. Bartscher
Executive Director
Family Heritage Alliance Action

Editor’s Note: Be sure your South Dakota Senator knows to support the bill. It is especially critical that the following South Dakota Senators hear from you in support of this bill:

Sen. Bradford (Dist. 27-Pine Ridge)
Sen. Brown (Dist. 23-Gettysburg)
Sen. Cammack (Dist. 29-Union Center)
Sen. Curd (Dist. 12-Sioux Falls)
Sen. Fiegen (Dist. 25-Dell Rapids)
Sen. Haverly (Dist. 35-Rapid City)
Sen. Peterson (Dist. 4-Revillo)
Sen. Rusch (Dist. 17-Vermillion)
Sen. Shorma (Dist. 16-North Sioux City)
Sen. Soholt (Dist. 14-Sioux Falls)
Sen. Solano (Dist. 32-Rapid City)
Sen. White (Dist. 22-Huron)

Also please contact Governor Dennis Daugaard and encourage him to sign the bill if the Senate passes it.

ADVERTISEMENT

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

• South Dakota Legislative Billwatch, Jan. 25, 2016
• Transgender Restroom Bill Discussed at Rapid City Crackerbarrel Meeting
• An Open Letter on Transgender Restroom Policies
• Override Sought for Daugaard Restroom Protection Bill Veto
• South Dakota Legislative Billwatch Jan. 27, 2016

Guest authors at American Clarion hail from a variety of sources and backgrounds. Their work is featured because we believe they have something important to say that our readers will appreciate. If you'd like to see a guest author become a regular here, please let us know!

Guest Author

View all articles by Guest Author