If passed, a bill sponsored by a Powell legislator in response to an issue at Powell High School would allow PCSD1 to create a policy stipulating students must use the bathroom that corresponds with their biological sex.

This comes in part due to a resolution passed by the PCSD1 school board in November requesting a bill to deal with concerns regarding a transgender female (a biological male) using the girl’s restroom. The meeting ahead of the vote for the resolution drew in over a hundred people, with many calling for a school policy to keep any transgender female students out of the female restrooms.

Powell High School sophomore Taylor Peters testified to the Senate Education Committee on Jan. 24  ahead of the bill being sent to the House.

“What is being lost in the conversation today is the safety and comfort for biological girls,” Peters told the Legislature. “I ask that you please pass this legislation to help protect young women and girls across the state.”

There is currently a transgender female at Powell High who uses the girls multi-occupancy restroom, Peters added.

“The idea of men in my space makes me extremely uncomfortable and anxious and I have been forced to change my way to avoid an encounter,” she said.

At school girls are being mocked about their inability to protect their spaces, she said.

The stature of the other student does not scare her, she said, but the idea that due to a lack of policy any male could access a girls locker room or restroom at any time, does. She mentioned the potential for sexual assault, citing a case in Virginia.

The bill is modeled off of one in Oklahoma and is sponsored by Sen. Dan Laursen (R-Powell). The senator sponsored the bill following a visit with Park County School District 1 Superintendent Jay Curtis at the beginning of the school year, and after the board meeting in November which resulted in a board resolution for a law similar to the one in Oklahoma.

The bill also includes local cosponsors Sen. Tim French (R-Powell) and Reps. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody) and Dalton Banks (R-Cowley), and is one of two bills on the docket for this session that deals with the issue.

The other bill, HB 72 also known as Protecting women’s privacy in public spaces act, is sponsored by Rep. Martha Lawley (R-Worland).

Laursen’s bill would require public school students to “use restrooms that align with their sex at birth.”

“It’s an issue, I think, and we need to give the school districts a little help,” Laursen said. “A lot of the comments were, this is a local issue, and locals ought to be able to make the decision.”

He added that he thinks districts need the states to provide some direction, so when there are lawsuits the state can provide assistance.

Peters decided to testify because she thought it was necessary for the legislators to know how the issue affects her and other girls at her school, she told the Tribune on Monday.

Peters and her mother Carrie also voiced their appreciation for the Park County legislators for listening to parents’ concerns and supporting the girls.

“I’m so proud of my daughter’s bravery and her honesty and her character. She’s speaking truth to defend herself and other girls across the state, at a great personal risk to herself, because she knows it’s the right thing to do and she wants to help make a difference,” Carrie said. “I couldn’t be any more proud of her.”

Oklahoma’s law, which was upheld in lower courts, is still in district court, Laursen said — if the court ruled in favor of the law, “then obviously we’re doing even better.” 

The bill also states that students would be provided with reasonable accommodations, a single occupancy restroom or changing room, if they do not want to use multiple occupancy restrooms or changing rooms. The bill also outlines reasoning and protocol for coach access to locker rooms.

Additionally, school boards must adopt policies for disciplinary action, and a parent or legal guardian of a student who is enrolled and “physically attending” school in a district will have cause of action against public schools that don’t comply with the bathroom and changing room usage outlined in the bill. 

A previous version of the bill would have seen noncompliant schools lose their accreditation, and while Laursen wishes that language stayed in, he’s OK with its removal.

“We need to get the bill passed. I’d like there to be some good teeth in there, but I think we’re OK,” Laursen said.

Curtis is not supporting one bill over the other but is appreciative of Laursen for taking on the bill.

Both SF 62 and HB 72 are good bills that do what PCSD1 needs in order to move forward with a policy, Curtis said.

However, there were some aspects of SF 62 that Curtis has not been supportive of including a private right to action.

“I think everyone should have a right to use the courts when they deem it necessary, but a private right to action already exists for that, so adding it into this bill, I think, is unnecessary and just adds another layer of complexity to the bill,” Curtis said. 

The other language Curtis was not supportive of dealt with the loss of accreditation for non compliant schools, which was amended out.

“The penalty, or the teeth, as they called it, was that any school district that did not fully comply would lose their accreditation, and my comments to that were, then you’re punishing kids for the behavior of adults,” Curtis said. 

When a district loses accreditation this affects the student upon graduation, impacting scholarships and college admissions.

If the bill passes into law, PCSD1 would quickly have a policy in place but this may not be true for other districts, Curtis explained, “I don’t think they should be subject to disciplinary measures of that magnitude because of that bill.”

Peters hoped to see the accreditation penalty remain. 

“The reason that there was accreditation in there, and the only place that accreditation [loss] would have taken place, was regarding a district’s willful non action on it,” Peters said.

Debate on the floor surrounding the accreditation penalty revolved around coincidences or accidents, Peters explained, and some legislators felt the punishment would be too strict in that situation. 

“I’ve been following the bill, I watched the rest of the testimony on, on the Education Committee, and then I watched the debate on the floor, and it was good to see it get through,” Peters said. “I was upset to see accreditation taken out. However, you know what? It got through the Senate, and I really hope it gets through the House. There needs to be some change instated.”