South Western’s elected school board is making some strange decisions.
For the last two years, they’ve fixated on which bathrooms LGBTQ+ kids use. In 2023, officials in this Hanover-area district played musical chairs with school bathrooms in a misguided attempt to appease the loudest bigots among them — ending up with five different types of bathrooms.
After a low-turnout school board election in which several far-right members joined their ranks, they hired a Christian law firm, decided to begin banning books and reopened the bathroom issue. Board President Matthew Gelazela, who was elevated to his post after previously serving as the board’s most vocal bomb-thrower, pointed to Red Lion’s discriminatory policies as something to aspire to.
Now, upon the advice of that law firm — the Harrisburg-based Independence Law Center — the board approved spending $8,700 to cut windows so passersby can look into the so-called “gender-identity” student bathrooms.
They have already created gender neutral restrooms, according to the article these windows are not in those.
There’s 2 stalls visible in the picture. The walls are not floor to ceiling, the doors have larger gaps above and though it isn’t visible, I expect also a gap below. It’s not clear if there are vertical visibility slits on the sides of the doors. But they’re clearly just stalls really.
But it doesn’t really matter how the stalls are, the way that we know that this is targeted spite and bullying, is that windows are being cut only in a specific subset of the restrooms. They’re trying to shame and intimidate the kids that are in those restrooms.
Possible.
It’s also possible that the stalls do provide an adequate degree of privacy, coming very close to the floor, and sufficiently high enough to prevent people from seeing inside. They certainly don’t look like the stalls my school used.
Frankly, if their intention is to shame and intimidated, I’m rather surprised they are going to this much effort, when they could just not do anything at all.
Do we know that the other, gender-neutral restrooms are similarly communal? Is it possible that they are single-user facilities with sinks, and need only appropriate signage to make them inclusive?
I’ve stopped giving USA republicans the benefit of doubt years ago, Trump’s first year in office was enough to convince me. I’ve accepted that they are comically evil and that they have no redeeming qualities. So if I see something that is comically evil, then I’m not going to invent possibilities of why it might not be as bad, because in my experience it will turn out that after a little digging, it’s actually worse.
Also the administration was given the opportunity to justify or explain their actions by the reporter, and they chose not to, most likely not because they didn’t want to, but because they couldn’t do so in a matter that did not make them appear like spiteful bigots. There’s no point in inventing possible defenses for them if they could not provide them themselves.
Republicans don’t have five types of bathrooms. Republicans have two. That alone should tell you that the Republicans aren’t actually in control here.
What is actually happening is that the Republicans are trying to get rid of the “gender inclusive” restroom, and revert it to boys only. They don’t want 5 kinds of restrooms. They want two.
After reading some more, it turns out the Republicans are claiming the area outside the stalls is a “changing area”, and the law prohibits coed changing areas. Be “inclusive” of more than one gender in a “changing area”, and you violate the law.
Changing areas don’t have public-facing windows. Areas with public-facing windows aren’t changing areas. Without the window, the Republicans get to make it a boys-only room. With the window to the sinks - not the toilets - it is not a changing area, and the Republican argument fails.
Seems reasonable and likely, but that’s not what people here want they want an enemy they can pretend is pure evil so they can feel good about themselves
This is really just a messaging problem. If you asked the students and parents if they should renovate a communal bathroom into multiple, single-user unisex bathrooms, they would likely receive enthusiastic support. If you then asked if it were reasonable to use communal hand washing facilities in a public area outside the restrooms instead of a sink in every unisex bathroom, you’d still get plenty of support.
It’s only when you start talking about “windows” that shit goes sideways. They could completely tear out the wall, and this plan would be fine: they would be single-user restrooms along a hallway, with communal sinks also in that hallway.
My town hosts public festivals all the time. They bring in a dozen portapotties and a hand washing station. Nobody seems to have a problem washing their hands in sight of the general public. That’s basically what is happening here.
As someone so eloquently said; maybe one if my pigs just shat a gold nugget (gotta check that out, right)
Read up on it some more, from a less biased source. The Republicans want this to be a boy’s room. The law prohibits coed changing rooms. Be “inclusive” of multiple genders in a room that qualifies as a “changing room”, and you violate the law.
Changing rooms don’t have windows. Put in a window, and the area can’t be considered a changing room. Since it isn’t a changing room, the Republican argument fails, and they don’t get to get rid of the gender inclusive restroom entirely. You still have privacy while you are using the toilet. You don’t have privacy while you are washing your hands.
So in this case, you might want to figure out where your pig has been eating and stake a claim.