The Rest Of The Story

Many of you by now have probably heard about or saw Katie Couric’s show yesterday and transgender children. In case you missed it here is a link to the video.



The other segments that were on the show yesterday you can find here.

It was mentioned in the interview about the complaint that was filed on her behalf by the Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund (TLDEF), this is from their press release.

TLDEF today announced that it has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division on behalf of a 6-year-old girl who has been barred from using the girls' bathrooms at her elementary school. For the past year, Coy Mathis, a first-grader at Eagleside Elementary School in Fountain, CO, has used the girls' bathrooms. In mid-December 2012, the Fountain-Fort Carson School District 8 informed her parents that Coy would be prevented from using the girls' bathrooms after winter break. The District ordered Coy to use the boys' bathroom, a staff bathroom, or the nurse's bathroom.
[…]
"By forcing Coy to use a different bathroom than all the other girls, Coy's school is targeting her for stigma, bullying and harassment," said Michael Silverman, TLDEF's executive director, and one of Coy's lawyers. "Through the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Coloradans have made it clear that they want all Colorado children to have a fair and equal chance in school," he added. "Coy's school has the opportunity to turn this around and teach Coy's classmates a valuable lesson about friendship, respect and basic fairness."

Many of the news articles mention the court case up Maine where a similar case was tried and the judge found in favor of the school system. The Denver Post wrote,

In November, a Maine state court ruled that a school district did not violate a transgender student's rights under the Maine Human Rights Act when it prohibited her from using the girls' restroom.

But what the articles don’t say is that Maine’s Commission on Human Rights ruled in favor of the parents and also that the judge in his ruling said that the “law casts a broad stroke where one more delicate and refined is needed.” And he refused to follow the intention of the legislature and he interpreted the law narrowly.