Dozens of residents urge board to protect transgender students; some speakers call for limits under Title IX

Dozens of residents addressed the Prince William County School Board Sept. 3 during the scheduled citizen comment period, with the largest group speaking in favor of maintaining the district’s nondiscrimination protections for transgender and gender‑diverse students and a smaller group urging limits grounded in biological sex and Title IX.

Supporters of the district policy described the protections as life‑saving and legal. Monia Davis, a local teacher and union leader, thanked the board for “embracing every student in the school system for exactly who they are.” Parent and teacher speakers told the board that local policy and existing court precedent give schools authority to protect gender‑diverse students. Speaker Josie Gillespie cited Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board and Virginia Code 22.1‑32.3 while urging the board to stand firm: “These attacks by President Trump and Secretary McMahon are illegal and unconstitutional,” she said, referring to a federal directive that the board has rejected.

Several speakers described personal experiences. Emily Cherry, a parent, said one of her children is transgender and recounted how that child sometimes avoids bathrooms and lunch when they do not feel safe; Cherry told the board “I worry because last year, approximately 50 percent of transgender students seriously considered attempting suicide.” A student who identified themself as transgender, Riley Oldenburg, said the district’s policies helped them “thrive” and said changes would make school life riskier for gender‑diverse students.

Speakers opposed to the current nondiscrimination accommodations urged the board to prioritize privacy and single‑sex protections under Title IX. Several called for parental notification and limits on facility access, and some cited concerns about competitive fairness in athletics. Carol Fox, one speaker, urged the board to “honor Title IX based on biological sex.” Some speakers linked the issue to broader cultural and religious objections.

Board members responded to the public comments without proposing immediate policy changes. Board Member Mr. Wilk (spelled in the record as Mr. Wilk) said the Fourth Circuit’s holdings and the controlling case law guide his position: “Grimm is the law,” he said, referring to Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, the 2020 case that federal courts have interpreted regarding Title IX protections for gender‑diverse students. Several board members emphasized they are bound by court interpretations and state law; they urged community members to share input while also noting legal limits on local policy.

There was no formal vote on the district’s nondiscrimination policy at the Sept. 3 meeting. Several speakers thanked the board for its prior decision to keep the nondiscrimination policy in place; other attendees urged the board to change the practice. The board did not amend its policy during the meeting and instead listened to the extended public comment session.

Context: Speakers referenced a U.S. Department of Education directive and the federal court precedent Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board (2020). Several residents also referenced Virginia Code 22.1‑32.3 and local regulation 738‑5, which staff said implements certain protections for students. The board’s statements repeatedly noted that federal and state court rulings limit how local policy can be changed unilaterally.

— This article summarizes remarks from the meeting’s citizen‑comment period and board remarks recorded on Sept. 3.