Parents, PFLAG representative urge Tumwater board to repeal resolution they say excludes transgender students

Two public speakers at the Tumwater School District board meeting urged the board to repeal a resolution they said excludes transgender students from participation in athletics and contradicts district policy that promises a nondiscriminatory educational environment.

Courtney Shreve, who identified herself as a parent and “a local representative of PFLAG,” the national LGBTQ advocacy organization, told the board the district’s own policy promises “an educational environment safe and free of discrimination for all students regardless of gender identity or expression.” She said the resolution—named in public comments as “resolution number 9 24 25”—“directly contradicts that promise by implying that transgender students don't belong on teams that match their identity.”

Shreve described students’ experience of harassment at Tumwater High School and said the phrase “keep women's sports female” had been worn during school hours. “While the district itself defended it as free speech, let's be honest, it's hate speech,” she said. “It implies trans girls aren't really girls, which is both false and deeply harmful.” Shreve cited civil‑rights obligations and court precedent when urging the district to prevent speech and behavior that “threatens a student's sense of safety and belonging.”

Amanda Mahoney, another community member who spoke during public comment, said recent board actions have created division and harmed students, staff and families. Mahoney criticized what she called inflammatory rhetoric and called for leadership that follows the district’s stated pillars and promises.

The board did not take action on either the resolution itself or any repeal motion during the meeting. Board members did not propose a motion; the public‑comment period is advisory. The board will remain bound by the district’s existing policies and any legal obligations, and the administration said members of the public can email the board or sign up to speak at future meetings if they wish to follow up.

Authorities cited during public comment included the district’s anti‑discrimination policy (referred to in comment as “policy 32 11”) and the resolution identified in public remarks as “resolution number 9 24 25.” Commenters also referenced civil‑rights law and court precedent generally, but did not cite specific statutes during the meeting.

The board’s packet shows no immediate change to district policy was proposed at the meeting. Public commenters were reminded that public comment sign-up closed at 9 a.m. the day of the meeting, and the board encouraged emailed submissions and future comment sign-ups.