Massapequa Union Free School District’s Board of Education used its regular meeting to both defend and explain its position on a recently adopted transgender facilities policy while allowing an extended public-comment period in which residents, medical experts and legal critics responded.

Board President (speaker 2) said board members have been extensively deliberating the issue in executive session and in public and stressed that decisions are collective. "The board believes it is lawful, appropriate, and aligned with community values to maintain segregated bathrooms and locker rooms with reasonable accommodations available," the president said, and added that the matter is now pending appeals before the commissioner and in federal court. He asked that the board step back from revisiting the issue at every meeting while legal channels proceed.

Two board members also made personal statements. One (speaker 3) pushed back at public characterizations of the board as "hateful, discriminatory, and fiscally irresponsible," saying those labels are inaccurate and that board members meet in extended executive sessions to deliberate. Another board member (speaker 16) said she was "getting tired" of what she described as pressure to emphasize gender identity in schools, framed her remarks as a personal opinion, and said the board’s concerns centered on student safety and application of a uniform policy.

Public comment included a medical expert (speaker 17) who cited major professional associations, including the American Medical Association, arguing that transgender and non-binary identities are natural variations and that inclusive restroom and changing-room policies reduce harm and do not pose risks to other students. "Inclusive policies that respect gender diversity benefit our children and do not damage them," the speaker said.

Other commenters raised procedural and legal concerns. A resident (speaker 19) read a letter criticizing the board’s litigation strategy and contended that the board’s actions relied on outside legal organizations; a separate commenter (speaker 22) cited multiple federal judicial dismissals of prior board cases and urged the board to "drop your lawsuits." Supporters of the board’s stance also addressed the meeting, calling the board’s actions representative of the community’s majority and asking the board to continue its current approach.

The board concluded public comment and adjourned after a final motion.

Reporting on the policy and litigation is constrained to statements in the meeting record: the board described the policy and confirmed ongoing appeals and federal litigation; public commenters and experts disputed or defended the policy in their remarks.