Winthrop board hears hours of public comment and delays drafting of transgender‑policy changes

The Winthrop School Board spent much of its meeting on April public comment and a detailed discussion of policy JB, the district’s transgender‑student guidelines, before agreeing to a timeline for further work.

Dozens of residents and students addressed the board during two public‑comment periods. Whitney Khan, a Winthrop parent, urged the board to rescind a March 4 directive that she said instructed the superintendent to revise policies in a discriminatory way and conflicted with Maine law and the district’s own counsel. “I’m asking this board to take it,” Khan said, urging members to use the policy‑committee process rather than an expedited board directive.

Several student athletes, including sophomore Sophie Schumann, told the board they supported protections for girls’ sports and raised safety and fairness concerns. “Girls teams are created because of physical differences that affect strength and speed,” Schumann said, adding she supported inclusion but wanted to protect opportunities for female athletes. Opposing speakers and several former and current students, including John Ellis and Anthony Wheeler, described lived experience as transgender people and urged the board to preserve existing guidelines, saying the proposed changes would harm vulnerable students and could violate the Maine Human Rights Act.

Administrators told the board that the district currently provides multiple single‑use restrooms and private changing options and reported no current systemic problems in their buildings. Athletic staff said they had not had transgender athletes in recent years and reviewed how the Maine Principals Association (MPA) distinguishes coed and single‑gender sports — a distinction board members said complicated drafting clear policy language for Winthrop.

Board members repeatedly framed the issue as legally fraught. The chair said attorneys told the board it faces conflicting legal paths — state human‑rights protections and interpretations of federal Title IX — that make every option vulnerable to challenge. “We were told we are in an impossible situation,” the chair said.

After extended discussion the board rejected a motion to postpone changes until after the November election. A subsequent motion by a board member to postpone and give the policy committee time to review materials was amended so that revised policy language would be ready for the board by June 3; the board moved that timetable into its work plan for the policy committee.

The policy committee will now draft language that the full board expects to review at or before its June 3 meeting. The transcript of the meeting records the motions and the board’s direction to the policy committee; the meeting did not record a formal vote tally for the June 3 timeline in the public transcript. Board members said they wanted to avoid litigation and ensure any new language aligns with both state law and relevant federal guidance.

What’s next: the policy committee will meet and draft proposed revisions; the board scheduled work to review that draft with the goal of presenting a version to the full board by June 3.