[image: David Edwards]
DAVID EDWARDS <https://www.rawstory.com/author/davide/>
12 JAN 2016 AT 15:06 ET <https://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/12/>              
     
Google BookmarkFacebookMore
[image: Virginia Del. Mark Cole (Facebook)]
Virginia Del. Mark Cole (Facebook)
DON'T MISS STORIES. FOLLOW RAW STORY!
Shop ▾

A bill filed by a Virginia lawmaker this week would require schools to be 
certain that children are using the restroom corresponding to their 
“correct anatomical sex.”

The legislation, which would prohibit transgender students from using the 
bathroom matching their gender, is being sponsored 
<https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2016/hb663/fulltext/> by Republican 
Del. Mark Cole.
<http://inread-experience.teads.tv/>

House Bill 663 defines “anatomical sex” as “the physical condition of being 
male or female, which is determined by a person’s anatomy.”

“Local school boards shall develop and implement policies that require 
every school restroom, locker room, or shower room that is designated for 
use by a specific gender to solely be used by individuals whose anatomical 
sex matches such gender designation,” the measure states.

Under the bill, any student who violated the bathroom rules could be fined 
$50 by law enforcement. Schools would have the discretion of allowing 
students to use a “single stall restroom or shower” or to have “controlled” 
access to an otherwise unoccupied restroom.

Cole’s legislation would also allow law enforcement to fine anyone who 
knowingly used a public restroom that did not correspond to their 
“anatomical sex.”

Civil rights advocate Tim Peacock noted 
<http://www.peacock-panache.com/2016/01/va-gop-bill-would-require-inspection-of-childrens-genitals-21253.html>
 that 
“adults would be required to inspect children’s genitals before they use 
the bathroom” for the legislation to be enforceable.

“This is what the conservative movement has devolved into: forcing children 
to allow adults to examine their genitals out of misplaced fear that 
transgender kids and adults might commit a hypothetical never-before-seen 
act of violence or sexual aggression (that would still be against the law 
with or without transgender protections),” Peacock wrote.

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to