What is wrong with this law? Is there something hidden in it not mentioned in the article?
It merely says that it prevents people from using the opposite sex bathroom. That seems perfectly reasonable, although I would have figured this was already standard practice. For those who feel uncomfortable with their birth sex, it said they could even submit a request to have separate accommodations.
If you oppose this law, why should we have separate sex bathrooms or locker rooms or showers at all? I cannot see any reason to oppose it.
Not to diminish the difficulty that those who don't identify with their birth sex go through, but this issue actually directly impacts other people. The most reasonable position is to have single occupancy shower/toilets available for use as needed.
Most normal people are opposed to the idea of checking student's genitals before they walk in to a toilet, perv.
If this is the most pressing issue facing South Dakota right now, I'm impressed. I thought they were hurting from the low oil prices...
I think it's North Dakota with the oil. South Dakota just has that tacky mountain.
