Joseph Martins Remarks
Press Conference - Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Great Hall, State House - Boston, MA

 

My name is Joseph Martins. As a former public high school principal and a public school district superintendent in Fall River, I oppose House Bill-1728 on the grounds of this bill's being applicable to public schools of any form.

Students have certain legal rights when not in school and those rights are not abridged when the student enters the school building. It is difficult enough to control student behavior, prevent discrimination for all students, and ensure the safety of all students without having to distinguish between truth and a lie of some student claiming, at will, a gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior other than their assigned sex at birth, simply to gain access to the opposite at birth sex locker-rooms, showers, or lavatory facilities.

Nothing in House Bill-1728 protects students using their at birth sex locker-rooms, showers, or lavatory facilities that may be in various stages of undress from unwanted eyeing or 'so called, on purpose unintended body touching' by students of the opposite sex claiming to be the same sex.

How could school officials punish such behavior if the opposite birth sex student claims; "I was not eying, I was just looking at the whole room and we just happened to rub against each other". How can school officials discipline employees if a similar incident were to occur?

Can you imagine the parental uproar caused by such activity! I do not think the parents of the subjected student would accept the principal or superintendent's response that; the law allows the opposite sex student (or employee) to use the same facility, so looking and unintentional body touching may occur.

If House Bill-1728 becomes law, such would impose a huge financial burden on already cash strapped public school districts. Districts would be forced to provide for appropriate at birth sex locker-rooms, showers, or lavatory facilities for occupants of a school building while also providing equal quality 'any-sex' locker-rooms, showers, or lavatory facilities for those individuals expressing any gender-related identity, appearance, expression, or behavior, or anyone wishing to use the 'any-sex' facilities.

Additionally, if House Bill-1728 becomes law, individuals expressing any gender-related identity, appearance, expression or behavior cannot be mandated to use the 'any-sex' facility because such would be discrimination by virtue of denying the person the use of facility of choice. Lawsuit liability will surely be incurred by the school district's finding itself caught between the rights of privacy and the rights of those whose body is not what their mind wants it to be.

Are we heading in the direction of lavatory, locker-room, shower area monitors thus requiring the expenditure of greater security resources?

I urge the honorable legislators to reject House Bill-1728 in its entirety.