Kim Kovalchick, Supervisor
Michigan Department of Education
Coordinated School Health and Safety Programs unit
P.O. Box 30008
Lansing, MI 48909

To Kim Kovalchick and the Michigan Department of Education,

I recently read the proposal which was called, “State Board of Education Statement and Guidance on Safe and Supportive Learning Environments for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Students.” I first would like to say that I appreciate you wanting to protect all students, despite their color, race, or gender. Protecting the students should be a priority.

However, this proposal is not the answer. Please allow me to explain why. My first concern is the attempt to remove the parent involvement. The parents are responsible for their child in all areas of life until they become an adult. I am puzzled as to why this is a good idea to put all decision making of the child’s gender when the child has not fully developed? Wouldn’t it be better to leave the discussion of gender to the parents, instead of having teachers/government overstepping their bounds?

If a child is born naturally a boy and Yet, decides to be a girl for a week, and then decides to change back, is this allowed? Or maybe a boy will decide to be a girl to play on the “girl’s” basketball team, is this acceptable?

What is wrong with restrooms as is? If Restrooms is a place where bullying against the LGTBQ students exists, how would this solve anything? For example, if a naturally born girl is now going to the bathroom in the naturally born boy’s restroom, wouldn’t bullying still take place and perhaps at a more intense level since naturally born boy’s typically are stronger than naturally born girls?

Are you suggesting the a naturally born boy can decide he is a girl and go into the women’s locker room to change clothes and (or) shower? If am I reading this correctly, how is this promoting safety to others? Do you think some boy’s will claim to be a girl to look upon the girls? How is this not promoting students preying on other students? Shouldn’t parents of the student who wants to go in the girls locker room and the parents of the girls have a say? This does not seem to be promoting safety for everyone, but a way to revolve the way we do things solely around the LGBTQ group. This is no longer about safety but about promoting an agenda. This is no longer about the students, but a political move.

You mention in the proposal when facing an overnight accommodations, to evaluate it on a case by case and make a decision that is acceptable to the student. Really? Even if the student is wrong? When have we decided to make it all about the students? So, we remove the parents from this choice and allow cross naturally born genders to potentially sleep together or in the same living quarters?

The data I have seen is that most teens during puberty question if they are a boy or girl. However, after puberty, 98% of natural born males accept that they are male; And for naturally born girls it is 88%.  The American of College Pediatricians have called what you are proposing Child-Abuse.  You are conditioning children to choose what sex they are. This by default, in many cases, will want them to explore with cross-sex hormones treatment. This will as well as lead to confusion. This is very wrong.  

I ask us to give back to parents what is their authority to raise their children how they think is best. Of course, there are some cases where others may need to intervene (IE Cases of Child Abuse). However, most of the time we should recognize the parental role and responsibility and not have the government overstep its bounds–This is exactly what you are doing. I politely ask you to withdraw your proposal and come up with a different one that promotes safety for all.

-Justin Davito

Justin is a husband, father, and a writer. He is passionate about equipping parents, glorifying Jesus, and helping the local church. Justin currently resides in Michigan with his wife and two daughters.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn