FREDERICK, Md. (DC NEWS NOW) –The Frederick County Board of Education said the 443 policy’s purpose is to prevent discrimination, stigmatization, harassment, and bullying of students who are transgender and gender non-conforming, but some parents feel it’s not safe and want changes.

In a recent Frederick County Board of Education meeting, a parent brought up her concerns about policy 443 and says she feels it keeps parents in the dark when it comes to their child’s gender identity at school.

“You could have a six-year-old child decide that they’re mad at their parents for whatever reason a six-year-old can come up with and they decide that they don’t want their parents to know what name or anything that they want to be called at school and FCPS is going to just go right along with that,” said a woman during public comment.

The policy was brought up by students and adopted in June 2017 to have the right to:

–Access facility restrooms and lockerrooms corresponding with their gender identity.

–Be referred to by their preferred name and pronoun.

–Sports and physical education consistent with gender identity.

–Gender-neutral events.

Kris Fair, the Executive Director of the Frederick Center, a local LGBTQ+ advocacy group says the policy is necessary.

“There are students all over our school system that identify as LGBTQ plus hundreds, that identify as transgender and gender nonbinary and gender nonconforming. Those people have spoken clearly with one voice, that this is a good policy, not only for them as students, but for administrators to work through the administrative work that needs to be done to support trans students, and also for every other student in the school system to create a clear and affirming space, that LGBTQ people here are the policies and procedures that must be followed,” said Fair.

According to the FCPS Board Vice President, Dean Rose, the Frederick County Board of Education has not considered or recommended any revisions to Policy 443. All of the most debated portions of Policy 443 are currently supported by existing case law within in the state of Maryland and the 4th Circuit Court of the United States.