Two Stone Bridge High School students in Loudoun County, Virginia, were suspended for 10 days after a Title IX investigation found them responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination. The case arose when the boys were recorded questioning a “transgender” student’s presence in the boys’ locker room. The student, who is biologically female but identifies as male, was the one who recorded the exchange — a possible violation of district policy.
The controversy highlights ongoing disputes over “transgender” policies in Virginia schools, as federal officials have begun the process of cutting federal funding to five Northern Virginia districts, including Loudoun, arguing their policies allowing bathroom and locker room access by gender identity violate Title IX.
The Title IX investigation stemmed from that video, which showed the boys asking why a girl was in the boys’ locker room. Attorneys for the families argue the process was biased and retaliatory. Parents fear the incident could follow their sons on permanent academic records and affect college applications.
Administrators also imposed additional penalties: no-contact orders, restrictions on sharing classes with the complainant, and mandatory meetings with school officials to determine corrective actions.
Seth Wolfe, a parent of one student, criticized the decision. “We’re saddened by how this process unfolded and disappointed in the outcome,” Wolfe said.
Another parent, Renae Smith, said she pulled her son out of LCPS and moved out of state. “[We’re] absolutely floored that they branded my son responsible for sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination with no solid evidence whatsoever. We’re talking about scarring him for life by a biased process … it should terrify every single parent.”
The discipline ties back to LCPS Policy 8040, which allows students to use bathrooms and locker rooms based on gender identity. Critics have long argued the rule compromises privacy and safety in intimate spaces. Supporters say the district is complying with federal court precedent in Grimm v. Gloucester County, which held that denying bathroom access based on gender identity constitutes sex-based discrimination.
School leaders declined to clarify whether students may be disciplined for expressing discomfort with the policy or whether recording inside locker rooms is ever permissible.
At the same time, federal officials escalated pressure on Virginia districts. The U.S. Department of Education said Friday it had begun the process of cutting federal funding to five Northern Virginia districts, including Loudoun, potentially costing each system tens of millions of dollars annually.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Attorney General Jason Miyares positioned themselves as opponents of the policies. Youngkin said separate facilities for boys and girls are essential for privacy and accused districts of neglecting their duties.
“These school divisions have been violating federal law, deliberately neglecting their responsibility to protect students’ safety, privacy, and dignity, and ignoring parents’ rights. They got away with this behavior because the Biden administration backed them up,” Youngkin said.
“I fought to prevent the Biden administration’s radical Title IX reinterpretation from being imposed on Virginia’s public schools,” Miyares said.
Earlier this summer, his office also investigated the Stone Bridge case, concluding that LCPS conducted an unlawful, retaliatory Title IX process. He referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
The Stone Bridge case marks the latest flashpoint in Virginia’s battles over “transgender” student accommodations. With federal funding at stake, districts face increasing pressure to reconsider bathroom and locker room policies.
The Founding Freedoms Law Center, representing the families, pledged to fight the suspensions until overturned, while Family Foundation of Virginia President Victoria Cobb said LCPS is “making an example” of students who oppose district ideology.
Comments