This is just utter batshit insanity ...
https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1487982040192585733
From page 4 of Gender Identity Guidance for Utah Public Education (Draft 4):
IOW: If a boy wants to use the girls' locker room (because doing so "aligns with [his] consistently asserted gender identity"), then "she" may choose to do so - but if any of the girls (the real ones) are uncomfortable with that, then
they must use some
other "alternative" locker room.
Why the hell not just require the boy-who-identifies-as-a-girl to use an "alternative" locker room in the first place? (That's a rhetorical question, of course - the answer is obviously that this has nothing whatsoever to do with accommodating anyone; it's only about discommoding everyone who fails to acquiesce to this raving nuttery).
And if that's not batshit insane enough for you, riddle me this: what's supposed to happen when a boy-who-identifies-as-a-girl decides that "she" is "uncomfortable" with
other boys-who-identify-as-girls being in the girls' locker room - thereby necessitating that "she" use the "alternative" locker room? What are the girls-who-identify-as-girls who are already being made to use that "alternative" locker room (because they were uncomfortable with boys-who-identify-as-girls being in their original locker room) supposed to do? Use some other
secondary "alternative" locker room? But then, what if ... ah, to hell with it! ... (I wish @
Zippyjuan was still around ... I'm sure he could sort all this out for us ...)