In charging male students for expressing discomfort that a girl had walked in and was filming them in their locker room, Loudoun County school officials prove that illegal transgender polices are also gravely victimizing boys.
A judge has halted the suspension of two boys from a high school in Loudoun County, Virginia, after they were charged with sexual harassment.
The boys were investigated and suspended after a female student entered their locker room and secretly recorded them expressing discomfort about being forced to change in the same space as a girl.
The issue began during the first semester of the 2024-25 school year when the boys were in 10th grade at Stone Bridge High School, the same high school which covered up the rape of a female student by a skirt-wearing male student in a bathroom.
After school began, a female student began routinely using the boys’ locker room.
The female student claims to identify as transgender and Loudon County Public Schools (LCPS) permits students to use the bathroom or locker room according to their chosen gender identity.
A suit filed on the boy’s behalf claims that the female student didn’t try to look like a boy as she continued to wear long hair, female clothing, and makeup. The student was never medically diagnosed as having gender dysphoria and has never undergone any of the medical interventions associated with gender transition, such as taking cross-sex hormones.
The plaintiffs, two devout Christian boys — one of whom leads the school’s Bible club — told LCPS leadership that sharing a locker room with a female student, including being seen undressed in front of her or seeing her undressed, violated their religious beliefs
Faculty told the male students if they were uncomfortable, they could change their clothes elsewhere.
Then in October 2024, the female student again entered the locker room. Several male students asked why there was a girl in their locker room.
They were told by school administrators not to ask any questions about the girl in their locker room and to make no comments about it.
On March 21, the female student used her cell phone to begin recording as she was about to enter the boys’ locker room. Although there were many voices echoing around the room, the plaintiffs were identified as having expressed discomfort.
The female student took the recording to school administrators and filed complaints of sexual harassment against three male students: the two Christian plaintiffs and a Muslim student.
On March 28, LCPS officials informed the three boys that it was investigating them for sexual harassment but chose to take no disciplinary action against the female student.
Josh Hetzler, legal counsel for the Founding Freedoms Law Center and a graduate of the Liberty University School of Law, who represents the plaintiffs, spoke to the Standing for Freedom Center about the case. He explained that although the female student did violate school policy, the action was likely not a crime because she did not record any nudity.
But what began as an investigation of three male students soon conspicuously dropped to just two.
The two plaintiffs had not been accused of doing anything worse than the other student; according to the suit, the two plaintiffs never even spoke to the girl or said anything hostile.
The Muslim student, in fact, had an additional charge filed against him by the female student and he was investigated by LCPS officials for a comment he made to the female student.
LCPS then decided to withdraw the charges against the Muslim student, who was also represented by Founding Freedoms Law Center.
What was the difference?
Hetzler argues that it is a case of religious discrimination.
On May 7, LCPS notified the Muslim student that it was investigating him for the comment he made to the female student.
At that point, members of a Muslim community in the area began speaking up about the district’s actions, and a local cleric from the mosque the student attends called a school board member to express his disapproval.
Less than three weeks later, LCPS dismissed the investigation against the Muslim student, saying that the complaint “must be dismissed” because “[T]he conduct alleged would not constitute sexual harassment as defined in…the Title IX regulations, even if proved.”
Yet, despite the Christian students being investigated for the exact same complaint, minus a charge based on a verbal comment, LCPS pressed on with its investigation of them and even added an additional charge of sex-based discrimination. This led the school to hand down a 10-day suspension for the remaining two students.
While the Founding Freedoms Law Center is happy the investigation into their other client was dropped, they say LCPS’s suspension of the plaintiffs is a blatant example of anti-Christian bias.
The plaintiffs argue that LCPS engaged in sex-based discrimination by dismissing the boys’ discomfort with a female student in their locker room, instructing them to stay silent and change elsewhere, while offering no such directive to the female student.
The parents appealed the suspension with the district, but their appeal was denied.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema granted a temporary restraining order to halt the suspension of the two students, but one ended up missing the first day of school due to the delay in emergency relief.
The family of one of the plaintiffs moved their son out of the school district, so he wouldn’t have to serve the suspension. However, they are seeking to have his academic record expunged.
When asked if the charges on their academic record could impact the boys’ college prospects, Hetzler said that most colleges and universities consider a student’s full disciplinary record when making admissions decisions.
A hearing for a preliminary injunction is currently scheduled for October 10, according to Hetzler.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox, addressing West Virginia and Idaho laws barring males from girls’ sports could impact this case. The Court will hear arguments in October 2025, with a ruling expected by spring or summer 2026.
“We hope that the court sends a strong message that Loudon is wrong here, that they’re discriminating based on sex against the boys who have a right to access a locker room just for boys and that they can’t discriminate based on religion which we believe they’re doing,” Hetzler said when asked what he hopes comes out of their case.
He continued, “Title IX was designed to protect girls and boys in their separate spaces and sports and Loudon is turning that on its head to do the very opposite. So hopefully the court sets this right and it’ll be a precedent for all the other schools in the country who are facing similar issues.”
Debates over transgender policies almost always focus on men in women’s locker rooms or men in women’s sports, mostly because those concerns center on safety and fairness, which are incredibly important.
However, what often goes overlooked is this issue is also about the right to privacy.
As such, it is just as wrong for a girl to enter the boys’ locker room as it is for a boy to enter a girls’ locker room. It is an issue of mutual respect.
Put yourself in the shoes of these male students who are seeking to honor their faith and to treat women with dignity and respect. They enter what is supposed to be a private space. For many teens, it’s already somewhat uncomfortable to change and use the bathroom in front of other boys, but that reality is mitigated by the knowledge that they are all in the same situation. Like most boys’ gatherings, there is laughing, joking, and camaraderie.
Then in walks a girl.
She catches you at your most vulnerable, changing your clothes or even showering; seeing you in a state that you never consented to her witnessing.
As a male, particularly a young male, you feel exposed, shocked, embarrassed, and possibly even guilty, as though you might have done something wrong.
Young men are rightly taught to respect a woman’s privacy, to never engage in such evils as being a peeping Tom or exposing their bodies to a girl. For Christians, this is also an issue of sexual purity as God calls us to flee immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18).
But suddenly there’s a girl in your locker room, undressing, maybe even showering right next to you.
You hurriedly look at the floor and hide yourself, spending the next few moments trying desperately not to see her or to be seen by her.
That is the situation these Loudoun County students and many others find themselves in. By forcing these students to indulge the delusions and entitled beliefs of troubled peers, we are ripping away their emotional and physical safety. Schools are compelling them into a vulnerable encounter, a non-consensual situation, with a person of the opposite sex. And all because some idealogues in the school system have an agenda.
LCPS is not alone in refusing to end policies that allow students and even grown visitors to use opposite-sex facilities.
There is a separate lawsuit in Fairfax County where girls complained about a boy using their locker room and that he was watching them change. When the girls talked to administrators, their response was to shorten the time the girls had to change so then the male student could go in and change after them.
In fact, schools like Fairfax are fighting the Trump administration to try to keep their transgender bathroom policies and their federal funds.
Yet no district in the country demonstrates the destructive commitment to LGBT ideology more than Loudoun County.
After a skirt-wearing male raped a girl at this very same high school, the district called the cops on the girl’s father — not once but twice — who arrested him at a school board meeting to discuss the proposed bathroom policy.
The girl’s father was trying to speak after then-Superintendent Scott Ziegler falsely claimed no sexual assaults had happened in the school bathrooms.
The district covered up the rape and sent the boy to another school, where he soon attacked another girl.
Students, both male and female, later staged a walkout in hopes of getting the district to restore sex-segregated bathrooms. LCPS officials not only ignored their students but doubled down on their policy.
Loudoun school leaders do not care about their students’ emotional or physical well-being.
They don’t care about the law.
They care about advancing their radical ideology and silencing any dissent.
Hopefully, the courts will rectify the wrong done to these boys and set a new precedent. Students should not have to share a bathroom, locker room, or any other private space with a member of the opposite sex — and that should be true for both boys and girls.
If you like this article and other content that helps you apply a biblical worldview to today’s politics and culture, consider making a donation here.
