My kid is in middle school in BVSD and plays sports through the district. When 109 first came up I figured it didn't really affect us since my kid's not trans. Then I read the actual text and the Daily Camera op-ed from the One Colorado and Planned Parenthood execs laid out what I think is the part nobody's talking about: the verification language is so vague that any kid who doesn't look stereotypically feminine could end up being questioned.

That includes tall girls. Athletic girls. Girls with short hair. My kid has played on teams with all of those. The idea that a state law could put my cisgender daughter in the crosshairs because some administrator decides she needs to be "verified" is what actually changed my view on this.

The op-ed also flagged that 110's text could affect care for minors with reproductive organ cancers. That's a separate issue but worth knowing about.

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me on the broader debate. Just flagging that the implementation specifics of these measures, regardless of where you land on the underlying policy, deserve more public attention than they've gotten.

As a BVSD parent, the Daily Camera op-ed on 109 and 110 is worth your time