(original post, apologies if this link stops working: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/135/1286147.page#30548512)

Thank you all for your posts. I am really glad I posted. I'm going to update the page I created with some of what I say here so that it's easier to reference in the future by any of you or anyone else interested.

There are too many posts to respond individually to each, so I'm going to just respond to some themes.

1. One of the themes raised has been whether I'm seeking attention. The short answer is yes. Here's the long answer:

In the first week after this event, I told very few people about it because I had stayed at the pool long after the meet had finished in order to face any potential consequences for having written the word "boy" on the meet sheets. When none of the officials - three officials closely involved in how things have unfolded stayed after the meet as long as I did, including one Woodley Board member - approached me, I assumed the whole affair was basically dead. And when a week passed with nothing happening, I wasn't thinking about it at all.

Then I learned about Woodley's decision to suspend (Woodley Suspension>Exchange with the Board). At that point my sole goal was to be reinstated. By Jul 23, I still had only shared the story with about ten people who were giving me advice.

On Jul 27, the WRA Board's letter made it obvious that the pool had no intention of treating me fairly (Woodley Suspension>Exchange with the Board>11...stions - 27 Jul 2025). At that point, I readjusted my focus and decided to take the advice of one of my close friends to take the story public. He asked me what I wanted to accomplish - I laid out the following objectives which are still accurate. They are in order from the goals I thought I could most effectively impact to least.

Goals

1. Reinstatement to Woodley

2. Changes to Woodley Board make-up, approach, and pool rules

3. Enforcement of boys only in boys events and girls only in girls events at Woodley hosted meets

4. Clarification of NVSL rules and policies to ensure all NVSL pools register their swimmers according to their biological sex and enforce rules around sex differentiated events

5. End gender abuse

My continued public presence is intended to only have limited impact on goals #1 and #2. The point of seeking attention is to try and impact goals #3, #4, and #5. This entire thread is focused on achieving #4 - even if some of you who disagree with me on the issue of so-called "trans girls" competing as girls can help, partially. If you also ask NVSL to clarify its rules, we'll all know what we are signing up for.

1. Another theme concerned my focus on NVSL when the meet was run by Woodley.

The Meet Host cited NVSL rules when we were talking, so even if NVSL was not involved in this meet, each pool registered their swimmers and officials were instructed to officiate according to NVSL guidelines. Also since we have our kids on the Woodley Swim Team, we want to know what rules NVSL will enforce. Believe it or not, I don't want to have a repeat of this incident.

1. The question was raised (in different ways) how should the sex rules be enforced?

I don't think we need adults to scan bodies. It'll be annoying, but it now seems necessary, that we will need pools to use a birth certificate or a walker ID to register their children. Other leagues require these kinds of government issued identification documents; I see no reason NVSL couldn't require the same.

1. Someone else defended me already, but on the issue of whether I was doing anything untoward with respect to noticing that there was a boy in the event, I'll just say that you don't have to be closely inspecting something to notice that something is wrong or different or strange. I think people criticizing me for this are being silly and disingenuous.
2. Switching gears - some of you said that I'm harming the pool I claim to love by keeping the pool in the public eye.

Yea, I think you have a point, and I did consider this before I went to the press and I continue to consider this problem. I'll say a few things:

• I think the "threat" to the pool is exaggerated. I don't think there's good evidence showing that conservatives are especially violent, though I assume a lot of people have created a nuisance for the pool.
• the pool acted in bad faith, first, and I had and continue to have limited recourse, if you haven't read through the Woodley Suspension>Exchange with the Board then I think you're missing a key part of the story.
• I already made this point earlier, but once the pool effectively made the path to reinstatement very narrow, then it made a lot more sense to try to pursue the other goals on my list

1. I thought the best comments concerned my act of vigilantism