Not so many years ago, camp operators took a theoretical approach to the transgender community. “What would we do,” the conversation went, “if a transgender camper enrolled in camp?” The LGBTQ+ rights movement lacked the prominence that it has today, camp staff did not list their pronouns in their email signatures, and only the most prescient camps had solidified policies in this area.
Mirroring the population as a whole, a growing number of campers and staff are now sharing that they are transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming. If you do not have a policy in place, then your camp may be underprepared to address the needs of a population that will inevitably start passing through your gates, whether it's this summer, next summer, or shortly thereafter.
Moreover, in response to increasing parent and staff inquiries about how they house transgender individuals, a number of camps now say that they "bunk by biology." As states embrace broader protections for transgender individuals through robust anti-discrimination laws, the "bunking by biology" approach is ripe for legal challenge.
A Changing Landscape
Consider whether you're prepared to address a number of increasingly common experiences across the industry, which you and/or a neighboring camp should expect this summer:
When registering for camp, a family informs you that the registration reflects their camper’s gender identity rather than their assigned gender at birth.
A camper arrives on opening day and identifies as a different gender from the one listed on their camp registration.
In the middle of your summer season, a camper requests to change their housing based on their gender identity, which they felt comfortable enough to reveal for the first time in the safety of your camp community.
A staff member arrives on opening day, and you realize for the first time that they are transgender.
A staff member shares with you that they are transgender but asks you not to disclose that information to campers, parents, or other staff.
Reflecting society more generally, these and similar circumstances will be a continuing and growing trend across the camp industry. If camps don’t implement thoughtful policies now, then they'll be relying on individual staff members to make exceptionally sensitive decisions in real-time, without proper training, and without adequate preparation.
Legal Considerations for Campers
As camps create policies for transgender, gender nonconforming, and nonbinary campers, what laws should they consider? For most camps, the relevant issues as to campers are governed by state civil rights laws, which often dictate that "places of public accommodation" cannot discriminate against people on the basis of sex, transgender status, gender identity, gender expression, and various other protected characteristics.
Public Accommodations
Since state civil rights laws typically apply to public accommodations, the starting point of our analysis is determining whether a particular camp falls within the definition. Public accommodations are generally defined as businesses and other establishments that provide goods, services, and facilities to the general public.
Secular day camps and overnight camps are commonly considered public accommodations. For instance, the New York Human Rights Law specifically includes "resort camps" in its definition of public accommodation, while New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination includes "summer camps" and "day camps," among a long list of other entities.
A Note for Religious Camps
Some states exclude religious organizations from their definition of public accommodation. For example, the New York Human Rights Law states that religious organizations are "distinctly private" and thus not public accommodations. This means that religious camps in New York may not be bound by the anti-discrimination provisions that apply to secular camps. [FN 1]
What Do State Civil Rights Laws Require as to Transgender Campers?
Let's assume that a camp is bound by its state's antidiscrimination laws, which is a safe assumption for most secular camps and many religious camps. The question becomes what the applicable state laws require as to transgender campers. Let's consider the laws of three neighboring states for purposes of this analysis:
New York: Under the New York Human Rights Law, public accommodations cannot deny any person their accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges because of that person's gender identity or expression, among other protected characteristics. NY Human Rights Law.
While the use of bathrooms and similar private facilities may be limited to people of the same gender, the determination of gender must be based on gender identity. Individuals must be allowed to use "facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth . . ." Gender Identity Discrimination Guidance
This same principle applies to housing. The New York Division of Human Rights gives the following example: “Adrian is a transgender woman who needs to attend a residential drug treatment program. The program requires Adrian to submit proof of transition-related medical treatment before it will assign her to the women’s rooms. A program may not refuse to permit an individual to participate in or reside in facilities consistent with the individual’s gender identity . . .” Gender Identity Discrimination Guidance.
New Jersey: The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation based on actual or perceived gender identity or expression, among other protected characteristics. NJ LAD.
As to private facilities, New Jersey guidance states: "[T]ransgender people must be permitted to use the bathroom or changing room consistent with their gender identity or expression. They also have the right to be addressed with their chosen name, title, or pronoun. They do not need to show any particular ‘proof’ of gender to exercise these rights.” NJ Fact Sheet.
Maryland: Like New York and New Jersey, Maryland prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of gender identity. Maryland overview.
Unlike New York and New Jersey, Maryland does not apply these protections to "private facilities" (defined below), as long as a public accommodation provides an equivalent private space: "This subtitle does not apply, with respect to gender identity, to a private facility, if the place of public accommodation in which the private facility is located makes available, for the use of persons whose gender identity is different from their assigned sex at birth, an equivalent private space.” Maryland Statute.
What is a "private facility?" Under Maryland law, it is a facility: "1. that is designed to accommodate only a particular sex; 2. that is designed to be used simultaneously by more than one user of the same sex; and 3. in which it is customary to disrobe in view of other users of the facility." Maryland Statute.
So, under New Jersey and New York law, transgender campers are entitled to use bathrooms, changing rooms and, presumably, camp bunks, based on their gender identity. By contrast, in Maryland, the civil rights law protects transgender campers but does not apply to "private facilities." While I have yet to see case law addressing these questions in the context of camp, we can reasonably extrapolate from the dictates of state law as follows:
If your state's civil rights law specifically extends its protections to private facilities, such as in New Jersey or New York, then you likely have a legal obligation to group and/or house transgender campers based on their gender identity, regardless of their assigned gender at birth. Transgender campers have a legal right to use bathrooms, changing rooms, and bunks based on their gender identity.
If your state has a carve-out for private facilities, then a bunk or changing room may not be subject to the law's protections. However, outside of the specific exclusion for private facilities, you likely still have an obligation to group campers based on their gender identity, while providing access to an “equivalent private space” when it comes to bathrooms, changing rooms, and bunks. (In this case, the law sets a floor rather than a ceiling–you may choose to simply group and house campers based on gender identity, even if the law doesn’t require it.)
Do Camps Need Parental Consent?
This is a common question and area of concern for camp professionals, but there is limited official guidance that applies specifically to camps. For the moment, the question may be best answered by analogy to schools. The challenge is that the applicable guidance is in a significant state of flux following Trump's 2025 executive orders, which are discussed in more detail below.
As an example of state guidance on this topic, let's consider the New York Department of Education's 2023 guidance for schools, which makes clear that transgender students have the same types of protections as transgender adults. Teachers and school administrators are required to affirm each student's gender identity, allow students to use single sex facilities (like bathrooms) based on their gender identity, and respect each student's privacy and confidentiality -- including as to the student's own parents.
Recognizing that many transgender students haven't spoken to their families about their gender identity for a range of reasons, the NY Department of Education explicitly instructs teachers and administrators not to share a transgender student's gender identity with their parents unless the student gives consent. Consider the following example from the guidance document:
A student with the legal name Kevin comes out as a transgender girl and asks teachers to call her Kimi and use she/her pronouns. She is not out to her parents and requests that teachers and administration continue to use her legal name with her parents for the time being. The teachers call her Kimi and use she/her pronouns at school. When calling home for any reason, teachers use the name Kevin and he/him pronouns. Kimi writes "KD" on her papers to avoid her parents seeing her affirmed name.
While there is a dearth of guidance in this area as to camps, there is no obvious reason that the logic of a state's application of its human rights laws to students in schools shouldn't also apply to campers in camps. Thus, based on such guidance, camps should affirm campers' gender identity while ensuring confidentiality. If a camper hasn't shared their transgender status with their parents, then the camp should not do so either without the camper's consent.
Of course, all of this has significant implications for parental involvement (or lack thereof) in how a transgender camper is housed in an overnight camp setting. Camp parents expect to be fully informed about their child's experience, particularly with regard to housing. We can easily imagine a situation -- which many camps have experienced firsthand -- in which a camper has not disclosed their gender identity to their parents, asks the camp to be housed based on their gender identity, and also requests that the camp maintain confidentiality.
The New York Department of Education’s guidance for schools suggests that, in such cases, the camp's primary responsibility under the human rights law is to the camper, not to the parents. The guidance also suggests that housing decisions should be made based on the camper’s gender identity, and the camp should avoid disclosing the camper's transgender status to parents without explicit consent from the camper.
While that is the state law perspective, the Trump administration recently issued an executive order called Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, which specifically prohibits schools from "deliberately concealing the minor’s social transition from the minor’s parents." Since state school districts receive federal funding, we will need to watch carefully to see if New York's 2023 guidance, and similar guidance from other states, will survive the executive order. The recent executive orders are discussed in more detail below.
In any event, it's obviously quite a delicate balancing act to navigate parental expectations to be full informed and campers' potential state law rights to confidentiality regarding gender diversity. It would certainly be helpful for states to put out camp-specific guidance to give the industry some direction about how to proceed in these situations. In the meantime, camps should consider the requirements of applicable law and implement clear written policies to memorialize their approach. These questions are hard enough to address in the calm of the off-season, and they become infinitely harder to address when there are hundreds of people in camp and no written policy to follow.
Legal Considerations for Employees
State Law Considerations
Just as state civil rights laws prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against campers on the basis of gender identity and expression, these laws have separate provisions that extend similar protections to employees.
For example, under the New York Human Rights Law, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to "refuse to hire or employ or to bar or to discharge from employment" or to "[discriminate] in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment" based on gender identity or expression, among other protected characteristics (unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification).
Likewise, New York provides the following guidance as to the use of sex-segregated facilities by transgender employees:
Regardless of the type of sex-segregated facilities available[, an employer] must allow individuals to use facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth . . . . It is unlawful to require a person to use a single-occupancy restroom because they are transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming. This is true even if other employees, tenants or customers object to sharing a facility with a transgender, non-binary or gender nonconforming person.
In other words, the New York civil rights law extends the same types of protections to employees as it does to campers. State civil rights laws differ, so each camp needs to check the specific civil rights law in their state to assess their obligations.
Federal Law
In addition to state law protections, federal law also protects employees from discrimination on the basis of transgender status. Under federal law, this protection falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, unless based on a bona fide occupational qualification. [FN3]
Title VII does not explicitly mention gender identity, but in the recent Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia decision, the US Supreme Court held that "discrimination based on . . . transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
Prior to the 2025 executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which is discussed in more detail below, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) explained as follows:
[I]f an employer fires an employee because that person was identified as male at birth but uses feminine pronouns and identifies as a female, the employer is taking action against the individual because of sex since the action would not have been taken but for the fact the employee was originally identified as male.
The EEOC went on to explain that employers cannot engage in discriminatory practices because "customers or clients would prefer to work with people who have a different sexual orientation or gender identity." Likewise, "it would be discriminatory to keep LGBTQ+ employees out of public-facing positions," and it would be discriminatory to prohibit "a transgender person from dressing or presenting consistent with that person’s gender identity."
This means that, regardless of a particular parent or camper's sentiments regarding transgender staff, camps must treat transgender staff equally and cannot discriminate against them in any aspect of employment. This protection likely applies to housing as well. Note, however, the webpage on which the EEOC provided this guidance went down following the 2025 executive orders, so we will have to see how courts and federal agencies like the EEOC now interpret the implications of Bostock.
What About Private Facilities?
As to bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other private facilities, the rule prior to the 2025 executive orders was that employers are allowed to have separate facilities based on gender, but gender must be determined based on gender identity. The EEOC explained as follows:
The Commission has taken the position that employers may not deny an employee equal access to a bathroom, locker room, or shower that corresponds to the employee’s gender identity. In other words, if an employer has separate bathrooms, locker rooms, or showers for men and women, all men (including transgender men) should be allowed to use the men’s facilities and all women (including transgender women) should be allowed to use the women’s facilities.
However, one of the 2025 executive orders states the following: "The prior Administration argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock . . . requires gender identity-based access to single-sex spaces . . . . This position is legally untenable and has harmed women." As a result, the EEOC's webpage of guidance on this topic is now down. The executive orders are discussed in more detail below.
A Note on Religious Organizations
Title VII's protections of transgender employees may not extend to certain religious employers. Title VII allows religious employers to hire and employ individuals of a particular religion. The EEOC explains that religious employers may be allowed to require employees to adhere to certain religious doctrines, and may be allowed to separate those who refuse. The EEOC gives an example of a Catholic college that terminates a professor who signed a pro-choice petition. "Because the exemption to Title VII preserves the religious school’s ability to maintain a community composed of individuals faithful to its doctrinal practices . . . Title VII’s religious organization exemption bars adjudication of [the claim]." There are also other doctrines, such as the "ministerial exception," which may exempt religious organizations from the requirements of Title VII. [FN 2]
The Implications of the Recent Executive Orders Regarding Gender Diversity
(Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling)
The Trump Administration's 2025 executive orders represent a sea change in federal policy regarding gender diversity. By their own terms, they are intended to reaffirm "the biological reality of sex."
For some brief context, in the 2020 Bostock decision referenced above, the US Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act: "the first cannot happen without the second," in the words of the court.
Based on the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the federal anti-discrimination laws as to employment, issued guidance affirming protections for transgender employees in matters such as dress codes and access to sex-segregated facilities. For example, the EEOC's prior position was that employees are entitled to use bathrooms and private spaces based on their gender identity.
The new executive orders reject this interpretation, calling it "legally untenable" and "harmful to women." The orders direct federal agencies, including the EEOC, to stop enforcing policies that recognize people based on their gender identity and, instead, to only recognize people based on sex assigned at birth.
Sex-Segregated Spaces
One of the most significant directives of the executive orders is that sex-segregated spaces, including bathrooms and other private facilities, must be designated based on "immutable biological sex." Federal agencies are instructed to revise regulations to eliminate gender identity-based access to these spaces, reversing prior guidance from the EEOC (and the Department of Education).
For many camps, this creates a direct conflict between federal and state law. While states like New York and New Jersey explicitly require that individuals be housed and given access to private spaces according to their gender identity, the Trump administration now takes the position that the use of single-sex facilities should be based on sex assigned at birth.
Camper Privacy
Regarding privacy, the executive orders call for the removal of various federal guidance documents that previously protected the privacy of transgender individuals. For example, prior U.S. Department of Education guidance instructed teachers not to disclose a student’s transgender status to parents without the student’s consent.
Under the executive orders, schools and federally funded institutions are required to notify parents if a minor student identifies as transgender. School staff are now explicitly prohibited from "deliberately concealing [a] minor’s social transition from the minor’s parents."
Again, this is in direct conflict with state guidance on this topic. For example, in a 2023 guidance document, the New York Department of Education states that information regarding a student's gender identity is confidential, protected, and should not be shared with parents without the student's consent. This is based on the requirements of the New York Human Rights Law.
While Department of Education guidance doesn't apply to camps, its interpretation of how civil rights laws apply to students is certainly instructive to our decision-making about how those same laws apply to campers. However, there is now conflict between federal and state guidance (at least in some states).
Practical Implications: Do the Executive Orders Require Changes to Camp Policies?
As to the use of single sex facilities, the executive orders mean that a transgender employee can no longer make a discrimination claim under federal law if they are denied the use of a single-sex facility based on their gender identity. However, such discrimination claims can still be made under state law (i.e., in states liked New York and New Jersey that require people to be recognized based on their gender identity). So, if an independent camp that doesn't receive federal funding has a policy to allow the use of private spaces based on gender identity, the executive orders don't seem to require any policy changes.
Things become more complicated for camps that receive federal funding. Those camps will need to navigate challenging conflicting obligations and somehow reconcile state and federal positions. The executive orders require federal agencies to "end the federal funding of gender ideology." Where does this leave camps that receive federal funding but follow the requirements of state law to recognize people and assign private spaces based on gender identity? These camps will either be at risk of violating state law or losing their federal funding (and being out of compliance with federal requirements while receiving federal funding). These will be difficult waters to navigate until challenges to the executive orders play out in court, or until states with robust anti-discrimination protections for gender diverse individuals provide concrete guidance on how to proceed.
Camps that receive federal funding may also need to reassess their approach to handling parental disclosures regarding gender identity. These camps may need to revisit whether they are required to inform parents when a camper identifies as transgender while in the camp's care. And assuming state law is silent, if a camp chooses to keep information regarding camper gender identity confidential, then the new federal approach may open the door to private rights of action by parents who make claims against camps for failing to disclose information about their kids.
Along the same lines, the executive orders also have implications for camps that operate in states without specific gender diversity protections under state law. Regulators in those states may now have a license under federal interpretations of the word "sex" to distinguish between sex assigned at birth and gender identity when it comes to the use of private spaces, among various other decisions. Camps should be aware of this when making policies.
Legal Challenges
The executive orders have introduced fundamental changes to the federal approach to gender identity, while also creating a significant conflict with the laws of various states. The executive orders will be challenged in court and may end up before the US Supreme Court. Likewise, state lawmakers and state regulatory agencies will be analyzing the intersection of the executive orders and conflicting state laws. Hopefully we will see some actionable state guidance soon. In the meantime, we will need to watch these developments carefully.
The Path Forward
The course of US history regarding the protection of marginalized people has taught us that progressive civil rights laws tend to set a standard that eventually becomes adopted by others.
It may be reasonable to assume that the Trump executive orders regarding gender identity will not survive beyond this administration. We may also speculate that New York and New Jersey law on this topic will reflect a more national approach in some number of years. Moreover, "separate but equal" facilities hold a troubling place in US history, which raises doubts about whether Maryland's allowance of an "equivalent private space" for transgender community members will stand the test of time.
While making predictions, I can make another one with a reasonable degree of certainty: If you have not yet had an openly transgender, gender nonconforming, or nonbinary camper or staff member at camp, then you will soon. Perhaps it will be this summer, or maybe in another year or two.
Every camp would be well-served to consider the law that applies to them and draft a thoughtful policy concerning their approach to the transgender community. If you don't, then your staff are likely to be underprepared for opening day and may make poor decisions as a result, leaving your leadership team scrambling to address an issue that could have been thoughtfully considered well in advance of the first camper's arrival.
Footnotes
[FN 1] Even if religious camps are not considered "public accommodations" in a particular state, they still may be considered "housing accommodations," which are typically prohibited from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or expression. New York's definition of housing accommodation is quite broad and includes “any building, structure, or portion thereof which is used . . . as the home, residence, or sleeping place of one or more human beings.” Camps certainly seem to qualify. For housing accommodations, there is also a carve-out for religious organizations, but it's more nuanced than the blanket exclusion of religious organizations from the definition of public accommodation. Here's what New York law says as to housing accommodations: "Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to bar any . . . religious organization, from limiting employment or sales or rental of housing accommodations or admission to or giving preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or from taking such action as is calculated by such organization to promote the religious principles for which it is established or maintained." Importantly, there must be a conflict with principles. Consider the example of a local overnight camp that's affiliated with a national religious movement. If the national movement embraces and includes the transgender and gender nonconforming community, then the local organization cannot rely on a religious carve-out to exclude transgender campers -- the camp is still bound by the law as long as the law does not conflict with its religious principles.
[FN 2] The application of these arguments can vary depending on specific circumstances. Likewise, the definition of "religious employer" is itself a complex question. Whether Title VII's protections of transgender employees apply to a particular religious employer should be carefully assessed by an attorney.
[FN 3] The EEOC explains: "Title VII provides an exception to its prohibition of discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin. That exception, called the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), recognizes that in some extremely rare instances a person's sex, religion, or national origin may be reasonably necessary to carrying out a particular job function in the normal operation of an employer's business or enterprise. The protected class of race is not included in the statutory exception and clearly cannot, under any circumstances, be considered a BFOQ for any job."