Oak Brook Park District adopts gender-neutral language policy amid opposition: ‘Why are we spending time on this?’
The Oak Brook Park District Board of Commissioners approved updates to its general use regulations on May 18, 2026, replacing traditional gendered language with gender-neutral terminology.
The revisions remove language stating that masculine gender references include the feminine and neuter and replace it with wording stating that all gender references in the document are intended to be “inclusive.”
Officials described the change as a standardization effort to clarify expectations for park and facility use.
Board members Tina Chan and Mario Vescovi voted against the policy, while Ron Gondek, Sharon Knitter and Ivana Ivkovic Kelley voted in favor.
“Why does the park district spend time on what I think is a political agenda and changing definitions of gender?” Chan said at the May 18 Oak Brook Park District Board meeting. “The change proposed in this agenda is because they want gender-neutral language.”
Chan said the issue should not require further discussion.
“I have to say for the record there are two genders. It's that simple and we don't need to be wasting more time on this. You know it's it's like inserting political ideology in our relations.”
Chan criticized both the policy and how it was introduced.
“We need to be guarding our private spaces, we need to be protecting children,” Chan told the DuPage Policy Journal. “And I was very disappointed with my fellow commissioners who support this gender neutral policy.”
At the May 18 meeting Executive Director Laure Kosey defended the existing gender-neutral and family facilities.
“We already have gender neutral bathrooms,” Kosey said. “We have a gender neutral locker room.”
Chan said those facilities were costly for taxpayers.
“We spent millions of dollars to build this and this policy revision further strengthens the Park Board’s position that a man can enter into a woman's bathroom so long as the man identifies as a woman and they can use the bathroom or go to the locker room,” Chan said.
Chan also objected to what she described as a lack of transparency in how the measure was presented, arguing the change was included within broader regulatory updates governing park district operations.
“They bury it in this regulation policies that actually control the park district,” she said. “So this is a policy level document that's used to drive everything that's at the park districts.”
Chan also questioned the district’s priorities.
“Why are we spending time on this political ideology?” Chan said.
Chan argued that the district’s focus on gender-related policy and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives diverts attention from recreational services and operational priorities.
“We should be focused on our core competencies, our services to our residents for park district, like recreational services, and we should be doing it at the most effective cost in terms of the budget,” she said.
Chan also said the district is diverting attention from resident concerns.
“We spend time doing is talking about gender and DEI diversity, equity, and inclusion (diversity, equity and inclusion),” she said. “Our park district spends a lot of time on DEI they go to these conferences, they learn about it there.”
Meanwhile, an executive order issued by the White House in 2025 directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI programs in government and contracting, arguing they constitute unlawful discrimination and should be replaced with “merit-based” decision-making.
Chan also raised concerns about safety in shared facilities.
“There've been a lot of people who don't feel safe in those spaces, and they've either reached out to me or the executive director,” she said. “They've told the park district this, but the Park District doesn't hear them.”
Chan also noted that she has received ongoing feedback from residents who feel their concerns about these facilities are not being adequately addressed.
“There have been incidences,” Chan said.
The decision faced opposition during the meeting.
National polling shows most Americans support requiring transgender individuals to use bathrooms and compete in sports based on their sex assigned at birth, including 79% who oppose transgender women participating in women’s sports, according to a New York Times/Ipsos poll.
Gallup polling found that 54% of Americans said identifying as another gender is morally wrong, while Pew Research Center reported that about 1.6% of U.S. adults identify as transgender or nonbinary.
Public commenters at the meeting said the policy prioritized a small minority over women’s rights.
“Transgenderism is a contested cultural issue that does not enjoy full community support. It raises serious concerns for women and families,” an unidentified former park district employee who approached the board during open discussion said.
“Women and girls have faced uncomfortable and unfair situations including sharing locker rooms and changing facilities with biological males. Our privacy, our comfort deserve respect. In sports, biological males retain clear physical advantage in strength and speed. This creates unfair and sometimes dangerous competition for female athletes. Female rights and opportunities are being eroded by transgenderism.”
Another community member identifying herself only as Audrey also weighed in on the issue.
“I'm opposed to any gender neutral language,” Audrey told the park board.
“There are important biological differences between men and women. News flash. These differences matter in places like bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. As a parent, grandparent, I want my girls, all girls to have privacy, safe, and comfort spaces designated for females. Policies that replace words like male, female with broad or gender neutral language create confusions and concern for families who feel their voices are being ignored. Please note at the same time I feel every person should be treated with dignity and respect. This issue should not divide us or put pit people against one another. My concern is not about excluding anyone but about making sure the rights, privacy and voices of women especially young girls are heard.”
A community member who only offered his first name, James, called the gender ideology influence on Park District Board “absolutely terrifying.”
“I don't know where this language issue started,” he said.
“It's absolutely mindblowing. It's a little scary. I think it's mental illness. Personally, it's a whole another topic. I have two daughters….three and a half and two. I think it's absolutely terrifying. Like they know that there's two genders, boys and girls, and we have a couple board members who don't know there are two genders. Terrifying. I don't know if you guys ever taught biology in school or what, but it's a whole another topic.”
Another community member, who identified herself as a concerned grandmother, described taking a young child to a multi-stall restroom at Central Park West during a Santa Claus event, where she said she learned it was a gender-neutral facility.
“It really alarmed me because if I had sent my child into that bathroom it is not just a one person bathroom. That to me is okay one person but this was several stalls,” the grandmother said.
She recounted an encounter in which a man exited the restroom while she and her granddaughter were inside.
“So out came a man as we were in the bathroom and it was really startling to me and I think the gentleman was just as uncomfortable as I was,” she said. “It was just a very strange situation.”
She said she raised her concerns with Kosey, who told her changes would take time, but later learned the district was expanding gender-neutral facilities.
“Then most recently I had heard of the continuation of this going on to become an all gender neutral facility,” she said. “And so I just wanted to voice my concerns.”
Chan questioned whether board members who supported the change had adequately considered residents who oppose it.
“This is a public entity, a government entity taking taxpayer dollars, and who are they serving if they're not serving the needs and desires of the resident taxpayers?” she said. “They need to change because that's who pays them. That's who they're supposed to serve. And I do not believe the park district respects its residents and taxpayers as it should.”