Transgender

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I am strongly opposed to any law that would allow transgender beliefs to be acceptable.  I am a Christian and I preacher of the gospel and I firmly believe a boy should be a boy and a girl a girl . It is not acceptable for a girl to be able to have a gender neutral bathroom  because of her choice the right to use the boys bathroom neither the boy to use the girls bathroom.  That's not natural </p>


OPPOSE - this will cause actual, real, death of already vulnerable children

<!DOCTYPE html>

These kids are valid in their identities, taking away safe spaces that they've found will only do harm to these kids


Consequences of Youngkin’s Policy Dire, Immediate

Martha Molinaro, George Mason University

<!DOCTYPE html>

Gov. Youngkin's model policies regarding transgender students in K-12 schools is are yet another way to forcibly out transgender students without their consent.

As a university student, an LGBTQ+ individual, a future educator, and a recent graduate of a Virginia Public Schools system, it is yet again clear to me that the parents and Republicans of Virginia students are a) out of touch with the realities of discrimination that many students face, b) don’t take kids’ voices seriously, even about issues that directly affect them, instead institutionalizing policies that affect them without their consent or direct input, c) greenlight abusive household situations with homophobic/transphobic guardians and parents, because they are willing to overlook it as long as the institutions of education allow them complete control over their child’s life even when it is harmful to the student.

Everyone in the LGBTQ+ community knows that coming out is a personal choice. Agency over how an individual portrays their gender and sexuality is as vital as agency over their body and first amendment rights. To out a person without their consent, even with friends and family, takes away that agency. It violates fundamental rights, is an abuse of power by one individual over another, and is often deeply traumatizing for the individual who was outed. The issue of forced outing goes behind even the issue of right; it is a matter of safety, and sometimes a matter of life or death.

To be blunt, as a result of Youngkin’s infuriating ignorance, people will die. Not might die, will die. Many people who do not die will end up kicked out, homeless on the streets, or physically and mentally neglected and abused by their family.

Outing a transgender student to their families is no less harmful then outing them to peers, strangers, online spaces and the public. In fact, I would argue that outing a minor to their guardians is the most serious offense and abuse of power among all of these. This is because the discrimination of a family member to a child, when it happens, is inescapable and absolute. It is no secret that a disproportionately high amount of homeless youth are queer or transgender. According to a 2014 survey* of 138 youth homelessness human service agency providers, “the most prevalent reason for homelessness among LGBTQ youth was being forced out of home or running away from home because of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.” The situation for trans youth was especially dire compared to their queer cisgender peers, a who were estimated to have experienced familial rejection and physical and sexual abuse at alarmingly higher rates than LGBQ youth. Transgender youth are also one of the most at-risk groups to commit suicide.**

Even beyond statistics, I have known too many people in my personal life who have experienced familial abuse over their gender and sexual orientation. My friend “H” was abused, forcibly deadnamed, and kicked out by her family when she came out as a trans woman. Another girl, “H” also, was pushed onto the streets when she was 13 or 14 before they were forced to take her back, and abused her ever since. One of my colleagues, “E,” was shunned by his entire extended family over a rumor that he might be queer. I have had many more friends, who were out at school and online, who were terrified that their parents would find out their true identity and insisted that they could never, ever come out, because they were afraid for their life. Not their safety. Their life. And yes, unfortunately, a few of these transgender and GNC individuals were nearly forced to suicide because the abuse and weaponized misgendering was all too literally too much to live with. I never, ever have to want someone go through that ever again, but unfortunately, within an entrenched conservative society and with my activity in LGBTQ+ circles, I am certain I will. I live each day hoping that friends and peers and kids I have talked to will survive another day until adulthood, and hate myself for wishing them to live with so much pain. I wish I could say these stories were uncommon. Actually, I have shocked many non-LGBTQ+ people by having conversations with other LGBTQ+ people in their presence that addressed how common these issues are. Remember, there is so much that goes unreported, or is not taken seriously by officials because of a lack of bodily harm.

Were these kids taken seriously by mainstream politicians and quoted in news sources as experts? No. They were kids, and when are the voices of students ever taken seriously? To twist the knife, according to people like Youngkin, minors are supposed to listen to their parents, including when they are abusive.

In a Loudoun County interview, Youngkin said that he “would find it very hard to argue that a parent being engaged in a child’s life is inconsistent with that child’s safety.” When an interviewer asked what he would tell transgender students with non-supportive guardians, he simply responded, “I would say, trust your parents.”

It is perhaps irrational, but I saw in that statement a reflection of every politician, adult or law enforcement official who had told the distraught friends of dead, injured and missing transgender youth similar things before the “unpreventable” tragedy occurred.

Perhaps the most important part of the controversy around Youngkin’s policy is that thousands of Virginians have been protesting in crowds, in public institutions, on streets, in community demonstrations, and on social media over said policy. These people are the students, who are the very people directly affected by all of this. They are demanding to be heard and listened to as adults, because they will have to live with the consequences. They reject any conservative media that tries to insist that they should be in school or listening to their parents, citing that free speech and right to protest are protected constitutional tenets.

They have a point. Why should children listen to the adults, if the adults don’t listen to them, even in matters of dire safety?

Youngkin does not care about kids. He cares about the votes of their parents, and keeping himself in power. He cares about appeasing the very people who facilitate the harm outlined in the former paragraphs. After all, no parent who really cares about transgender children would ever support Youngkin’s policy. Even if they claim not to be transphobic, they are willing to see other transgender youth who are not their own children undergo such treatment.

I saw a news article a few months ago that detailed that transgender youth who are accepted by their families and allowed to transition live perfectly normal and happy lives and are not particularly depressed any more than their peers. This, admittedly, made me laugh. Anyone who has ever spent time talking to trans youth knows this. It is hardly a revelation: people thrive when they are allowed to be who they are, and reveal such private information on their own terms. The parent’s role is tho be an ally and the child’s main support, not to try to make them into something they are not.

But even transgender youth with accepting families will be affected by this policy. If one discriminatory policy is put into action, it will be a springboard for other transphobic policies. Youngkin is advocating to make name changes harder at school, keep young people from participating in sports and using spaces that pertain to their their gender identity, and allow teachers to refuse to respect a student’s chosen name and pronoun on grounds of “religious” objection.

How are transgender youth supposed to focus on school and being a teenager, when they are, in the best case scenario, afraid of their rights being stripped away, and in the worst case scenario, terrified for their life?

*Choi, S.K., Wilson, B.D.M., Shelton, J., & Gates, G. (2015). Serving Our Youth 2015: The Needs and Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth Experiencing Homelessness. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund.

**Natanson, Hannah. “Youngkin’s Rules for Trans Students Leave Many Teens Fearful, Despondent.” The Washington Post, Sept. 23, 2022, 6:00 AM EDT. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/09/23/virginia-transgender-youngkin-students-outing/


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose the non-evidence based policy. Dear friends are living in fear that these proposed changes will create unsafe spaces for their trans child, create new undue stress and anxiety when they’ve worked so hard to support gender-affirming care, and have a long-term impact on their mental health and overall well-being.


Opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

"Parents" put a private equity sellout in charge of the entire state's government because they didn't like being told that teachers who are trained to educate children should actually do so in their classrooms.

They picked out a scapegoat group of children comfortably outside the norm to make crazy accusations at while they bleed the whole world dry and force perpetual militarism on the rest of us.


Strongly Opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I strongly oppose this new policy. Trans children deserve equal treatment and it is scientifically proven that giving trans folks equal access to healthcare and equal treatment greatly decreases their suicide rate. It is also simple human decency to treat others with respect and dignity, and trans children deserve this especially. As a student in VA I strongly oppose this policy, as do many, with many walkouts occurring against this proposed policy. Fundamental rights do not stop at the school gates, and this policy is in direct opposition to our constitutional rights and legal precedents. </p>


SUPPORT TRANS KIDS

<!DOCTYPE html>

SUPPORT TRANS KIDS. Support all Kids, in any major they choose to exist.


Fully oppose the 2022 model policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

The 2022 MODEL POLICIES

ON THE PRIVACY, DIGNITY, AND RESPECT FOR ALL STUDENTS AND PARENTS IN VIRGINIA’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS, is a covert targeted action to fully isolate and discriminate socially and culturally against transgender children and widen the divide that already exists in our society rather than promote a healthy diverse and inclusive society.  It will definitely instigate and nurture fertile ground that is rife with harassment and bullying, which is already a big unresolved problem in our schools.

Yes parents have rights that must be observed and protected but they lose them when it is harming their child, and that is where the schools, social services, and the police take over. When a school reports a transgender student to their parent when the parents are opposed to their child’s decision about their gender, then the school is 1. Judging and discriminating against that child by equalizing their choice as ‘harm’ that must be reported to the parents, 2. The school is actively participating in putting the child in harm’s way.

The 2022 Model Policies are in effect using force that is disguised as policy to make  the students conform to its creators beliefs and using the education institution as a dangerous weapon against our trans children. The very essence of dictatorship examples we see around us in ‘underdeveloped’ countries of the world, with informants and institutions not serving the people, but the beliefs of the ruling power whether it was a party or religion.

I would like to remind the crafters of this 2022 Model Policies that they are not the Taliban or ISIL, that bend the will of the people starting with their children, instead they are the shapers of this free, enlightened, and advanced American society that should lead the world, not follow the worst examples in it.


Lambda Legal Opposes VDOE’s Proposed 2022 Model Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (“Lambda Legal”), the oldest and largest national legal organization dedicated to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (“LGBTQ”) people and everyone living with HIV through impact litigation, education, and policy advocacy, hereby submits this comment in strong opposition to the guidance document changes proposed by the Virginia Department of Education (“VDOE”) on September 26, 2022 (the “2022 Model Policies” or “the Guidance Document”).

 I.  The 2022 Model Policies are contrary to Virginia state law.

The 2022 Model Policies violate the purpose and text of the very statute they purport to carry out. Though citing Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-23.3 as authority for the proposed changes, the 2022 Model Policies undermine the statute’s animating principles of respecting and protecting nonbinary and transgender students, fail to comply with its requirement that the VDOE to develop model policies “concerning the treatment of transgender students” which are “in accordance with evidence-based best practices,” and overstep VDOE’s authority by regulating transgender students’ participation in athletics—a subject specifically carved out of the statute’s regulatory mandate. The Guidance Document runs afoul of the nondiscrimination mandate of both the animating statute itself, the Virginia Human Rights Law, and the constitutional authority of local school boards to enact their own nondiscrimination mandates. VDOE should therefore rescind the 2022 Model Policies.

 A. The 2022 Model Policies undermine the statutory purpose of their enabling statute.

Senate Bill 161 was introduced in response to stories “from transgender youths and their families, educators and community advocates” about the ways in which “transgender students often must contend with mistreatment and invalidation around every corner. The very place where they are supposed to learn and grow is telling them that their identity is wrong by enforcing discriminatory school policies and procedures. Transgender students often end up feeling isolated from or rejected by their peers, which causes their grades to slip and their mental health to suffer.” The bill was introduced in response to the lack of “consistent policies to protect transgender students’ rights” in order “to ensure that schools are safe and affirming for all students.” Jennifer B. Boysko, Protecting transgender students is essential to creating safe Virginia schools, Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2022, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/04/protecting-transgender-students-is-essential-creating-safe-virginia-schools/.

The 2022 Model Policies are at odds with those underlying purposes. Provisions throughout the 2022 Model Policies require precisely the kind of mistreatment and invalidation the underlying statute was intended to combat, including but not limited to the provisions barring educators from using the name or pronouns consistent with a student’s gender identity, barring students from participating in school activities consistent with their gender identities, and barring educators from stopping other students from disrespecting a nonbinary or transgender student’s name and pronouns. The inclusion of these provisions in the 2022 Model Policies will subject nonbinary and transgender students to harassment and discrimination and deprive them of equal educational opportunity, directly flouting the underlying purposes of Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-23.3.

B. The 2022 Model Policies fail to properly consider evidence-based best practices specific to transgender and nonbinary students.

More specifically, the Guidance Document violates the explicit terms of the statute by failing to examine or identify best practices “regarding” or “concerning” transgender students attending public schools in Virginia or around the country, much less practices specific to transgender students informed or supported by evidence-based data. Had VDOE done so, it would have found that transgender and nonbinary students face pervasive harassment and discrimination in schools. References to studies about the harms of generalized bullying are dramatically insufficient to support development of model policies that appropriately reflect the needs and experiences of nonbinary and transgender students.

A recent GLSEN School Climate survey reported that over half of LGBTQ students in Virginia reported discrimination and harassment in the last year and the vast majority have heard anti-LGBTQ remarks. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Virginia-Snapshot-2019.pdf. The discrimination nonbinary and transgender students experience comes in many forms, including being denied the right to participate in school activities or use facilities that are gender segregated in accordance with their gender identity, misgendering and misuse of an improper name, to name just a few examples.  Id.  In addition, nonbinary and transgender students’ privacy is often compromised without their consent through various computer platforms or student identification. Nonbinary and transgender students also experience disproportionate school discipline, especially for their appearance. See, e.g., K-12 Education: Department of Education Should Provide Information on Equity and Safety in School Dress Codes, United States Government Accountability Office, at 17-18, October 2022, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105348.pdf.

When nonbinary and transgender students do not feel safe in their schools, there are negative short-term and long-term consequences. In the short-term, they experience increased absences, lowered GPAs, and are less likely to go to college. This is especially true for nonbinary and transgender youth of color who are the most likely to avoid school and who experience the highest rates of depression. Suicidality and mental health issues continue to plague nonbinary and transgender youth as a result of the pervasive harassment and discrimination they experience.  In the long-term, chronic absences often lead to nonbinary and transgender students leaving school early, reducing their likelihood of attending college, leading to long-term negative health care outcomes, housing insecurity and a lack of financial well-being. See DeChants, J.P., Green, A.E., Price, M.N, & Davis, C.K. (2021), Homelessness and Housing Instability Among LGBTQ Youth, West Hollywood, CA: The Trevor Project. By contrast, nonbinary and transgender students who are accepted for who they are more likely to thrive and less likely to attempt suicide. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/trgh.2021.0079. When students are accepted as who they are as nonbinary or transgender, they report higher rates of academic achievement and attendance and are less likely to experience bullying and harassment. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/NSCS-2021-Full-Report.pdf.

Because the 2022 Model Policies were not developed “in accordance with evidence-based best practices,” they are contrary to the plain language of Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-23.3.

C. The 2022 Model Policies exceed VDOE’s authority by regulating transgender and nonbinary students’ ability to participate in school athletics.

Additionally, while the law requires that VDOE address common issues regarding transgender students, it expressly excludes athletics from its purview. Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-23.3(A)(8) (topics for required guidance “do not include athletics.”)  Not only does VDOE exceed its authority by weighing into the issue in first instance, it does so in a way that deprives nonbinary and transgender students of equal “participation in sex-specific school activities and events and use of school facilities” in violation of that same provision.

D. The 2022 Model Policies violate statutory and constitutional nondiscrimination mandates.

Simultaneously violating the plain terms of its enabling statute and applicable nondiscrimination laws, the Guidance Document precludes school districts from fulfilling their obligation to ensure equal educational opportunity to transgender and nonbinary students. First, the 2022 Model Policies are contrary to both Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-23.3 (A)(2), which requires that model policies ensure the “[m]aintenance of a safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment” for transgender students, and the Virginia Human Rights Act which, in relevant part, expressly safeguards transgender Virginians from unlawful discrimination in educational institutions based on sex and gender identity. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3900 (defining gender identity as “gender-related identity, appearance, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”). This includes a student’s right not to be denied “the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available” by a place of public accommodation, including an educational institution, or to be segregated or discriminated against in an educational institution because of the student’s gender identity. Va. Code. Ann. § 2.2-3904(B). The 2022 Model Policies require school districts to engage in precisely the conduct prohibited by the Human Rights Act, depriving nonbinary and transgender students of equal access to school facilities and services, segregating them out of school-based facilities and activities, and discriminating against them, all based on the students’ gender identity. The 2022 Model Policies will contribute to a climate of fear and stigmatization that will likely force some students into hiding who they are, which in turn places them at great risk for negative health outcomes such as depression, anxiety and suicide. The 2022 Model Policies will exacerbate the discrimination and harassment that openly nonbinary or trans students already experience.

Second, the Guidance Document also violates Virginia’s Constitution by infringing on the constitutional authority of local school boards to protect nonbinary and transgender students. As the Virginia Attorney General’s office has clarified, local school boards hold constitutional authority to create non-discrimination law pursuant to the implied powers under Article VIII, §7 of the Constitution of Virginia. See https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2015/14-080_Ebbin.pdf. The 2022 Model Policies seek to usurp that right by mandating policies that would gut the protections that local school boards have established and seek to prevent them and other local school boards from enacting similar provisions protecting nonbinary and transgender students. As a result, the Guidance Document is contrary to law.

II. The 2022 Model Policies are contrary to federal law.

Several provisions of the 2022 Model Policies are also contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a), et seq. Most notably, sex-based classifications that target nonbinary and transgender students for discriminatory treatment violates the constitutional mandate of equal protection where, as here, the so-called “model policy” is replete with hypothetical assertions, reliance on sex stereotypes, as well as sheer conjecture and abstraction. See Grimm v. Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 614 (4th Cir. 2020),?cert. denied, 141 S.Ct. 2878 (2021). That the VDOE abandoned its duty to consider “evidence-based best practices” or data “regarding transgender students” when formulating the 2022 Model Policies, as explained above, further underscores the constitutional infirmities of the proposed changes and their underlying justifications. “The insubstantiality of the [VDOE’s] fears has been borne out in school districts across the country” and, even within Virginia, “where community members espoused similar fears at school board meetings before anti-discrimination measures, none of those fears have materialized.” Id. (emphasis added). Put simply, like the policy excluding transgender students from restrooms matching their gender identity and refusing to correct educational records in Grimm, the 2022 Model Polices are “marked by misconception and prejudice” against nonbinary and transgender students. Id. at 615; see also Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S. Ct. 1620 (1996).

Similarly, several provisions of 2022 Model Policies also violate the Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination. Grimm, 972 F.3d at 619. The Fourth Circuit had “little difficulty” holding that under Title IX, “discriminating against a person for being transgender is discrimination ‘on the basis of sex’” Id. at 616 (citing Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)).

These constitutional and statutory nondiscrimination requirements apply to all educational programs and activities and require school districts to ensure that transgender and nonbinary students have full and equal access to every aspect of school life. The 2022 Model Policies violate these basic principles of federal law.

A. The 2022 Model Policies violate federal law by excluding transgender and nonbinary students from sex-segregated facilities that accord with their gender identities.

There can be no question that a policy that excludes transgender and nonbinary students’ access to sex-segregated facilities that correspond with their respective gender identity is contrary to federal law. The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Grimm is binding authority upon all public schools in Virginia, and nevertheless, the 2022 Model Policies embrace confusion, exclusion, and stigmatization by utilizing a default standard relegating all students to facilities based upon “biological sex.”  The 2022 Model Policies pay lip service to this binding precedent, embedding exclusion of transgender and nonbinary students from facilities that accord with their gender identities as the starting premise, and placing the burden on those students to wage legal battles in order to obtain the equal access the law already requires. The 2022 Model Policies further bar transgender and nonbinary students from all other sex-based facilities, programs, and activities, but the force of reasoning in Bostock and Grimm equally applies to all of these impermissible sex-based policies that seek to marginalize and discriminate against nonbinary and transgender students.

B. The 2022 Model Policies violate federal law by excluding transgender and nonbinary students from participating in school athletics in accordance with their gender identities.

In limiting students’ participation in sports to activities consistent with the student’s so-called “biological sex,” VDOE proposes an unlawful standard. Courts across the country have concluded that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause preclude public schools and recipients of federal financial assistance from effectively barring transgender from participation in athletic opportunities. See, e.g., B.P.J. v. W. Virginia State Bd. of Educ., 550 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D.W. Va. 2021); Hecox v. Little, 479 F. Supp. 3d 930 (D. Idaho 2020).

C.  The 2022 Model Policies elevate the purported rights of third parties over the rights of transgender and nonbinary students to be free from discrimination and harassment in school in violation of federal law.

To the extent the 2022 Model Policies seek to curtail the legal protections of transgender students to meet the putative concerns of cisgender students and parents, such interest is contrary to existing law. Federal courts have long rejected the Department’s suggestions that such speculative interests of other students and parents must be “balanced” by discriminating against transgender students. For example, the Third Circuit held that a District Court’s refusal to enjoin a school from permitting transgender people to use sex-segregated restrooms was proper because the mere presence alone of a transgender person in a bathroom is not sufficient to establish a sexual harassment claim. Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518, 536 (3d Cir. 2018), cert. denied sub nom. Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 139 S. Ct. 2636 (2019). In discussing the harm caused to transgender people by forcing them to use single-user facilities instead of the restroom designated for members of their sex, the court recognized that excluding transgender students “would very publicly brand all transgender students with a scarlet ‘T,’ and they should not have to endure that as the price of attending their public school.” Id. at 530. See also Cruzan v. Special Sch. Dist., No. 1, 294 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 2002) (school’s policy of allowing a transgender woman to use the women’s faculty restroom did not create a hostile working environment for teacher who objected.); Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2020); Students v. United States Dep’t of Educ., No. 16-CV-4945, 2016 WL 6134121, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2016), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Students & Parents for Privacy v. United States Dep’t of Educ., No. 16-CV-4945, 2017 WL 6629520 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 29, 2017). The Department’s nod to vague “concerns” or “interests” of third parties does not remotely justify the deprivation of rights of transgender students or the protection of the laws that prohibit discrimination in government settings.

Furthermore, the 2022 Model Policies improperly defer to teacher speech and religious rights by permitting them to refer to students using names and pronouns that do not correspond with their gender identity even when the student’s parents have made clear to the school district in writing that their child is transgender or nonbinary.  The Guidance Document alludes to certain “constitutionally protected rights” that prohibit schools from compelling staff to refer to nonbinary and transgender students in accordance with their gender identity. But such a provision is improper and contrary to law. Not only are public school teachers’ free speech rights limited, see Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), but discrimination and harassment are conduct, not speech, and receive no protection under the First Amendment. See, e.g., Rumsfeld v. F. for Acad. & Inst. Rts., Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 62 (2006) (“[I]t has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech … to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.”).

As for a teacher’s religious rights, a school’s desire to accommodate those rights is limited when such accommodation would harm third parties. See Est. of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703, 709-10 (1985); see also Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2787 (2014) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (explaining that religious exercise cannot “unduly restrict other persons . . . in protecting their own interests”). Permitting teachers to misgender transgender and nonbinary students causes precisely this type of serious to their physical and mental health. https://www.wpath.org/media/cms/Documents/Web%20Transfer/Policies/WPATH%20Identity%20Recognition%20Statement%2011.15.17.pdf. The Guidance Document’s deference to these rights is therefore unlawful.

D. The 2022 Model Policies infringe the privacy rights of transgender and nonbinary students in violation of federal law.

Furthermore, in light of VDOE’s baseless, manufactured definitions of both “sex” and “transgender student,” the 2022 Model Policies require school personnel to use names and pronouns that are inconsistent with many transgender and nonbinary students’ gender identities.

Not only is requiring personnel to improperly address nonbinary and transgender students with names and pronouns that are inconsistent with who they are deeply harmful, it also infringes upon their privacy by “outing” them to other students and staff, thereby stigmatizing them placing them at risk of further harassment and discrimination and singling them out among their peers. Students do not leave their privacy rights at the classroom door, and students have a reasonable expectation of privacy against an unauthorized disclosure of their gender identity and the only interest of the school in providing such information is an unsubstantiated concern over parental rights. See Nguon v. Wolf, 517 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2007).

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the reasons identified in this comment, the 2022 Model Policies are contrary to state and federal law. We strongly oppose the 2022 Model Policies and urge the Department to rescind this Guidance Document.


Suicide risk factors include discrimination, family rejection, internalized & being denied access

Suicide Among Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People

Puneet Narang 1 2, Simrat Kaur Sarai 3, Stephanie Aldrin 4, Steven Lippmann 3

Affiliations expand

PMID: 29947478

DOI: 10.4088/PCC.18nr02273

Abstract

Suicide rates are higher in those who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming (TGNC) compared to the overall population. Suicide risk factors include discrimination, family rejection, internalized transphobia, and being denied appropriate bathroom or housing access. It is important to assess the risk of suicide among transgender and gender-nonconforming patients and discuss past experiences of prejudice or maltreatment to prevent further victimization. This narrative review includes the most pertinent literature from the past 17 years on issues related to suicide among individuals who identify as TGNC. ?.

© Copyright 2018 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Suicide Among Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming People

Puneet Narang 1 2, Simrat Kaur Sarai 3, Stephanie Aldrin 4, Steven Lippmann 3

Affiliations <button aria-controls="expanded-authors" aria-expanded="false" data-alt-text="Collapse" data-fetch-url="/29947478/long-authors/" data-id-prefix="" data-pinger-ignore="" id="toggle-authors">expand</button>

PMID: 29947478

DOI: 10.4088/PCC.18nr02273

Abstract

Suicide rates are higher in those who identify as transgender or gender nonconforming (TGNC) compared to the overall population. Suicide risk factors include discrimination, family rejection, internalized transphobia, and being denied appropriate bathroom or housing access. It is important to assess the risk of suicide among transgender and gender-nonconforming patients and discuss past experiences of prejudice or maltreatment to prevent further victimization. This narrative review includes the most pertinent literature from the past 17 years on issues related to suicide among individuals who identify as TGNC. ?.

© Copyright 2018 Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc.


Support Trans Youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a parent and an educator in Virginia, I support educators being able to keep trans students safe and not out them to their families.


Common Sense

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents have a legal and ethical RIGHT to know about their children. I am a transman (ftm) who transitioned 18 years ago, and I am firmly against any state policy that excludes parents. No student (minor) should be allowed to change pronouns or obtain hormones without their parents knowing about it.


I Oppose These Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

The original policies saved my life. I strongly oppose these revisions.


Strong Oppose - Stop Trans Kids from dying

<!DOCTYPE html>

Many studies have shown transgender children, when not accepted, face extremely elevated levels of risk for mental health issues, including suicidal attempts. This policy will only make things worse and get trans kids killed. I strongly oppose the 2022 policies and hope beyond all hope that the 2021 policies are reinstated.


Transgender Young People in Public Schools in Virginia

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly support Gov. Youngkin's proposed Guidance Document regarding treatment of transgender young people in public schools.


FULL SUPPORT AND PRAYERS!!!!

<!DOCTYPE html>

I completely agree with the proposed document. It is a parents job to fight for their kid’s safety, wellbeing, and beliefs. Whether or not the child agrees with them, the PARENTS HAVE THE RIGHT to teach and educate their children with beliefs and teachings that they, the parents, have accepted as true, right, and just. I strongly believe that taking away the parents right to access their child’s accurate information is severely misguided and foolish. It is WRONG to stop a parent from protecting their child as best as they believe that they can. The school system, and ineligible students (not yet 18), should NOT have authority to override a parents decision for their child. I proudly stand by The Code of Virginia, § 1-240.1 I am a 19 year old young man who just graduated from Loudoun Valley High School in Loudoun County. I have seen what school is like. From a Christian perspective it is a very dark place. I have seen that High school can far too easily become an echo chamber for any belief, but none of which more negatively impactful as PRISM/LGBTQIA+ clubs and friend groups. While In a male dressing room for a theatrical production at Loudoun Valley, I had a run in where a female woman who called herself a transgender man walked in while I was in the process of changing. I did not know what to do or say, yet I felt deeply that this situation  was fundamentally wrong. I politely asked her to please knock before coming in next time as I was extremely uncomfortable, and thankfully, despite being offended, she agreed to. I must admit, I was very anxious when I asked, as theatre as a whole has many pro LGBTQIA+ members, and I was unsure how they would react to me speaking my mind and personal beliefs. This experience has stuck with me for a long while as it was an eye opener. At that time, I, a STUDENT should not have to worry about being watched by girls in a male dressing room. It should not be on a child’s shoulder to fight for what is right. It is the responsibility of the adults and parents of children to go before them on every issue. Glory to God, amen.


Parental rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

virginia education public commentary - I agree with government, parent has to participatein a child decigion about transgendervirginia education public commentary - I agree with government, parent has to participatein a child decigion about transgender


Support Trans Rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

Whatever it may be, don’t fall backwards in our progression for human rights. Support trans kids in any way possible.

inWine supports this mission and so do so many people in our community who may or may not be fully represented here. Therefore we represent those who are not commenting and echo-ing the voices of those who also believe in this.

please consider how inherently logical this is to human rights.


Protect kids


<!DOCTYPE html>

Strongly Oppose, Absolutely unacceptable


Rules for transgender students

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Please don't make childhood harder for the students who aren't  straight. The rules that you want to put in place violate a student's privacy. Please don't make the bathroom situation more awkward either. Find another way if you don't want students to choose the appropriate bathroom. Please consider all of the students needs. No one should be left out or singled out in a way that leads to bullying. </p>


SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL !! Protect children from gender confusion

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents deserve a right to protect their children.


Trans rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Trans rights are human rights. </p>


Protect the Children

<!DOCTYPE html>

I SUPPORT Trans Rights ??%???????????


Proposed Policies Are Dangerous and Ill-advised

<!DOCTYPE html>

The policies being proposed are both harmful and vindictive. I strongly believe that a student's rights to safety and comfort trump parents' rights to know every single thing that is going on with their child in a public school. To risk exposing trans students to advisor, unfortunate parents does nothing more than create another unsafe, unwelcome environment and underneath the teachers and other professionals doing their best to support all students. I realize that with to his administration, the cruelty is the point, but I would be remiss not to record my strong opposition to these policies.


Comprehensive Comment Part 4 - Opposing

Professor Craig Konnoth, Spencer Haydary, Max Larson

<!DOCTYPE html>

IV. The 2022 Model Policies Violate Constitutional Rights of Students, Parents, and Teachers

A. The 2022 Model Policies Violate the Rights of Students

Among other interests, the 2022 Policies violate the rights of students to freely express themselves. Since Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969), the Supreme Court has emphasized that students do not shed “their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” In reaffirming Tinker more recently, the Supreme Court explained that “the school … has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression … because America’s public schools are the nurseries of democracy.” Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B. L. by & through Levy, 141 S. Ct. 2038, 2046 (2021).

Courts have held that speech around gender identity and sexual orientation is protected under the First Amendment, including in schools. Gender identity expression for all students—cisgender, transgender, and non-binary, are a fundamental expression of identity. Courts that have addressed the question, especially recently, largely agree. In Doe ex rel. Doe v. Yunits, the court held that a student’s decision to wear traditionally female clothes to school to express female gender identity, in spite of being assigned male at birth, was protected speech. 2000 WL 33162199 (Mass. Super. Oct.11, 2000) , aff'd sub nom. Doe v. Brockton Sch. Comm., 2000-J-638, 2000 WL 33342399 (Mass. App. Nov. 30, 2000). Such gender identity expression was a communicative act, “well understood by faculty and students,” and was “not merely a personal preference but a necessary symbol of her very identity.” Id. at *3; see also McMillen v. Itawamba Cnty. Sch. Dist., 702 F. Supp. 2d 699, 705 (N.D. Miss. 2010) (holding that school’s prohibition of a female student from wearing a tuxedo and bringing a same- sex date to prom violated her First Amendment rights). More recently, in affirming a transgender individual’s right to obtain documents reflecting her gender identity, another court held that “[t]he right to identify our own existence [that] lies at the heart of one's humanity” was at stake. Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rossello Nevares, 305 F. Supp. 3d 327, 333 (D.P.R. 2018); see also Judgment, Couch v. Wayne Local Sch. Dist., No. 1:12-cv-00265-MRB (S.D. Ohio May 21, 2012) (settling case in favor of transgender plaintiff seeking to wear clothing conforming to gender identity).

By requiring transgender students to dress and adopt pronouns that conform to their biological sex, the 2022 Policies burden their expression of gender identity.  On the other hand, they permit cisgender students to fully express their gender identity. These policies therefore discriminate based on viewpoint and content. See also Karnoski v. Trump, No. C17-1297-MJP, 2017 WL 6311305, at *9 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2017) (recognizing the policy penalizes transgender service members—but not others—for disclosing their gender identity, and is therefore a content-based restriction.”).

To be sure, the school may infringe on speech that “materially and substantially interfer[es] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and that “collid[es] with the rights of others.” Tinker, 393 U.S. 503, 509, 513 (1969). But the 2022 Model Policies offer no evidence that the expression of transgender students is disruptive or interfering. Students living their lives in conformity with their gender identity do not, in and of themselves, constitute a disturbance: the Policies cannot legitimately suppress “the mere presence of transgender students.” Parents for Priv. v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210, 1228–29 (9th Cir.), cert. denied; see also Cruzan v. Special Sch. Dist., # 1, 294 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (concluding that a transgender woman’s “merely being present in the women's . . . restroom” did not constitute actionable sexual harassment of her female co-workers).

B. Interests of Parents

The Supreme Court and lower courts have, time and time again, reaffirmed “the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children.” Pierce v. Soc’y of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary, 268 U.S. 510, 534 (1925). Nonetheless, the 2022 Model Policies allow teachers to veto parents’ decisions as to what is best for their children. The 2022 Policies allow teachers to ignore the instructions of parents who seek to support their children—teachers may refer to students using pronouns that do not conform to a child’s gender identity even when parents have instructed to the contrary, and the child’s official school record has been altered to reflect the child’s chosen gender identity. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 16.

The Policies can cite to no interest that would permit such a violation of parents’ rights to support their transgender children. To be sure, in some cases, parents’ decisionmaking for their children must give away to “medical decisions” that meet recognized “medical standards.” Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 606 (1979). But parents and families who support transgender children act in the children’s best interests. Id. Failing to provide such support risks students’ educational outcomes, health, and lives. See Part II(B) supra. As the Third Circuit explains, “transgender students face extraordinary social, psychological, and medical risks.” Doe by & through Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist., 897 F.3d 518, 528–29 (3d Cir. 2018). “Mistreatment of transgender students can exacerbate gender dysphoria, lead to negative educational outcomes, and precipitate self-injurious behavior;” such discrimination “can be life threatening.” Id.

While the state may accordingly have an interest in intervening when parents do not support their transgender children to prevent these outcomes, it lacks any interest in undermining parents who support their transgender children.

C. The 2022 Model Policies violate the First Amendment rights of trans   supportive school personnel.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503, 511 (1969), the Supreme Court affirmed the speech rights of teachers as well as students. The 2022 Policies require teachers to use pronouns, that, in many cases, will fail to respect the gender identity of their transgender students. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 16. In so doing, the 2022 Policies impermissibly violate the rights of teachers.

To be sure, states can limit teachers’ speech “when the [teacher’s] expression results in a material or substantial interference or disruption in the normal activities of the school.” Nat’l Gay Task Force v. Bd. Educ. Oklahoma Cty., 729 F.2d 1270, 1274 (10th Cir. 1984), aff'd sub nom. Bd. Educ. Oklahoma Cty. v. Nat’ Gay Task Force, 470 U.S. 903 (1985) (citation omitted). However, here, the expert consensus is that that teachers who refer to transgender boys as girls, or transgender girls as boys, or who force transgender children to go to locker rooms or restrooms designated for the opposite sex, endanger the emotional and physical health of transgender students and disrupt the educational process for transgender and cisgender students alike. See Part II(B). On the flipside, teachers who support the gender identity of transgender students do not disrupt school operation—far from it. Their support, the experts agree, results in all students being protected and having a positive educational experience. See Part II(B). Accordingly, while the state has an interest in limiting teacher speech that undermines the gender identity of transgender students, it lacks any interest in undermining the speech rights of supportive teachers.

Conclusion

Given the harm the 2022 Policies cause to transgender students, teachers, and parents, as well as the respectfully request that they be rescinded and that the 2021 Model Policies be reinstated.

(This is the fourth part of four for our comments. Per Va. Code §2.2-4002.1(C), we request a written response to this comment from VDOE via electronic publication and to delay the effective date of the 2022 Model Policies by thirty days)


Protect trans kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

Strongly oppose. this is a terrible initiative


I oppose this

<!DOCTYPE html>

These proposed policies ignore the reasons trans youth are hesitant to come out to their parents, and the risks they face if they are outed. Trans youth suffer from higher rates of suicide, homelessness and depression then their peers. While these policies superficially state that counseling services should be available to all students, in reality they prevent access to counseling by only making it available to students that are willing to let their parents know they are seeking counseling.

These policies ignore that youth have been forced out of their homes for being trans. They ignore that even in the best cases coming out is a sensitive process that requires support. They ignore trans students' own judgement and wishes about when and how much to share, when they are the ones that know their situation best. Even for students who are supported by their parents, these regulations make them jump through hoops to be named and gendered correctly. In doing so, these policies increase the mental burden on the students they should be helping.

Trans students have been telling you how this will hurt them. Are you going to listen?


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I strongly oppose any limitations of trans children's rights. Trans children have every right to be safe & included as non-trans children. </p>


Strongly support Gov Youngkin’s DoE policy to solidify parents’ rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents deserve complete oversight of their children, to include their activities and disclosure of any personal information within public schools.

In order to maintain trust between parents and school systems, there must be zero secrets key between students and school staff.

Parents deserve to have complete knowledge about their children - regardless of subject or concerns of the minor.

Parents are in charge of their children, not the state. I strongly encourage adoption of Gov Youngkin’s proposed policies within the DoE that enshrine parents’ rights.


Trans rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am writing in opposition to the ill-advised, immoral, and illegal educational policies against transgender students. The only thing they are a "model" for is discrimination, cynicism, and pain.

These policies violate Sections 22.1-23.3 of the Virginia Code the and the Virginia Human Rights Act, which, as the chief executive of the state, Youngkin is bound to uphold. It further violates federal Title IX law.

If you implement them, you will be fought. And you. Will. Lose. You will not be good stewards of the educational system if you proceed with implementing them. We will not surrender the gains that have been fought for in this state and around the country in respecting the dignity as human beings of these people, these *children* that he is attacking.

All transgender people are asking for is respect, the right to feel safe in their schools and communities, and the same equal protection under the law as everyone else.

Children can not grow, can not learn, can not thrive, in an environment where they are in danger. These capricious and dangerous policies will put children at risk, full stop. By denying them a supportive and nurturing environment, he would rob them of their mental and physical health, and their potential. This is borne out by study after study, which either he and his ilk don't care to read or simply don't care. About *people*. How can one claim to be a leader when one would callously throw away their lives? These policies will lead to harassment, pain, and in many cases, death.

LGB and especially transgender people are not Glenn Youngkin's pawns to be played in some pathetic attempt at pandering to a far-right base, trying to make it to the White House. And you, Department of Education policy reviewers, are not pawns either. Please, stand up for them. I urge you to strike down these policies.


Trans rights are human rights


abuse against transgender children is

interesting how you have cherry picked the sources you choose to site
here is one you might read about
Child abuse victimization among transgender and gender nonconforming people: A systematic review - PubMed (nih.gov)
and another
often minority ethnic/racial and/or sexual/gender minorities, experience repeated adversity and discrimination. Considerations for working with youth with socially complex needs

Dawn T Bounds 1 2, Dominka A Winiarski 2, Caitlin H Otwell 2, Valerie Tobin 1 2, Angela C Glover 2, Adrian Melendez 2, Niranjan S Karnik 2

Affiliations expand

PMID: 32691491

PMCID: PMC7970826

DOI: 10.1111/jcap.12288

<!DOCTYPE html>

interesting how you have cherry picked the sources you choose to site

here is one you might read about

Child abuse victimization among transgender and gender nonconforming people: A systematic review - PubMed (nih.gov)

and another

often minority ethnic/racial and/or sexual/gender minorities, experience repeated adversity and discrimination.
Considerations for working with youth with socially complex needs

Dawn T Bounds 1 2, Dominka A Winiarski 2, Caitlin H Otwell 2, Valerie Tobin 1 2, Angela C Glover 2, Adrian Melendez 2, Niranjan S Karnik 2

Affiliations <button aria-controls="expanded-authors" aria-expanded="false" data-alt-text="Collapse" data-fetch-url="/32691491/long-authors/" data-id-prefix="" data-pinger-ignore="" id="toggle-authors">expand</button>

PMID: 32691491

PMCID: PMC7970826

DOI: 10.1111/jcap.12288


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Transgender students and their families already face many challenges and difficult choices that most of us will never have to deal with.  Transgender students should be able to navigate what are at heart complex medical decisions at a pace and level of public knowledge that they are comfortable with.  Doing so provides no greater danger to their peers.  On the other hand, lack of acceptance from the adults in their lives has been shown in multiple studies to lead to significantly higher suicide ideation and completed suicides of transgender youth.  Stop playing politics with the health and well-being of some of the state‘s most vulnerable students and their families.  Withdraw this proposal.


Oppose 2022 Model Policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

The 2022 proposed Model Policies present contradictory standards regarding the identification of students. While III(D)(1) states that “Every effort should be made to ensure that a transgender student wishing to change his or her means of address is treated with respect, compassion, and dignity in the classroom and school environment,” the guidelines which follow require school staff to misgender (use the wrong pronouns for) and deadname (use the wrong name for) transgender students unless their parents specifically request otherwise in writing. For a student with an unsupportive family, that requirement presents an impossible hurdle.

Forcing staff to use names and pronouns that do not match a student’s presentation and identity will cause real harm. Respecting trans students’ preferred names improves their mental health and lowers suicidal ideation and attempts. (Stephen T. Russell et al., Chosen Name Use Is Linked to Reduced Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicidal Behavior Among Transgender Youth, Journal of Adolescent Health https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X18300855). Additionally, if the proposed guidelines are applied consistently, they could expose any child who goes by a name other than their legal name of record to embarrassment and bullying.

This is wrong because transgender students deserve the human dignity present in simply being addressed in a way that matches their identity. Requiring parents to provide a request for using one's preferred pronouns and name, especially in the case of older kids and teenagers, is dehumanizing and condescending; students would be overlooked and the validation of their identity, which is crucial to their mental health and wellbeing, would be out of their hands. This policy should address student rights and needs, not just those of their parents.

As a previous student of the Virginia public education system, my transgender and queer friends would have suffered under this policy. This is a huge step back in caring for and supporting all students.

For these reasons, I ask you to repeal the 2022 Model Policies and reinstate the 2021 Model Policies.


Support kids' Right to Exist

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans kids are just kids, who deserve human rights. Let trans kids be themselves, it isn't hurting anyone, and this policy will harm kids.

.


Trans rights


Opposed: American Christian Taliban policy! Let Freedom Ring!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Opposed: Discrimination pure and simple!


Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>All that policies like this do is increase the chance that trans, non-binary, and other LGBTQ students will commit suicide because they are being forced to conform to a gender they don’t identify with. This is not in any way in the interest of children or in the interest of the school/teachers. This is solely being considered to appease closed minded parents. </p>


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

The new guidelines, as written, force educators to any contrary to their beliefs and will make schools complicit in cases where parents "beliefs" include emotional and psychological abuse of their own children (or potentially other children). The 2021 Model Guidelines ensured safe spaces for all students and did not force parents to act in ways inconsistent with their beliefs.


Respect citizen LGBTQ+ choices

<!DOCTYPE html>

Students who are LGBTQ+ should be respected for who they are, and schools should  support their decisions.  If a student does not want to tell their parent that they’re on the LGBTQ+ spectrum, schools should not be required to tell the parents.


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

This would be very harmful, and would hurt children, the very people you should protect.


Strongly Oppose Rolling Back Protections for Students

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose the proposed language. It is harmful to students that are not cis-gendered, heterosexual.

It does not respect the individual rights of children.

It takes away a potential safe space and resource for students that may not have a safe space at home or elsewhere.

I am tired of having one more thing being added to the list of expectations and responsibilities that are being added to teachers. They should not be required to report to parents how a student identifies. This conversation should be happening at home and should be the responsibility of the parent to create a safe environment where a child can share with them how they identify. This puts more pressure on teachers and will reduce levels of trust that students have in public school teachers, counselors and administrators.

This policy will encourage students to keep secrets and to not trust any system. It will continue to perpetuate oppressive behaviors and beliefs.


I support trans kids & I support our schools

<!DOCTYPE html>

I vehemently oppose Gov. Youngkin’s proposed model policies regarding trans youth and our schools. They are founded neither in fact nor law. They are, in a word, bogus.

Happy birthday to my beautiful, kind, and courageous trans kid who turned 12 today.


Strongly Support

<!DOCTYPE html>

The sexually perverse trans "individuals" should be committed to mental hospitals and prisons until "they" either recover or perish from their demonic multiple personality identity disorder. "They" have no place in a healthy society. Strongly support this change and other much stronger ones to come in the future.


Support LGBTQ+ youth and support their parents!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Our children deserve to be who they are, who God made them to be, and to express themselves to the fullest extent. The governor’s policies attempt to constrict and control the the God-given rights of our children.

As parents, we do our best to provide our children with a most wholesome environment. For the governor  to presume he knows what is best for transgender students is ludicrous. Just like cisgender children, transgender kids need love, guidance and the space to find out who they are.

My child’s transgender journey was a tough road, and included two suicide attempts. But his saving grace was knowing he could count on his family and community to respect his journey . This included his school community.

My child’s transgender journey includes a supportive parent as a resource. This is not the reality of so many transgender youth.

Pass Gov. Yoingkins antiquated  policies and the blood, tears and destroyed lives of transgender youth, who will be forced back into the closet, the increases in suicides, are all on your hands, VDOE.

Do the right thing. Reject his policies. Protect Virginia’s transgender children.

Thank you,

Holly


<!DOCTYPE html>

EPPC Scholars Comment Supporting 2022 Model Policies (Part 3/3)

Additional Related Laws

We applaud the inclusion of relevant federal and state laws, as well as case law. We suggest the following evidence-based changes and additions to the descriptions of law.

Title VII

The explanation of Title VII states “The U.S. Supreme Court has determined, for purposes of terminating employees, ‘sex’ under Title VII includes gender and sexual orientation.” 2022 Model Policies at 6. This is incorrect. The Court used the language “homosexuality or transgender status” not “gender and sexual orientation” more broadly. Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1741 (2020). Indeed, the term “gender” does not appear by itself once in the majority opinion. Its only references are to “gender dysphoria” once, “gender identity” once, and “gender roles” three times. Id. at 22, 23. As a recent federal district court explained, “Though human sexuality correlates to myriad attractions, identifications, actions, and relationships, the Court cabined its definitions and descriptions of ‘being homosexual’ and ‘being transgender’ to status.” Texas v. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n, 2:21-CV-194-Z, 4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2022) (quoting Bostock, 140 S. Ct. at 1737-38, 1741-49, 1753-54).

Further, while it is correct that the Bostock opinion did not address other federal antidiscrimination laws, it also did not address issues under Title VII outside the hiring and firing context. As the Bostock Court explained:

The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable after our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” ... Whether other policies and practices might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.

140 S. Ct. at 1753. We ask that Bostock’s exclusion of sex-specific bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes, even under Title VII, be recognized as limitation of the scope of the decision.

We ask that the summary of Title VII also recognize the nondiscrimination protections for employees on the basis of religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief” and requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” employees’ religious observances and practices when such accommodations do not impose “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). These protections may be relevant when it comes to expectations for interactions with “transgender students” by teachers and other school employees. Many employees are likely religious, and many religions hold sincere beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality which may differ from a student’s or parent’s beliefs or purported identity.

Title IX

In the discussion of Title IX regulations, we ask that Virginia also recognize regulations that permit sex-specific athletics (34 CFR § 106.41). Title IX is widely lauded for championing women’s sports, and since its implementation, participation by girls and women in athletics have increased more than tenfold.[1]

Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board

In the summary of the Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board case the 2022 Model Policies state: “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that transgender students must be allowed to use restroom facilities that correspond to their gender.”[2] We ask that “gender” be changed to “transgender identity” to reflect the mandates of Virginia Code, to acknowledge the internal subjective nature of the designation, and to avoid confusion over the historic use of the term “gender” as a synonym for “sex” (both biological in nature). This is consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s decision. See Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 972 F.3d 586, 619 (4th Cir. 2020) (“Grimm’s four years of high school were shaped by his fight to use the restroom that matched his consistent and persistent gender identity.” (emphasis added)). Note however, that, as stated earlier, Title IX still prohibits schools from allowing a hostile environment where biological boys are allowed to either undress in front of biological girls, or to see biological girls undress. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminded us that “Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring” and that women’s admission to an all-male school “would require accommodations, primarily in arranging housing assignments and physical training programs for female[s].”[3]

Meriwether v. Hartop

            In the description of the Meriwether v. Hartop case, the 2022 Model Policies mention that the Sixth Circuit held that the state university “violated a professor’s free speech rights when it punished him because he declined to refer to a male student as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns, after the student requested that he do so.”[4] The court also found that the university violated the teacher’s free exercise rights. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 512 (6th Cir. 2021) (“Meriwether next argues that as a public university, Shawnee State violated the Free Exercise Clause when it disciplined him for not following the university’s pronoun policy. We agree.”). We ask that the 2022 Model Policies reflect this important holding as well.

Sample Policy

Discrimination, Bullying, and Harassment

We applaud Virginia’s sample policies recognizing the importance of prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and bullying for all students.[1]

Identification of Students

Section III.D.6 of the sample policy states: “Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (4) of this section, [School Division] shall not compel [School Division] personnel or other students to address or refer to students in any manner that would violate their constitutionally protected rights.”[2] We ask that this paragraph also recognize statutorily protected rights. For example, as discussed above, Title VII provides religious accommodation protections for employees which may provide additional protections against compelled speech. We also ask that this provision clarify that students and staff have a constitutional right to decline to address a person using a pronoun that does not match their biological sex both on Free Speech grounds and, where relevant, Free Exercise grounds. See Cross v. Loudon County case discussed above. Leaving this scenario unspecified would allow recalcitrant school boards to easily trample on the rights of students, faculty, and staff.

Enforcement of Sex-Based Dress Codes

The 2022 Model Policies would allow students to “dress in any manner consistent with maintaining a respectful, distraction-free environment which supports a focus on learning for all students.” It helpfully clarifies “that students are not required to dress in a gender-neutral manner.” It also contemplates school dress or grooming codes that are sex-specific so long as they “provide the same set of rules and standards regardless of gender, as required by the Code of Virginia, § 22.1-279.6.” This section must clarify that sex-specific dress codes are not only allowed but in some cases are required by law. For example, concerning school activities involving water sports or water play, not only may a school impose a dress code requiring the covering of breasts, it must do so to avoid creating a hostile sexual environment.

Student Participation in Sex-Specific School Activities and Events and Use of School Facilities

As recognized in Section III.G.4, single-user bathrooms and facilities are a great option for all students who are not comfortable using a bathroom with others, regardless of the reason—whether they identify as transgender, do not want to share a facility with someone of the other sex, or for medical, personal, or practical reasons. This alternative should be encouraged and promoted in all schools. This is especially important in light of the sexual assault of a Loudon County female student in the women’s bathroom by a male student wearing a skirt.[3] The 2022 Model Policies should clarify that sex education classes may have sections taught to biological boys and girls separately to preserve student privacy. For example, no biological boy, regardless of self-identification has a right to intrude on a class of biological girls discussing their menstruation as part of their education. Overnight travel accommodations, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces, as discussed above, must be based on biological sex, not subjective gender identity or transgender status to avoid creating a hostile sexual environment contrary to law. The 2022 Model Policies should make this explicit.

Athletics

We especially applaud the inclusion of Section III.H, which recognizes the important of ensuring sex specific athletic programs and activities are based on sex.

The reason why there are separate female sports is because of the recognition of the significant physiological and anatomical differences between males and females, and the resulting performance advantage for males—an advantage that has not diminished even though female athletes now receive the same top-level training as male athletes. Biology and sex must continue to be the basis for participation standards in interscholastic athletics. A research review published in 2021 in the journal Sports Medicine states that “the performance gap between males and females becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10-50%, depending on the sport.”[4] This performance gap is greatest in sports like track and field that require explosive power—track and field, incidentally, is the among the most popular sports for high school female athletes.[5]

The basis of this performance gap is physiological: males and females are physiologically different. On average, males have a built-in biological advantage. They are bigger, stronger, faster, have more muscle mass, stronger bones, greater lung and cardio capacity, and more fast-twitch muscle fibers (which gives an advantage in explosive power); males, on average, also have more upper-body muscle and lower-body muscle than females.[6] The male body is simply built differently—an advantage conferred by nature. As exercise physiologists have long acknowledged, in direct competitions between male and female athletes, males will win. For females to have the chance to win, especially at higher levels of competition, males and females must compete in separate categories.[7]

This performance advantage cannot be erased even when males suppress their testosterone production: longitudinal studies show that “the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to 5% after 12 months of treatment” to suppress testosterone.[8] Moreover, suppressing testosterone does not eliminate enduring male-bodied anatomical advantages. A 15-year-old male who uses medication to suppress his natural testosterone does not lose the performance advantages conferred by nature, rooted in numerous physiological differences.

All males and females deserve a team on which to play. But the costs to females, who are muscled out of positions on “girls” or “women’s” school athletic teams by males who identify as “girls” or “women,” are likely to be substantial.

Conclusion

We applaud Virginia’s concrete action to respect parental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws of Virginia and to ensure privacy, dignity, and respect for all students in Virginia schools. We urge adoption of the 2022 Model Policies and the recommended changes identified above.

Sincerely,

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D.

President

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Mary Rice Hasson, J.D.

Kate O’Beirne Senior Fellow and Co-Founder, Person and Identity Project

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Rachel N. Morrison, J.D.

Fellow, HHS Accountability Project

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Roger Severino, J.D.

Senior Fellow, HHS Accountability Project

Ethics and Public Policy Center

[1] 2022 Model Policies app. 1 at 14-15.

[2] 2022 Model Policies app. 1 at 16 (alterations in original).

[3] See Justin Jouvenal & Hannah Natanson, Va. Supreme Court Affirms Probe of Loudoun Sexual Assaults Can Continue, Wash. Post (Sept. 2, 2022, 3:13 p.m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/09/02/loudoun-bathroom-assault-grand-jury/. (Loudoun County schools’ policy allowed students to access single-sex bathrooms corresponding to gender identity.)

[4] Emma N. Hilton & Tommy R. Lundberg, Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, 51 Sports Medicine 199 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3.

[5] Jill Kochanek, & Daniel Gould, The Status of High School Girls’ Sport Participation: A Report Compiled for the State of Michigan Women in Sports Task Force, Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich. (2020).

[6] Eduardo Saez-Saez de Villarreal et. al. Does Plyometric Training Improve Strength Performance? A Meta-Analysis, 13 J. Sci. Med. Sport 513 (2010), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19897415/; A. E. Miller, Sale DG. Gender Differences in Strength and Muscle Fiber Characteristics. 66 Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 254 (1993), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8477683/.

[7] “Virtually all elite sports are segregated into male and female competitions. The main justification is to allow women a chance to win, as women have major disadvantages against men who are, on average, taller, stronger, and faster and have greater endurance due to their larger, stronger muscles and bones as well as a higher circulating hemoglobin level. Hence, elite female competition forms a protected category with entry that must be restricted by an objective eligibility criterion related, by necessity, to the relevant sex-specific physical advantages.” David J. Handelsman, et. al. Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance, 39 Endocrine Reviews 803 (2018),https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2018-00020.

[8] Emma N. Hilton & Tommy R. Lundberg, Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage, 51 Sports Medicine 199 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3.

[1] See Charles L. Kennedy, A New Frontier for Women’s Sports (Beyond Title IX), Gender Issues (1-2) 78 (2010), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12147-010-9091-y.

[2] 2022 Model Policies at 9.

[3] United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 540 (1996).

[4] 2022 Model Policies at 9.


Parent’s rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I believe that public education is getting away from its fundamental educational responsibilities (as seen in the falling national educational scores) and has moved into pushing social agendas which should be left alone in public education. Although I believe that every person should be respected, I also feel that gender issues are being forced on all people despite their own personal, or religious beliefs.  Furthermore, having school boards hide rapes and sexual assaults of individuals who have gender dysphoria from parents is atrocious.  Schools/school boards that believe they are above parents, should be held accountable and be removed from their leadership roles.  </p>


Protect trans kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans kids are some of the most vulnerable in our population today. They need protection, not more attacks. Parental rights do not override the autonomy of children. They have rights as human beings. Do not strip them of these basic rights.


Strongly opposed to 2022 model guidance

<!DOCTYPE html>

The 2022 policies should not be implemented. They are cruel, discriminatory,and in violation of Virginia laws. The policies say they support parental rights but only for some parents because if a parent of a trans child wants that child affirmed and supported that wish can be overruled by a bigoted teacher under the guise of religious freedom. That is a violation of the establishment clause. I urge you not to allow these policies to go into effect for the sake of trans kids


Strongly opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>As a school therapist, I oppose this new transgender policy.  Classrooms should be inclusive where kids can feel safe and be who they are.   </p>


Student-led LGBTQIA+ Organization Strongly Opposes These Changes

<!DOCTYPE html>

The Pride Liberation Project strongly opposes the Department of Education’s draft revisions to the model transgender policies.

We are an entirely LGBTQIA+ student-led organization based in Virginia that mobilizes students in local and state civic systems. We are also the group that organized walkouts of 12,000+ students across Virginia on September 27th in opposition to the draft revisions to the model transgender policies.

In the last two years, highly politicized rhetoric has surrounded our education system. This rhetoric obscures those most affected: Virginia students. We are tired of attending schools that do not safeguard equity, protect our mental health, and ensure equal opportunity for all. It is a poor reflection of leadership that the Governor’s administration neglects these student concerns and pursues policies driven not by student input, but by political polls in primaries. We hope that the administration revokes these revisions, and we are submitting this comment with the intention of highlighting the devastating effect specific provisions in these revisions have on transgender, Queer, and straight students in Virginia.

Discussions about Queer students should be guided by an acknowledgment that we are disproportionately impacted by the mental health crisis. In 2022, 45% of LGBTQ youth seriously considered attempting suicide and 58% of LGBTQ youth experienced symptoms of depression (1). Virginia students are not exempt from this crisis: a majority of Virginia LGBTQIA+ students experience some form of harassment (2). In Fairfax County, for example, LGBQ youth were significantly more likely to experience abuse, depression, and high stress compared to non-LGBQ youth (3).

Conversations about our lives should also acknowledge that many of us lack the typical support structures that a student has. 60% of LGBTQ youth who wanted mental health care in the past year were not able to get it, and over 60% of Queer youth do not find their home affirming (4). In the absence of these typical supports, many of us rely on our schools. Only a slight majority of Queer youth find schools LGBTQIA+ affirming (5). One closeted student from Loudoun County put it best: “At home, I’m worried to leave my room and try to avoid my parents as much as I can because they constantly comment negatively about Queer people. At school though, I can just be myself.”

Given the unequal learning environment that LGBTQIA+ students face, it is imperative that our policymakers take action to safeguard our rights and protect our mental health. Unfortunately, the draft model transgender policies do not meet this standard, and instead, ignore evidence-based best practices.

The definition of a “transgender student” outlined in these documents is not evidence-based. The draft guidelines state that a transgender student “shall mean a public school student whose parent has requested in writing, due to their child’s persistent and sincere belief that his or her gender differs from his or her sex, that their child be identified while at school.” The existence and identity of transgender students — or any human being — should not be tethered to a written note sent by a parent. A recent student from Arlington County Public Schools emphasized the dehumanizing effect of the DOE’s definition: “I find it extremely dehumanizing for my identity to be relegated to a piece of paper. My identity isn't a field trip consent form. It is a deeply personal part of me that shouldn’t be dictated by the government.” Our education leaders should instead use definitions supported by medical experts, such as the American Psychological Association, which defines transgender as “an umbrella term used to describe the full range of people whose gender identity and/or gender role do not conform to what is typically associated with their sex assigned at birth” (6).

These guidelines also assume that every parent is acting in a student’s best interests. Unfortunately, LGBTQIA+ young people are disproportionately impacted by abuse, leaving them vulnerable to homelessness. In fact, 20% of LGBTQ+ adults have experienced homelessness before they turned 18 (7), and almost 28% of LGBTQ+ youth have experienced homelessness or housing insecurity (8). The leading cause of this homelessness is “family rejection resulting from sexual orientation or gender identity” (9). There are a number of provisions in these guidelines that empower abusers and hurt students. For example, the revisions state “school personnel shall keep parents fully informed about all matters that may be reasonably expected to be important to a parent, including, and without limitation, matters related to their child’s health, and social and psychological development.” These revisions can be read to require teachers with no awareness of a student’s home life to forcibly out the sexual and gender identity of all students, without a student’s consent. More explicitly, these draft guidelines prohibit school divisions from “encourag[ing] or instruct[ing] teachers to conceal material information about a student from the student’s parent, including information related to gender.” Simply put, these draft revisions force teachers to out a student, regardless of that student’s wishes.

The forced outing provisions will have a chilling effect on LGBTQIA+ students. Multiple students rely on schools to access supportive structures that are unavailable at home, which is strongly associated with positive mental health outcomes. Transgender and nonbinary youth who reported having at least one gender-affirming space, for example, had 25% reduced odds of reporting a suicide attempt in the past year (10). This type of support is crucial, given the unequal mental health outcomes that LGBTQIA+ students face. In the words of a Loudoun County Public Schools student, accessing support at school saves lives: “Because my school wouldn’t out me, I was able to just be myself and find a supportive community at a time when I was struggling with my mental health and suicidal thoughts.” By forcibly outing students, these guidelines relegate students back to the closet and deny them access to crucial support.

These draft guidelines also effectively prevent a student from using their correct pronouns and name. First, they require parents to consent to any student’s names and pronouns. All Queer students wish they were in the position to safely share their actual name, pronouns, and gender identity with their parents. Yet, as mentioned earlier, some students unfortunately cannot. Consequently, these guidelines force students from unsupportive homes to continue to use their deadnames and incorrect pronouns if they are unable to safely obtain consent from their parents. Students are not vessels of their parents, and the state should not deny any student their ability to exist as a Queer person.

However, parental consent isn’t enough. These guidelines state “a [School Division] shall change the legal name or sex in a student or former student’s official record only if a parent or eligible student submits a legal document, such as a birth certificate, state- or federal-issued identification, passport, or court order substantiating the student or former student’s change of legal name or sex.” In other words, even if both a student and parent wish for a student to be addressed by their correct pronouns and legal name, they would still be required to legally change their name. The legal name change process is incredibly onerous. According to § 8.01-217, changing your name as a minor requires both parents to be notified and presented with an opportunity to object, even if a parent no longer contributes to a child’s upbringing or was abusive.

These guidelines also take away valuable tools to combat bullying against nonbinary and transgender students. Under this proposal, “schools cannot require students to refrain from malicious misgendering.” Consequently, if a student was intentionally, repeatedly, and maliciously misgendering and deadnaming a transgender or gender Queer student, the school would be powerless to stop that student and build a safe school environment.

Moreover, the draft revisions deny the existence of gender-neutral pronouns: “[School Division] personnel shall refer to each student using only the pronouns appropriate to the sex appearing in the student’s official record - that is, male pronouns for a student whose legal sex is male, and female pronouns for a student whose legal sex is female.” This ignores the reality that gender-neutral pronouns exist. More than a quarter of Americans now know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns (11), and the American Psychological Association has adjusted its language guidelines to include gender-neutral pronouns (12). As a student in Fauquier County explained, using gender-neutral pronouns is a fundamental part of who they are: “As a person who exists outside of the gender binary, my pronouns are how I feel best represented and respected. When I go to school and someone uses my correct pronouns, I feel infinitely more welcomed and better equipped to learn.”

In effect, these proposed guidelines make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for a student to be addressed by their correct name and pronouns. The denial of a student’s right to use their correct pronouns and name is incredibly harmful. Multiple Queer students in Virginia have expressed that using their correct name has improved their mental health. One student in Fairfax County, for example, explained that being addressed by their correct pronouns and the name “saved their life” as it made them “feel like a full human being.” Another student in Fauquier County said “using my correct pronouns significantly improved my mental health and is key to making me feel welcomed in my classroom." Their experiences aren’t unique. Using a student’s chosen name lowers depression rates, and is associated with a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior (13). Consequently, it is exceptionally cruel for the DOE to propose so many mechanisms to deny a student the right to use their correct name and pronouns.

Furthermore, the new model transgender policies requires that “students shall use bathrooms that correspond to his or her sex, except to the extent that federal law otherwise requires.” This language directly contradicts federal law, which clearly states that students have the right to use bathrooms that align with their gender identity. The state’s language is intentionally confusing and encourages localities to implement policies that violate the spirit of federal law. These policies have no positive safety effect, with one study noting that the bathroom bans are “not related to the number or frequency of criminal incidents in these spaces” (14). However, 85 percent and 60 percent of transgender young people denied access to bathrooms experienced suicidality and depression, respectively (15). As one Henrico transgender student put it, denying transgender students access to the bathroom that aligns with their gender identity only hurts students: “Denying me access to the restroom denies my identity’s existence. It’s deeply hurtful to be told that I’m a threat to other students, even though I am just using the bathroom.”

The revisions also require “overnight travel accommodations, locker rooms, and other intimate spaces used for school-related activities” to “be based on sex.” Banning a student from using facilities that align with their gender identity does not benefit any student. It creates an uncomfortable experience for non-transgender students, who are compelled to share facilities with students whose gender identities they may be learning about for the first time. It also forcibly outs transgender students who may have successfully transitioned and kept their gender experience private. Stigmatizing these students by placing them in a facility different from their gender humiliates and further isolates them. As the American Medical Association notes, it leaves them vulnerable to abuse, harassment, and even health problems, as students avoid bathrooms and locker rooms (16).

Similarly, these guidelines ban transgender athletic participation outright. This ban defies the will of the General Assembly, which rejected a transgender athlete ban, SB 766, in the 2022 legislative session. This ban also has “no basis in science” and rejects medical consensus (17, 18).

These guidelines don’t just target LGBTQIA+ students. For example, the new draft policy removes language in the previous model policies that required schools to end “segregat[ion] by gender to the extent possible.” No student benefits when mandates to minimize gender segregation are removed. Moreover, the new guidelines prohibit schools from conducting research into “sex behaviors and attitudes” without parental consent, potentially ending anonymous surveys that collect aggregated data on risky behavior, such as the Fairfax County Youth Survey. Policy-makers cannot effectively craft solutions to minimize risky behavior if they are unable to identify the scope of a problem. Finally, these new guidelines may prohibit any student from “participat[ing] in any counseling program to which the student’s parents object.” Not only was such a proposal explicitly rejected by the General Assembly last year (HB 1034), but students are already experiencing extraordinarily high rates of mental health problems. Current U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy said "even before the pandemic, an alarming number of young people struggled with feelings of helplessness, depression, and thoughts of suicide — and rates have increased over the past decade” (19). In this time of crisis, we should be expanding mental health access — not limiting it.

Taken together, the new model transgender policies represent an unprecedented roll-back of Queer student rights in our Commonwealth. They attempt to erase our existence, leave us vulnerable to abuse and depression, and deny us the opportunity to thrive in our schools. Too many of us have had to assist friends who are close to ending their lives in the early hours of the morning, worried about whether we would have a place to sleep if our parents found out that we were Queer, or faced slurs as we attempted to learn. But these guidelines are blind to that reality, and instead, attack our community. Virginia students will not stand for the state’s attempt to hurt us. The 12,000 students who walked out of class on September 27th did not just demonstrate for themselves, but for the countless other young people who cannot because they come from unsupportive homes. We walked out because we believe Queer students don’t have to face ostracization, bullying, homelessness, abuse, and depression because of who we are, but instead, attend affirming schools that allow us to grow, learn, and thrive.

We sincerely hope the DOE listens to Virginia’s students and revokes these guidelines.

Sources:

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/

https://www.glsen.org/research/state-by-state-research-2019-state-snapshots-national-school-climate-survey

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/data/sites/data/files/assets/documents/youth%20survey/lgbq%20-%20fcys%2019.pdf. Please note the survey does not measure transgender students.

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/

https://www.apa.org/about/policy/resolution-gender-identity-change-efforts.pdf

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-homelessness-us/

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/homelessness-and-housing-instability-among-lgbtq-youth-feb-2022/

https://youth.gov/youth-topics/lgbtq-youth/homelessness#_ftn

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-gender-affirming-spaces/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/27/rising-shares-of-u-s-adults-know-someone-who-is-transgender-or-goes-by-gender-neutral-pronouns/

https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender#:~:text=When%20referring%20to%20individuals%20whose,theirs%2C%E2%80%9D%20and%20so%20forth

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6165713/

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(20)30653-4/fulltext

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/exclusionary-bathroom-policies-harm-transgender-students

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/18/978716732/wave-of-new-bills-say-trans-athletes-have-an-unfair-edge-what-does-the-science-s

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/raft-bills-intrude-medical-practice-harm-transgender-people

www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/12/07/us-surgeon-general-issues-advisory-on-youth-mental-health-crisis-further-exposed-by-covid-19-pandemic.html


STRONGLY OPPOSE

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Please respect kids with different gender identities. Kids should be able to get an education in an environment that is welcoming and supportive. They should be able to go to the bathroom where they feel safe. If a child acts inappropriately in the bathroom or makes others feel unsafe, they should be disciplined. Bullying and hateful rhetoric should not be tolerated. Outing kids/looping in parents is intrusive and could endanger that kids' safety (physical abuse, emotional abuse, etc.) If a child's parent doesn't believe in more than 2 genders, that belief should stay with the parent. It is wrong to force that belief onto your child and other children/people. Kids are going to believe and do what they want. Regardless of what their parents say. Being controlling is abusive. Love and abuse cannot coexist. The world is a mixture of people with different beliefs (religious, political, etc.). We must learn to coexist with each other. Trans rights are humans rights. </p>


Strongly Oppose this Policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am a Virginia resident who strongly opposes this draft policy. The implementation of this policy would create hostile and potentially dangerous school environments for trans children.


Protect TRANS kids!!!

<!DOCTYPE html>

If you care about protecting kids, then OPPOSE this policy. This policy allows "parents to parent"? More like it makes condones parents abusing and traumatizing their children by denying who they are. School should be a safe place for kids to learn and grow and be themselves away from where they have to be someone they're not. Why are the rights of parents such concern but not the rights of the kids whose identities and safety are crushed by this policy? This also makes it so that kids can't be protected by staff members if they need to speak in a safe space. What is the point of counselors and administrators if not to protect the kids??? If the Commonwealth actually cares about children, it must also CARE and PROTECT ALL children, and that includes the transgender children being harmed by this policy!!!


Protect trans kids, strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

All guidance suggests that it is important to affirm the gender of trans kids. It would be discriminatory not to do so. Strongly oppose this


100% Parents right

<!DOCTYPE html>

I completely support this model policy. It is extremely odd to me that anyone would think otherwise. Parents have the right and responsibility to train their children as they want. The schools should never infirnge on that right. It is completely unacceptable to me that a teacher not inform a parent about something so important as their child's gender. Thank you for creating and enforcing this model policy.