Comprehensive Comment Part 3 - Opposing

Professor Craig Konnoth, Spencer Haydary, Max Larson

<!DOCTYPE html>

III. The 2022 Model Policies Undermine Equality Provisions in State and Federal Law

A. The 2022 Policies Burden Transgender Students

As the previous Parts show, the 2022 policies burden transgender students to a greater degree than similarly situated cisgender students. School personnel must invalidate the chosen identity, names, and pronouns, of transgender students, while they validate those of cis students. Transgender students face legal hurdles in accessing facilities corresponding with their gender identity, while cisgender students can access such facilities freely. These disproportionate burdens reflect the animus that the administration of Governor Youngkin has shown to transgender students. For example, then-candidate Youngkin referred to transgender girls as “biological men” on the campaign trail,[1] and suggested that referring to transgender students with incorrect pronouns are “in the best interest of the children,” despite overwhelming evidence that such practices increase the risk of depression, sleeplessness, and suicide.[2] After his election, his administration joined twenty-two other states in filing a lawsuit that would permit discrimination against the poorest LGBTQ+ Virginians who seek basic food benefits, essential for their survival, through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Benefits (SNAP) program.[3]

Such discrimination against transgender students violates federal and state equality protections. In Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board, a school board prohibited the plaintiff from using a bathroom consistent with his gender identity and failed to change his student records. 972 F.3d 586, 606 (4th Cir. 2020). The Fourth Circuit has held that these burdens constituted impermissible discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Id. at 606-16.

B. Fourteenth Amendment and Virginia State Constitution Violation

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Circuit explained, the discrimination against Grimm constituted both sex discrimination and anti-transgender discrimination. First, by segregating bathrooms based on biological sex, the school board impermissibly discriminated against Grimm by requiring conformity to sex stereotypes. Id. at 608. As other circuits have held “discrimination against transgender people constitute[s] sex-based discrimination…because such policies punish transgender persons for gender non-conformity.”[4] Under Supreme Court precedent, discrimination based on sex invites heightened judicial scrutiny. Id. at 613.

Next, the discrimination against Grimm also constituted anti-transgender discrimination. The court held that discrimination against transgender individuals also deserves heightened judicial scrutiny. As it explained, transgender individuals have faced a history of discrimination, including violence, pathologizing, and harassment, in employment, education, and public accommodations. Id. at 612. Being transgender is also an “immutable characteristic,” and transgender people “lack[] political power.” Id. at 612-13. Further, being transgender does not impact one’s ability to participate in society. Id. at 612. These factors made it appropriate for courts to more closely scrutinize discrimination against transgender individuals.

To satisfy the court’s heightened scrutiny, the government had to show that the burdens it imposed on Grimm were “substantially related to [an] important [government] interest.” Id. at 613. The school board argued that its policies protected student privacy. The Fourth Circuit, however, held that there was no evidence that allowing transgender students to use gender appropriate bathrooms harmed student privacy, and invalidated its anti-transgender policies. Id. at 615.

The 2022 Model Policies replicate the discrimination at issue in Grimm, “[b]y relying on so-called ‘biological gender,’ . . . [to] . . .  exclude[]” students from gender appropriate bathrooms. Id. at 615. Like the school board in Grimm, the Policies offer no countervailing interest that will satisfy heightened judicial scrutiny. The 2022 Model Policies, like the school board in Grimm, claim an interest in protecting student privacy. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 17-18. Yet, as the Grimm court explained, a transgender child uses the bathroom: “by entering a stall and closing the door.”[5] There is no evidence that a transgender student would do anything but “mind[] their own business like any other student” in the restroom. Id. at 614. As the court explained, “in school districts across the country,” including half the school districts in Virginia which permit transgender students to use gender-appropriate bathrooms, “fears” regarding transgender bathroom access “have [not] materialized.” Id.  Virginia school boards “have seen none of the negative consequences predicted by opponents of such policies.” Id. (citation omitted). School administrators, initially opposed to these policies found that shifting the policy produced no ill-effects, and have changed their minds. Id. at 614. Thus, as in Grimm, the Model Policies’ alleged concerns regarding privacy are “based upon sheer conjecture and abstraction.” Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted).

The 2022 Policies serve no interest beyond reflecting anti-transgender animus. As in Grimm, students across Virginia have used restrooms conforming to their gender identity without incident. The Youngkin administration admits it shifted course shifted course after receiving “over 9,000 comments” regarding the 2021 Model Policies. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 1.  The policy at issue in Grimm was similarly “concocted amidst a flurry of [commentary] from apparently concerned community members,” which include “vitriolic, off-the-cuff comments.” Grimm, 972 F.3d at 615. As in Grimm, the 9,000 comments here include several referring to transgender students as “freaks” and “perverts,” among other epithets.[6] The 2022 Policies reflect reliance on this commentary, rather than guidance by experts regarding children’s development that advise the opposite course. “One would be hard-pressed to look at the record and think that the [Virginia Department of Education] sought to understand . . . transgender status or [the] medical need to socially transition.” Grimm, 972 F.3d at 615 (2020).

Finally, the Constitution of Virginia prohibits “any governmental discrimination upon the basis of . . . sex.”  Va. Const. art I, § 11. In interpreting this provision, the Virginia Supreme Court has held that its “analysis is the same” as that involving the sex equality protections under the federal Equal Protection Clause. Schilling v. Bedford Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 225 Va. 539, 543 n. 2 (1983). A violation under the Fourteenth Amendment thus also violates the equality protections in the state constitution.

C. Title IX Violation

The 2022 Model Policies also violate Title IX. Title IX provides that “[n]o person . . . shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). In burdening transgender individuals, the 2022 Policies discriminate against transgender students in violation of Title IX.

Discrimination based on gender identity constitutes discrimination based on sex in violation of Title IX. In Bostock v. Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court held that discrimination based on gender identity constitutes discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. 140 S. Ct. 1731, 1753 (2020). As the Court explained, when an employer discriminates based on gender identity, it discriminates based on “traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex.”[7] Thus, “transgender status [is] inextricably bound up with sex . . . to discriminate [based on gender identity] . . . requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex.” Id. at 1742.

While Bostock pertained to discrimination in employment under Title VII, the Supreme Court has historically interpreted the provisions of Title IX in parallel with the provisions of VII.[8] Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Education (DOEd) released a Notice of Interpretation in 2021 extending Bostock’s prohibitions on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination to Title IX.[9]

By targeting transgender students, the 2022 Policies violate Title IX. While Bostock “d[id] not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms or anything else of the kind,” its reasoning is applicable in those circumstances. Bostock, 140 S.Ct. at 1753 (2020). Thus, lower courts, including the Fourth Circuit in Grimm, have held that policies burdening transgender students violate Title IX: “sex remains a but-for cause” of anti-transgender discrimination.[10] Grimm, 972 F.3d at 616 (2020).

D. Virginia Human Rights Act (VHRA) Violation.

The VHRA prohibits discrimination based on gender identity “in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions.” Va. Code § 2.2-3900(B)(1). The VHRA prohibits schools “to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual, or to attempt to refuse, withhold from, or deny any individual . . . any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services, or privileges made available in any place of public accommodation, or to segregate or discriminate against . . . .” students based on protected characteristics. Id. For purposes of this statute, gender identity refers to “the gender-related identity, appearance, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.” Va. Code § 2.2-3901(B). This definition applies “when used in reference to discrimination in the Code and acts of the General Assembly.” Id. The burdens the 2022 Policies place on transgender and gender-expansive students violate the VHRA.

(This is the third 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)

[1] Staff Report, Va. GOP Governor Nominee Reiterates Opposition to Trans-Inclusive Youth Sports, Wash. Blade, (May 26, 2021), https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/05/26/va-gop-governor-nominee-reiterates-opposition-to-trans-inclusive-youth-sports/.

[2] Glenn Youngkin (@GlennYoungkin), Twitter (June 1, 2021, 11:25 AM), https://tinyurl.com/u5dxhz6d; see also the discussion in Part II(B), supra.

[3] Complaint, Tennessee et al. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. et al., No. 3:22-cv-00257, 5 (E.D. Tenn. Filed July 26, 2022) https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Tennessee_etalv.USDAetal_ComplaintAsFiled_.pdf.

[4] Id. (citing Whitaker ex rel. Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 858 F.3d 1034, 1051 (7th Cir. 2017), Glenn v. Brumby, 663 F.3d 1312, 1319 (11th Cir. 2011), Smith v. City of Salem, 378 F.3d 566, 573–75; 578 (6th Cir. 2004), M.A.B. v. Bd. Educ. Talbot Cnty., 286 F.Supp.3d 704, 719 (D.M.D. 2018), Doe 1 v. Trump, 275 F. Supp. 3d 167, 210 (D.D.C. 2017), Doe 2 v. Shanahan, 755 F. App'x 19 (D.C. Cir. 2019), Stone v. Trump, 280 F. Supp. 3d 747, 768 (D. Md. 2017), Norsworthy v. Beard, 87 F. Supp. 3d 1104, 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2015), U.S. v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996), and Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724–25 (1982) (parentheticals omitted).

[5] Id. at 613 (citing Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1052; Adams ex rel. Kasper v. Sch. Bd. St. Johns Cnty., 318 F. Supp. 3d 1293, 1296, 1314 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (parenthetical omitted).

[6] CommentID: 87989: Trish 1/4/21 9:28 pm (“More people will be home schooling because of you sick freaks”);  CommentID: 91480: John Hash 1/26/21 10:25 am (“It creates confusion in little minds, undermines their self-worth, and causes them to consider themselves some sort of mistake or (please excuses this term) freak.”); CommentID: 95075: Anonymous 2/3/21 10:33 am (“We have rights too, such as bathrooms where freaks & perverts are not allowed a free pass to hang out,”).

[7] Id. at 1737.

[8] See U.S. Dep’t Justice, Title IX Legal Manual, https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix#I.%20Overview%20of%20Title%20IX:%20Interplay%20with%20Title%20VI,%20Section%20504,%20Title%20VII,%20and%20the%20Fourteenth%20Amendment (last updated Aug 12, 2021).

[9] Notice of Interpretation from Suzanne B. Goldberg, Acting Assistant Sec’y for C.R., U.S. Dep’t of Educ. 6 (June 22, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/202106-titleix-noi.pdf.

[10] Grimm, 972 F.3d616 (2020).


Strongly Oppose!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This will harm the most vulnerable people in the country. Children. Children are harmed by things like this. Fight back, it is your responsibility to support all of the children. </p>


Parental involvement is not a threat to a child's upbringing

<!DOCTYPE html>

The debate surrounding this policy seems to be focused on a fear of what harmful things parents might do to a child who is questioning their gender. It seems like most people who oppose this policy are assuming that parents will be abusive towards their own children in some way. I believe most parents have good intentions and want what they believe is best for their kids. In response to someone who opposes this policy I would ask them, "If we cannot trust parents to raise their own children in a loving way, then who can we trust?" Personally, I do not believe parental involvement is inherently harmful to young developing children. I believe every parent should have the constitutional right to teach their own child what they want them to believe in regards to sex, gender, and identify. It is not the responsibility of a school or teacher to take a stance on this issue and teach their opinion to the students.

As a solution:

I think teachers should give any student who wants to change their name, pronouns, or gender identity a permission slip. This slip would require a signature from a parent or guardian just like they would use for any field trip. The student would be able to make the choice for themselves if they want to involve their parent in this matter by giving them the form. If the student feels they can trust their parent enough to give them the form then the parents involvement in the matter shouldn't be an issue, and any student who does not feel safe with their parent involved would have the opportunity to not go through with it because they are not yet ready for such a big change in their school life or their home life. If this is a change that the child intends to make the parents are likely to find out eventually and unnecessarily hiding this important information from the parents would only make things more secretive, more fearful, and more problematic later on in the childs life.

In conclusion, parental involvement would be a good thing because it would promote honesty and open communication in the home. We need students and parents to communicate with one another in order to reach a solution on these issues.


Policy is likely illegal, dangerous

<!DOCTYPE html>

The administration’s proposed Model Policy conflicts with state and federal law, the guidance of all leading medical associations, and its own stated philosophy.

Let’s start with the federal issue. Courts throughout the country, including Virginia’s own 4th Circuit in Grimm v. Gloucester, have found that policies that create unsafe policies for trans students, apply differential treatment to trans students, or otherwise work to deny an equal access to education for trans students violate Title IX. Actions such as consistently addressing a trans student by the incorrect name with the full understanding of possible distress doing so might cause (as the proposed policy mandates) or compelling a trans student to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex assigned at birth can easily be construed as denying an equal access to education on the basis of sex in violation of Title IX. This exact question regarding bathrooms was at issue in Grimm, with the 4th Circuit holding against the Virginia school district's discriminatory policy.

The policy is likely illegal under state law as well. The Model Policy is promulgated under the Virginia School Code § 22.1-23.3. The legislative history of this section is neither elusive nor arcane: the section was adopted two short years ago as part of an effort by a new Democratic majority to expand support to trans students. The administration's proposed policy clearly contravenes legislative purpose. Furthermore, it fails to meet the requirements set forth by the code of policies that conform with "evidence-based best practices," a clear deference to evolving expert knowledge in the still-young academic disciplines of education and trans health. The administration offers a perplexing and frankly embarrassing take on the evidence requirement, listing instead a series of cases and statutes, including many that directly rebuke the proposed policy. The administration's process clearly involved a team of time-crunched lawyers and little else--no educators, no mental health experts, no trans students or parents thereof.

The other reason that the administration likely cites to sources like the Constitution and obscure local circuit preliminary injunctions is that actual evidence based practices differ dramatically from the proposed Model Policy. Gender affirming practices, such as addressing trans kids by their chosen name and pronoun, allowing them to use the bathroom consistent with their identity, and allowing them participation in sports with their peers reduces rates of suicide, depression, and anxiety (see, e.g., Murad et. al, 2010; Smith et al. (2010); Owen-Smith et al. (2018)). It should be no surprise, then, that every major medical association in the United States holds that these practices are medically necessary for many trans individuals (Baker, 2017)-- this ranges from the niche World Professional Association for Transgender Health (see Coleman et al., 2012) to the ubiquitous American Medical Association (see American Medical Association, 2019). This is the type of evidence based best practices the General Assembly clearly invoked, and it is no where to be found in the current proposed policy.

Finally, the policy's own stated raison d'etre, giving parents control over their children's lives rather than schools and government, is disserved by the proposed Model Policy. The policy, in its guiding principles, states that "Schools shall defer to parents to make the best decisions with respect to their children." However, the policy also requires that when parents wish for their trans child to be addressed by the child's chosen name, school employees must dishonor this parental wish until they receive legal documentation from the parents. This is true regardless of whether or not the child's transition is supported by their doctors as well. Even if the parents are able to jump through the onerous legal hoops for their child to simply be called the correct name, the child will still be prevented from using the bathroom consistent with their gender, participating in sports the parent and child might wish them to compete in, and wearing the very clothes that the parent selected for the child.

Combined, these issues make it clear: if adopted, the proposed Model Policy will end up mired in court, costing the Commonwealth millions only for most of its provisions to be stripped away. It does not serve the interests of the parents it invokes in its principles, it does not serve the interests of students, and it does not serve the interest of tax payers. It's slapdash design and poor legal framing doesn't even serve the interests of those social elements who do want marginalize trans kids, as the numerous flaws will only result in strengthening the legal precedents protecting trans students. The one interest it does serve is the Governor's national political ambition. If passed, this policy will slowly grind toward ineffectualness in the courts while harming the wellbeing of countless children and families on the way in the sole interest of creating fodder for a speech Youngkin will hope in vain for Fox to soundbite.


Opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

Please let school faculty support students! Mental health concerns have already increased. Why are we trying to make it worse?


Transgender

<!DOCTYPE html>

Transgender should NOT be permitted to use bathroom of the sex they identify as.

Transgenders born male should NOT play on or against female on teams or individuals.

Transgender should use bathroom of sex they were born.


Protect Trans Kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

Accepting the 2022 Mode Policies would be a mistake.

I am an assigned female at birth student, and these policies are ostensibly designed to protect people like me. They do not; in fact, they hurt other women and girls. Other commenters have better explained why the definitions used in the 2022 policy are biologically incorrect and legally stupid, but I’d like to lend my voice and point out one thing.

I have worked at a crisis line and taken calls from desperate trans kids trying to few safe in their own homes and schools. I have talked kids off metaphorical ledges because they were not accepted for not identifying as they were born. My colleagues and I should be the last line of defense for kids to find kindness and acceptance, not the only line. Any set of policies that endangers trans kids by stripping them of a safe place at school is reprehensible. Protect children, especially trans children. Their lives matter, and this policy endangers them.

Reject the 2022 Model Policy


Oppose this incredibly biased policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This policy promotes ignorance and intolerance under the guise of “Parental Rights” all the while stepping in the rights of parents that disagree with the policy. The policy uses one lone incident to discriminate against some of our more vulnerable students. </p>


Use of transgender titles

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I do not support the proposal.  We have more important issues with education than this.  Stop legislating morality.  Stop banning books from the libraries.  We need to keep our kids safe, and focus on their education so they learn how to think for themselves.  </p>


Strongly oppose.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans students are literally not harming anyone by just. existing. Leave them alone.


Do not cave to demands.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans rights, pedophile rights, climate alarmist rights, radical vegan rights……do not let a sliver of society which is extraordinarily far removed from regular society control the laws. They want to not only control how we act, but also how we think.
There are about the same percentage of trans folk as people who ambulate by wheelchairs. We haven’t outlawed stairs as a result. We make reasonable accommodations.

Compassion and patience should guide our regulations. What a child feels or believes can and should evolve with growing maturity. This is a fad for some, which will be looked back on as temporary insanity. For others, they will be able to join an outspoken community that will give them the support and validation that will lessen the isolation, depression and risk of suicide.


Model policies for treatment of transgender students in Virginia schools


Comprehensive Comment Part 2 - Opposing

<!DOCTYPE html>

II. The 2022 Model Policies Violate the Authorizing Statute

A. The 2022 Policies Violate the Procedural and Evidentiary Requirements            of the Authorizing Statute

The 2022 Model Policies were issued under the putative authority of Virginia Code § 22.1-23.3. This provision tasks VDOE with “develop[ing] . . . policies … that address common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices and include information, guidance, procedures, and standards.” Va. Code § 22.1-23.3(A). As Delegate Marcus B. Simon, the statute’s introducing sponsor, explained in a Subcommittee meeting, any policies issued by the VDOE should “use the best and latest in science and social science to understand how [to] meet [transgender] students’ needs.”[1] The 2021 Model Policies were developed in consultation with numerous experts, provided paragraphs of narrative citing studies, government findings, surveys from LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, and policy recommendations. See, e.g., 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 9-11. They linked to over sixty resources for a variety of stakeholders including LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 22-25.

By contrast, the 2022 Model Policies do not rely on resources or research on transgender students; they cite to only nine studies largely focused on the parental role in bullying prevention. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 10-12, 18. Indeed, the 2022 Model Policies touch on issues which the legislature noted were not within the competence of the VDOE. The authorizing statute notes that VDOE may only regulate “participation in … activities and events and use of school facilities” which “do not include athletics.” Va. Code § 22.1-23.3(A)(8) (emphasis added). The sponsors of the bill in the Senate and in the House of Delegates adopted the exclusion because athletic regulation historically fell within the purview of the VHSL.[2][3] Nonetheless, while the 2021 Policies defer to the VHSL, the 2022 Policies dictate participation in athletics based on “biological sex.” 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 18.

B. The 2022 Policies Violate the Substantive Goals of the Authorizing               Statute

The statute’s history makes clear that its purpose was to support and protect the ability of transgender children to self-identify. The sponsor of the statute wanted VDOE to examine “the current best practices, what does the science say is the best way to treat students who are transgender . . . and what can we do to make their educational experience as positive as possible for them . . . .”[4] The 2022 Model Policies undermine that purpose in numerous ways.

Bullying, Discrimination, and Harassment: The 2022 Model Policies removed the 2021 Policies’ protections for perceived gender identity in cases of BHD from peers. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 17. In Virginia, 78% of LGBTQ+ students have heard negative remarks about their gender expression, 58% have experienced verbal harassment, 23% have experienced physical harassment, and 9% have experienced physical assault.[5] Trans youth in particular face higher rates of BHD surrounding their gender identity and expression compared to their cisgender peers.[6] By removing gender identity as an explicitly protected class, the 2022 Model Policies leave transgender students vulnerable. See 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 15. Protection from school personnel: In Virginia, nearly a third of students have heard negative remarks from school personnel, and report being prevented from using bathrooms and locker rooms aligning with their gender identity; 17% were “prevented or discouraged” from dressing against gender expectations.[7] The 2021 Policies put in place requirements to educate teachers and school personnel about trans students to ensure that personnel would treat trans students with respect and dignity. The 2022 Policies strip away those protections.

Failure to Support Social Transitioning: Gender dysphoria “refers to the distress that may accompany the incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and one’s assigned gender.”[8] As the American Academy of Pediatrics explains, social transitioning, such as public identification of one’s gender and using pronouns, names, dress, grooming standards, bathrooms, and facilities corresponding with one’s gender is one of the most important means of treating gender dysphoria.[9] Respecting transgender students’ preferred name and pronouns lowers rates of depression and suicidal ideation, anxiety, and increases social acceptance.[10] Failing to do so creates emotional distress, worsened mood, and lower self-esteem.[11] Similarly, denying trans youth the use of bathrooms consistent with their gender identity can result in dehydration, fasting, avoiding bathroom use, urinary tract infections, stigma, depression, and suicidal ideation.[12] By stripping away the 2021 Policies regarding school records, access to facilities and events, and dress codes, among other  protections that aid social transitioning, the 2022 policies risk the wellbeing, health, and lives of trans students.

Support for Families: Nearly half of LGBTQ+ youth who are out to their parents report that “their families make them feel bad for being LGBTQ.”[13] These youth are over eight times more likely to attempt suicide if they experience familial rejection in adolescence and are nearly six times more likely to experience depression.[14] Trans youth face are more likely to have frayed familial relationships, and experience parental abuse, and homelessness.[15] This results in a rate of homelessness among LGBTQ+ individuals that is more than double that of their heterosexual and cisgender peers as the result of family rejection.[16] On the flipside, as the 2021 Policies note, “transgender youth with supportive families experience a 52 percent decrease in recent suicidal thoughts and a 46 percent decrease in suicidal attempts.”[17]

Recognizing this crisis, the 2021 Policies adopted a delicate approach, requiring school staff to balance the short-term goal of protecting students with the “long-term goal of assisting the family in developing solutions in their child’s best interests.” 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 13-14. This included providing resources to students with non-supportive families, providing similar resources to families, and to “seek opportunities to foster a better relationship between the student and their family, and provide close follow-ups with the family and student.” Id. at 14. The 2021 Policies devoted an entire Appendix to support parents. See id. at 22-25 (Appendix A). The 2022 Policies strip away these supports from the families of transgender students, leaving transgender students themselves deeply vulnerable.

(This is the second 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)

[1] Bill on Treatment of Transgender Students, H.B. 145, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020), https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00304/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20221011/-1/12966#agenda_ (VA House Pre K-12 Subcommittee) 7:29:26-7:29:34.

[2] As another Senator noted: “[T]he legislative history on this bill is gonna show it was introduced with the word athletics, and that was stricken.” Bill on Treatment of Transgender Students, S.B. 161, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020) https://virginia-senate.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3 (VA Senate Education and Health Committee, Jan. 16, 2020 8 a.m. at 8:22-8:39. See also Bill on Treatment of Transgender Students, S.B. 161, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020)https://virginia-senate.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3 (VA Senate Regular Session, Jan 21, 2020 1:08:42-1:09:53) (Senator Boysko clarifying in response to a question that deference to VHSL was appropriate); id. at 1:48:16-1:48:52 (amendment agreed to after inserting phrase “activities and events do not include athletics.”).

[3] Bill on Treatment of Transgender Students, H.B. 145, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020), https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/house/chamber/chamberstream.php 1:47:15-1:47:38.

[4] Bill on Treatment of Transgender Students, H.B. 145, 2020 Sess. (Va. 2020) https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00304/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20221011/-1/12966#agenda_ (VA House Pre K-12 Subcommittee) 7:28:56- 7:29:12 (emphasis added).

[5] 2019 State Snapshot: School Climate for LGBTQ Students in Virginia, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Educ. Network (2019), https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Virginia-Snapshot-2019.pdf.

[6] See, e.g., Stephen T. Russell et al., Adolescent Health and Harassment Based on Discriminatory Bias, 102(3) Am. J. Pub. Health 493, 493-95 (2012).

[7] 2019 State Snapshot, supra, note 5.

[8] Gender Dysphoria Diagnosis, Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/cultural-competency/education/transgender-and-gender-nonconforming-patients/gender-dysphoria-diagnosis; see also, Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 451 (5th ed. 2013).

[9] See, e.g., Brief of Am. Acad. of Pediatrics et al. at 14, Parents for Privacy v. Barr, 949 F.3d 1210 (9th Cir. 2020) (No. 18-35708), 2019 WL 1261905; see also Lily Durwood et al., Mental Health and Self-Worth in Socially Transitioned Transgender Youth, 56(2) J. Am. Acad. of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 116 (Feb. 2017) (finding that trans students who socially transition have better mental health outcomes than their peers who do not socially transition).

[10] Anna Martha Vaitses Fontanari et al., Gender Affirmation is Associated with Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Youth Mental Health Improvement, 7(5) LGBT Health 237, 243-45 (2020).

[11] See, e.g., Stephen T. Russell et al., Chosen Name Use Is Linked to Reduced Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation, and Suicidal Behavior Among Transgender Youth, 63 J. Adolescent Health 503, 505 (Feb. 1, 2018); see also Camille Brown et al., “It Makes Such a Difference”: An Examination of How LGBTQ Youth Talk About Personal Gender Pronouns, 32(1) J. Am. Ass’n Nurse Pracs. 70, 77-78 (Jan. 2020) and Kevin A. McLemore, Experiences with misgendering: Identity Misclassification of Transgender Spectrum Individuals, 14(1) J. Self & Identity 51, 68-70.

[12] Myeshia Price-Feeney et al., Impact of Bathroom Discrimination on Mental Health Among Transgender and Nonbinary Youth, 68 J. Adolescent Health 1145 (2021); see also Lance S. Weinhardt et al., Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youths' Public Facilities Use and Psychological Well-Being: A Mixed-Method Study, 2 Transgender Health 149 (2017) (finding restrictions on what bathrooms trans students can use likely leads to less-safe school and bathroom environments for trans students and can lead to more stigma, more discrimination, lower resilience, lower self-esteem, and a lower overall quality of life). Brief of Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd. et al. at 5, Grimm v. Gloucester Cnty. Sch. Bd., 976 F.3d 399 (Mem) (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19-1952), 2019 WL 6341090.

[13] Hum. Rts. Campaign, 2018 LGBTQ Youth Report, 5 (2018), https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/2018-YouthReport-NoVid.pdf; see also The Costs of Coming Out: LGBT Youth Homelessness, Lesley Univ., https://lesley.edu/article/the-cost-of-coming-out-lgbt-youth-homelessness (last visited Oct. 19, 2022) (showing that 50% of LGBTQ+ teens report negative parental reactions upon coming out).

[14] See Ctr. Am. Progress, Gay and Transgender Youth Homelessness by the Numbers (June 21, 2010), https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gay-and-transgender-youth-homelessness-by-the-numbers/.

[15] Sabra L. Katz-Wise, Margaret Rosario, & Michael Tsappis, LGBT Youth and Family Acceptance, 63(6) Pediatric Clinic N. Am. 1011, 1014 (Dec. 2016).

[16] LGBTQ+ Youth Homelessness, Nat’l Network for Youth, https://nn4youth.org/lgbtq-homeless-youth/ (last visited Oct. 19, 2022).

[17] 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 14 (citing Ryan et al., Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults, 23(4) J. Child & Adolescent Psych. Nursing 205, 208 (Nov. 2010)).


Trans kids are KIDS!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Let kids be kids without continuing to overcomplicate their lives. To build a better future we need to invest in the wellbeing of today's children, not harming them by taking away their rights. Children need to understand that this country supports them and wants to invest in their future.


Transgender rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

Transgender rights are human rights.  I oppose policies that are humiliating to transgender students


Complete Overreach of State Power, I oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

I believe this policy demonstrates that Glen Youngkin does not care about the lives of children and is willing to use their livelihood's as political pawns to gain power. It is deeply concerning to me that the state is this invested in regulating and policing the gender of minors. I see this proposal as a form of unnecessary and harmful state power, one that will endanger the lives and well-being of many children. I resolutely oppose this policy.


Protections of transgender children is important

<!DOCTYPE html>

My name is Cassandra, and I graduated from a Virginia high school last year. The 2021 policies, many of which are being repealed, was extremely helpful in navigating an extremely difficult time of my life. I was able to use gender neutral bathrooms to avoid making myself or anyone else uncomfortable, and they absolutely should still be required for schools to have. While I understand that some biologically female students may feel uncomfortable with a transgender girl using the same facilities, gender neutral bathrooms entirely solve the issue. Furthermore, the changes requiring parental recognition are going to end up hurting transgender children. I was not comfortable coming out to my parents, and being able to be myself at school was one of the few positive things I had going for my mental health that year. Furthermore, I knew many other transgender students who were in similar or worse situations. One of my friends would have likely faced abuse and been kicked out of his house if his parents found out, and the changes to policy that force teachers to "out" trans kids would have hurt him enormously, and will end up hurting other trans kids. I strongly oppose the 2022 policies and support the continuation of the 2021 policies for the safety of all transgender students.


Trans children deserve support

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Trans kids are just kids. Just kids that need support and love just like other kids. These children will be harmed if this goes into effect and they are constantly misgendered and constantly have their identity denied. They will die. Children will. Die. </p>


As a parent I have the right to OPPOSE HATEFUL and ignorant rhetoric such as this proposal

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly OPPOSE Younkin’s proposed changed to Virginia’s Department of Education Policy on transgender youth. This opposition is thought based, research based, medically and psychologically based, Christian based, and based in common- sense and basic human decency. To support this bill is to act against all of these.

I am astounded to see the policy makers attempt to legitimize this bill with reference to the 14th amendment. To use this amendment as support for “… the rights of parents to exercise their fundamental rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children…” is legally questionable and a significant logical non-sequitur. The ONLY component of the 14th amendment to which this can possibly refer is the statement that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…” To claim that this part of the amendment speaks only about parents and not the rights of the children involved is to say that children are not citizens at the most generous and not people at the most literal. Ignoring for a moment the horrific actions that can befall children if we begin to think that they are neither human nor citizens, it remains is an abomination for the state’s department of education to think so poorly of the humans which it is in place to serve!

Additionally, our policy makers are supposed to be educated thoughtful individuals who know how to assess fact from fiction and lead though demonstration, NOT ignorance and fear. There is not a single argument against transgender affirmation for children that is backed up by or based in fact. The fear that a transgender female in the girl’s bathroom will endanger female students has been demonstrated baseless repeatedly and with enough longevity of research to disallow any dissenting opinion. The fear that this will allow predatory males to enter these spaces in disguise has likewise been disproven as baseless fear. However, violence against transgender children and their allies has been proven repeatedly. The increased rate of suicide of disaffirmed transgender children and their allies has been proven through research repeatedly. An individuals’ “discomfort” or “inconvenience” at having to learn someone’s pronouns does not remotely equate to the risk of DEATH that our transgender youth experience in the face of adult affirmed hate such as this bill. The idea that having to learn someone’s trans name is “uncomfortable” or “inconvenient” is beyond laughable. Was it so hard to learn that Richard preferred to be called “Dick”? Why should I call Edward “E-dog” because he is more comfortable with it? These are not the names given by their parents. The idea that because they remain “gender appropriate” they are acceptable is mental gymnastics at their finest.

Although I could go on and counter each assertion of this new bill step by step, as could anyone who has read the bill and the research on the subject matter; I know that my arguments will fall on deaf ears interested only in pandering to the fear and hate of the loud and ignorant masses who spew hate instead of the love that Jesus himself mandated we use as the starting point of all of our interactions with other humans. Allow me just to point out, using a favorite phrase of republican’s themselves, this bill presents a slippery slope that threatens to destroy public education in the state of Virginia as well as the safety of all of our children. The delusional belief that a school system can keep children safe while: “Schools shall respect parents’ values and beliefs: Parents have the right to instill in and nurture values and beliefs for their own children and make decisions concerning their children’s education and upbringing in accordance with their customs, faith, and family culture.” What is my family culture is to hate everyone who looks different than I? What if my custom is to disparage everyone else's level of intelligence? What if my faith states that a male can do anything he wants to a female? What if I want my children to learn and practice these atrocities? This paragraph allows me to do so. But, what if my custom, faith and family culture is to accept everyone with love and support and use their pronouns and chosen names and I want my children to learn this? By denying their teachers the right to support transgender students, you are denying me my right to “and make decisions concerning their children’s education and upbringing in accordance with their customs, faith, and family culture.” I decide that my children’s teachers affirm all identities, including transgender peers.


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I am asking for the sake of all students that this policy model be rejected. When we deny students the right to confidentiality about their own lives, we risk suicide and other mental health challenges amongst our youth. Kids deserve the right to feel safe at school. We know from evidence that LGBTQ+ individuals face homelessness at a disproportionate rate than other demographics due to abandonment and lack of acceptance from family members. This is just one of the many reasons to rescind this policy proposal that does nothing but appease political motives at the detriment of trans and non-binary youth in our schools. Please do the right thing and protect these students. Thank you. </p>


Strongly oppose  - It should not be made a big deal of sexuality. But, your either born M or F.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Strongly oppose - It should not be made a big deal of sexuality at any age. You’re either born M or F. As you age, your either gay straight or a little both.  Making a big deal about types (11 to be exact) is not at all what anyone is. Especially a child.  Why do children need to be concerned with these 11 types. To brainwash them that’s the label they now hold the rest of their life?   Who cares if the child realizes they like the same sex. Or likes the opposite sex.  But teaching them they are anything but how they are born is absurd. They should be embraced at how special they are as an individual and not brainwashed to think they need to be different because of some made up title. Kids need to be kids.  Kids should be taught the basics and life skills in school.  Not what “11 type” they are. To teach a child to change their body because it’s not perfect how they were born is not instilling self-worth.  All kids are perfect as who they are.  That’s what we should be concerned with and not labeling them. </p>


Comprehensive Comment Part 1 - Opposing

<!DOCTYPE html>

October 26, 2022

Virginia Department of Education

Superintendent Jillian Balow

James Monroe Bldg., 25th Floor

101 N. 14th St.

Richmond, VA 23219

Re: Comprehensive Comment Opposed to the Proposed 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students in Virginia’s Public Schools submitted by Professor Craig Konnoth, Spencer Haydary, & Max Larson

We submit these comprehensive comments in opposition to the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools (“2022 Model Policies”). These Model Policies conflict with state and federal law, will harm the students attending Virginia schools, and will undermine parental interests in protecting and guiding their children. We ask that you reject the 2022 Model Policies and keep the 2021 Model Policies in effect.

Alternatively, 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.

Sincerely,

Craig Konnoth

Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law

University of Virginia School of Law

Greenwall Foundation Faculty Scholar

John Casteen III Faculty Fellow

Affiliated Faculty, Center for Health Humanities and Ethics, University of Virginia

https://www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/profile/dcs9pr/2994724

Spencer Haydary

University of Virginia, J.D. expected 2023

Max Larson

University of Virginia, J.D. expected 2023

(Titles and affiliations provided for identification purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the views of our affiliated institutions).

Introduction

In 2020, the Virginia state legislature enacted Va. Code § 22.1-23.3 requiring the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) to develop model policies with respect to “common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices.” Id. Pursuant to that statute, in 2021, the VDOE under Governor Northam issued guidance that became finalized on March 6, 2021. 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools, 6-7 [hereinafter 2021 Model Policies].

The 2021 Model Policies established strong protections for trans students in Virginia’s K-12 public schools. “The key guiding principle of the [2021] policies is that all children have a right to learn, free from discrimination and harassment.” Id. at 8. These policies cited scientific consensus that “[g]ender identity is considered an innate characteristic.” Id. They protected the information of transgender students as “particularly sensitive,” mandated the use of trans students’ preferred name and pronouns, protected gender identity and expression in students’ dress, protected access to activities, events, and facilities based on gender identity, and required LGBTQ+-specific student wellbeing training for staff, among other protections. Id. at 12-13, 17-20. In developing these policies, VDOE cited numerous scientific studies, surveys from LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations, and guidance and findings from governmental agencies such as the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Id. at 9-11.

On September 26, 2022, VDOE, under the administration of Governor Youngkin, promulgated new policies to replace the 2021 Model Policies. 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools (proposed Sept. 26, 2022) (effective date Oct. 26, 2022) [hereinafter 2022 Model Policies]. The 2022 Model Policies do not cite to a single source examining trans or LGBTQ+ children. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 10-12. These Policies reversed nearly every protection afforded to trans students from the 2021 Model Policies.

Part I explain how the 2022 Model Policies strip the protections of the 2021 Policies. Part II highlights how these policies specifically conflict with the Virginia statute governing the treatment of transgender students. Part III demonstrates how these policies conflict with Virginia and federal equality guarantees (including the Virginia Human Rights Act, Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 (“Title IX”), and the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution). Part IV explains how these policies undermine constitutional protections of students, parents, and teachers.

I. Comparison between the 2021 and 2022 VDOE Model Policies

In this Part, we identify the key differences between the 2021 and 2022 Model Policies, which give rise to the legal concerns we identify.

Category

2021 Policy

2022 Policy

Definition of sex and gender identity

Primarily defined gender identity as “[a] person’s internal sense of their own identity.” 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 6. Defined sex assignment as “[a] label, generally ‘male’ or ‘female,’ that is typically assigned at birth on the basis of a cluster of physical and anatomical features.” Id. at 7. Recognized the existence of intersex and non-binary students. Id. at 6-7.

Defines sex as “biological sex” and defines transgender student as “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 with his or her sex, that their child be so identified while at school.” 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 5. Ignores the existence of intersex and nonbinary students.

Right of students to self-identify

Schools had to allow students to self-identify. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 13. Permitted use of preferred names and pronouns corresponding with the student’s gender identity upon request of the student. Id.

Students no longer possess a right to self-identify. School personnel required to refer to students by names and pronouns reflected on the student’s record. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 16. Changes can be made to the record, but only if the hurdles discussed below are satisfied.

Right of parents to assist student self-identification

No process required if students and parents agree on identification. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 13. If student and parents disagree, the Policies recommended a nuanced process that required school personnel to engage with both the student and their parents to “assist[] the family in developing solutions in their child’s best interests,” including providing expert information and advice to families. Id. at 14.

Parents can oppose their trans children from self-identifying, even against expert advice. Parents who support their transgender children’s self-identification can place their request in writing, but cannot update the school record without providing a legal document reflecting such changes. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 16. Even then, teachers can ignore parental choices when it “would violate their constitutionally protected rights.” Id.

Rights of schools and teachers

Schools and teachers required to respect parents’ and students’ wishes when they agreed on gender identification. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 13. Where there is disagreement, schools and teachers required to defer to experts in the best interests of the child. Id. at 13-14.

Teachers can, at their whim, ignore the choices of both parents and children. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 16.

Student Records

2021 Model Policies required schools to use names and pronouns consistent with trans students’ gender identity on school records and documents by request of either the parent or the student, or the submission of a legal document. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 16. Permitted re-issuing of student records to former students. Id.

Schools can update name and gender markers only upon submission of a legal document; removes ability of the student or parent to request the student’s preferred name and pronouns on other documents. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 15-16. Further, does not permit schools to reissue records to former students who submit documentation reflecting their preferred name and gender marker. Id.

Student Privacy

School personnel were required to “adhere to legal standards of confidentiality relating to information about a student’s gender identity, legal name, or sex assigned at birth,” to “treat information relating to a student’s gender identity as being particularly sensitive.” Further, these policies instructed schools that they should provide facilities, such as restrooms, “that afford more privacy.” Id. at 18.

Removes requirements seeking to avoid inadvertent disclosure of trans student birth names and gender markers and other confidentiality and privacy provisions specifically protecting transgender students, beyond those required by state or federal statute. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 17.

Bullying, harassment, and discrimination (BHD)

Prohibited BHD based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 11. Required sexual orientation and gender identity complaints to “be handled in the same manner as other [BHD] complaints.” Id. Required “[a]ll school mental health professionals [to] be trained annually on topics relating to LGBTQ+ students...” Id. at 20.

Eliminates gender identity as an explicitly protected class and does not protect straight or cis students from being bullied for being perceived as gay or trans. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 15. Removes LGBTQ+-specific training requirements for school mental health professionals. Id. at 15.

Dress Codes

Permitted students to dress in ways “consistent with their gender identity or expression.” 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 17. Required schools to enforce dress codes evenly “regardless of actual or perceived gender identity or gender expression.” Id. Required dress codes “for school-related programs, activities, and events [to] be gender-neutral.” Id.

Allows schools to groom students into certain genders: schools may require them to dress according to specific gender expectations. Prohibits requiring students to dress in gender-neutral manners and requires dress codes to “provide the same set of rules and standards regardless of gender.” Id.

Access to Activities, Facilities, and Events

Required schools to “eliminate the practice of segregating students by gender to the extent possible.” 2021 Model Policies at 18. In sex-segregated programs, events, and activities, students could participate in a manner consistent with the student’s gender identity. Id. Recognized that VDOE was not permitted to regulate athletics and noted the legislative intent to leave such regulations to the authority of organizations such as the Virginia High School League (VHSL) and the Virginia Scholastic Rowing Association (VASRA). Id. Required access to facilities based on the student’s gender identity. Id. at 19.

Limits participation in sex-segregated activities, events, and facilities based on “biological sex” as reflected on the student’s record. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 17-18. Requires providing “reasonable modifications” only “to the extent required by federal law.” Id. Attempts to regulate athletics, in violation of the text of authorizing statute and its legislative history. Id. at 18.

Removal of LGBTQ+-inclusive resources

Provided over sixty resources including resources for schools, professional development, students, and parents. 2021 Model Policies, supra, at 22-24. The document also included sample model policies and guidelines as well as links to LGBTQ+ advocacy organizations such as Equality Virginia, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Shenandoah LGBTQ Center, among others.

Purged the list of these resources and replaced them with nine resources largely focused on the role of parents in bullying prevention. 2022 Model Policies, supra, at 10-12.

(This is the first 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)


Common sense

<!DOCTYPE html>

There are only two genders. Any variation is not biological, but psychological. That fact notwithstanding, If a child is considered too young to make the choice to have sexual intercourse then how can anyone believe that the same child be old enough to realistically identify themselves as anything other than their naturally born gender? The entire argument that there are numerous genders and that children have the intellect and emotional stability to weigh in on this topic defies all common sense.


STRONGLY OPPOSED

<!DOCTYPE html>

We should not be putting the comfort of a few people before the lives of others. All people deserve to feel loved and accepted, and if they don’t, they might feel like they need to end their life. This shouldn’t be the way it is. Protect kids rights, protect kids freedom, protect kids lives.


Strongly oppose! Protect LGBTQ+

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Protect LGBTQ+ students. DO NOT CHANGE POLICY! </p>


I OPPOSE this guidance.

<!DOCTYPE html>

I OPPOSE the draft policy and want the VDOE to reject them. It is just cruel to target children, especially trans and non-binary children who may still be figuring themselves out. This helps NO ONE and is just a waste of time. Please use your influence and power on things that are actually beneficial to Virginians.


Support trans & non-binary youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a teacher,  I am honored to support kids along their personal journeys and to earn their trust. The new draft policies are a barrier to accomplishing those goals.

Trans and non-binary students should have the freedom to express themselves in whatever way is true to them.  In doing so,  they are not hurting anyone else.  But by not allowing them to be themselves,  the 2022 "model" policy would be damaging to trans and non-binary students.

While we all want the parents of trans and non-binary youth to be supportive,  the truth is that is not always the case. These draft policies will only further strip away support from students, and I strongly oppose the 2022 "model policy."


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Stop targeting trans kids fir political gain. </p>


STRONGLY OPPOSE

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans rights are human rights!


John13:34 love one another …I oppose Youngkin’s proposal

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>We are ALL children of God. All kids should be able to feel accepted no matter who they are…parents have their rights to teach their kids as they want at home. The world is a diverse reality. </p>


bullying prevention curricula

<!DOCTYPE html>

The current approach to bullying prevention in this state is a joke.

The content at my child's school consists of

bring your smile to school

wear your favorite team's spirit gear

say thank you to a friend

this is crap, is does not teach my child how to identify a bully, report bullying, stand up to bullying, or how to deal with a mental health warning sign or crisis caused by a bully

our children are bombarded by obstacles, and when a kid has a parent who chooses to bully them, or treat them with hate because his or her religious beliefs say that child is a sin, that kid needs to be able to speak to a counselor and talk about how their parents reject them


Trans rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

Students should be recognized however they choose to identify, not forced to use the gender and respective pronouns based on their birth certificate. School is already challenging enough without the State or School Board bureaucrats making it even more difficult, especially for students who are different. State and school board policies should protect unique students from being abused and bullied by other students, not add to the victimization of students just because they are different.


STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS DANGEROUS POLICY

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This is a small minded and transparent ploy to get support from the very worst of our society.  People commenting in favor of this policy have never known a trans person, let alone a trans kid. They are supporting this nonsense based on the "boogeyman of the day" - and lives will be forever harmed because adults like the governor are using these kids as political pawns. Let educators do their jobs and protect kids. Forcing educators to out children to their parents is dangerous, and you know it. </p>


Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I’m opposed to the proposed changes to the policy for the protection of transgender students. The existing policy was developed for their protection with input from experts and persons with experience with transgender issues. The new policy robs students of dignity and requires bullying and potentially endangers the transgender students. It has upset people who do not understand transgender issues and encourages the amplification of lies about transgender persons and educators. Please reject the changes and leave the current policy in place.


Transgender rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

Transgender people can no more choose who they are then a Heterosexual can. Celebrate every Virginian for who they are- they aren’t hurting anyone. This is a fear mongering to exercise to  distract people from caring about real issues you do not want to address. Shame on you for even making one of my neighbors/friends/family feel bad about who they are!


Opposed to "2022 Model Policies"!  Protect Transgender Kids & All LGBTQAI+ Human Beings!

<!DOCTYPE html>

No! to the "2022 Model Policies" proposed by VA Governor Youngkin and his administration and Yes! to keeping the 2021 "Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia's Public Schools".  Protect Transgender children and all LGBTQIA+ human beings!


Oppose! And leave these children alone

<!DOCTYPE html>

Thank you Governor Youngkin.......for again demonstrating that campaign nonsense about "freedoms" is nothing more than rhetorical claptrap about control and denial of what should be basic human rights. This model is targeted at a small, vulnerable segment of children who need support, and waves the Fourteenth Amendment around as justification? Read the text: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Reversing the existing policy is to treat these children in a decidedly UNEQUAL fashion, by denying them the caring and nurturing environment that would be afforded other students in difficult circumstances, simply because those difficulties are to their orientation. Nor can you seriously pretend a denial of the rights of these children (to make their own choices, to express themselves as the people they want to be without fear of retribution or harassment) is "restoring" some kind of freedom denied exclusively to their parents. Not unless you believe that they are mere appendages of their parents, unworthy of the same constitutional protections until they get to the age of emancipation.

Once again, a political platform predicated on "getting government out of our lives" has seen fit to firmly insert itself into the lives of families, a place where it has no business being, because of an ideological, executive-driven mandate. And once again, a small and vulnerable subset of our population is being used as a political prop for another electoral wedge issue to be rammed down the throats of ordinary Virginians, who just want to raise their kids in healthy and nurturing environments. Enough! People are sick of it.

I take solace in the fact that, based on the reaction among students to these proposed changes, these kids have each other's backs and recognize a cheap ploy like this for what it is. Even as their Governor pursues policies to scrutinize, exploit and (let's be honest) backhandedly demonize them to rile up "the base" for his own cynical political gain. If you have an ounce of shame, leave LGBTQ+ children out of your crosshairs, and let them be who they are without the big hand of government trying to push them a certain way. Get back to administering the Commonwealth, and please END the business of trying to micromanage how people live their lives in order to win votes through division, exploitation, and fear.


I strongly oppose this proposed pro-bullying policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

The administration's proposed policy change on transgender kids' rights in our schools is based on ideology and hate, not on evidence and love.  It is a pro-bullying policy change.  It is a suicide-promoting policy change.  Suicide among trans kids and teens is a heartbreaking and all too common problem, and reversing it must be a priority; but the proposed policy promotes dehumanization of those children and young people in ways that severely harm their mental wellbeing.  This proposed policy would hurt people I know and care about. This is a cruel policy change – or is that the governor's point, to be cruel?

If anyone reading this comment is considering suicide, please call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the US. Or use the Lifeline Chat https://988lifeline.org/chat/.


Concerned Mother

<!DOCTYPE html>

Please, please, please, I am begging you to restore the right of parents to advocate and protect their children. There can be no honorable reason to exclude parents from such life altering decisions. You must see that this is not about children's rights but using children as pawns to advance a harmful ideology that severs children from their guardians. Do you really believe that it is best for children to be severed from the only people in the world with the most incentive and desire to protect and guide and nurture them? Please ask yourself what kind of person would have the desire to separate a child from their greatest protector? Someone that truly wants what is best for the child or someone who wishes to cause them harm?


Support ALL our kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

If only people could find in their hearts the strength to support all children.  If we could reject the bigoted, ignorant, mean-spirited, and discriminatory policies currently being considered by far too many state legislatures that seek to exclude transgender people and make these members of our communities invisible.

If schools mark some students effectively as outcasts, they foster an environment where no student is included and safe.

All kids deserve safe, healthy, and inclusive environments, much like the 1950's when we integrated.  If left up to the parents of that timeframe, would we have the unique diverse and rich United States that we have now?  Would those parents have said "Yes" to integration if they would have had a choice in the matter?  Student protests started years before Brown v Board.  Even then, students knew the difference between right and wrong long before many of their parents who fought against them to keep things "as they've always been".  Progress does not come without change.  Blessed be the children.  ALL the children.


Hiding behind parents to discriminate against children , Youngkin a tyrant!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Youngkin’s policy is the latest tyrannical policy of the American Christian Taliban!

opposed to Youngkin , and his Trans policy!


Trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive young people deserve autonomy, safety, and respect

<!DOCTYPE html>

Governor Youngkin's proposed policies undermine young people’s autonomy, self-expression, and safety. What the governor wants to do is at best dangerous and at worst, a matter of life and death.

In a recent survey by the Trevor Project of approximately 35,000 LGBTQIA+ youth, nearly half reported they had seriously considered attempting suicide during the past year. More than half of those respondents identified as trans or nonbinary. September is Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. Honoring someone’s gender identity is vital to preventing suicide.

Trans and nonbinary young people are much less likely to experience serious mental health challenges or consider suicide when they are called by their chosen names and pronouns. Such a simple, yet deeply affirming act can be life saving. Not surprisingly, young people whose families are supportive of their identities are also less likely to struggle. Unfortunately, only one in three respondents to the Trevor Project survey said they live in a gender-affirming household. So for many of these young people, school becomes their safe haven–a place where trusted friends and caring adults fully value and respect them. Gov. Youngkin’s proposed policy would take away that sanctuary, increasing the likelihood that our young people could experience rejection in–or even ejection from–their own homes.

I’ve seen firsthand what it means to gender expansive kids when their humanity–which absolutely includes their gender identity–is embraced and uplifted, and the devastation that can result when they are treated as less than whole, and who they are is disrespected, discouraged, and dismissed. It is up to us to do the right thing–to protect our kids and make sure they know they are loved for who they are.


I strongly oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

Stop targeting trans kids for political gain!


I strongly oppose the proposed 2022 Model Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

The proposed 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools must be rescinded. The 2022 Model Policies endangers the lives of transgender children by ignoring the guidance of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Psychological Association and National Association of School Psychologists. Consequently, the 2022 Model Policies increase the risk of suicide in transgender children.

The 2022 Model Policies ignore AAP policy and remove protections for transgender students, and as a result will interfere in the treatment plans established between students, supportive parents, and their doctors. This could then negatively affect the mental health of transgender students and increase their risk of suicide. The AAP promotes a gender-affirmative care model for transgender children [1]. According to the AAP, “gender affirmation among adolescents with gender dysphoria often reduces the emphasis on gender in their lives, allowing them to attend to other developmental tasks, such as academic success, relationship building, and future-oriented planning.” In addition to giving transgender children the ability to focus on their academic performance, gender-affirmative support from family can reduce the risk of suicide. According to a study of transgender adolescents from the Journal of Adolescent Health, children with strongly supportive parents had a 4% rate of suicide attempts, while children with unsupportive parents had a suicide attempt rate as high as 60% [2]. Support via clearly defined, supportive school policies also reduce the risk to transgender students. According to the AAP, “A lack of explicit policies that protected youth who identified as [transgender] was associated with increased reported victimization, with more than half of students who identified as LGBTQ reporting verbal harassment because of their gender expression” [1]. By removing protections for transgender students, the 2022 Model Policies could increase harassment and bullying of transgender children and increase their risk of suicide.

The 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools provided the protections required to support transgender children. The 2021 document provided clear, comprehensive policies based on guidance from experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association and National Association of School Psychologists, and the Journal of School Psychology. The 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia's Public Schools ensured the health and safety of transgender children, and must be upheld.

[1] American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Policy Statement: Ensuring Comprehensive Care and Support for Trasngender and Gender-Diverse Children and Adolescents, October 2018. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/142/4/e20182162/37381/Ensuring-Comprehensive-Care-and-Support-for?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000

[2] McConnell?EA, Birkett?M, Mustanski?B. Families matter: social support and mental health trajectories among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.?J Adolesc Health. 2016;59(6):674–680[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27707515/]


Oppose wholeheartedly

<!DOCTYPE html>

Youngkin does not adequately represent the will of Virginia’s majority. OPPOSE THIS POLICY VEHEMENTLY.


Trans rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>It is easy to fall into the idea that things we do not understand are scary and wrong, and must be regulated. I urge you who are in a position to make decisions that affect generations to come to not be afraid. It may be hard for us to understand transgender students, but our lack of understanding does not equal the right to discriminate against them. It does no harm to honor another person’s identity. It does not increase any “risk” to other students’ identities. </p>


Protect trans kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Supporting this will lead to higher rates in teenage suicide. If you are pro-life, you should care about the lives of these children and oppose. </p>


STRONGLY OPPOSED

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Speaking as a cishetallo person who doesn’t even live in the country, this policy is wrong on so many levels. It strips kids of the chance to be accepted and loved for exactly who they are. Many people who don’t feel accepted decide to end their life, and that’s really sad. The comfort of a few people shouldn’t be put before the lives of others. </p>


Strongly support!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Let's not support delusion any longer


<!DOCTYPE html>

I oppose this in the strongest possible manor.


Connection

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>We all need to support children being accepted for who they are.  They all matter and deserve to be shown respect and encouragement in a safe place to learn.   Let’s help our children learn the importance of tolerance and compassion in our diverse communities.  </p>


Oppose Anti human policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

I vehemently oppose any policy that limits the rights or involuntarily outs lgbtq+ people to anyone including outing children and teens to caregivers. This puts children at risk of harm.  This will cause the deaths of some of our most vulnerable children.


Oppose this policy. Oppose Youngkin.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Oppose everything Youngkin stands for.


Trans Students are Students. They Deserve Respect.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Youngkin’s disgusting anti-trans draft model policy serves no purpose and will only hurt trans and non-binary students, who will already face so much adversity in their lifetimes that cis students never will. Let trans students be themselves! Trans rights are human rights, and trans students deserve respect, privacy, and the right to live their lives in a way that makes them comfortable. </p>


Support the Governor's policy 100%.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>PARENTS should be the only ones discussing these types of sexual topic with children.  Teachers should NOT be discussing sex with children AT ALL, either the act of it, or anything about sexual orientation.  The basics about puberty and changes to their bodies - that's fine 5th grade and up with parents being informed about when it will start and what is discussed.  But what people do behind closed doors is NEVER a topic for conversation or learning with any school-age child in the classroom or the confines of the school (not assemblies, not after school, before school, school-sanctioned events, nothing).  PARENTS should be the ones to discuss these things and if the child asks a teacher, the teacher refers to the parent, and if that isn't enough, then a licensed counselor with parental consent and involvement. </p>


Absolutely oppose


policy of Governor Youngkin on the rights of parents in transgender policy in schools

<!DOCTYPE html>

I support the 2022  policy of Governor Youngkin to reverse the policy of Governor Northam with regard to the rights of parents to have an input into any decisions or instruction regarding transgender issues in the schools; to be specific, to allow parental intervention (Youngkin) as opposed to denying that right (Northam). All related actions or policies made by Northam should be rendered null and void and their reversal by Governor Youngkin should be allowed and supported as legitimate and manifestly right.


Strongly oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>The 2022 Model Policies are dangerous to the wellbeing of children. Supporting and affirming transgender children is easy and saves lives - all evidence says this. Homes are not always safe places for kids, especially LGBT kids. The "rights" of parents are not more important than the literal lives of children at stake here. I strongly oppose this policy. </p>


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This policy change is deeply unnecessary and further targets transgender and non-binary students, making them feel more excluded. My sister’s name means a lot to her and it has been incredibly important for her to be identified by her new name by her peers and teachers. This has been an integral part of her becoming comfortable in her skin and feeling like who she was always meant to be. Limiting which kids can use their preferred name based on parent approval is very damaging and unfair to those in situations who cannot be open with their parents or guardians. Fostering a safe learning and social environment for all kids is the job of the school system and to not allow that is concerning . </p>


LGBTQ Ally

<!DOCTYPE html>

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


I teach middle school in Virginia. This legislation would harm, not help.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>   I have taught in Virginia public schools since 1992. In that time, I have seen educational trends come and go and reappear again. My constant in this maelstrom of programs has been my concern for students: their education and their welfare. We teachers are tasked with fostering critical thinking, lifelong learning skills, and responsible citizenship. To that end, respecting a student’s identity—-religious, cultural, and gender—-is a critical part of my job. School is the only safe place that some students have to express their thoughts, feelings, and concerns openly. To mandate that teachers ignore fundamental aspects of a student’s life and identity, and to risk opening that student to danger from adults at home, goes against everything that I feel applies to my job. Data from reliable and unbiased organizations show again and again that transgender and gender-nonconforming students are much more likely than other students to attempt or complete suicide. These students need more support and compassion, not less. Parents have rights, but a student’s safety and well-being are paramount, which is why our Commonwealth has safety nets in place to protect minors. Data from neonatologists show that it is surprisingly common for babies to be born with intersex features. If a parent chooses to have certain genitalia removed, then it stands to reason that at times the parent chose to remove the part that the child identifies with in mind and body. Transgender and gender-nonconfirming issues are neither political nor religious. They are simply one more aspect of being human. As society is educated about the spectrum of human existence, proposed legislation like this will become obsolete, and that energy will be replaced by support for what we teachers do best: educating all children to be well-rounded, competent, and independent citizens. Thank you for allowing me to express my disapproval of this proposed legislation and to stand up for the students of this great Commonwealth.</p>


Trans Rights!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Being trans is not a mental illness. I oppose this. </p>


Protect all of our kids and treat all of them with respect

<!DOCTYPE html>

Our children deserve to be addressed as they wish. They get to pick their preferred nickname AND pronoun. It won’t hurt you and mean the world to them. This should be for all kids of all genders. Addressing anyone properly is respect.

Our children deserve all reasonable accommodations so they can have a safe learning environment. That means wheelchair ramps, audio books, and access to the bathroom. Having access to safe clean bathrooms should be for all children. A trans or cis child should have a safe bathroom free of being harassed, drugs, cigarettes, vaping, etc. A trans child should be able to use the bathroom of their gender as determined by them.

The “fear of other” is an issue to address with education not by limiting access to those which need it. And that education needs to include biology which Will explain the difference between gender and sexual identity. This is something in many areas of nature. There are multiple plants and animals which change gender.

Parents should have input. But just as a classmate’s parent should NOT determine another child’s IRP or medical care or if they opt in or out of a class topic. If those parents don’t like other kids being treated with respect and basic humanity, well they need to learn to be more empathetic and compassionate.


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans kids deserve to be safe and treated with respect and dignity in their schools and everywhere. This policy would allow schools to inflict damage on these kids, which could be deeply harming and even deadly. Protect trans kids!!


SUPPORT TRANS PEOPLE

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This is a truly heinous policy based purely on willful ignorance. Trans kids need protection not to have their rights stripped away </p>


Support Policy - Children Need Guidance

<!DOCTYPE html>

Please, please protect children by empowering parents! Children need to be GUIDED. They are children and have been entrusted to their PARENTS, NOT to state educators. Children do not know what is best for them, which is why society has an age when a person becomes an adult and can make their own decisions (18). Until then, it is the parents that make the decisions for them.

The new policies honor the sacred role of parents in the care of their children during school, athletics and other activities. Parents know their children’s needs better than anyone. If children are struggling with gender dysphoria, they need guidance and emotional support from parents. Student participation in sex-specific athletics, school activities and events should be determined by sex, e.g., for overnight travel accommodations and locker rooms. This PROTECTS students!  Students should use the bathrooms that correspond to their sex. Single-user bathrooms and facilities should be made available in accessible areas and provided with appropriate signage, indicating accessibility for all students. The new policies protect the fundamental religious liberty interests of personnel and students.


Protect trans youth!

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy is NOT ok. There are no benefits to either party. If anything, it creates a potential harmful situation to children, as well as does not subject them to an ideal environment to learn. This was clearly motivated by one’s own personal beliefs and not for the general well-being of any student in Virginia. TRANS RIGHTS MATTER


MODEL POLICY is no place for rhetoric.

<!DOCTYPE html>

MODEL POLICY is no place for rhetoric.

YOU NEED TO REMOVE ALL STATEMENTS that do not have any educational or academic policy merit.

While many VAs reject this belief, there are as many you accept and embrace the belief that a child can and should be able to freely and openly express themselves, even in the face of parents who cannot or will not properly care for them.

These 2022 Model Policies adhere to the First Amendment. The First Amendment forbids government actors to require individuals to adhere to or adopt any particular ideological beliefs. Practices such as compelling others to use preferred pronouns is premised on the ideological belief that gender is a matter of personal choice or subjective experience, not sex. Many Virginians reject this belief. Additionally, the First Amendment guarantees religious freedom and prohibits compelling others to affirm ideas that may be contrary to their personal religious beliefs."


Supporting Parents Protects Children

<!DOCTYPE html>

Including parents supports children.  I agree that parents involvement matters. The parents are the ones who are financially responsible and entrusted to make the best decisions on behalf of the child. You should also respect all religions but respecting families who may not agree with the push of this continuing to be a topic. The focus should be on the curriculum not who a child is attracted to.  The schools need to get their priorities right because impeding on parental rights isn't it.


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Schools must be safe spaces for youth. Outing children to their families severely endangers them (outed youth face increased bullying, threats from mentors and peers, and are more likely to experience homelessness before turning 18 https://www.parents.com/parenting/dynamics/lgbtq/stop-outing-queer-teens/) and destroys any semblance of safety and security in their lives. The myth that trans people are predators in disguise is just that - a deeply harmful myth (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z).

Growing up queer in Virginia, my school system was not a safe space for me. Teachers mocked my appearance and disregarded violence I faced from other students. That must change for my younger sibling. These are children. Let them be children. I strongly oppose the guidance.


Devil in the Details

<!DOCTYPE html>

Appendix 1, (D)(6) 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.

The parent should ask...

Is this saying that I can’t compel a teacher to call my child by their preferred pronoun because the teacher’s first amendment rights, and in this case their personal ideological beliefs, take precedent over mine as a parent? So, if a teacher’s religious belief is that females are subservient to males, then we, the parents, don’t have the right to expect that the teacher treats our female children equally to our male children because that expectation violates the teacher's personal religious beliefs? Does this by extension also allow teachers to practice their first amendment free speech by asserting their ideological beliefs on my child in the classroom? I thought we are trying to take ideological beliefs out of the classroom.

From my teacher perspective...

By supporting this provision, you have just given my ideological beliefs precedent over your child's and by extension those of you the parent. If my religious beliefs see females as subservient to males, then you can’t compel me treat your female child equally to my male students because it is against my personal religious beliefs and being forced to do so violates my constitutionally protected rights. It may seem sweet when it favors your personal ideological beliefs, but it can easily turn against you. As an educator, best practice in the classroom is to keep my ideological beliefs to myself. Do you agree? If so, oppose this nonsense.


Proposed "Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for all..." is wrong

<!DOCTYPE html>

I oppose the Governor’s ill-advised “Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for all Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools” which actually assails the rights of students, parents, and educators.  It ignores the legitimate rights of students to express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs about themselves, and to trust that the educators and advisors in their schools will have their interests at heart and keep the confidence that the children placed in them to help them weather the storm of issues that they may be facing.  No child should have to hide who they are, who they are becoming, or what they want for their own lives.  Parents should be respected to pursue medical and psychological counseling for their children without worrying that the state will interfere.  And employees of all school systems in Virginia should be assured that they can continue to teach, support, and interact with children and their parents in ways that have the best interests of the child at the forefront of their efforts, without being required to “out” a child.

Bullying should be condemned and addressed with disciplinary action. Mis-gendering a child or a child’s loved ones should be a cause for disciplinary action, whether committed by another student, a teacher, advisor, coach or administrator.

Respect for a member of the LGBTQ+ community should be a given. Privacy for a child to explore, express, and mature in a way that will give them joy in being alive should be celebrated. The number of lives lost to suicide will be reduced by such actions by all citizens of the Commonwealth. The Governor should not enact this policy.


Strongly Oppose the draft policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I see how much she struggles to simply be herself. Schools need to support people like my sister! Rescind these proposed policies. Keep the policies that are in place now


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose Youngkin’s proposed roll back on transgender kids’ rights


I strongly Opposed This

<!DOCTYPE html>

If a male wants to address me as a he, Then I should be able to address them as a Bitch or She.


Trans Rights/CRT

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Please stop encouraging discrimination! Telling truth should will set us all free! </p>


STRONGLY OPPOSE CHANGES TO 2021 GUIDELINES

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly OPPOSE any changes to the 2021 guidelines. The proposed changes will hurt and endanger LGBTQ+ kids. Requiring faculty and staff to out trans and nonbinary kids to their parents is cruel and inhumane. Children are people and should be allowed to identify how they wish instead of having compulsory heterosexual ideas forced upon them by bigoted, narrow-minded people. If the guidelines are changed, it may lead to increase suicide attempts. LGBTQ+ Rights are Human Rights!


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans rights are human rights. This language describing this policy attempts to mask it as one that prioritizes the safety and well-being of trans children, when in actuality it would cause a lot of irreversible harm. Trans kids deserve to feel safe at school and be treated with respect and dignity. The government has no business taking that away from them.


Governor Youngkin's Transgender Policy


Support of Biological Gender Recognition.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Schools should only recognize the biological gender of a child. Gender identity should be left at home to be decided by the child and their parents. Other children, who identify their gender identity biologically, should not be involved in this issue and left to focus on education which is overwhelming, at times, by itself. Politics and gender identity disputes should be kept outside of our schools. Give our kids a chance to live a normal childhood without having to deal with issues that are over-emphasized by adults.


Oppose!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I oppose this. It tells children that they as a person are wrong. IT HARMS KIDS. Trans rights are human rights. </p>


I oppose the 2022 draft policy for trans and non-binary students

<!DOCTYPE html>

Schools should be supportive environments for all students.  Transgender and non-binary students should have the freedom to express their authentic selves and to choose with whom they confide.

Virginia should only enact policies that provide safe and supportive environments for students. The draft 2022 policies will only add barriers to student well-being.


Abhorrent Policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>If this policy is enacted it will lead to the suicide of trans youth. Plain and simple. Why can’t students be called by the name and pronouns they want? Think of it as a nickname that the child wants to be called—what is the harm in a teacher complying with a student’s request there? There is none! Absolutely disgusting that it would be suggested to police people’s identities and gender. If your child is trans, they will  be trans no matter what happens at school. The only difference is that now they will have no safe space and feel totally alone and out of place. We cannot let this policy be passed. </p>


Children before businesses

<!DOCTYPE html>

Hi!

 Thanks for taking the time to read this. As a homeowner, human rights advocate,  and long time public service advocate choosing to reside in Richmond, VA.  I politely ask you to “stay in your lane.”  I Do not support the governor’s recommendation for our very vulnerable youth.   Your policies, Governor’ Youngkin, will scar those affected by it and thus cause further divisions in our country.   Please understand that peoples livelihood and mental well being rest on your decisions.  Your children are watching. Vote to follow the data and the best interest of our children. Talk to our children and ask them what they need most. Trans or not.  Thank you for your service.


Vehemently opposed to policy change

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy (the 2022 revision of "Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools") must not go into effect. It will violate the rights of children to have a safe, supportive school environment that respects their heartfelt expression of self-identity.

All children -- whether they're transgender, cisgender, or merely trying to figure out their place in this world -- have a fundamental right to determine who they become. Parents and guardians play a critical role in helping guide their children in shaping their identities, and while this can be difficult, most families get through it. Unfortunately, some parents, when faced with a child who sees or feels the world differently than they do, refuse to accept their child's self-identity. That can lead to miscommunication, and in severe cases, outright abuse.

Because of this, many transgender children do not feel comfortable coming out to their parents, and this policy will lead to transgender and gender-questioning children dying by suicide. They will feel trapped between parents who they feel do not understand them and a school environment that is legally prohibited from respecting them for who they are. The existing policy was developed to respect both the child's needs and the rights of parents, and must not be thrown away in favor of this cruel policy.


<!DOCTYPE html>

We are ALL children of God


2022 Model policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

Strongly support Youngkin's 2022 Model Policies.


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I strongly oppose this model policy. I hope to be a part of a world that cares for children, nurtures them, educates them, and  helps guide them to be intelligent, strong and kind people. These policies run in opposition to those goals and are, in fact,  detrimental to all children, especially trans and non-binary students. </p>


Support for Parental Rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

It is honestly painful to read the divisive and nonsensical propaganda backed by zero research or rational thought. To be for parents rights is not to be against a child’s rights. For what stranger or random school board member would love and care for my children so much that they would lay down their lives for them like I would as their parent?

I fully support this new policy that overturned all the previous horrible ones. If you are truly doing what is right, you should be transparent and not need to worry that parents know or find out about what you are doing, saying, teaching. The fact that the school board wants to purposefully keep parents out of the loop shows their hand, showing nothing but deceit and forcing their own agenda onto unsuspecting and vulnerable children. They have zero true concern for children. If they did they might pay attention to the raise in suicide rates of trans kids (when our society has been more accepting and even praising them than ever before), or of those who are de-transitioning instead of trying to ignore or silence them for disagreeing with their agenda. Or perhaps they would show they actually care for womens rights by listening to the climbing number of  female victims whether through the sports they no longer have the right to fair competition in or worse the females now falling victim to predators taking full advantage of the previously irrational policies allowing anyone claiming to feel like a female full access to them in restrooms and locker rooms.

I hope the mob does not push you into silence. Parents are the ones with the God given authority to love, nurture, and bring up their children. To shut them out of any conversation is not in the best interest of any child.


Strongly oppose- PROTECT TRANS YOUTH

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy is regressive and damaging to students.


I Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I oppose this guidance. It goes against medical best practices for gender affirming care with children. It also put educators and school staff into the dangerous situation of outing their students without their consent. Being a mandatory reporter, this guidance puts me in a catch-22 situation should a student open up to me about abuses at home. Should the student also confide with me the gender identity that makes them feel right, I run the risk of deepening the abuse that child faces if I have to follow this proposed guidance. This potential guidance stands to makes school more hostile than they already are for students questioning their gender identity. It should be rescinded.


Trans rights are human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I oppose any changes to the model transgender policy. </p>