I support the new guidance on parental rights and upholding modesty and safety in education

<!DOCTYPE html>

I firmly support restoring the traditional roles that parents have had in the education of their children.  Parents truly love their children more than anyone, and are, in the vast majority of cases, looking out for the best interests of their children.  Parents should be aware of their children's interest, if any, in transitioning.  They should be aware of emerging body dysmorphia and other problems with which their children are struggling.  These issues cannot be left solely to overworked and distracted school employees!  These issues should not be kept secret from parents!  School employees should respect the different beliefs of families, and not impose their own beliefs, in secret, on the students!

Aside from this, we have the growing problem of shared bathrooms.  As the number of children who identify as the opposite sex increase, we are experiencing an increasing demand from these trans students to use the bathroom of their choice.  It is a fact that many trans students are still attracted to the opposite sex.  It is immoral to allow trans students to harm the natural modesty and privacy of children using the bathroom.  This problem is causing stress among students, especially those who need to use the showers at school!  I would love to see a return to sanity in the school system, and the restoration of safety, privacy and respect for each and every student.

I would also love to see schools return to simply teaching students the main subjects without imposing any agenda on them and their families.  Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,

Sheila Dougherty


Comment to Oppose the Proposed 2022 Model Policies...in Virginia's Public Schools

October 25, 2022Virginia Department of EducationSuperintendent Jillian BalowJames Monroe Building, 25th Floor101 N. 14th St.Richmond, VA 23219Re: Comment to Oppose the Proposed 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students in Virginia’s Public SchoolsI urge you to withdraw the proposed Virginia Department of Education 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools (the “2022 Model Policies”) and leave in place the existing 2021 Model Policies. The 2021 Model Policies were developed after a year-long process with a multidisciplinary consensus from a wide variety of educators from diverse school regions, professional associations, businesses, parents, students, and the public.  They carefully describe  practices based on evidence that would provide transgender students equal access to education that is free from discrimination and bullying.  In contrast, the hastily drawn 2022 Model Policies emphasize the rights of parents with little consideration of the rights of students and school personnel.  These proposed policies polices are likely to inflict serious harm on transgender and nonbinary students.  The proposed policies  place the rights of some parents with particular religious or ideological views above those of other parents with different religious or ideological views.  They discriminate against transgender and binary students and their parents by requiring parents to complete written statements and satisfy other conditions so their children can retain their identity by being referred to by their proper names without being ostracized. The requirement for school boards to deny transgender students access to facilities that align with their gender identity unless proving federal requirements is likely to greatly increase  already high rates of depression and suicidal thoughts among sexual minority youth, where suicide is the second leading cause of death.  Many transgender children experience homelessness because of mistreatment or fear of mistreatment because of their identity.  Requiring teachers to out transgender students to unsupportive parents may produce serious harm to the students with psychological and physical abuse at home.  The 2022 Model Policies’ litmus test to determine who may use the restroom aligned with gender identity violates the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board.  The decision in this well-known case from Virginia found that the school board’s policy requiring students to use the restroom matching their “biological gender” established intentional discrimination against transgender students.  The court found no evidence to support discriminatory bathroom policies.For many decades, Virginians have fought for public schools that prepare all students for future opportunities by providing an excellent education free from discrimination and bullying.  A major factor in persuading businesses to locate in Virginia, thereby increasing jobs and economic growth, has been the availability of potential workers who are well prepared by their education.  By turning schools into battlegrounds of hatred where transgender students are discriminated against and harassed, these proposed policies undermine public education and the economic growth that depends on it.Barbara D. Davis4800 South 23rd RoadArlington, VA 22206 cc: Glenn Youngkin, Governor of VirginiaAimee Ragstad Guidera, Secretary of EducationVirginia Board of Education

<!DOCTYPE html>

October 25, 2022

Virginia Department of Education
Superintendent Jillian Balow
James Monroe Building, 25th Floor
101 N. 14th St.
Richmond, VA 23219

Re: Comment to Oppose the Proposed 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students in Virginia’s Public Schools

I urge you to withdraw the proposed Virginia Department of Education 2022 Model Policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools (the “2022 Model Policies”) and leave in place the existing 2021 Model Policies. The 2021 Model Policies were developed after a year-long process with a multidisciplinary consensus from a wide variety of educators from diverse school regions, professional associations, businesses, parents, students, and the public.  They carefully describe  practices based on evidence that would provide transgender students equal access to education that is free from discrimination and bullying.

In contrast, the hastily drawn 2022 Model Policies emphasize the rights of parents with little consideration of the rights of students and school personnel.  These proposed policies polices are likely to inflict serious harm on transgender and nonbinary students.  The proposed policies  place the rights of some parents with particular religious or ideological views above those of other parents with different religious or ideological views.  They discriminate against transgender and binary students and their parents by requiring parents to complete written statements and satisfy other conditions so their children can retain their identity by being referred to by their proper names without being ostracized.

The requirement for school boards to deny transgender students access to facilities that align with their gender identity unless proving federal requirements is likely to greatly increase  already high rates of depression and suicidal thoughts among sexual minority youth, where suicide is the second leading cause of death.  Many transgender children experience homelessness because of mistreatment or fear of mistreatment because of their identity.  Requiring teachers to out transgender students to unsupportive parents may produce serious harm to the students with psychological and physical abuse at home.

The 2022 Model Policies’ litmus test to determine who may use the restroom aligned with gender identity violates the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board.  The decision in this well-known case from Virginia found that the school board’s policy requiring students to use the restroom matching their “biological gender” established intentional discrimination against transgender students.  The court found no evidence to support discriminatory bathroom policies.

For many decades, Virginians have fought for public schools that prepare all students for future opportunities by providing an excellent education free from discrimination and bullying.  A major factor in persuading businesses to locate in Virginia, thereby increasing jobs and economic growth, has been the availability of potential workers who are well prepared by their education.  By turning schools into battlegrounds of hatred where transgender students are discriminated against and harassed, these proposed policies undermine public education and the economic growth that depends on it.

Barbara D. Davis
4800 South 23rd Road
Arlington, VA 22206

cc: Glenn Youngkin, Governor of Virginia
Aimee Ragstad Guidera, Secretary of Education
Virginia Board of Education


Support - because parents' involvement is critical for majority.  We can't bend so far for minority#

I read Scot Newgent's message (anonymous)

The few kids who come out gay or whatever who don't have supportive parents = deal with them individually.  DONT say info will be withheld from all parents for the sake of the few.  That is more damaging than helpful.  And it's simply STUPID logic.  Scott Newgent transitioned as an adult (age 41) and has learned the hard way two things physicians do if you're trans and you get really sick:(1) "Transgender health is experimental and I don't know what is wrong," or(2) "You need to go back to the physicians who (did this to you) in the first place."The majority of these trans kids are likely to outgrow the novelty and attention-seeking OR end up authentically gay.  Neither of those things merits surgery or medication OR pronoun focus OR secrets from parents when they are minors.

<!DOCTYPE html>

The few kids who come out gay or whatever who don't have supportive parents = deal with them individually.  DONT say info will be withheld from all parents for the sake of the few.  That is more damaging than helpful.  And it's simply STUPID logic.  Scott Newgent transitioned as an adult (age 41) and has learned the hard way two things physicians do if you're trans and you get really sick:
(1) "Transgender health is experimental and I don't know what is wrong," or
(2) "You need to go back to the physicians who (did this to you) in the first place."

The majority of these trans kids are likely to outgrow the novelty and attention-seeking OR end up authentically gay.  Neither of those things merits surgery or medication OR pronoun focus OR secrets from parents when they are minors.


Return our kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

I will protect my kids from wrong doers.


I Support Governor Youngkin - Radical Indoctrination Doesn't Help Kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

There is no better way to alienate parents and sabotage public schools than by requiring teachers to de-emphasize fundamental skills in favor of teaching divisive and inappropriate materials to vulnerable children.  When classrooms become cultural battlegrounds, the only winners are the overpaid consultants and professional malcontents who profit from the tumult.  Sexuality in the classroom is a massive, needless distraction from ordinary instruction in useful subjects.  Our schools are not so successful that we can afford to waste time teaching an unhelpful ideology.  And when primary teaching fails to transmit fundamental ideas about math, reading, history, science, etc., it is poor and disadvantaged students who will suffer most.  Rich kids can receive supplemental tutoring and summer classes to make up for classroom time wasted on CRT and its progeny.  Poor kids can't.  It is ridiculous that aggrieved activists feel compelled to work out their resentments at the cost of the education of students most in need.  Of course, if you want to encourage Virginia parents to vote with their feet and move their children to private schools, parochial schools, or homeschooling, you can cast your lot with the radical extremists.  But the better approach is to support the proven, time-tested educational approaches that set children up for success, rather than social media approval.  Governor Youngkin supports what works for Virginia's students.  We should support him.


OPPOSE, choose COMPASSION not FEAR

<!DOCTYPE html>

Don't turn your fear of others' differences into hateful, hurtful laws. Get to know a young person who would be hurt by this policy; learn about the nature and science of gender identity; understand that there is no threat to your family; imagine if your own child faced these biases because of any inherent difference; remember that our society has not fallen apart because women can get a job, because disabled people can park up front, because any two adults can show their love with an official commitment of marriage. This, too, will be OK. Choose love and compassion for all your fellow humans, not fear.


PRO Life, PRO children, PRO Gov Youngkin !!!

<!DOCTYPE html>

This proposed Model will replace the unfair and harmful regulations in 2021. Let's do it!


VDOE Trans Youth Belong

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose the 2022 model policies on the Privacy, Dignity and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia's Public School. These policies violate Virginia Code 22.1-23.3 as well as Grimm vs. Gloucester Co. School Board. The policies are not based in any scientific evidence and will result in extensive and clear harm to transgender and non binary students.

As well as families, siblings, friends of this tiny population.

In a clearly political move to gain votes and appease certain groups the governor wants to inhibit the rights of one group over another, a vulnerable group he sees will get him political gain. Aligning himself with "value" statements he shows his true goals to be persecution of vulnerable ones in the name of Christian Nationalism no less. His policy will hurt many and inhibit social and physical growth of youth. But, he and his side of government cares not. The focus on this issue rather than the running of his govenement should infuriate all citizens.


Protect Parental Rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

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. Under the new policies, school officials must keep parents fully informed, and require schools to enforce laws, regulations and policies that prohibit and deter bullying or harassment.

Student participation in sex-specific athletics, school activities and events should be determined by sex, e.g., for overnight travel accommodations and locker rooms.

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.


Strongly agree

<!DOCTYPE html>

The new policies honor the sacred role of parents.


2022 Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I am behind Governor Youngkin 100%.  School is for education not indoctrination.  Please stop trying to push this agenda on us.  </p>


Strongly opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am the parent of two Virginia schoolchildren, and a physician. In the strongest terms, I condemn Youngkin’s draft policy regrading transgender youth.

The policy is transphobic. It forces trans and non-binary youth to use names and pronouns that do not align with their gender identities. This is counter to gender affirming care recommended by all major medical and psychiatric organizations. Vulnerable trans and non-binary youth need support wherever they can find it. Some are in abusive situations at home and may only find support at school, so forcing school staff/counselors to “out” them to parents is morally wrong and dangerous.

Trans youth suffer high rates of depression and suicide. Governor Youngkin, it is shameful and disgusting to use vulnerable children to raise your political profile on the national stage.

I urge the VDOE to reject this shameful, discriminatory draft policy on October 27. Adopting it would harm trans youth, and cost lives.


These changes replace conformist, woke slavery with parental rights and freedom. I support.

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents are responsible for and the primary teachers of children. Not the state.
Oppose the gender confusion industry. It seeks to profit from children at moments of weakness when they are vulnerable. We must PROTECT our children.

I support Governor Youngkin’s initiative.


I strongly agree with the new Model Policies proposed by the Youngkin administration.

<!DOCTYPE html>

The newly proposed Model Policies on the privacy, dignity, and respect for all students and parents, upholds parents’ God given and constitutional rights to guide their child’s development. The new policies honor the role of parents in the care of their children during school, athletics and other activities.


Protect the Rights of Parents

<!DOCTYPE html>

The new policies honor the sacred role of parents in the care of their children during school, athletics and other activities.


These proposals are harmful

<!DOCTYPE html>

These policies are informed by unexamined emotion and sentiment, not data, reality, or knowledge of trans youth. The policies will put kids directly in harms way and violate their right to privacy and care.


Opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy will hurt, not help children. I am opposed.

According to a poll conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of The Trevor Project, 85% of transgender and nonbinary youth — and two-thirds of all LGBTQ youth (66%) — say recent debates about state laws restricting the rights of transgender people have negatively impacted their mental health. When asked about proposed legislation that would require schools to tell a student's parent or guardian if they request to use a different name/pronoun or if they identify as LGBTQ at school, 45% of LGBTQ youth said it made them feel angry, 34% felt nervous, and nearly 1 in 3 felt stressed.

Having at least one accepting adult can reduce the risk of a suicide attempt among LGBTQ young people by 40 percent.


Parent Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents are the primary educators of their children. Their rights should be recognized first.


support new pro-parent policies by Va Dept of Education

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>The new policies of the Va dept. of Education honor the sacred role of parents in the care of their children during school, athletics and other activities.  I support Gov. Youngkin's new policies.  </p>


I agreed with the 2022 Model Policies!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>The new policies protect our children and our rights as parents. </p>


Protect tabs and non-binary youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>These proposed model policies are contrary to state law and will be extremely harmful to transgender and nonbinary kids. Protect trans and nonbinary kids. RESCIND these model policies. </p>


Strongly Oppose - Protect trans and nonbinary kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

These proposed model policies are contrary to state law and will be extremely harmful to transgender and nonbinary kids. Protect trans and nonbinary kids. RESCIND these model policies.


Protect our children and parental rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

I believe this new proposed policies will help us parents and our kids.


Parents' rights and schools working with parents

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I support parents' rights to know, schools working with parents, and both working for the good of the students.  </p>


Strongly oppose, this is enabling abuse of queer children

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I strongly oppose these policies. This will not "empower parents", it will enable abuse of transgeder children. </p>


Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools


This proposal is a violation of human rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Do not accept this proposal, human beings have the right to identify in the way that makes them most comfortable, this country is supposed to be about freedom. Even though they are kids, kids should still have autonomy. Human beings should have a choice in their life circumstances no matter their age. </p>


STRONGLY OPPOSE - it will harm transgender and non-binary students.

<!DOCTYPE html>

This is harmful and unnecessary.

Scientific evidence is clear that biological gender exists on a spectrum. This policy continues to adhere to outdated and incorrect beliefs that there is only a binary.

This policy will put students - whose parents do not support any diversion from the apparent gender assigned at birth - at much greater risk for mental health challenges, suicide and self-harm, abuse, bullying, and substance use.

DO NOT DO THIS.

To be clear, my two children, both products of Virginia schools, are cisgender. We would support them however they express and live their gender identity.


Gov Youngkins policy reforms

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Strongly agree with Gov Younkins Ed reform policies. Parents are  the primary teachers of their children  parents are responsible for the wellbeing of their children. These policies are best for all children and their families. We were all created either male or female. By allowing some to identify as something other than their biological sex is not in their best interest or anyone else’s.To allow boys who identify as girls to participate in girl’s sports, locker rooms or bathrooms removes all privacy issues from females. </p>


I support the new proposed model policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>It will protect my kids from wrong doers. </p>


I strongly oppose the guidance

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a college health educator for 17 years, I have seen first hand how crucially important it is that young people--all people!--are affirmed as their full selves. Research shows us clearly that it is protective and even life saving for LGBTQ+ youth to have access to education that reflects their lived experiences and identities, educators and other adults who respect and affirm their pronouns, and learning environments where they can focus on just that--learning, without having to carry the debilitating weight of the fear discrimination and harassment. This is true for all LGBTQ+ youth, but especially so for trans and non-bianary youth, who will be most negatively impacted by this draft policy.

The draft policy is unquestionably harmful to LGBTQ+ youth, but it harms all of our youth by creating a less inclusive, equitable and empathetic environment. These are not the values we want to instill in the future leaders of Virginia. I strongly oppose the proposed guidelines and encourage the DOE to fulfill their commitment to a safe and supportive environment for all students. Thank you.


Oppose this Anti-Trans and Anti-Parent Policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

When my son was born, I experienced a love that I didn’t know was possible. It also made me develop a deeper love and empathy for children as a whole. That empathy leads me to support policies that support kids and work towards their happiness and overall health. The research is clear, the medical community agrees, that policies that create restrictions or represses trans kids are actively harmful. Trans kids who are not supported by the adults in their life and by their community have much higher risk of depression and suicide. I cannot think of anything more horrific as creating an environment that increases the risk of suicide in children.

It is our responsibility as adults to create a safer and healthier environment for children to thrive in. Creating an environment of fear and depression is a cruelty that these kids don’t deserve, because they are kids. Policies crafted out of fear of LGBTQ are dangerous, overreaching, and unnecessary. Reject government laws & policies that seek to restrict self-expression in kids. I do NOT support this policy as a parent. This is government overreach into the lives of Virginia residents. The personal beliefs of a few parents should not determine the rights and expression of most Virginian parents and kids.


Pro-Parent Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I vote for Parental Rights to protect innocent children


Totally SUPPORT the new policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I hope this new Model Policies will be implemented for the protection of parents and children.


STRONGLY APPOSE. Stop giving power to homophobic and transphobic parents

<!DOCTYPE html>

trans kids are committing suicide because of how badly they're treated and y'all really still claiming this is a good thing?


Parental Rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

The United States is a wonderful country because it recognizes the family as the basis of society. Parents have the sole power to raise their children and guide them in their decisions. The School is established to teach the basics of knowledge not to brain wash our children. The Government's role is to provide a safe place for the families in the country to live. It has no right to pit children against their parents. When a child grows up after age 18 they can do what they want with their life. Until then parents make the decisions for their children:  not the children, not the schools, not the government.


Strongly oppose the proposed 2022 model policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose the proposed 2022 model policies on the Privacy, Dignity, and Respect for All Students and Parents in Virginia’s Public Schools. These policies violate Virginia Code § 22.1-23.3 as well as Grimm v. Gloucester Co. School Board. The policies are not based in any scientific evidence and will result in extensive and clear harm to transgender and nonbinary students.


Reject These Policies to Protect Our Children

<!DOCTYPE html>

Please do not adopt these horrendous policies and protect our transgender students. The 20th century taught us that separate is not equal. These policies do not support my parental rights of bringing my children up with students of all backgrounds, including transgender students. Protect ALL children and ALL includes transgender students who are among the most vulnerable in the Commonwealth!


I oppose the 2022 draft model policy.

<!DOCTYPE html>

I oppose the 2022 draft policy. Public schools are meant to a place of learning for all students and educators are charged with the maintenance of a safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment for all students. This policy is in direct conflict with this objective. The role educator's play in the lives of students can literally be life and death. Research has shown that having at least one accepting adult can reduce the risk of suicide by 40% for LGBTQ youth. Please do not put teachers in a position that will cause distrust and put student's lives at risk.

Instead please include a range of educators in developing resources and supports that will better serve all youth, provide additional mental health resources in the community, and provide professional development opportunities for teachers to learn more about the diverse needs of students in Virginia.

Thank you.


Strongly oppose these policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy proposal contains a lot of flowery writing about how trans and nonbinary students should be treated with dignity and respect, but then you read through the details of what the policy recommendations actually are and find that they will do a lot more harm than good. They essentially bar trans students from being able to present and be treated socially as their true gender at school until they turn 18 unless they already have supportive parents. Further, they require schools to out trans students to their potentially unsupportive parents. This is a huge problem. Such a policy WILL lead to abuse of trans students. It WILL lead to significantly worse mental health outcomes and significantly higher rates of suicidality. We have many many scientific studies on this already. The single greatest determinant for the mental health and potential suicidality of transgender youth is whether or not they have the support of the people around them.


Most of the Model Policies are Duplicative and Unnecessary

<!DOCTYPE html>

The model policy defines "sex" explicitly in terms of biological sex. Is that consistent with the definition of "sex" in the relevant laws? For example, hasn't the law against discrimination on the basis of sex been interpreted by the courts to include discrimination on the basis of gender identity? The model policies should include clarifying definitions, but those definitions need to be consistent with the letter and spirit of the relevant laws.

The document discusses FERPA but the model policy's focus on the child's sex creates a real risk of policy requiring a transgender student to be "outed" at school, contrary to the intent of the law.

The document discusses the family life curriculum an sexual/violent content for anti-bullying and suicide prevention, both of which are unrelated to a child's gender identity or privacy. State law and ed policy already require that parents can review curricular content. This language is unnecessary and conflates gender identity with sexually explicit material (separate topics).

The document explicitly mentions the Tanner Cross case. Was Mr. Cross disciplined because of what he said at the school board meeting (which would violate his 1st amendment rights), or because of concerns expressed by his students and their parents? This seems like another topic that is related only because of the Governor's political party.

The document cites a law that doesn't explicitly require schools to allow transgender students to participate in sports, but does the law state that schools have the right to exclude them?

Policy A.1 explicitly excludes gender identity from the prohibition on discrimination, harassment, and bullying (after all the motherhood and apple pie discussion on the 1st 15 pages of the doc), while explicitly including political beliefs. Include both. Also, strike "actual" from national origin.

A.3: Strike the last sentence. Do you require parental consent before counseling on any other topic? It's sufficient to prohibit requiring students to participate in counseling to which the parent objects. Counselors don't choose the reasons students seek sessions.

A.4: Can parents request counseling sessions of this type for any other topic? Guidance on counseling related to gender identity should be consistent with counseling on other topics.

C.1: Are schools required to maintain a record of a student's sex for any other purpose? This seems unnecessary for the protection of student privacy.

D.2: Also unnecessary. Students often have nicknames that are not "commonly associated" with their name.

D.3: This creates opportunities for teachers to accidentally violate a policy that is unnecessary in the first place. There is often no reason to refer to a student using a pronoun at all. "They" is always acceptable regardless of sex or gender identity.

D.4: Parents should be able to request that their child go by a different name for any reason.

D.5: Parents should be able to request a change to the child's record without the legal documents cited above. Most children that identify as transgender have not completed the transition and may not have the stated legal documentation. Furthermore, if parents really do have the rights listed in the 1st 15 pages of the doc, they should be able to request this change just because they're the child's parent.

D.7: Ignores the exception in the law related to the concern that the parent is the cause of abuse or neglect.

G.1, G.2, G.3, H.1: Should state reasonable exception to the extent required by law. State laws apply too.


I support the Governor's new policies on this

<!DOCTYPE html>

I support the Governor's proposed 2022 policies on the schools


Strongly support Governor Youngkin!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Thank you Governor Youngkin! We need to protect parents rights and these innocent children. </p>


Protect VA Students

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Strongly oppose this policy. Transgender students deserve to feel safe and protected at school. The statistics regarding transgender youth and suicide are staggering and this policy will only continue the cycle of harm. As a parent and educator I have seen the harm denying a student the right to be themselves has caused. Who will protect the youth of VA when their parents, for whatever reason, chose not to? Saying this is about parental rights is short sighted and only one factor of many. Are a parents rights worth more than a child's life? This policy will only do more harm to an already vulnerable group of students and I strongly oppose its implementation in VA schools. </p>


Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Strongly oppose this guidance!!


Addendum: From Northern VA -  Let schools focus on teaching, instead of pushing the culture war

<!DOCTYPE html>

I posted a comment last week, but want to add some additional points.

1. One of the issues I have with the push for total and unquestioning acceptance of transgender policies in VA schools is that anything else "trans" would be met with concern. If I were to say I was "trans race" or "trans age" or "trans" almost any other physical feature, the people around me would question my thought process. Indeed, there are examples of a few individuals of predominantly European descent who claim they are of predominantly African descent instead, and they were met with skepticism and criticism for their claims. So, why is transgenderism so accepted and supposed to be met with unquestioning approval? Why are people who disagree with transgenderism, even if they disagree in a respectful manner, met with anger and reproval?

And why is it so important that we push this in schools? I am against bullying of all kinds, but why are students and staff who don't go 100% along with another student's preferred pronouns and use of different gender bathroom than their birth gender, met with ridicule?

The lack of patience for those people who question transgenderism and try to find their own level of comfort with it, makes no sense to me and I find it dangerous that they be punished. Yes, bullying should be stopped, but not going completely along with acceptance of transgenderism, should not be punished. Those individuals should be allowed to develop their own thoughts and manners to interact with transgender students, as long as those methods are not malicious nor bullying.

2. The next issue I have is the complete lack of empathy and forethought in regards to safety in schools and in school sports. In these policies, and in the 2021 policies put forward by (then) Governor Northram, there appears to be no limit to how often a transgender student can change their gender identity and no sort of repercussions for doing so. What if a male-to-female trans student is able to use female bathrooms and locker rooms and then decides that they identify as male again? How does that effect the comfort and security of the cisgender females using that locker room or bathroom? Both these new policies and the "Northram Policies" don't appear to address those potential issues.  And I think they are very pertinent and relevant issues because there was a sexual assault case in a Loudon County public school that was facilitated by a trans-girl being allowed to use a female bathroom. That sexual assault happened within the past two years and I believe is a "canary in the coal mine" case of what can go wrong with unchecked and poorly thought-out transgender policies in VA public schools.

Both the 2021 "Northram Policies",and these new policies put forth by Governor Youngkin, provide little to no guidance on how schools should handle potential privacy and security concerns caused by trans students using the bathrooms and locker rooms of the gender they identify as. It's almost like the rest of the student population who are not transgender, were of no concern to former Governor Northram and of little concern to Governor Youngkin.

I would like to see more developed and well thought out policies in this Guidance Document in regards to protecting the privacy, security, and comfort of the *entire* student population.

3. Another issue I have with the push for unquestioning acceptance of transgenderism in schools is the age restriction on so many activities in our society that demonstrates a lack of confidence in the decision-making process of young people, and yet this same doubt is totally thrown out the window when it comes to gender identity.

You have to be 18 years old to purchase tobacco products, 21 years old to purchase alcohol and spirits, and in most States you need to be at least 24-25 years old to rent a car. This demonstrates society's, the US Government's, and most businesses' lack of faith in the maturity of younger people.

However, we are trusting children as young as 12-13 years of age (if not younger) to fully comprehend what gender means and not only that, but whether or not they want to take steps to *change* their gender? Even if they won't take steps to change their gender, they are allowed to choose a different gender identity (with the Youngkin policies....they can choose a new gender with the approval of their parents/guardians) and their fellow students and school staff must affirm that new gender identity or face disciplinary action?

Yet....most of these same students can't even purchase cigarettes or buy beer? The logic behind all of this makes little sense to me.

You can't purchase cigarettes until you're 18 because they are bad for your health and by the time you are 18 you are legally considered an adult, so you are trusted to make mature decisions for yourself. You are not legally allowed to purchase or imbibe alcoholic products until you are 21 for similar reasons, but also because you could potentially make decisions under the influence of alcohol that could harm others around you. Yet, we are allowing children much younger than 18 to identify as a different gender, trust they understand the repercussions of this decision both on themselves and those around them, and schools must follow suit with this (if the child's parents/guardians agree with the child's decision) or else there are consequences to the school's staff and other students?

To me, that is ridiculous and definitely not in the best interest of the transgender student, their fellow students, or the school staff.

4. My next concern is that many people have shared their own worries that if transgender students' gender identities are not affirmed, that those same students are at a higher risk for suicide or various other forms of self-harm.

If we take a step back and think about this for a second: If a cisgender child wanted to hurt themselves, students and teachers would prevent that from happening and also talk to the student to determine the cause/inspiration behind the child's want to cause themselves harm.

For some reason though, if a transgender student wants to hurt themself because they are uncomfortable with themself or their gender identity isn't being affirmed, the solution doesn't appear to be to inquire as to why the child identifies as transgender and why this lack of gender identity affirmation is then causing them to want to harm themselves. No. Instead, for some reason the "solution" appears to be to simply affirm their new gender identity?

Why would it make sense to question the reasons behind self-harm for a cisgender student, but as soon as someone identifies as transgender, that same line of questioning and sincere curiosity is given up on? I believe we are best supporting transgender students by questioning both why they don't identify as their birth gender and why they choose self-harm if their new gender identity is not affirmed. Anything less than talking through their concerns with both their gender identity and their potential pursuance of self-harm is lazy at best and completely negligent at worst. Affirming their gender identity to prevent self-harm is nothing more than treating a symptom. It's not truly helping the trans student figure out what the root cause of their emotional distress is, learn to positively deal with this root issue(s), and then live a happier life.

5. For these new policies, I disagree with the sample policy in Appendix 1, sections III.C.2,  III.D.2 and III.D.3  due to their potential to hide a transgender student's birth gender and birth name and thus cause issues for the rest of the students and school staff.

I request the Youngkin Administration provide further clarification in section's III.F , III.G , and III.H as well, because in sections III.C.2, III.D.2. and III.D.3 it appears that transgender students can (with their parents/guardians' support) have their gender legally changed in school records and then participate in that gender (non-birth gender) sports and use that gender's (non-birth gender's) locker rooms & bathrooms.

I feel that is not appropriate and doesn't take into account the privacy, security, and sense of comfort that cisgender students using those facilities and/or participating in those sports deserve. I respectfully request the Youngkin Administration develop policies that take into account the safety and feelings of all students in regards to these sections of Appendix 1, not just the safety and feelings of transgender students.

6. The last item I want to bring up is that I live in what is considered "Northern Virginia". There seems to be the notion amongst the "rest of Virginia" that all of Northern Virginians completely support the "Northram Transgender Policies" and want "Youngkin's Policies" to be denied.

This is not true.

I write on behalf of many Northern Virginians when I tell you that we support Youngkin's new policies and would actually like him to do more in developing policies to take into account the safety and concern of cisgender students in regards to transgender policies in public schools.

Unfortunately, many Northern Virginians are scared to speak their mind and share their thoughts on this subject for fear of some form of retribution from the angry minority in this matter. There are also plenty who are scared and additionally are so taken by the overwhelming media support for 100% compliance with sweeping pro-transgender policies and demand for unquestioning support of those policies, that these Northern Virginians think they are "transphobic" or "homophobic" for having any other thoughts on the matter.

Governor Youngkin and staff, please know that the majority of Virginians, no matter in what part of Viriginia they live, support you and these new policies.

Let's make our schools a safe place for *all* students. Let's get our schools out of the culture war and back into true academics.


Youngkin Administration 2022 pro parent policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I support the Youngkin Administrations 2022 model pro parent policies.


support Youngkin on this one.

<!DOCTYPE html>

school is about learning, not some indoctrination


Support for proposed trans policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

We support the proposed policies for treatment of students who identify as the opposite sex, i.e., trans students.


Protect  parents  right. Don't  leave children  alone. with just school system.  Protect parent's ri

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Protect parents  rights re children. </p>


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose this policy. Transgender children need emotional, mental, and physical support from adults. Transgender children need teachers, counselors, and other trusted adults who can give them understanding, caring, and empathy even when their own parents are unable to provide these basic needs. Many parents "choice" is not supported by this policy.


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a mental health therapist who directly works with LGBTQ+ youth and young adults, it is in the best interest of these individuals that they are permitted to share their experiences with those they trust on their own terms. Requiring schools and mandating teachers to convey this information to parents will shut down these important conversations, endangering youth. Additionally, it opposes the natural identity development of children, as they navigate various forms of their identity and need trusted adults with whom to process their thoughts and experiences.

This generation of children and youth experiences gender identity in ways that have not occurred in previous generations. They are creating new blueprints for human expression- we all have a lot to learn from them! Allowing schools to be a place where youth can trust their teachers (who have access to high quality trainings,) with important topics, creates access to a necessary safe environment for all youth, outside of the variables that may occur in home environments.


I strongly oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>As an FCPS bus driver, I have spent years making my bus a safe and encouraging space for ALL of my students. This includes respecting their nicknames. I have always hated being called by my formal name and feel it’s disrespectful to call someone a different name than the one they use to introduce themselves. My students are worthy of respect and dignity, and I will not compromise that, no matter what the law states. My bus will always be a place of inclusion, respect and dignity. Let’s keep all of our education spaces this way. </p>


STRONGLY oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This policy is disgusting. Transgender kids/people are not hurting anyone. This policy, however, is directly harming people that identify as trans. Our youth should not be publicly shamed and outed just because you don’t understand or care to understand someone that’s different from you or what you’re used to. </p>


I support the Youngkin Administrations 2022 model pro parent policies.

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p> If children are struggling with gender dysphoria, they need guidance and emotional support from parents and appropriate qualified therapists. Under the new policies, school officials must keep parents fully informed, and require schools to enforce laws, regulations and policies that prohibit and deter bullying or harassment.</p>


Policies in Schools

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am in agreement with the pro-parent policies that Gov. Youngkin supports.


<!DOCTYPE html>

The new policies protect the fundamental religious liberty interests of personnel and 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. Student participation in sex-specific athletics, school activities and events should be determined by sex, e.g., for overnight travel accommodations and locker rooms.


Parental rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly agree with Governor Youngkin‘s pro-parent policies regarding the education of our children. Parents have the first and most important right to provide for the needs of their children. These decisions should not be left to anyone else.


Why is this even being considered?

<!DOCTYPE html>

I thought that the separation between Church and State has been a long-standing principle held by our government, but it is obvious that it is not. Even if this is not religiously motivated it is a bad idea and would harm so many students. So many students are now having previous safe spaces taken away from them. You say that an educational environment is a place for students to thrive, but how can they if you are actively placing them in harm's way or causing undue stress on them. Already, transgender and non-binary students are at increased risks of anxiety, depression, and thoughts of suicide at a much higher rate than cisgender youth as documented by many studies. This would do nothing but cause even higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidal idealization if enforced. Further, we see that similar actions in other states have been met with a lot of pushbacks or disregarded by many educators and others.

Educational facilities are places where students of all backgrounds and identities should be empowered and supported, not told that they are invalid or that they are not enough to be protected. Teachers are fired for calling students stupid, but now they are encouraged to disregard who a person is. Why is this the case, and why is this even being considered? Would this require teachers to become mandatory reporters? If so, this is horrendous and would restrict students to not even being able to talk to their friends as who they are. Thus, locking them inside themselves without the ability to find support or friends.

How can educators now tell students to not bully or harass other students if that is what the government is now doing to a group of students. In what terms can you put this that makes sense? To discriminate against an already disadvantaged group. To invalidate growing students in the most crucial part of their development. A time to be supported and nurtured rather than held back and told they cannot be who they are. None of this makes a lick of sense in any phrasing you could put it in. Parents do not need to know about this part of students if the student does not feel confident or comfortable to do so themselves.

Words cannot describe how disgusted I am by this and how concerned I am for the students who are to be affected by this. I am worried for them, and I am so upset that the government does not care. I hope that you see how harmful this can and will be and that you do not go through with this.


<!DOCTYPE html>

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. Under the new policies, school officials must keep parents fully informed, and require schools to enforce laws, regulations and policies that prohibit and deter bullying or harassment.

Student participation in sex-specific athletics, school activities and events should be determined by sex, e.g., for overnight travel accommodations and locker rooms.

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.


This will cause a lot of damage to transgender youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose this because this will ultimately be harmful to transgender youth. Kids should be able to be themselves freely at school without worrying about their privacy being invaded by the school. Making schools out students to their families can lead greater trouble at home, and can cause a decline in their emotional state.

I am opposed to this because it's not the school's responsibility to tell parents/guardians about private details about the kids, and transgender kids may end up feeling unsafe at school if they don't have a supportive family at home. Many transgender kids already feel unsafe at school, and adding this invasion of privacy will lead to mental health declines, lower academic performance, isolation, and will likely increase the rates of self-harm and suicide in transgender youth. Transgender people already have high rates of suicide attempts, and lack of support contributes to it. If you take a place where kids may feel more safe in their identity than at home and violate their privacy, expect higher rates of suicide and self-harm.

Overall, this proposal is very harmful, and children should feel safe and comfortable expressing themselves at school. This proposal is invasive and completely unnecessary.


Support 2022 Model Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly support the 2022 Model Policies and parents' ultimate right to control education and development of their children.


Not Informing Parents of Social Transitions Creates Health Risks (supporting research included)

<!DOCTYPE html>

Not Informing Parents of Social Transitions Creates Health Risks (Albemarle County)

The 2021 Albemarle County (AC) policy, “…Treatment of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Students” likely poses health risks to students and violates parents’ right to be informed about the health of their child.  These risks expose the Albemarle and other counties to civil litigation risk.  The most problematic elements of the 2021 AC policy include:

“…balance the goal of supporting the student with the requirement that parents be kept informed about their children. The most important consideration in such situations is the physical and mental health and safety of the student…Some gender-expansive students…do not want their parents to know about their gender-expansive status based on safety concerns or fear about a lack of acceptance. Therefore, prior to contacting a student’s parents or guardian, the principal or designee should speak with the student to ascertain the level of support the student either receives or anticipates receiving from home.  If the student does not want the school to contact the student’s parents, the school shall honor that request for privacy”

The AC policy assumes that…

School personnel are, by default, more capable than parents of evaluating the health of a student undergoing a social transition.

That a child’s desire to not inform their parents of a social transition outweighs the parents’ Constitutionally-protected right to know about their child’s health.

The primary risk created by these assumptions is that mental health co-morbidities (e.g. anxiety, depression,) or other factors (e.g. autism) frequently associated with gender dysphoria (GD) may go untreated because parents were prevented from learning about their child’s health status.

An additional risk is that school personnel, by unilaterally removing parents from their decision-making role, are endorsing a child’s social transition.  Social transitions may increase the risk of medical transitions which pose serious long-term risks (see below) to the well-being of the child.  While there may be some cases in which a social transition is appropriate, parents have an absolute right to be informed and involved given the associated risks.

Suggested Policy Changes that Would Not Contradict Albemarle County School Board’s Current View

No doubt, Albemarle County School Board (ACSB) believes its assumptions are supported by defensible research (they are not) and dismisses the health and litigation risks (there are ongoing civil cases in multiple states prompted by schools not informing parents of social transitions: e.g. https://www.wpr.org/wisconsin-supreme-court-hears-arguments-lawsuit-challenging-madison-schools-guidance-supporting).  Nevertheless, ACSB’s current view would not be disrupted if the policy were updated to include the following adjustments:

Precisely define what is meant by “safety concerns or fear about a lack of acceptance”.   For example, does “lack of acceptance” mean parents not “affirming” the child’s gender identity?

Precisely define what ACSB means by the “physical and mental health and safety of the student” in the context of GD.  For example, if parents do not “affirm” the child’s social transition, does this fall under the definition of “harm” from school officials’ perspective?

Implement an interim policy where decisions to not inform parents of a child’s social transition and/or mental health are adequately documented.

Collecting anonymized data on children initiating a social transition including birth sex, age, number of different designations (e.g. trans-woman, non-binary, gender-fluid) claimed by each individual over time, and date at which the child’s social transition began.

Virginia & ACSB should review the reports conducted by multiple European national health systems which find that the risks of gender transition outweighed the highly uncertain benefits.  Their findings clearly support caution with gender care policies.  For example, the UK recently ended “affirming” care practices and has proposed much greater caution for social transitions.  These sources are from countries relatively unaffected by US domestic political polarization.

Preventing Parents from Knowing About a Social Transition Can Lead to Lack of Treatment for Concurrent Mental Health Challenges.

A major risk for children claiming GD is that many are experiencing a variety of concurrent mental health challenges which could go untreated if parents are not aware of their child’s status at school (“Mental Health of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Youth Compared With Their Peers” https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/141/5/e20173845/37843/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-and-Gender?autologincheck=redirected?nfToken=00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000).  Research across multiple countries shows that GD is often accompanied by a variety of mental-health conditions such as depression, anxiety, eating disorders, cutting and self-harm, and autism, among others.  Whether these accompanying conditions are a cause or result of the gender dysphoria is an open question.  The risk to the child undergoing a social transition is that concurrent mental health conditions may go untreated if the school does not inform the parents.  Thus, by withholding mental health information from parents, ACSB is almost certainly increasing risk to children and possibly causing outright harm.

The Empirical Basis for Current Gender Care Practices is, at a Minimum, Very Shaky and Possibly Wrong.

Research supporting claims of improved well-being from gender transitions, whether social transition or medical transition, is deeply deficient.  The poor quality of research is frequently ignored in the popular press.

The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland recently curtailed their provision of gender services after systematic reviews of the research revealed the poor quality of evidence supporting the benefits of gender transition (“Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people” https://cass.independent-review.uk/; “Policy Change Regarding Hormonal Treatment of Minors with Gender Dysphoria at Tema Barn - Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital.”  https://www.sbu.se/en/publications/sbu-bereder/gender-dysphoria-in-children-and-adolescents-an-inventory-of-the-literature/; “Medical treatments for gender dysphoria that reduces functional capacity in transgender people – recommendation” https://palveluvalikoima.fi/en/recommendations#genderidentity).  For example, the UK recently shut down its gender clinic because “the clinical approach and overall service design has not been subjected to some of the normal quality controls that are typically applied when new or innovative treatments are introduced.”   The UK’s review of gender care research concluded that the risks did not outweigh the uncertain benefits of medical transition.  The report’s review of the research concluded “Evidence on the appropriate management of children and young people with gender incongruence and dysphoria is inconclusive both nationally and internationally”.  (“Independent review of gender identity services for children and young people” https://cass.independent-review.uk/).  Importantly, the UK recently recommended ending the “affirming” care approach while urging significantly more caution with social transitions (“Interim service specification for specialist gender dysphoria services for children and young people” https://www.engage.england.nhs.uk/specialised-commissioning/gender-dysphoria-services/user_uploads/b1937-ii-interim-service-specification-for-specialist-gender-dysphoria-services-for-children-and-young-people-22.pdf).

In the US, Erica Anderson, a transgender woman and gender transition surgeon notes that,

“…we find evidence every single day, from our peers across the country and concerned parents who reach out, that the field has moved from a more nuanced, individualized and developmentally appropriate assessment process to one where every problem looks like a medical one that can be solved quickly with medication or, ultimately, surgery…we may be harming some of the young people we strive to support — people who may not be prepared for the gender transitions they are being rushed into.”

Anderson notes a competence gap for therapists attempting to disentangle concurrent mental health challenges from GD:

“The overwhelming majority of those well-intentioned professionals receive limited or no training in the assessment of gender-diverse youth…the demand for competent care has outstripped the supply of competent providers.”

(“The mental health establishment is failing trans kids” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/24/trans-kids-therapy-psychologist/)

Importantly, the claimed benefits of the “Dutch Protocol”, the clinical protocol foundational to modern gender care, were not replicated in a similar study conducted in the UK in 2011.  Biggs notes that “the data showed no statistically significant difference between the group given GnRHa [puberty blockers] and counseling and the group given only counseling” (“Letter to the Editor Regarding the Original Article by Costa et al: Psychological Support, Puberty Suppression, and Psychosocial Functioning in Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria” https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(19)31424-9/fulltext#pageBody).  Carmichael notes that

“Our finding that psychological function and self-harm did not change significantly during the study is consistent with two main alternative explanations. The first is that there was no change, and that GnRHa treatment brought no measurable benefit nor harm to psychological function in these young people with GD…The second possibility is that the lack of change in an outcome that normally worsens in early adolescence may reflect a beneficial change in trajectory for that outcome, i.e. that GnRHa treatment reduced this normative worsening of problems. In the absence of a control group, we cannot distinguish between these possibilities.” ("Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7853497/).

Finally, there have never been any randomized control trial (RCTs), the gold standard for medical research, to compare the efficacy of interventions that might resolve GD (“Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221).  This would never be tolerated in other medical research areas.  The argument that social and medical transition is too important to be subjected to RCTs falls flat given that even child cancer studies include RCTs to ensure the benefits outweigh the risk for harm.

An important note about the UK study’s failure to replicate the Dutch Protocol is that the data was only released to the public after a variety of attempts culminating in a court order in the Keira Bell trial (“The Dutch Protocol for Juvenile Transsexuals: Origins and Evidence” (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2121238).  The case of Keira Bell is notable in that she is a prominent detransitioner who sued the UK national health service for shoddy clinical care that fast-tracked her gender transition which included a double mastectomy and probable loss of fertility ("Keira Bell: My Story" https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story).

The Claimed Benefits for Socially Transitioning Children Are Based on Questionable Research

The current ACSB policy of not informing parents of a child’s social transition is based significantly on the assumption that children who are not affirmed in their claimed gender-identity by their parents are at risk of harm, specifically suicide.  It can be agreed that most GD children are likely experiencing some form of distress and probably a range of other, concurrent mental health challenges.  The primary claimed benefit of affirming care is that a child’s mental health will improve.  However, Levine notes that “…Numerous cross-sectional and prospective studies of transgender adults consistently demonstrate a high prevalence of serious mental health and social problems as well as suicide” which suggests that the claims of benefit from transitioning are worthy of scrutiny.  (“Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221).

The most prominent claim is that children not affirmed in their social transition are at significant risk of suicide.  However, the research supporting this claim is deeply suspect.  Levine notes that “The notion that trans-identified youth are at alarmingly high risk of suicide usually stems from biased online samples that rely on self-report and frequently conflates suicidal thoughts and non-suicidal self-harm with serious suicide attempts and completed suicides.” (“Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221).   See discussion of Jack Turban’s work below.

To date, the largest study based on verifiable data on GD suicide rates is that of Biggs who analyzed the records of the British adolescents seeking gender care.  He found that 4 out of 15000 committed suicide; a rate of .03%.  To be clear, this rate is higher than the comparison population of adolescents but far from the certainty of suicidal harm frequently stated in support of affirming care (‘Do you want a dead girl or a living boy’).  Of the 4 in the dataset who committed suicide, 2 were waiting on gender care and 2 had received gender care so it’s not even clear that transition reduced suicide risk.  Biggs also notes that the proportion of GD patients who had autism was 14-15% vs. 1-2% in the broader population.  Biggs points out that people with autism, especially females, are more prone to suicide.  Further, higher suicide rates of individuals seeking gender care may reflect the prevalence of autism and other concurrent mental health conditions also associated suicide (Suicide by Clinic-Referred Transgender Adolescents in the United Kingdom https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02287-7).  Levine cites a study that found “…that transgender-identifying teens have relatively similar rates of suicidality compared to teens who are gay, lesbian and bisexual (Toomey, Syvertsen, & Shramko, )” suggesting that transitioning does not necessarily reduce suicide risk (Reconsidering Informed Consent for Trans-Identified Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2046221).

Separate from Biggs’ analysis, at least one study in Sweden found highly elevated suicide rates for individuals *after* receiving gender transition surgeries although there was no control group which would allow for firm conclusions as to why ("Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: Cohort study in Sweden" https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885).

Jack Turban’s Work on GD Children and Suicidality is Deeply Flawed

Prior to Biggs’ analysis, popular understanding of transgender suicidality has been influenced by low quality research popularized by Jack Turban, a gender care researcher frequently cited by the media.  Based on the 2015 US Transgender Survey (USTS), he strongly suggests that affirming care is the cause of better mental health outcomes and lower risk of suicide in GD children.  However, his analysis was not structured to ascertain causality.  Further, the unreliability of the USTS data has been severely critiqued by numerous researchers.  A chief concern was Turban’s claims of causation.  D’Angelo, et.al note Turban’s study was

“…compromised by serious methodological flaws, including the use of a biased data sample, reliance on survey questions with poor validity, and the omission of a key control variable, namely subjects’ baseline mental health status. Further, their conclusions are not supported by their own analysis…what they actually found was that those recalling GICE [gender identity conversion efforts] were more likely to be suffering from serious mental illness. Further, Turban et al.’s choice to interpret the said association as evidence of harms of GICE disregards the fact that neither the presence nor the direction of causation can be discerned from this study due to its cross-sectional design.” ("One Size Does Not Fit All: In Support of Psychotherapy for Gender Dysphoria" https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-020-01844-2, Another critique: "Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8169497/; a more accessible discussion: https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/science-vs-cited-seven-studies-to)

Turban’s most recent study examining social contagion of GD was so flawed that gender care advocates published a critique that his research would call into question the soundness of other gender care research.  They noted that,

“….science and public health as a tool of social justice requires methodological rigor in addition to conviction and intent. While this study was admirable, we find that the results were overinterpreted and that the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of the article run the risk of being more harmful than supportive.”  (https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/b5z7j/, a more accessible discussion:  see https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender)

Risks of Medical Transition Led Sweden, Finland, and the UK to Impose Limits on Gender Care for Minors.

The potential harms, including impacts to fertility, from medical transition are a significant risk to children.

A 2017 article outlining Endocrine Society clinical guidelines for GD straightforwardly notes that treating physicians should “recommend that clinicians inform and counsel all individuals seeking gender-affirming medical treatment regarding options for fertility preservation prior to initiating puberty suppression in adolescents”.  ‘Fertility preservation’ is the storing sperm or eggs prior to transition.  This is needed because fertility is indeed at risk.  The article also notes that “Because young adolescents may not feel qualified to make decisions about fertility and may not fully understand the potential effects of hormonal interventions, consent and protocol education should include parents.”  Other risks included “…unknown effects on brain development” ("Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline" https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558.  Also see "Fertility concerns of the transgender patient" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6626312/).  Katz, et.al note that “…much of the brain has continued dynamic changes in gray matter volume and myelination into the third decade of life.  The prefrontal cortex, where many executive functions are coordinated, including the balancing of risks and rewards, is among the last areas of the brain to mature, with these functions continuing to develop and mature into young adulthood.” ("Informed Consent in Decision-Making in Pediatric Practice" https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/138/2/e20161485/52519/Informed-Consent-in-Decision-Making-in-Pediatric)

Refusing to Inform Parents about Children’s Health is a Straightforward Violation of Parent Constitutional Rights.

The vast body of case law supporting parents’ right to raise their children as they see fit is critical to society’s functioning because parents are in the best position to make judgments about their children’s well-being.  This is especially critical for gender transition where the research guiding policy is so profoundly flawed and the risks so severe.   ACSB’s policy to eliminate parents’ right to be informed of their child’s health by bureaucratic fiat is unethical, unsafe, and unconstitutional.

In Pierce v. the Society of Sisters (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/268/510), the opinion notes that the state may not “unreasonably interfere with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control…The child is not the mere creature of the State”.  It appears that ACSB has usurped parental decision-making in the case of a socially transitioning child based on an apparently novel definition of “the physical and mental health and safety of the student” and the “level of support the student either receives or anticipates receiving from home.”  ACSB might argue that the potential for harm—however ACSB defines it—justifies this stance.  Yet, Parham v. J.R. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/442/584) states that “The statist notion that governmental power should supersede parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and neglect children is repugnant to American tradition.”

Additionally, some activists have suggested that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regulations allow school districts to withhold information from parents.  FERPA’s first sentence plainly establishes parents’ rights to records about their children:

“No funds shall be made available under any applicable program to any educational agency or institution which has a policy of denying, or which effectively prevents, the parents of students who are or have been in attendance at a school of such agency or at such institution, as the case may be, the right to inspect and review the education records of their children.”

The only impediment to ACSB being preemptively sued is the legal concept of “standing” which requires that a plaintiff has sustained direct injury from an action or policy (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/standing).  Such a situation seems imminent.


Support Governor Youngkin's EDU., parent, and gender policy  in all areas in total!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>I support Governor Youngkin's policy on EDU., parent rights, gender policy which walks hand in hand with correct faith based morality and intellect. <>< </p>


I support the changes

<!DOCTYPE html>

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. Under the new policies, school officials must keep parents fully informed, and require schools to enforce laws, regulations and policies that prohibit and deter bullying or harassment. The new policies protect the fundamental religious liberty interests of personnel and students. These policies are just common sense and put the parents and children first.


Strongly SUPPORT Gov. Youngkin, Here's why:

<!DOCTYPE html>

Every student deserves not only to FEEL safe, but to BE SAFE. Virginia's Recent History (Loudoun County school bathroom) has Proven that it is NOT Safe, NOT Secure, and NOT even Common Sense to allow biological males to enter and utilize  bathrooms/ locker rooms, etc., designated for biological Females.   It violates the privacy and security of every student.

To allow the push of a  "woke agenda", or, new culture-of-the-moment wave to erase sound, structured principles, and to dictate new school policies-- which will only result in fear, trouble, possible crimes, and lawsuits,  is unreasonably absurd.

Parents insist on HEALTHY  and  SAFE environments for ALL students; Nothing Less.

THANK YOU, Governor Youngkin , for standing up and providing Solid Ground for all  in these agenda-pushing, ever-changing times!


Oppose Model Policies 2022 for Trans and Non-Binary youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>The proposed changes are dangerous and harmful to the Trans and Non-Binary youth in Virginia and are not consistent with my values as Virginian.  Please follow recommendations of medical professionals and other specialists that have studied these groups and can ensure any changes made will beneficial to  all youth.  The current policies endanger Trans and Non-Bunary lives which are already statistically endangered and at risk.  I oppose the 2022 Model Policies.  </p>


I Support the Proposed Policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents know their children’s needs better than anyone. If children are struggling with gender dysphoria, they need guidance and emotional support from parents. Under the new policies, school officials must keep parents fully informed, and require schools to enforce laws, regulations and policies that prohibit and deter bullying or harassment.


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose the Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools!  Having been a School Counselor for more than a decade my job is not to keep information from parents about their children.  If a student shares confidential information it is my job to encourage and support that child to share with their parent/guardians or get consent to share with their parents/guardians.  Educators are not out to harm children, nor do they want to take any power or control away from parents.  As Educators we want to create an environment where students feel safe, respected and free to be themselves.  If this legislations passes, schools will no longer be that place.

Parents if you want your children to talk to you about anything you have to be willing to listen to them and validate their feelings - even if you disagree or if this isn't what you want for your child.  This law won't make them talk to you.


Strongly Oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This policy is so harmful for students. I am a parent and this policy does not support my rights in any way. </p>