Lawsuits against schools that secretly help students transition could devastate budgets

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am concerned that school systems that decide to resist Gov. Youngkin's proposed changes in policy and remain involved in assisting with students' gender transitions may open themselves up to the potential for lawsuits that could cripple their educational budgets.  Already, we see such lawsuits being pressed in certain states and even abroad, against both medical institutions and schools that have facilitated the transitioning of students.  At some point, a judge is going to rule in favor of parents and against school systems that step outside of their purview as educators and usurp parents' legal rights regarding life-altering medical decisions for their children.  One wonders how substantial the financial settlements might be in cases where schools have secretly led children in the direction of hormone therapies or surgeries that brought permanent disfigurement and psychological distress?  There may also be cases where parents sue a school system following a child's suicide.  Judgments or settlements that reach into the tens of millions of dollars (or even higher) could devastate a school system's ability to do what it is supposed to do -- educate children in a respectful and cooperative relationship with parents.  It seems likely, as well, that school board members, teachers, and school administrative staff who step outside their normal responsibilities and support secretly transitioning children will be among those targeted by plaintiffs, resulting, if nothing else, in huge legal fees for everyone involved.  It is instructive here to note, as most would agree, that it is not within the prescribed fiduciary responsibilities of educators to work with students to change, for example, their racial identity, their religious identity, or their national identity, among others.  Working secretly to do so would presumably result in serious professional consequences.  Why then, one might ask, is it viewed as so compelling a matter, when a child expresses a desire to alter their sex (in this instance, often a physical and irreversible alteration), that parents should potentially be denied any role in their child's decision and, instead, that school officials should have the final and absolute say in what medical therapies a child is guided toward?  One simply need ask: How would most parents react if they learned, after the fact, that their boy had secretly become a "girl" through hormones or the mutilation of his genitals, all under the personal guidance of his school's personnel or, similarly, if their girl had been turned into a "boy?   Again, I believe many parents, presented with such a fait accompli, would view this as the worst imaginable violation of their rights and might well feel inclined to sue everyone involved for every penny they're worth.  Indeed, the most common perception is that those school officials who have supported the Northam policy on gender transitioning are misappropriating their "power" or "authority" over children and imposing upon them, almost as guinea pigs, their own ideological convictions regarding gender issues -- even when a huge majority of Virginians (and Americans as a whole) would reject the right of public schools to take upon themselves such a prerogative.  Whether now or ten years from now, the legal and financial consequences of this sort of usurping of parental rights could well cost recalcitrant school systems dearly.  Certain Virginia schools could potentially be hit with hundreds of millions of dollars in legal costs, all siphoned out of their educational budgets, as a tragic consequence of their diversion away from their mandated responsibilities and their violation of the public trust.  Accordingly, an important indirect benefit of the Youngkin policy is that it minimizes these dangers and protects precious educational funds across the commonwealth so that they might be used to best serve our children.


Research shows this policy will increase suicides among transgender youth

<!DOCTYPE html>

This policy is unfortunately sadly misguided.  Research shows the lack of support inherent in this policy will lead to an increase in suicides among transgender youth.  For one example, please see: Suicidality Among Transgender Youth: Elucidating the Role of Interpersonal Risk Factors - PubMed (nih.gov). Among the findings--excerpt from the abstract: "Data indicate that 82% of transgender individuals have considered killing themselves and 40% have attempted suicide, with suicidality highest among transgender youth. Using minority stress theory and the interpersonal theory of suicide, this study aims to better understand suicide risk among transgender youth. The present study examines the influence of intervenable risk factors: interpersonal and environmental microaggressions, internalized self-stigma, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), and protective factors: school belonging, family support, and peer support on both lifetime suicide attempts and past 6-month suicidality in a sample of transgender youth (n = 372)."

If removing the safety net of school support (as noted above, this can be a protective factor) means that **even one more child** will die by suicide, then this policy should not be implemented.

Please consider that a child-centered and parent-centered policy should never have the consequence--whether unintended or not--of increasing the number of children who die by suicide--let alone the other negative mental health consequences short of death by suicide.


Teacher for Trans Students Surviving and Thriving

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a teacher in training who is also transgender, it is essential that schools are a safe place for students to grow and be themselves. Students should be able to trust their teachers not to put them in danger, and sometimes the danger can come from home. Transgender people who are not accepted by their families and communities are at incredibly high risk of suicide and violence. One's personal belief on whether transgender kids are trans or not should not matter, because ultimately a teacher's main purpose is to protect their students, and this policy will endanger children.


Trans children deserve better

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This proposal is detrimental to the lives of our trans beloveds. Please leave them alone and them be themselves! Your policy will create more suicidal children. You obviously do not understand transgender children. Stop this heinous policy! </p>


Schools are for children to learn and grow.

<!DOCTYPE html>

What is the purpose of public school than to act as a place for students to safely grow and learn, both about themselves and the world around them? These proposed policies not only stifle that pure and simple goal, they actively attack it. School staff is trained and works tirelessly to gain the necessary experience and trust of their students. Parents have any number of organizations, religious or other, to participate with their children and instill their individual family values. Virginia already has a program for families who feel strongly about their children's education and being closely involved with it: They're home-schooled. Public school is for all. ALL means everyone.

Not every child is born into or able to live in a home environment where they are adequately supported. If you doubt that, have a conversation with a CPS worker. Commenters who express support for the policies by insisting "schools should educate only!" grossly fail to realize the breadth of education empowering students today. More than that, oversimplified declarations like that completely ignore the role public schools play as undeniable safety nets for communities. It's where we catch (recognize) and pull up(help) kids who need more to eat, kids who need appropriate clothing or school supplies, kids who need extra time to master an area of study -- all that IN ADDITION to learning numerous subjects and how to socialize with people who are alike AND different than them. Then consider the counselors and teachers and staff who act as the eyes and ears, alerting our communities when students are experiencing any number or concerning issues outside of school. Saving a child from an abusive or neglectful home environment probably isn't considered "educating only," but would you rather the school staff ignored a problem that won't appear on a standardized test? Empowering teachers does not mean parents are restricted in any way from participating in their children's lives.


Strongly Support

<!DOCTYPE html>

The risk of assault on our children is to great to allow these policies to remain. It has already happened several times. Do not let it happen again.


Trans Rights!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Transgender students deserve to be gendered correctly and not have their identity disrespected. If they don't get support, trans kids die by suicide. </p>


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

This document is poorly articulated, ambiguous, and unsupported by empirical research. Its careless guidance would subject students around the Commonwealth to indignities of pathologization, erasure, and outright violence. Trans and nonbinary kids deserve and need protection.


Waste of time

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>"About 5% of young adults identify as transgender or non-binary." (Pew Research Center).  95% of the population is sexually normal.  Why waste all this time on this.  Get back to educating and stop indoctrination our youth!  We have counseling departments in every school to support those tiny minority struggling.</p>


strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans rights are human rights!!!!


Strong Opposition to Governor Youngkin's Proposed Model Policy 2022

Tanya Karapurkar Bhasin, School Board Member

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am writing to you as a parent of three public school students, Virginia resident, and member of the Norfolk School Board.  My comments are mine alone and are not reflective of the views of the Norfolk School Board.

I am writing in opposition to the VDOE's plan, under the Youngkin administration, to reverse the 2021 model policy for the treatment of transgender students.  The Youngkin adminisration's actions to reverse the 2021 policy is unacceptable and reprehensible given the negative impacts it will continue to ensue on our transgender youth at a time when districts are making great strides to create more caring, supportive, and inclusive learning environments.

A recent report by the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), showed that nearly 82% of LGBTQ+ students felt unsafe while at school and that these feelings, in what is perceived as increasingly hostile learning environments, has impacted students' participation in extracurricular activities, school functions, and achieving positive academic outcomes.  These findings are in alignment with mounting research that has found a correlation between gender-supporting and gender-affirming policies and learning environments and improved mental health, stronger sense of belonging at school, decreased emotional stress, and improved student outcomes.

It is my hope you will consider the vast research on the importance of supporting LGBTQ+ students in an effort to ensure that each child is able to reach their full potential.


Strongly support

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>School is no place to promote gender issues. </p>


Don't Push Our Kids Away

<!DOCTYPE html>

It is unconscionable to see how the governor's proposal to reverse accommodations for trans & non-binary children is already impacting some young members in our community. Even before it is enacted. Kids are worried about their safety - theirs and their families - and their ability to attend school without being even more harrassed and bullied than they already are - for expression of their gender. Someone else may "choose" to donate blood, or dye their hair or even take up gymnastics. But following a trans identity is not a choice and we should give our kids the right to be who they are when they can..

Thank you for this consideration.


I OPPOSE the new guidance

<!DOCTYPE html>

Trans students need MORE support in school. These policies are dangerous to our children.


Parent rights do not mean refusing transgender rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

While parents do have a right to participate in their child’s life, it should not come at the cost of a child’s mental and sometimes physical well-being. Children have minds of their own, and it is vital to give them the ability to grow into their own person. While major subjects like medication and at-risk teens should definitely be discussed with parents, a student should not be forced to conform to the exact image a parent has for them. In addition, transgender kids are at particularly high risk of depression and suicide, and a contributing factor is abusive or unaccepting parents/family. Forcing this change in policy will have lasting negative effects on both students and families, straining relationships and hurting the parental rights that the document claims to protect.


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

<!DOCTYPE html>

Healthy parental involvement is not a threat to a child's upbringing. We should trust parents enough to raise their own kids in a loving way and we should not fear their involvement in this process.


Strongly Oppose hurting Trans Kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

My name is Cass, and I recently graduated from a Virginia school. While I have graduated, many of my younger friends have not. This policy would specifically hurt all non-binary students, like my close friend El, who are still in the Virginia public school system. The 2022 policies narrow all gender down to male and female, him and her, and leave no option for non-binary students. It is awful that teachers will be forced to misgender and dead name El and all other non-binary students, under risk of losing their jobs. Trans students are already at an incredibly increased risk for mental health issues, and this will only make things worse. I strongly oppose the 2022 model policies and ask that the 2021 policies be re-established immediately.


This fear-based proposal that will cause more problems than ever. Stop this hatefulness now

<!DOCTYPE html>

I’m a parent of two teenagers and I’m writing to oppose the recent “Model Policy” proposed by the VA DOE.  It is clearly not based on any data nor does it attempt to protect children who come from abusive homes.  It simply assumes that all transgender students come from caring and loving homes, which unfortunately isn’t always true.  We as human beings are better than this.  Let’s focus on helping all kids recover from the COVID learning gap rather than pick on a minority of students.  Let’s dig a bit deeper into understanding others and do better than implement this truly, unbelievably shameful policy.


Current Teacher Strongly Support

<!DOCTYPE html>

As a teacher, I shouldn't be put in a position to be hiding things about a student from their parents. In my experience, the parents who strongly oppose their children's choices are opposing them for very serious mental health concerns that I should not be forced to validate just because the kid says so.


when do kids experiencing abuse and discrimination at home get a voice?

<!DOCTYPE html>

this does not provide provision or guidance on what to do when the parent is the source of the distress and what child have a right to regarding mental health resources in disclosures of abuse

"3. Each school shall make reasonably available, with available resources, guidance and counseling services to all students as provided in Virginia Administrative Code 8 VAC § 20-620-10 and pursuant to parental notification requirements therein, including that, “[n]o student shall be required to participate in any counseling program to which the student’s parents object.” Parents must be informed and given an opportunity to object before counseling services pertaining to gender are given."


Strongly Oppose!

<!DOCTYPE html>

Strongly oppose! Of course parents have rights, but what about the student who does not have supportive parents? Or, the student whose parents won't accept them as transgender. Where do the rights of the student come into play. Being able to reach out to a trusted adult at school and knowing they will be supported can be crucial to a student's mental health and well being. Support our transgender students!


Love the new guidance, angry with the old guidance.

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am the parent of twins.  My wife and I are the ones responsible for raising our children and determining what values we want to instill among all other things.  The public school system should have a primary concern for education.  COVID revealed that is not the case.  It is abhorrent to me the extent that commonsense and actual data and knowledge did not direct the actions of the school systems.  It is clear that I cannot trust the Virginia school system or teachers to make good decisions.  And, they shouldn't have to worry about that when it comes to my child's name, what sex they are, what sex or gender they would like to be, or any number of non-academic things that the prior policy put on their plate.  That is my responsibility and I do not relinquish my parental rights when I send my child to school.  Public education is a public good and I think it is a good thing.  At least it served me well (although it was in another state).  Reading, writing, math, languages, science, drama, music, physical education, computers, and perhaps some other academic areas are things the teachers should be concerned with.  And those things should be transparent to me as a parent.  Chesapeake has made a system that is fragmented and at odds with itself and makes it difficult for me to monitor and assist my children.  I definitely do not want or need or authorize them to advocate for my child, without consulting me or informing me, over social or legal issues like gender and gender roles. They definitely should not be advocating social or political issues.  Discussions, debate, research, comparisons can all be worthwhile, but not advocacy. Leave parenting to parents and adopt the new policy.


Support Parental Rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>There should be no question as to if parents should have a right to be involved in their child’s education and decisions. Children are not (scientifically proven) capable of making well rounded decisions on their own, let alone a life changing decision. Parents should have every right to be involved and be heard in regards to their children and values. Children are children until adults at 18. Keep the parents involved and heard. Pushing parents away is not a good idea. It leads to out of control children, without structure or support. </p>


Agree with proposed change.

<!DOCTYPE html>

I 100% support the updated document that allows for the right and responsibility of parents in raising children.

Stewart Holmes


Trans rights are human rights. When we fail to support trans children, we fail all children.

<!DOCTYPE html>

The guidance document begins by making it clear that a goal of school leaders and educators is to “ensure that all students have an opportunity to receive a high-quality education” and to “meet the needs of all individual students”. Yet the changes proposed for the treatment of transgender children in the document do not meet these standards.

“The consequences of not affirming a child’s gender identity can be severe, and it can interfere with their ability to develop and maintain healthy interpersonal relationships. In the school context, that distress will also hinder a transgender student’s focus in class and ability to learn. The longer a transgender youth is not affirmed, the more significant and long-lasting the negative consequences can become, including loss of interest in school, heightened risk for alcohol and drug use, poor mental health and suicide.” Gender Spectrum et al., 2015, Schools in Transition—A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools 8 (2015)

This policy does not create an “environment free from discrimination, harassment, or bullying” but rather fosters all of these. It encourages teachers and students to disrespect and disregard the humanity of trans kids, and gives them cover and protection under the new policy to do so without consequence.

Empowering parents is certainly a worthy cause, and something to be lauded. Parents can be some of the most important influences in a child’s development. Unfortunately, as members of the Virginia Department of Education must certainly know, parents are not always right, and do not always support their children as they should. Parents can sometimes make choices that are actively harmful towards children, whether from ignorance or malice. Research suggests that affirming a trans child’s gender identity is critical to their well being. Some resources:

https://www.columbiapsychiatry.org/news/gender-affirming-care-saves-lives

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/137/3/e20153223/81409/Mental-Health-of-Transgender-Children-Who-Are?redirectedFrom=fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5061456/

There are many more resources that support the conclusion that affirming the gender identity of trans children is life saving. How can we deny these children life saving care simply because the parents of the child refuse to allow it? How can we eliminate what may be the one safe place for these children, to please parents who seem to be misinformed? In this case, it is clear that ignoring the needs of children in favor of affirming parents does not “improve outcomes for all children in Virginia.”

The existence of trans identities is not an “ideological belief” but a biological fact, something that has been proven repeatedly. To turn the existence of a child into an ideological conflict is to deny their humanity.

This is a plea to the Board of Education to think of these children and protect them. Think about who is being affected by these changes. Think of the children. Please protect them.

For all of these reasons and more, I STRONGLY OPPOSE.


Strongly oppose the proposal

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>The proposed policies are unnecessarily cruel and will result in harm to children who only want to be themselves. I strongly oppose the proposal. School should be a safe place for children, not a place to fear. </p>


<!DOCTYPE html>

EPPC Scholars Comment Supporting 2022 Model Policies (Part 2/3)

Guiding Principle B: Schools Shall Serve the Needs of All Students.

We fully support the emphasis on serving the needs of all students. This is a necessary corrective to past policies that privileged the desires of a small group of students over the legitimate needs and concerns of other members of the school community. We appreciate the teamwork approach that anticipates collaboration among “appropriate school staff and other caregivers … with the parents” as they work towards implementing “reasonable accommodations or modifications” which take into account both “the resources and staff available in the school and school divisions, as well as the rights and needs of other students and of school staff.” We applaud the policy’s specific recognition that accommodations and modifications for individual students also must respect the rights and needs of other students and staff. In particular, the guidance recognizes that schools “should” provide access to “single-user bathrooms and facilities” for the sake of all students who need additional privacy. This is not a “transgender” issue, but rather encourages schools to recognize and accommodate various individual needs of students. Moreover, allowing students of the opposite sex into intimate facilities risks creating a hostile environment and violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

Guiding Principle C: Schools Shall Partner with Parents.

Past policies have given lip service to this principle, while implementing practices that effectively locked parents out of decisions related to their child’s wellbeing once the school doors were shut behind the child. We support the policy’s clear statement—which aligns with the Virginia Code and U.S. Constitutional law—that “[p]arents are a child’s primary and most important educator,” and that while “public schools, teachers, counselors, and administrators” play an “essential” role in the child’s education, they do so only in partnership with parents.

Guiding Principle D: Schools Shall Respect All Students.

We support the model policy’s specific recognition that schools have a duty towards all students (rather than the loudest or most politically organized subset of students) to ensure an educational environment free from discrimination and harassment—on the basis of sex. Prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sex are long-standing protections in law and are grounded in the immutable nature of sexual difference between males and females. We are grateful for the 2022 Model Policies’ grounding in this scientific reality and oppose prior attempts to elevate the subjective sense of “gender identity” to the status of a civil right that supersedes sex-based protections. Respecting all students means respecting students as girls, students as boys, and students as people of faith, many of whom cannot in good conscience accept gender ideology.

Terminology

Parent or Parents

We appreciate and support the 2022 Model Policies’ inclusion of the statutory definition of “parent” or “parents.”[1]

“Sex” Means Biological Sex

The 2022 Model Policies are correct to define “sex” to mean “biological sex.”[2]

The basics of sex determination are relatively clear. Sex, in terms of male or female, is identified by the organization of the organism for sexually reproductive acts. Langman’s Medical Embryology concisely explains how the sex of a new organism is determined at fertilization: “An X-carrying sperm produces a female (XX) embryo, and a Y carrying sperm produces a male (XY) embryo. Hence, the chromosomal sex of the embryo is determined at fertilization.” A new human organism of a particular sex is created at that moment. Scientists now know that “the presence of a Y chromosome determines maleness and its absencedetermines femaleness.” This is because the Y chromosome ordinarily carries the SRY (“sex-determining region on Y”) gene. The SRY gene contains a transcription factor known as the testis-determining factor, which directs the formation of the male gonads.

Sex as a status—male or female—is a recognition of the organization of a body designed for dimorphic sexual reproduction. More than simply being identified on the basis of such organization, sex is a coherent concept only on the basis of that organization. The fundamental conceptual distinction between a male and a female is the organism’s organization for sexual reproduction. The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes.

Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh highlighted the same truth in a recent review of the scientific literature on sexuality and gender identity:

The underlying basis of maleness and femaleness is the distinction between the reproductive roles of the sexes; in mammals such as humans, the female gestates offspring and the male impregnates the female.... This conceptual basis for sex roles is binary and stable, and allows us to distinguish males from females on the grounds of their reproductive systems, even when these individuals exhibit behaviors that are not typical of males or females.

Mayer is a past scholar-in-residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a retired professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University. McHugh is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, and for twenty-five years was the psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. The editor of the New Atlantis, in the introductory note to their report, called McHugh “arguably the most important American psychiatrist of the last half-century.”

After explaining the “binary and stable” conceptual basis for maleness and femaleness, Mayer and McHugh note that a structural difference for the purposes of reproduction is the only “widely accepted” way of classifying the two sexes:

In biology, an organism is male or female if it is structured to perform one of the respective roles in reproduction. This definition does not require any arbitrary measurable or quantifiable physical characteristics or behaviors; it requires understanding the reproductive system and the reproduction process. Different animals have different reproductive systems, but sexual reproduction occurs when the sex cells from the male and female of the species come together to form newly fertilized embryos. It is these reproductive roles that provide the conceptual basis for the differentiation of animals into the biological categories of male and female. There is no other widely accepted biological classification for the sexes.

This fundamental difference in organization is what allows scientists to distinguish male from female. When Dr. Deanna Adkins called this “an extremely outdated view of biological sex” in her declaration to a federal court in North Carolina, Dr. Mayer responded in his rebuttal declaration: “This statement is stunning. I have searched dozens of references in biology, medicine and genetics—even Wiki!—and can find no alternative scientific definition. In fact, the only references to a more fluid definition of biological sex are in the social policy literature.” Just so, yet the 2021 Model Policies adopted a wholly subjective and amorphous understanding of the person, based on gender identity, divorced from scientific realities.

Here is how one scholar put it in Best Practice and Research: Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism:

Females enter puberty earlier and undergo a more rapid pubertal transition, whereas boys have a substantially longer growth period. After adjusting for dimorphism in size (height), adult males have greater total lean mass and mineral mass, and a lower fat mass than females. These whole-body differences are complemented by major differences in tissue distribution. Adult males have greater arm muscle mass, larger and stronger bones, and reduced limb fat, but a similar degree of central abdominal fat. Females have a more peripheral distribution of fat in early adulthood; however, greater parity and the menopause both induce a more android fat distribution with increasing age. Sex differences in body composition are primarily attributable to the action of sex steroid hormones, which drive the dimorphisms during pubertal development. Oestrogen is important not only in body fat distribution but also in the female pattern of bone development that predisposes to a greater female risk of osteoporosis in old age.

The result is that male and female bodies differ not only in their sex chromosomes (XX and XY) and in their organization for reproduction, but also, on average, in size, shape, bone length and density, fat distribution, musculature, and various organs including the brain. These secondary sex differences are not what define us as male or female; organization for reproduction does that. But this organization leads to other bodily differences. There are organizational differences and organism-wide differences in organs and tissues, as well as differences at the cellular and molecular levels.

The 2022 Model Policies should clarify that biological sex is based ultimately on genetics.

Transgender Student

The 2022 Model Policies state “[t]he phrase ‘transgender student’ shall mean a public school student whose parent has requested in writing, due to their child’s persistent and sincere belief that his or her gender differs with his or her sex, that their child be so identified while at school.”[3] Given the mandate from the Virginia legislature to create policies regarding the treatment of “transgender” students, it is essential for the 2022 Model Policies to incorporate and define the term “transgender.”

However, we note that the Virginia Code section’s use of the term “transgender student” is itself problematic, as there is no medical or mental health diagnosis of “transgender,” only a diagnosis of “gender dysphoria” under the DSM-5-TR. Revised terminology in the DSM-5-TR relevant to the diagnosis of gender dysphoria include the following: “‘desired gender’ is replaced with ‘experienced gender’; ‘natal male/natal female’ with ‘individual assigned male at birth’ or ‘individual assigned female at birth’; and ‘cross?sex treatment regimen’ with ‘gender?affirming treatment regimen.’”[4] The 2022 Model Policies’ definition of “transgender student” provides clear notice to school districts, parents, and students as to who is covered by aspects of the policy that pertain specifically to “transgender students.” By its terms, this definition reinforces the importance of parental involvement in a matter as significant as the child’s public expression of an identity that differs from his or her sex and respects parental judgment on the timing and manner of such a disclosure.

The 2021 Model Policies, in contrast, define transgender as “[a] self-identifying term that describes a person whose gender identity is different from their sex assigned at birth. A transgender girl is a girl who was presumed to be male when she was born, and a transgender boy is a boy who was presumed to be female when he was born. Note that there is a wide range of gender identities in addition to transgender male and transgender female, such as nonbinary.”[5] The 2021 Model Policies exceeded the statutory mandate by crafting policies that addressed a wide variety of self-defined “gender identities,” including those that were expressly defined as falling outside the definition of “transgender.” For example, they note that “Nonbinary may be considered a subset of transgender or a distinct identity. Other similar terms may include genderqueer, gender fluid, agender, or Two-Spirit.” These policies were stretched to apply to these identities, even though they were expressly acknowledged to be “distinct” from a “transgender” identity.

In addition, the cultural definitions of “transgender” vary widely and could lead to significant inconsistencies across school districts, absent the 2022 Model Policies’ definition.

For example:

The Human Rights Campaign defines “transgender” as “people whose gender identity is different from the sex assigned to us at birth.”[6]

GLSEN, an LGBTQ advocacy group which creates model policies for schools, defines “transgender” as “people whose gender identity does not match their sex assigned at birth.”[7]

WPATH, a transgender health advocacy group, links the term “transgender” with “gender diverse,” resulting in broad recommendations for psycho-social, medical, and surgical interventions for school-age children who are simply “gender non-conforming,” meaning they feel like they don’t fit in with stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.

Recent proposed regulations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the term “‘transgender’ is being used as an umbrella term to encompass individuals with transgender, nonbinary, gender diverse identities.”[8]

The 2022 Model Policies’ definition of “transgender student” clearly indicates that no student can self-define as “transgender” nor can a student insist on being identified as transgender at school without parental permission. These are important changes that for the benefit of students and parents alike.

Nevertheless, the 2022 Model Policies’ definition of “transgender student” should be modified to read as follows: a public school student whose parent has requested in writing that their child has a persistent desire to identify as a person of the other sex without improper motive, and that it is the parent’s wishes that their child be so identified while at school.” This is consistent with Va. Code § 22.1-23.3 and the Supreme Court’s Bostock decision which presume a binary and biological understanding of sex and transgender.

Development

We support the immediate withdrawal of the 2021 Model Policies. As explained above, these policies are harmful and unlawful.

We also support the 2022 Model Policies’ “confidence in parents to prudently exercise their fundamental right under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Virginia Constitution to direct the upbringing, education, and control of their children.” [9] As well as its recognition that the “primary role of parents is well established and beyond debate. Empowering parents is essential to improving outcomes for children.”[10]

We support the statement in Section V.C. about compliance with the First Amendment, which “forbids government actors to require individuals to adhere to or adopt any particular ideological beliefs” and “guarantees religious freedom and prohibits compelling others to affirm ideas that may be contrary to their personal religious beliefs.”[11]

We applaud the specific reference resisting the compelled use of preferred pronouns. With increasing numbers of children identifying as transgender, this issue is becoming prevalent in the school context across the country. Multiple teachers have been fired over their refusal, based on their religious beliefs, to use preferred names or pronouns in violation of school policy (even in cases where they opt to not use pronouns altogether to avoid unintentionally giving offense).[12] Such adverse employment actions have been found to be unlawful. For example, the Sixth Circuit in Meriwether v. Hartop (discussed more below) recently held that a state university policy requiring a teacher to use a student’s preferred pronouns in opposition to the teacher’s sincerely held religious beliefs violated the First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.[13]

We ask that the 2022 Model Policies clearly recognize the First Amendment free speech and free exercise rights of teachers and other school employees to not be compelled to use preferred pronouns contrary to biology or religious belief. Specifically, we ask that the 2022 Model Policies clarify that “individuals” refer to teachers, school staff, volunteers, students, and parents, among others. This clarification is necessary in light of the 2021 Model Policies, which unconstitutionally required school staff to “abide by the student’s wishes as to how to address the student” and warned that a “school employee’s intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s name and pronoun is considered discriminatory.”[14]

[1] 2022 Model Policies at 4.

[2] 2022 Model Policies at 4.

[3] 2022 Model Policies at 4.

[4] First MB, Yousif LH, Clarke DE, Wang PS, Gogtay N, Appelbaum PS. DSM-5-TR: Overview of What’s New and What’s Changed. World Psychiatry. 2022 June 21(2):218-219. doi: 10.1002/wps.20989. PMID: 35524596; PMCID: PMC9077590. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9077590/.

[5] 2021 Model Policies at 7.

[6] Understanding the Transgender Community, Human Rights Foundation, https://www.hrc.org/resources/understanding-the-transgender-community.

[7] Gender Terminology: Discussion Guide, GLSEN, https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/Gender%20Terminology%20Guide.pdf.

[8] 87 Fed. Reg. 47870.

[9] 2022 Model Policies at 5.

[10] 2022 Model Policies at 5.

[11] 2022 Model Policies at 5.

[12] See, e.g., Vlaming v. W. Point Sch. Bd., 10 F.4th 300 (4th Cir. 2021) (affirming rejection of federal court removal of claims under the Virginia constitution and state statutes by high school French teacher who was fired for not abiding by school nondiscrimination policy that required him to use student’s preferred pronouns in violation of his religious beliefs); Ricard v. USD 475 Geary Cnty., 5:22-cv-04015-HLT-GEB (D. Kan. May. 9, 2022) (preliminarily enjoining school from disciplining teacher for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in her communications with the student’s parents within the regular course of her duties); see also Cross v. Loudoun Cnty. Sch. Bd., No. CL21-3254 (Va. Dec. 1, 2021) (affirming parties’ agreement to permanently enjoin school in case raising free speech and free exercise claims by elementary school teacher who was placed on administrative leave after speaking out against proposed preferred pronoun policy at public school board meeting).

[13] Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021) (reversing dismissal of First Amendment free speech and free exercise claims by professor disciplined by university for not following university’s gender identity nondiscrimination policy when he refused to address transgender identifying student by student’s preferred title and pronouns and instead used only student’s last name), settled & voluntarily dismissed sub nom. Meriwether v. Trustees of Shawnee State Univ., No. 1:18-cv-00753 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 14, 2022), press release available at https://adfmedia.org/case/meriwether-v-trustees-shawnee-state-university (university agreed to pay teacher $400,000 plus attorneys’ fees, and agreed teacher has a right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students, including when student requests preferred pronouns).

[14] 2021 Model Policies at 13.


Student services

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly disagree with governor Youngkin’ policy regarding transgender youth!


Strongly opposed this action

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>If you implement this policy there will be children in Virginia who commit suicide because of depression for not receiving the acceptance and support for who they are. </p>


Disgusting policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Trans kids are people and should be treated with the same respect. Parents should not come before them and the parents who support this should take a step back and ask themselves why they think they know better about their kid than that kid. Your kid isn’t your property. You are disgusting if you think that. </p>


<!DOCTYPE html>

EPPC Scholars Comment Supporting 2022 Model Policies (Part 1/3)

Dear Superintendent Balow:

We are scholars at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), and we write in strong support of the Virginia Department of Education’s recent publication of the document titled “2022 Model Policies On The Privacy, Dignity, And Respect For All Students And Parents In Virginia’s Public Schools” (“2022 Model Policies”), and the Virginia Department of Education’s withdrawal of the current policy document titled “Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools” (“2021 Model Policies”). Ryan T. Anderson is the President of EPPC and the author of When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment. Mary Hasson is the Kate O’Beirne Senior Fellow at EPPC, an attorney, and co-founder of EPPC’s Person and Identity Project, an initiative that equips parents and faith-based institutions to counter gender ideology and promote the truth of the human person. Rachel N. Morrison is an EPPC Fellow, member of EPPC’s HHS Accountability Project, and former attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Roger Severino is Senior Fellow at EPPC, former Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and former trial attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, and is a member of the Virginia Bar.

We offer the following comments in support of the 2022 Model Policies, along with some suggestions for improvements and sources for evidence-based best practices. Our comment headers correspond to the headers in the 2022 Model Policies.

Statutory Authority and Requirements

The 2022 Model Policies have been developed per § 22.1-23.3 of the Code of Virginia, which provides that local school boards shall adopt policies consistent with Virginia Department of Education’s model policies “concerning the treatment of transgender students in public elementary and secondary schools that address common issues regarding transgender students in accordance with evidence-based best practices” including “information, guidance, procedures, and standards relating to:

Compliance with applicable nondiscrimination laws;

Maintenance of a safe and supportive learning environment free from discrimination and harassment for all students;

Prevention of and response to bullying and harassment;

Maintenance of student records;

Identification of students;

Protection of student privacy and the confidentiality of sensitive information;

Enforcement of sex-based dress codes; and

Student participation in sex-specific school activities, events, and use of school facilities.”

Athletics is explicitly excluded from the definition of “activities and events.” Even so, the 2022 Model Policies rightly acknowledge that “schools may separate their sports teams on the basis of sex. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Title IX, nor the Virginia Human Rights Act require school divisions to allow students of one biological sex to participate on sports teams reserved for members of the other biological sex.”[1] This clarification must be retained, as discussed in more detail later in this comment.

Purpose

The title and purpose of the Model Policies demonstrate a welcome respect for the rights of all and provide a framing for the specific policies that follow by acknowledging the government’s obligation to respect rights, particularly First Amendment rights of all and the fundamental rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

The purpose statement of the 2022 Model Policies offers a needed corrective to the 2021 Model Policies by recognizing the rights of “all students … to attend school in an environment free from discrimination, harassment, or bullying,” and then addressing particular concerns related to transgender-identified students within the larger context that recognizes the need for “compassion and respect for all students.”[2] See Virginia Code § 22.1-23.3, which emphasizes the need for a “safe and supportive learning environment… for all students” (emphasis added).

Importantly, the policy’s “Purpose” also expressly acknowledges the fundamental rights of parents, recognized by the U.S. Constitution and Virginia law, to direct the “care, upbringing, and education” of their children. This too is a needed corrective to the 2021 Model Policies which evinced a thoroughgoing disregard for parental rights (discussed below), undermining parental involvement in a student’s education and violating the U.S. Constitution and Virginia law (Va. Code § 1-240.1).

We applaud the Department’s proper recognition of the limits of government power, stating that the Constitution “prohibit[s] governmental entities from requiring individuals to adhere to or adopt a particular ideological belief” or “compelling speech that is contrary to an individual’s personal or religious beliefs.”[3]

 The Department is right to withdraw the 2021 Model Policies, given the ideological bias that tainted the formulation and substance of those policies. Further, the 2021 Policies exceeded the statutory mandate by using the model policies as a vehicle to force ideologically driven social change on students, faculty, and other school community members, not only in the absence of evidence, but contrary to it. For example, the “Terminology” section of the 2021 Model Policies includes controversial terms premised not on science but on ideological beliefs about the human person, identity, and sexual difference.[4] The term “gender identity” is represented as “an innate part of a person’s identity,” but also defined as an “internal sense” of the person’s identity, variously described as “a boy/man, girl/woman, another gender, no gender,” or framed as an indescribable identity existing “outside the male/female binary.” The Terminology section inappropriately labels all persons who do not self-describe as “transgender” as “cisgender,” an ideological term with no basis in science and hostile to various familial and religious beliefs, including Catholicism.

The 2022 Model Policies rightly acknowledge that the “2021 Model Policies promoted a specific viewpoint aimed at achieving cultural and social transformation in schools” and which “disregarded the rights of parents and ignored other legal and constitutional principles.”[5] Moreover, nowhere does the legislative mandate governing the 2022 Model Policies mention gender identity or the plethora of unscientific, ever-expanding, and ideologically loaded terms in the 2021 Model Policies such as “cisgender,” “gender-expansive/gender-diverse/gender-fluid/gender-nonbinary/agender/gender queer,” “gender nonconforming,” “LGBTQ+,” “nonbinary,” “genderqueer,” “agender,” “two-spirit,” or “sex assignment.” In fact, Virginia law requires model policies only with respect to “transgender students” and does not support any of the tendentious laundry list of categories in the 2021 Model Policies (Va. Code § 22.1-23.3). Further, the same law requires policies on “sex-based” dress codes and “sex-specific” school activities based on biological binary understanding of sex ubiquitous in Virginia law and consistent with the most elementary of biological principles taught in Virginia schools as well as basic commonsense.

Guiding Principles

The Guiding Principles of the 2022 Model Policies are sound, proportionate, and respectful of the rights of all.

Guiding Principle A

Section II.A appropriately recognizes the “rights of parents to make decisions with respect to their children” as the first among several key “guiding principles.”[6] By grounding the Model Policies in a clear and explicit recognition of parents’ rights, the Department takes an important step towards building trust with parents and repairing the badly damaged relationship between schools and parents due to the previous administration’s unprecedented politicization of the education bureaucracy across the state.

Parents are the first and primary educators of their children—a principle recognized by diverse faith traditions, natural law, and civil law, including the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia law (Va. Code § 1-240.1). Schools and school officials exercise a limited, delegated, or derivative authority over students, with the permission of parents. This section of the 2022 Model policies is critically important because it mandates that schools adopt policies to “safeguard” parents’ rights and “facilitate the exercise of those rights.” This is a welcome reversal of the 2021 Model policies, which not only failed to respect parents’ rights but betrayed an intention to thwart the exercise of those rights if parents would not go along with the ideological prescriptions of the 2021 Model Policies.

For instance, the 2021 Section on “Student Privacy/Confidentiality” stated that “if a student is not ready or able to safely share with their family about their gender identity, this should be respected. There are no regulations requiring school staff to notify a parent or guardian of a student’s request to affirm their gender identity.”[7] Further, the 2021 Model Policies expressly condoned the duplicitous practice of “addressing the student at school with their name and pronoun consistent with their gender identity while using the legal name and pronoun associated with the sex assigned at birth when communicating with parents or guardians.”[8] Nowhere is this exclusion of parents from the moral, emotional, spiritual, and psychological upbringing of their children authorized by § 22.1-23.3 or any other Virginia law. Outside of the most extreme exceptions, such as when parents have lost legal custody of their children, excluding parents from discussions concerning their children’s well-being in school is always contrary to evidence-based best practices. On the question of student transgender ideation or self-identification in particular, excluding parents from such discussions increases the risk of suicide among children. Not eliminating the 2021 Model Policies on this question will endanger children’s lives.[9]

In addition, we applaud the Department for spelling out in Section II.A.1-3 a series of “commitments” that school policies are expected to make in order to “safeguard” parental rights and “facilitate” parents’ exercise of those rights. These commitments are important to rebuilding trust with parents as well as for modeling a positive tone towards parents’ diverse beliefs and welcoming their involvement as partners in the education of their children, which research conclusively demonstrates is essential to student educational success.

Guiding Principle A.1: Schools Shall Respect Parents’ Values and Beliefs.

This is an essential commitment, and we welcome the Department’s brief, but compelling, acknowledgement that parental values and family beliefs must be respected, not undermined or replaced, by school personnel. Further, the Department rightly notes that respecting parents’ values and beliefs requires more than lip service—it requires an appropriate deference to parental decision-making. Schools must not thwart parental efforts to raise their children in accord with their own “customs, faith, and family culture.”[10] This commitment corrects the antagonistic stance of the 2021 Model Policies towards parental beliefs that did not align with the ideological bias of the 2021 guidance. According to the 2021 Model Policies, school staff were encouraged to pit students against parents that do not fully subscribe to the 2021 Policies mandate of “gender affirmation.” See 2021 Model Policies at 14 (“[S]chool staff should be prepared to support the safety and welfare of transgender students when their families are not affirming. School staff should provide information and referral to resources to support the student in coping with the lack of support at home.”).

Section II.A.1’s succinct summary of the relevant law is accurate, helpful, and essential to ensure that local counsel for Virginia’s school districts are confident in the Constitution’s and the Code of Virginia’s clear recognition of and deference towards parental rights in education.

Guiding Principle A.2: Schools Shall Defer to Parents to Make the Best Decisions with Respect to their Children.

This is a significant change from the 2021 Model Policies, and we are grateful to the Youngkin administration for rectifying a serious wrong in the prior policies.

The 2022 Model Policies state that “Parents are in the best position to work with their children” and to “determine” how best to respect and guide their child’s personal identity development, including the use of names and pronouns, and whether or not to consult their own health care provider regarding identity questions and related courses of action. This statement aligns with the truth—long acknowledged by Supreme Court jurisprudence, common sense, and the faith traditions of America’s major religions—that parents are best positioned to make decisions for the good of their minor children. As philosopher Melissa Moschella writes, “children belong primarily to their parents, not to the larger political community.… [P]arents are the ones with the primary responsibility to care for children and with the corresponding rights and authority to make child-rearing decisions in line with the dictates of their consciences.”[11]

Further, government may not usurp parental authority in these critical areas, nor deprive them of the exercise of their fundamental rights regarding their children, absent an evidentiary finding of abuse, neglect, or abandonment. The 2021 Model Policies endorsed shocking efforts to cut parents out of some of the most significant aspects of a child’s life—the child’s mental health, social engagement, and emerging sense of identity. See 2021 Model Policies “Student Privacy/Confidentiality.”

Guiding Principle A.3: Schools Shall Keep Parents Informed About their Children’s Well-Being.

Building on the previous provisions of this foundational guiding principle—the recognition that parents have the fundamental right to direct their child’s upbringing and education—this section reflects another significant change. It reinforces the obligation of the schools to “keep parents fully informed about all matters that may be reasonably expected to be important to a parent, including, and without limitation, matters related to their child’s health, and social and psychological development.”

Under the prior administration, Virginia’s public schools too often took the position that when it comes to “sensitive issues,” children have the power to make their own decisions, or at least have gatekeeping power, e.g., the right to decide whether to include parents in their deliberations and decision-making about significant issues related to identity and mental health. The 2021 Model Policies, for example, permitted a student to assert a “transgender” identity at school “without requiring any particular substantiating evidence, including diagnosis, treatment, or legal documents,” and without requiring (and even contrary to) parental permission.[12] In fact, those prior policies did not empower children, but rather left them bereft of the much-needed support and guidance of their parents, who love and know them best. Policies which claimed to respect minor children in the exercise of their supposed “autonomy” over life-changing decision instead left children vulnerable to the influence of peers or other adults who—even if well-meaning—bore no long-term responsibility for the children and lacked long-standing knowledge of the child’s past experiences, present needs, and mental health vulnerabilities—knowledge that parents possess. School administrators that encourage young teenage girls to pursue permanently sterilizing interventions without parental involvement will not be there to pick up the pieces when many come to regret it years hence.[13]

Past policies that did not respect parents’ rights to be fully informed about matters related to their child’s well-being were not mere omissions of little consequence—they caused significant harm. Policies which instructed or permitted schools to hide information from parents—based on the supposed consent of the child—sowed distrust between parents and schools, and between the parent and child. By keeping parents in the dark, schools disrupted the parent-child relationship and deprived parents of crucial information necessary to guide and protect their children. As parents have testified, too often they were the last to know when a child had started down the harmful path of psycho-social transition or body-modifying medical interventions.[14] No parent should ever have to learn—after the fact—that some other adult has guided their child down a path contrary to the family’s beliefs and values or has facilitated their child’s entry into the world of “gender-affirming” medical interventions. And it is even more troubling when those other adults are public employees entrusted with the education of other people’s children.

[1] 2022 Model Policies at 10.

[2] 2022 Model Policies at 1.

[3] 2022 Model Policies at 1.

[4] 2021 Model Policies at 6-7.

[5] 2022 Model Policies at 1.

[6] 2022 Model Policies at 2.

[7] 2021 Model Policies at 12.

[8] 2021 Model Policies at 14.

[9] Jay Greene, Ph.D., “Puberty Blockers, Cross-Sex Hormones, and Youth Suicide,” The Heritage Foundation, June 13, 2022. https://www.heritage.org/gender/report/puberty-blockers-cross-sex-hormones-and-youth-suicide. See also the tragic story of Yaeli Martinez cataloged by Josh Boswell in The Daily Mail, March 18, 2022 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10612285/California-mom-claims-LA-school-encouraged-daughter-transition-blame-suicide.html.

[10] 2022 Model Policies at 2.

[11] Moschella, M., Parental Rights: A Foundational Account, Backgrounder, B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies, The Heritage Foundation, No. 3568, December 9, 2020.

[12] 2021 Model Policies at 13.

[13] See Alicia Ault, “Doctors Have Failed Them, Say Those Who Regret Transitioning,” WebMD March 22, 2022. https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/news/20220322/doctors-have-failed-them-say-those-who-regret-transitioning.

[14] See generally Donna St. George, Gender Transitions at School Spur Debate Over When, or if, Parents Are Told, Wash. Post (July 18, 2022, 6:00 a.m.), https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/07/18/gender-transition-school-parent-notification/; Josh Christenson, Some Schools Won’t Tell Parents When Their Kids Express Gender Confusion. Experts Say That’s Illegal, Wash. Free Beacon (Aug. 11, 2022, 5:25 p.m.), https://freebeacon.com/campus/some-schools-wont-tell-parents-when-their-kids-express-gender-confusion-experts-say-thats-illegal/ (discussing school policies that prohibit teachers from informing parents of a student’s gender identity without student permission).


Strongly Oppose - Protect Trans Kids

<!DOCTYPE html>

Defending "parents rights" is a thinly veiled excuse for continued violence against an already vulnerable population: trans kids. Forcibly outing students to their parents puts them at risk for domestic abuse. For trans kids, sometimes the only adults who show them respect and decency are adults they see at school. All youth deserve to feel safe and supported. If it is already unsafe for them to be their true honest selves at home, don't remove what might be their only life line: a supportive community of peers and adults in their school.

Trans kids are kids and deserve to be protected and defended. They are entitled to the same legal protections against violence, abuse and mistreatment. This proposal does the exact opposite and I strongly oppose it.


Equal

<!DOCTYPE html>

The LGBTQ+ do deserve to be treated equally as straight people however we must acknowledge the differences between the two. One solution to this is having transgender sports and restrooms so everyone can be treated the same. I have heard the argument that it would be like going back to segregation but that is not the case. During segregation they claimed that they were going to be equal but that was obviously not that case. In this scenario there will be equality meaning it would be the exact same for everyone.


Strongly oppose this policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

There is nothing respectful about this policy. Please stop pandering to conservative Christians and let trans kids be who they are.


Supportive

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents have the natural duty and right to help their children navigate the vicissitudes, insecurities, and doubts of their childhood. Even though there are pediatricians and mental health professionals who are informed by their ideology instead of science to encourage gender dysphoria, the fact is pediatric professionals have always held that if a child doesn’t know her/his gender, it is a sign of serious mental breakdown or sickness, and/or abuse of that child. What 6th grader has ever been perfectly comfortable with her/his looks and body?! Pre-pubescent and teen years need the steady, loving, calming and affirming guidance of the parents. The gender of a person is the most basic biological fact. Parents need to be informed and involved in helping their confused and / or abused children when it comes to them questioning their biology, just as parents need to give their permission for their child to go on a field trip, take an aspirin at school, and get help for anorexia. A parent shouldn’t be forced to accept the condition of gender dysphoria any more than they should have to accept the new “identity” of their girl as anorexic. A person should never be encouraged to identify themselves with their abuse - it is the epitome of injustice.


Values some students but not all

<!DOCTYPE html>

How does the legislation provide the following for trans students?

-ensure that all students have an opportunity to receive a high-quality education.

-strive to meet the individual needs of all students entrusted to their care.

-create educational environments where all students thrive.

-recognize that each child is a unique individual with distinctive abilities and characteristics that should be valued and respected.

-[protect] the right to attend school in an environment free from discrimination, harassment, or bullying.

-support efforts to protect and encourage respect for all students.

-have a collective responsibility to address topics such as the treatment of transgender students with necessary compassion and respect for all students.

Obviously Youngkin’s law doesn’t. Therefore and especially since it masquerades as such, it is extremely dangerous and harmful to any student who doesn’t fit the narrow definition of traditionally acceptable and teaches some that they are not worthy of being accepted for who they are.


Sports and bathrooms

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>As a biological female I do not feel comfortable with a biological male being in the same bathroom as me. Also as a former athlete it is not fair for a trans woman to go against a biological woman. Even though they may have the same genitalia and have gone through hormonal therapy they still have characteristics of a biological man such as more upper body strength and larger lungs giving them a higher advantage at winning. </p>


Opposed

<!DOCTYPE html>

I oppose the proposed guidance. After observing the experience of transgender individuals in my family and in my community, I think it’s important to support the development and identities of our kids, even when they’re not what we expect.  Putting teachers and school officials in the middle seems impractical and counterproductive. The governor’s proposal is not the right way forward.


Making significant strides

<!DOCTYPE html>

The Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), through its review and replacement of the 2021 Model Policies, has made significant strides in standing up for parental authority in the raising of children and in respecting all students. The 2022 Model Policies make certain that parents are informed of and should be involved in their children's education and major life choices.

I applaud the VDOE for encouraging a partnership relationship between schools and parents, while affirming that "parents are a child's primary and most important educator."

I also applaud the VDOE for its courage in departing from the 2021 Model Policies' promotion of "a specific viewpoint aimed at achieving cultural and social transformation in schools." Our schools should be centers of education, not indoctrination.


Oppose - protect LGBTQ kids & teens

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Recognizing the names and pronouns of transgender and nonbinary youth improves their mental health and demonstrates their acceptance in the school community. As these youth navigate their journey, I would hope that the school system can provide them with a safe place to be themselves and in doing so show all students that their rights and autonomy have value. </p>


Support trans youth


Supporting Parental Rights and the Well Being of EVERY Child

<!DOCTYPE html>

           I am a parent living in NoVa with five children between the ages of 8 and 20 years. As such, I have vested interest in the guidelines adopted by school systems, administrators and teachers. Four of my children are young women, whose safety and security were severely placed in jeopardy during the Northam administration. These guidelines strip away the very rights parents have been given as a means to both protect our children and to guide them well along the path to adulthood. As a parent who holds to Biblical truth that God gifted to each person biological sex at birth that is immutable and uniquely expressed both biologically and relationally, I find that the current guidelines grossly discriminate and even reject these core beliefs. Furthermore, the current guidelines are tantamount to child abuse, as they place the most vulnerable in our society in positions of potential harm in the opening up of locker rooms and other intimate spaces. They also open up children who need the loving guidance and connection of a parent to counsel that includes options that might be irreversible and damaging for their whole lives. As such, I am in support of Governor Youngkins’ new model policy.

The universal and God-given rights of parents ensure that they are the first line and primary influencers in the realm of their children’s sex and gender. No time in history has the shaping of this core identity been delegated to anyone outside of the family, much less a school administrator or teacher.  I fully support the inclusion of a parent’s consent in the changing of names and pronouns. I also agree that it should only be within the parent’s consent that a child be given counseling regarding gender issues. If a student must obtain a parent’s consent to be given Tylenol or Ibuprofen, how is it that we have been allowing gender counseling to be given without obtaining parental consent? This is a malicious intrusion into the parent-child relationship.

I also support guidelines that a student uses the bathroom which corresponds with their biological sex. We have all heard the stories of boys claiming to be transgender using girls’ bathrooms or locker rooms and the tragic consequences of molestation or rape that ensued. Should we post security guards INSIDE bathrooms now, to patrol these intimate spaces? Or should we leave things as they have been for the duration and time-tested span of history, where biological women use women’s bathrooms and biological men use men’s bathrooms? Who is truly being mistreated here when the opposite is allowed? Who should we be protecting? ALL students.

The same holds true in situations involving overnight travel accommodations and other intimate situations. I support Governor Youngkin’s guidelines that these accommodations be based on biological sex. This is both common sense, logical, and again, protects not just the dignity and security of a very small group but the whole group of students.

Governor Youngkin’s new model policy will ensure that all students are respected and protected, while securing the God-given rights of parents to help their children make right decisions regarding their sex and gender.


LGBTQ Community

<!DOCTYPE html>

I am a supporter of the LGBT+ community however I am not in support of combining spaces such as sports and bathrooms. The main issue we have when talking about subjects such as this is we lose understanding between sex and gender. Gender is a social contract meaning you can be man, woman, trans woman etc. Sex is only female and male which is why on our birth certificate it says sex and not gender. Another issue we have when talking about having trans individuals using a bathroom different from their sex is that we do not take into consideration how biological women and biological men may feel. We have been so concerned with making the LGBTQ Community comfortable that we haven’t considered the straight community


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly oppose guidelines that are humiliating to transgender kids.  The kids can handle themselves without micromanaging parents who have more prejudices than their kids.  Promote diversity and human rights.


The summaries of law provided in this section do not constitute legal interpretation or advice.

<!DOCTYPE html>

why is it in this model policy if it IS NOT CONSTITUTED AS ADVICE?!?!?

this is ridiculous, the entire purpose of modeling is to advise on the MODEL way to do something


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Protect trans and non-binary kids. </p>


Father of Four

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly support and thank Governor Youngkin for this measure to restore parental rights. It is absolutely imperative that children not lose their right to be protected by their guardians and advocates.


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>This policy is pure political theater. When "parental control" is thrown around as justification for policies and practices that are discriminatory and hurtful to youths and their families, I question the intent. Which parents and voices are you listening to? The governor's legacy will be forever stained by this guidance document. What a shame for Virginia to join those states willing to shame, exclude and hurt transgender youths... and for what end? Disgraceful. </p>


Protect & Respect  Students and Teachers

<!DOCTYPE html>

To revoke the 2021 policy which was designed according to best practices and based upon extensive research in the name of parental rights is disingenuous at best and hurtful and dangerous at worst.  Parents in Virginia schools have always had a say in their children's education - the twisting of this fact for political expediency is wrong and harmful.  Educational policies concerning our children must follow the science and research of experts, not political interests.

It is important to recognize that all students have a right to attend school safely and respectfully, including LGBTQ+ students.  Studies consistently show that transgender children have higher rates of suicide, depression and anxiety; this proposed policy will  foster division, bullying and shaming of students who are already vulnerable.

Children and the trust they may have in administrators and teachers should not be exploited for political gain.  I sincerely and strongly oppose the change of direction set forth by the proposed policy and recommend the state show their support for the rights and wellbeing of all students.


Protect transgender students!

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>When transgender children don't feel supported from the places and people that are there for the purpose of supporting them; school, parents, they hurt themselves. They commit suicide when no one is on their side. DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN. Trans rights are human rights, trans boys are boys, trans girls are girls, every student deserves respect and support from their parents and schools. </p>


Protect the rights of gender nonconforming student

<!DOCTYPE html>

My name is Andrew Allard. I have been a resident of Virginia for more than three years and am currently a student at UVA. As an LGBT citizen of the Commonwealth, I write to express my opposition to the 2022 Model Policies.

Firstly, the proposed rules contradict the holding of the US District Court, E.D. Virginia in Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board. That case acknowledged that “discrimination on the basis of transgender status constitutes a viable claim of sex discrimination under Title IX,” and is also “subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Constitutions Equal Protection Clause.” The Court thus concluded that the Board’s policy requiring students to use school restrooms corresponding to sex assigned at birth as well as its refusal to update Mr. Grimm’s official school transcript to reflect the “male” designation on his updated birth certificate both violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Title IX. The ruling in Grimm would likely prohibit Virginia schools from adopting certain provisions of the proposed Model Policy, such as III.C. Maintenance of student records, III.D. Identification of students, III.F. Enforcement of sex-based dressed codes, III.H. Athletics, and particularly III.G. Student participation in sex-specific school activities and events and use of school facilities.

Secondly, the proposed rules violate Virginia’s own laws. The Virginia Human Rights Act clearly provides that “It is the policy of the Commonwealth to . . . [s]afeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of . . . gender identity . . . in places of public accommodation, including education institutions.” Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3900. Because elements of the proposed rules violate the ruling in Grimm, it is clear that the policy constitutes the kind of “unlawful discrimination because of . . . gender identity” that the act expressly forbids.

Lastly, the proposed rules inaccurately construe the First Amendment as creating a right for teachers to harass their students. The Virginia Department of Education suggests that “[p]ractices such as compelling others to use preferred pronouns” violate the First Amendment because “[t] he First Amendment forbids government actors to require individuals to adhere to or adopt any particular ideological beliefs.” It is true that the First Amendment allows for freedom of thought, but requiring teachers to respectfully address their students can hardly be construed as compelling belief. It may also be true that many Virginians oppose the nation’s immigration policies. But surely Virginia teachers could not, based upon this sincerely held belief, refuse to address an immigrant student by their given name. Such a teacher may object that the student ought to adopt an English name or that their given name is cumbersome to pronounce. It would nonetheless be disrespectful and discriminatory to persist in calling them by a name not theirs. The same is true for gender nonconforming students. No belief, no matter how sincerely held, entitles a teacher to disrespect a student by improperly addressing them.

There are many more reasons for which I oppose these policies that I will not endeavor to write here, as many others likely have already articulated them better than I can. But I will conclude by saying that the proposed Model Policies, beyond violating Federal and State law, are cruel. They target a group—transgender teens—that studies have shown to be at a high risk of suicide. They refuse to make even the most basic accommodations for that group. In doing so, they needlessly endanger Virginia’s gender nonconforming students, instilling fear and shame in them, while teaching their classmates that their gender nonconforming peers are deserving of discrimination. Because I know and love many gender nonconforming individuals, I find the proposed policies in their current form to be an unconscionable assault on my community.

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


Support Governor Glenn Youngkin's proposed transgender student policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

Parents are fully responsible to raise their children. Schools should work with parents, not keep secrets from them. These policies help parents to support their own children. Schools should not keep secrets about a parent's child from the parent.


Oppose: Policies violate state law and violate rights of Virginia students

<!DOCTYPE html>

These policies are contrary to state law and their adoption will result in rampant violations of the rights of students, parents, and school personnel, and will inflict serious harm on students who are transgender and non-binary. All students should be safe, welcomed, and included in Virginia's public schools. I oppose the 2022 Model Policies in their entirety and demand that the VDOE rescind them, leaving the existing 2021 Model Policies in place.


<!DOCTYPE html>

Office of the Superintendent

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 22120

Richmond, VA  23218

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

October 26, 2022

Dear Superintendent Balow:

We are writing in response to the “Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia” as proposed changes to the Virginia Register. It is critical that Virginia policymakers and schools are acting as partners to parents and protecting families in the Commonwealth.

Respectfully, we argue that the Department’s case for its proposed policies is based on faulty legal and procedural grounds, and that there is no scientific or legal basis for using “gender” or “sexual orientation and gender identity” instead of “sex” in Virginia policy. The policies proposed fail to address substantial costs and detriments to taxpayers, parents, students (females in particular), medical professionals, women religious employees and institutions as well as troubled and gender dysphoric youth.

Contrary to the aim of giving clarity, the Department’s policy proposal will effectively result in enforcement chaos.  Because the proposal fails to define the wide range of “genders” and “gender identities” listed, it creates ambiguity that will be virtually impossible to enforce.

Also, the definitions presented in the policy proposal, worded as such, are artifacts of a highly tendentious philosophical concept of gender identity. Even a cursory glance at its definitions for concepts such as “gender-diverse”, “gender-fluid,” “nonbinary,” and the like betray an uncritical commitment to an untested and highly controversial gender ideology that is alien to the purposes of the Title IX’s focus sex-based discrimination. Title IX is, of course, one of the legal precedents that this model policy claims to be based on. In fact, this model policy would gut both the letter and spirit of Title IX. Fof instance, the model policy speaks of sex not as a biological category, but of “sex assigned at birth.” It replaces an observable biological trait with a social construct.

Specifically, the policy proposal replaces biological sex with an entirely subjective notion of gender identity independent of the body and empirical observation. The model policy is not based on sound scientific evidence, longstanding legal precedent, or public reason. The wording of the policy could easily lead to innocent, well intentioned students and staff being accused of harassment or abuse when making innocent errors addressing the wide and expanding variety of gender identities, which has no clear limiting principle.  While the aim of the policy, we presume, is to protect students against discrimination, it will inevitably, as written, detract from the central aim of education, which is to teach students in a fair and impartial manner. The Department’s proposed policy, contrary to its goal, would greatly multiply discrimination and harm within the Public School System.

The Department’s model policy prioritizes ideology over both scientific truth and religious freedom and would, contrary to its express purpose, serve to multiply discrimination and harm in education programs and activities. Previously, the US Department of Education recognized that Title IX regulations “presuppose sex as a binary classification” as well as “physiological differences between the male and female sexes.” It is impossible to understand or consistently enforce Title IX in the Commonwealth of Virginia without this basic presupposition.

There is no neutral, empirical way even to discern a gender identity. As a concept, it is an artifact of gender theory, not history or science. According to prominent proponents of such theories, the notion of a “gender binary” is a social construct, not a biological fact. A clear definition of sex is precisely what is needed, especially given the original purpose of Title IX. Without such a definition, the rule can provide no coherent guidance. Supposed gender identities can include “nonbinary,” “transgender,” “cisgender,” “intersex,” “queer,” “asexual,” and “gender-nonconforming.” Very few people could define such categories or pick out individuals who fit under such descriptions. The model policies fail to even suggest how schools could construct policies that recognized these ill-defined distinctions.

Erroneous Application of Bostock

The model policy claims to have a legal basis in recent Supreme Court reasoning, but our nation’s highest court explicitly stated that Bostock v. Clayton County cannot be used to apply to matters beyond employment nondiscrimination under Title VII. The claim of the model policy conflicts with the Court’s own reasoning. In Bostock, the Supreme Court proceeded “on the assumption that ‘sex’ signified what the employers suggest, referring only to biological distinctions between male and female.” Title VII cannot be applied to the proposed policy because the Supreme court was clear that Bostock v. Clayton County pertained to employment discrimination based upon biological distinctions between the biological sexes—which can be empirically distinguished.  In contrast, the definitions described in the policy are subjective, not biological. Furthermore, the Bostock ruling did nothing to redefine sex, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or to expand sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

As the proposed model policy explains, lawmakers’ primary purpose in Title IX was to give women and girls equal opportunities in education. Records of the design and passage of Title IX clearly demonstrate that its intent was to remove barriers to education opportunity that women faced. Title IX’s provisions state: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Appealing to the definition of sex in Title IX to create new policies on the quite different category of sexual orientation, and the highly contested, controversial, and protean notion of gender identity misrepresents the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Bostock and puts the physical safety of girls and women at risk. Hormone treatments, such as puberty blockers, are experimental medical interventions. Research has not demonstrated the effects and long-term outcomes of these treatments, standard practice for other drugs. The policy does not explicitly empower or involve parents to make determinations about their children.  It represents a growing push to grant minors choice about matters that have life altering effects, without parents’ approval, effectively undermining parents’ authority.  Minors cannot give full consent to such life altering and permanent changes. To deny this is to deny the very idea of age of consent, and to abandon any serious commitment to the right of parents to direct the education and health care of their minor children.

In sum, this model policy is an ill-considered attempt to insert the tendentious doctrines of gender ideology into the regulations governing schools in the Commonwealth of Virginia. It should not be adopted.

Sincerely,

Jay W. Richards, PhD

William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow

The Heritage Foundation


Strongly Oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

These policies are contrary to state law and their adoption will result in rampant violations of the rights of students, parents, and school personnel, and will inflict serious harm on students who are transgender and nonbinary.  All students should be safe, welcomed, and included in Virginia's public schools.  I strongly oppose the 2022 Model Policies in their entirety and demand that the VDOE rescind them, leaving the existing 2021 Model Policies in place.


Transgender Policies'

<!DOCTYPE html>

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"  Three foundational concepts communicated in the Declaration of Independence, given to all humans by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.  A person, young or old, guided by these principles in this great nation, should feel comfortable, confident and protected to be able to identify how they choose and in a manner that allows them liberty to pursue their path...their happiness.  A student should have the right of privacy to make the fundamental choice of identity.


Take back our schools

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Parents need to be involved in their children's education and what goes on in schools.  Kids are being indoctrinated in immorality by some in our schools, propagated by Godless, lost people. To encourage or aid a minor to take puberty blockers or undergo life altering surgery should be a criminal offense with serious penalties.    </p>


Supporting Governor Youngkin's policy supporting parents' rights

<!DOCTYPE html>

I strongly support Governor Youngkin's stated purpose and policy to reverse the Northam policy which forbade parental involvement in decisions, education, and intervention in matters of transgenderism. This is manifestly unacceptable. In the history of our republic, parents have almost universally exercised the right of advising and supervising their own children's decisions, certainly on any matter as important and irreversible as transgender decisions.


Fully support this legislation

<!DOCTYPE html>

This legislation is really just bare minimum common sense. Parents, by nature, have the primary and fundamental responsibility of raising their children, and that responsibility is accompanied by the right to make the best choices for their child as a minor in all faith, lifestyle, and health choices. No one else has that natural claim on a child, least of all the government. Schools have overstepped all lines of reason when they promulgate the belief that it is not only their right, but their duty to keep personal details of a child’s life deliberately secret and separate from the parents. Not only does it signify an excessive sense of self aggrandizement and pride on the side of the institution, but it undermines the natural relationship of affection and authority between parent and child. Whenever popular practices and regulations interfere with the family, there is no happy ending. God bless Youngkin for taking steps to preserve our very foundation.


Protect Trans Kid

<!DOCTYPE html>

Dear Governor Younkin,

My child is 17 years old and a senior in high school. My child holds a 3.8 GPA. My child has an internship at the area elementary school because they want to become a teacher. My child has been the captain of the basketball team, a volunteer in our community and is put on a pedestal at school by the teachers due to their manners and work ethic. My child came out to my husband and I a couple of years ago. I was a little surprised, but I will walk through fire for this kid,so….. Last year they told us they were trans and using a new name. They were saying that the school was very supportive of the change in name and very respectful in using the proper pronouns. We are lucky that the school and staff was so accommodating in these changes. School was a safe space in this scary world we live in. In a world with so much hate, we need to be the light and love. Please protect these kids. All kids should go to school and be greeted with kindness and love. Thank you for your time.


Discriminating against Trans kids won't make them less Trans

<!DOCTYPE html>

By refusing to acknowledge transgender or gender questioning students' proper gender, pronouns, names, and privacy, you put them at astronomically higher risk of depression, bullying, and suicide.

Not wanting kids to be transgender won't make kids nolonger trans; it is not a choice.  The only choice is whether to accept themselves and live their authentic selves, or not.

Trans kids are more likely to be kicked out of their homes or abused if they are outed, which puts them in grave danger.

Protect trans children, let them figure out for themselves who they are and what makes them happy.


Parents’ Rights Matter

Parents of four publicly educated children

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Our family supports these actions by Governor Youngkin. </p>


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

These model policies are cruel and harmful to trans kids. The governor shouldn’t target trans kids in a blatant attempt to score political points in a culture war. The model policies put teachers in a horrible position of potentially outing their students. The model policies are built upon the assumption that a child may not be out to their parent or that their parent opposed their gender identity/expression— otherwise what would the purpose of this policy be if the parent knew this information and supported their child? This will negatively impact students’ home AND school lives, which is not in the interest of those kids or all Virginians. The 2021 Guidance should be reinstated.


Support the Governor's policy

<!DOCTYPE html>

It's terrible we even have to have a policy like this - the schools shouldn't be trying to underhandedly push all this sexual stuff on children at ANY age, much less such young ages.  Any teacher who talks to a child about any sex acts or anything about sexual orientation or "gender identity" should be fired.


Transgender Model Guidance

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>As a teacher, I know how harmful it can to be to have policies such as these go into effect. Our most vulnerable populations need our kindness and compassion, not harmful policies. 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>


why is this stressed?

<!DOCTYPE html>

if you say the parents decide, why do you now highlight that a court decision said this:

"In Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an Ohio public university violated a professor’s free speech rights when it punished him because he declined to refer to a male student as a woman, with feminine titles and pronouns, after the student requested that he do so."

THIS IS THE MOST LOADED DOCUMENT I HAVE EVER READ.

I have written policy and procedure manuals for over 20 years. THIS IS NOT A POLICY MANUAL

THIS IS A manifesto

You are highlighting that a teacher should decide what they will and won't call a child, so if I say my child's listed pronoun is she, but the teacher perceives the child to present as male that teacher gets to decide to refuse to call my child she/her? How does that honor the parents' rights as you espouse them to be valued?


Support Gov. Youngkins  policies

<!DOCTYPE html>

I support parents  involvement in their children's education.


Model policies for the Treatment of transgender students in in Virginia schools


Model policies for the treatment of transgender students in Virginia schools


Strongly oppose

<!DOCTYPE html>

<p>Strongly oppose the 2022 plan regarding  transgender students. I support the prior policy in support of the rights of transgender and non-binary students. </p>