Special to the Vanguard
Oakland, CA – A coalition of 15 AGs from across the country, including California Attorney General Rob Bonta, signed an amicus brief in support of a Maryland board of education’s efforts to create a safe and supportive environment for transgender children and all students.
The Montgomery County Board of Education (MCBE) in Maryland is currently facing a challenge to its policy that seeks to protect against the unnecessary disclosure of a student’s gender identity, while also striving to include families in creating a safe school environment for transgender students.
In the brief filed on Thursday, the attorneys general reiterate the role of states in supporting safe, inclusive school environments that help all children learn, thrive, and grow into contributing members of society.
“All children deserve a safe and supportive school environment as they grow into the leaders of tomorrow,” said Attorney General Bonta.
He added, “By respecting and supporting a student’s identity, schools and educators can reduce physical and mental health risks for transgender children and set all students up for success. The Montgomery Board of Education’s policy directly supports safety for students and their families — and it should be upheld. At the California Department of Justice, we’ll continue to fight for the rights of LGBTQ+ students and all of our nation’s children.”
MCBE and its members, like other school authorities around the country, are charged with one of the most important functions of government — nurturing successive generations of children into capable citizens.
In recognition of the paramount importance of this responsibility, courts have long afforded state and local governments significant discretion to shape school policies in order to best serve this goal, so long as they act within the constraints of federal law, including both the Constitution and federal antidiscrimination law.
In the current case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the coalition asserts that MCBE has exercised its lawful discretion to craft a policy to support transgender or gender-nonconforming students.
The policy prefers including families in developing gender support plans and works towards that outcome, but recognizes that not all families are supportive, and not all students are open about their gender identity at home.
Where a student does not want the school to disclose their status to others, including parents, information on the student’s gender identities is not shared with their families.
The policy endeavors to keep transgender students supported and safe while at school. In addition, research shows that protecting a transgender student’s ability to make choices about how and when to inform others is critical to their well-being, as transgender students are exposed to high levels of harassment and mistreatment at school and in their communities.
Seventy-seven percent of students known or perceived as transgender reported negative experiences such as harassment and assault, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth reported seriously considering suicide in the past year.
In the amicus brief, the coalition asserts:
- States have an interest in making schools a safe and supportive environment for all youth, including transgender youth;
- All students benefit from safe and supportive schools;
- Transgender youth face unique struggles that are addressed through a safe and supportive school environment, and a policy that protects their privacy and preserves their trust increases their academic success and lowers their risk of missing school, dropping out, or committing suicide;
- The plaintiffs’ proposed framework creates significant burdens on state and local governments’ ability to fulfill the mission of their schools; and
- The appellate court should uphold the district court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ challenge to MCBE’s policy.
So, let me get this “straight” (possible pun intended).
Students are presenting themselves as the sex they are born as (at home), but are changing into the “Mrs. Doubtfire” costume when they get to school?
And, there’s an assumption that parents don’t already know this about their own kids (and should be prevented from knowing about it by strangers/officials who know better, and have better judgement than these kids’ parents)?
And a bunch of attorney generals are pushing for this?
And what (exactly) does this have to do with “safety”?
You’d think that Rob Bonta would have his hands full already, suing cities to force them to grow.
What happened to attorney generals focusing on crime, instead of woke social causes?
Truth be told, I didn’t think my comment would get posted. 🙂
But seriously, why would this even come up? Both the disclosure to school officials, OR any subsequent disclosure to parents?
If, for example, a student discloses anything to a school COUNSELOR (which doesn’t endanger themselves or others), wouldn’t that information normally be kept confidential in the first place?
If not, what use are school counselors? (I’m assuming that such a position exists.)
In any case, I would think that “privacy” for students is a broader issue, than just this one issue.
Not if some politicians have their way.
Just one example: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/04/controversial-confusing-harmful-anti-lgbtq-bill-passes-oklahoma-senate/
Students are presenting themselves as the sex they are born as (at home), but are changing into the “Mrs. Doubtfire” costume when they get to school?
Please treat this subject more respectfully. Not every outfit is distinctly of a particular gender.
And, there’s an assumption that parents don’t already know this about their own kids
Possibly, yes. Many families are very dysfunctional, especially with regard to gender and sexuality.
(and should be prevented from knowing about it by strangers/officials who know better, and have better judgement than these kids’ parents)?
Sometimes. See above.
And a bunch of attorney generals are pushing for this?
Yes.
And what (exactly) does this have to do with “safety”?
Trans kids and adults are subject to considerable harassment, violence, and discrimination.
You’d think that Rob Bonta would have his hands full already, suing cities to force them to grow.
What happened to attorney generals focusing on crime, instead of woke social causes?
Protecting civil rights is one of the functions of the attorney general.
Again: please don’t be flippant about this, and I urge you to do some research about the levels of discrimination experienced by trans kids and adults, and the attempted suicide rates of trans youth.
As noted, I didn’t think my comment would actually be posted. However, I’ll admit that it is a little difficult for to take this completely seriously, as I ultimately don’t really believe in “gender identity”. (This appears to be more of a social construct.)
I believe in biology.
And I think a far more dangerous issue is the related medical intervention that’s occurring, particularly on minors. The Affordable Care Act pays for such medical interventions these days.
As I recall, they used to make fun of “who” wore Doc Martens, back in my day. I never noticed it.
Just to be clear: The implication here is that some parents will kill their own children, if counselors disclose this.
If that’s actually a problem, I think there’s bigger problems at home for some families, which would not be “fixed” by this bill. That’s a case for child protective services (and no doubt would eventually present itself as such, regardless of this bill).
They are (or certainly were, in my day). In fact, they didn’t even “exist” to anyone’s knowledge. There were frequent slurs regarding homosexuality, at least.
But this is a different issue, vs. disclosure to parents regarding disclosure of “gender identity”.
I suppose so, but (again) I’d suggest that it’s not limited to this one issue (the amount of privacy expected between students and counselors).
Besides the proposed bill you mentioned in Oklahoma, are there already legal (or other) restrictions regarding information that’s allowed to be shared by counselors with parents? If so, does it already cover this issue?
Again, I’m flippant regarding “gender identity” itself, as I don’t think that’s a real thing. It seems to me that (more often than not), it’s “celebrated” by some, these days.
I do believe that some individuals “suffer” from this. But that might be viewed as mental illness. Either way, I feel bad for them.
As far as suicide is concerned, have any studies been done regarding those who have undergone sex reassignment procedures?
While there is definitely a school of thought that says, “gender is socially constructed,” if you read the literature, that doesn’t mean what you think it does. It doesn’t – even if true – mean it’s not real.
This is a good discussion in Psychology Today: link
https://www.verywellmind.com/definition-of-social-construct-1448922
What “isn’t” a social construct is the artificial manipulation of hormones and gruesome, expensive, and ineffective surgeries that are pursued based upon a social construct.
Are you aware of what those surgeries consist of, and their “success” rate (even under the best of circumstances)?
Are you aware that most trans don’t have genital surgery?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2016/5/13/17938114/transgender-people-transitioning-surgery-medical