The Biden administration announced a new rule to protect LGBTQ+ youth in foster care, creating a system of designated placements for LGBTQ+ children as well as taking steps to address harassment and abuse against LGBTQ+ foster kids no matter where they’re placed.
To become a designated placement for LGBTQ+ youth, a care provider would have to receive training on the needs of LGBTQ+ youth, help the children get access to age-appropriate resources for their health, and “commit to establishing an environment that supports the child’s LGBTQI+ status or identity,” according to a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) release.
“Every child deserves a safe and loving home,” said HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “When any child comes into government care, they should have supports and services that meet their specific needs. By addressing the needs of LGBTQI+ children, this rule brings us one step closer to ensuring that all children have the opportunity to thrive.”
The rule doesn’t require any placement agency or caregiver to become a designated placement for LGBTQ+ youth. Instead, it requires all state and tribal governments to offer designated placement status for caregivers and to make sure that there are enough to handle LGBTQ+ children in their foster care systems who request such a placement.
The rule also includes language protecting foster agencies and caregivers who don’t want to get designated placement status, saying that nothing in the rule should be interpreted as authorizing a state or tribal government to penalize someone who doesn’t seek such designation. It also has language about “religious freedom.”
HHS said that LGBTQ+ kids are overrepresented in the foster care system, and those who are in the system face more bullying and harassment than cisgender/heterosexual kids do, leading to higher rates of mental health hospitalizations and homelessness.
The rule was proposed last year by the HHS Administration for Children and Families.
More states have announced lawsuits against the Biden administration over its new Title IX rules mandating anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students, bringing the total number of states suing the administration to 14.
Last week, Alabama, South Carolina, Florida, and Georgia filed a joint lawsuit against the administration, along with the Independent Women’s Network, Parents Defending Education, Speech First, and the Independent Women’s Law Center. In a separate lawsuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) also announced a challenge to the new rules.
Now the state of Tennessee is leading a lawsuit against the new rules and is joined by Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia in its complaint. A separate lawsuit has also been filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Idaho.
The new rules interpret Title IX, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex in education, as a legal protection against anti-LGBTQ+ school policies. The idea is that it’s impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity without taking sex into account, a legal argument that the Supreme Court has already used in its 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. ruling with respect to job discrimination.
With these rules, any school that receives federal funding will no longer be able to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. This could affect states and school districts with policies to out LGBTQ+ students to their parents or ban trans students from using bathrooms that correspond with their gender. The new rules could also give students who face discrimination recourse in federal courts.
In a press conference, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (R) invoked the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as justification for his fight to discriminate against trans youth.
“Title IX has protected women for 50 years,” Skrmetti said, as reported by The Tennessean. “It is a law… built around the idea of men and women, sex binary. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, enduring differences between the sexes necessitate things like separate bathrooms, separate locker rooms, separate living facilities, separate sports teams. This is something that our law has recognized for decades.”
The rules, however, do not suggest that schools eliminate single-gender spaces. Rather, they simply require schools to include everyone who identifies as a boy in boys’ spaces and everyone who identifies as a girl in girls’ spaces.
While GOP attorneys general are up in arms about the effect the rules will have on athletics, they do not actually discuss transgender student-athletes and which teams they can play on. The DOE is reportedly planning to issue a separate rule regarding what Title IX means for sports participation.
Skrmetti, however, claimed that with the rules, “a boy can walk into a girl’s locker room at a school and if the girl complains that his presence makes her uncomfortable, she can be brought up for investigation and potential penalties for violating civil rights. The new rules is entirely inconsistent with the text of Title IX and its adoption violates the United States Constitution.”
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen (R) claimed in a press release that the rules will “ultimately prohibit schools from distinguishing between males and females in athletic and educational opportunities” as well as “put women at an unfair disadvantage” and “force boys and girls to share bathrooms, locker rooms, dorms, and even overnight lodging while on a school trip.”
He also said it is designed to “federally coerce schools into indoctrinating students in gender identity theories popular among progressive parents but that ignore science.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) wrote on X that President Joe Biden is “abusing his constitutional authority to push an ideological agenda that harms women and girls and conflicts with the truth.”
“We will not comply,” DeSantis continued, “and we will fight back against Biden’s harmful agenda.”
Conservative parent organizations have also spoken out against the new rules. Fifty-three groups signed a letter led by Parents Defending Education (PDE) claiming trans inclusivity “poses a grave threat to the safety and opportunities of women and girls and thwarts students’ First Amendment rights” by forcing them to use accurate pronouns for trans and nonbinary students even if they don’t want to.
The letter also accused the Biden administration of pandering to “a small yet vocal group of extreme activists.”
On Monday, out White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said she could not speak about the new rule too much due to the all the litigation. “So I’ll just say every student has the right to feel safe in school,” she said.
The new rules are set to take effect on August 1 and invalidate numerous anti-transgender policies developed under former President Donald Trump. The Trump administration spent four years fighting against the legal argument that laws that ban discrimination “based on sex” ban anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination, particularly in schools. In 2017, then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos issued guidance to schools saying that Title IX did not protect LGBTQ+ students, shortly after she and Attorney General Jeff Sessions revoked a guidance from the administration of former President Barack Obama that said the opposite.
The Biden administration had promised to present the newly unveiled rules by January, but the DOE said its release was delayed due to an unprecedented number of over 240,000 comments submitted during the new rules’ 30-day public response period.
In contrast to the conservative backlash, LGBTQ+ organizations have celebrated the announcement, though they also say more is needed.
In a statement both celebrating and criticizing the newly unveiled rules, the National Women’s Law Center wrote, “As we celebrate this milestone, we recognize that this regulation does not go far enough in making the law’s protections clear for all student-athletes.” The statement was signed by 22 other organizations, including LGBTQ+ advocacy groups like GLSEN, the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG National, and the National Center for Transgender Equality.
Out gay Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) wrote, “The Education Department and Biden Administration showed real courage today, delivering on a long-held promise to ensure that the federal government does more to protect all Americans—especially LGBTQ Americans—from discrimination. This groundbreaking rule is a major victory, but we still have much to do. We need to enshrine and expand its protections by passing the Equality Act because for too many Americans, their rights and protections depend on the zip code they live in.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) said that his state wouldn’t comply with new rules intended to prevent discrimination against LGBTQ+ students.
“Florida rejects Joe Biden’s attempt to rewrite Title IX,” he said in a video posted to social media. “We will not comply, and we will fight back.”
At issue are Title IX rules released by the Department of Education earlier this month that forbid discriminatory and harassing behavior against LGBTQ+ students. Title IX bans discrimination on the basis of sex, and the Biden administration based the rules on the legal argument that it is impossible to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people without taking sex into account, making anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination a form of sex-based discrimination. The Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton Co. decision relied on the same reasoning, but that case only applied to workplace discrimination.
The new Title IX rules do not address the issue of transgender student-athletes and what teams they can play on, with two unnamed sources telling the Washington Post that President Joe Biden wanted to avoid the issue during an election year. Still, DeSantis brought the issue up in his video anyway.
“We are not gonna let Joe Biden try to inject men into women’s activities,” DeSantis said. “We are not gonna let Joe Biden undermine the rights of parents, and we are not gonna let Joe Biden abuse his constitutional authority to try to impose these policies on us here in Florida.”
DeSantis isn’t the first state elected official to call on schools to defy the federal guidelines. Louisiana’s Superintendent of Education Cade Brumley told schools to ignore the federal government. He said that the rules would “likely conflict” with two bills in the legislature: one allowing teachers to misgender and deadname trans students and a second forbidding discussion of LGBTQ+ issues in all grade levels.
Republican officials in South Carolina and Oklahoma have also spoken out against the rules. South Carolina Schools Superintendent Ellen Weaver wrote a letter to school districts this week that banning anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in schools “would rescind 50 years of progress & equality of opportunity by putting girls and women at a disadvantage in the educational arena.”
DeSantis has supported and implemented numerous laws attacking the rights of LGBTQ+ youth, including banning discussions of their identities in schools, banning gender-affirming health care for trans youth, and banning trans youth from participating in school sports.
While the ad is comical, online dating apps continue to provide an uneven experience for trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users. Most dating websites and smartphone apps didn’t initially offer gender descriptions for these users to authentically present themselves to others. Even with expanded gender presentation options, non-cisgender users say that ignorance and transphobia continue to make online dating feel unsafe.
A brief (incomplete) history of LGBTQ+ online dating
The earliest days of LGBTQ+ online dating harken back to the late 80s and early 90s, when gay men used dial-up modems to connect through bulletin board systems (BBSs) like Backroom and Gay.net. Back then, some lesbians also used an e-mail listserv called Sappho and, later, the website lesbian.org, which contained personals, discussion forums, web links for lesbian-oriented non-profits, and even a lesbian literary journal called Sapphic Ink.
In the early to late 90s, web services like Compuserve and America Online (AOL) provided real-time M4M, W4W, and “transexual” chatrooms where queer love-seekers could connect, talk dirty, and spend hours uploading and downloading pixelated photographs of themselves via very-slow internet connections.
“I think LGBTQ+ people were always really early adopters to online dating,” Michael Kaye, the one-time director of brand marketing and communications for OkCupid told QSaltLake. “Speaking from experience, we are limited to the safe spaces that we have available.”
In the 2000s, some popular heterosexual dating sites like eHarmony didn’t allow gay and lesbian profiles, leaving queer users to look elsewhere like OkCupid, a personal ad site for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and cis-het people that appeared in 2004. OkCupid helped facilitate LGB dating by including a unique feature: It let users choose only to be visible to other queer folks, reducing the likelihood that gay men or lesbian women would receive messages from a bunch of eager and unwitting heterosexuals.
However, the biggest revolution in online dating occurred in 2009 with the advent of Grindr, one of the first third-party apps for Apple’s iPhone. While the app — and similar ones — facilitated countless quick hook-ups and longer-term relationships, the apps weren’t initially inclusive of trans, nonbinary, and gender-fluid users because they offered a limited range of self-identifying gender options and transphobic responses from other cisgender users.
Over time, trans-inclusive apps like Tser appeared. Tser specifically marketed itself as a place where trans people could find community and support, but trans users found that the app still contained transphobia: It categorized cis individuals as “men” and “women,” invalidating trans women and trans men as not “real” women and men. It also used the outdated term “transsexual.”
Expanding gender options is a good start, but not enough
In 2016, Tindr offered users the option of entering any term that best describes their gender identity for display on their profiles. Grindr and Hinge took similar paths by offering more gender description options — like “trans man,” “trans woman,” “non-binary,” “non-conforming” and “queer” — in 2017.
In 2023, eHarmony also began offering an expanded list of genders — including options like “agender,” “bigender,” “genderqueer,” “pangender,” “questioning,” “trans masculine/feminine nonbinary,” and “Two-Spirit.”
The app Bumble also expanded its options to be more inclusive of nonbinary users in 2022, but the app’s “women make the first move” feature — which was created to reduce creepy unwanted advances from men — didn’t allow nonbinary people to message others who identified as women.
“I applaud them for trying to be inclusive, but they’re just completely missing the point,” one user named Kay told NBC News. “I get that their whole shtick is women message first. But if that’s the case, don’t add the gender-inclusive options if you’re going to make nonbinary people feel like they are being squished into a woman or man category.”
Non-cisgender users of Tinder and Hinge also had another issue: after self-identifying as their preferred gender description, the sites would then reductively ask if they’d like to be paired with people who were looking for “men” or women,” the independent cultural site The Skinny reported.
Other users expressed frustration that dating sites often group people by gender rather than by sexuality, making it impossible for searchers to filter out heterosexual users. Others found that, even when apps and sites had inclusive gender options, they had very few non-cisgender users, making the dating “community” feel isolating.
Taking a stand against transphobia
In 2015, when the women’s dating app HER launched, founder Robyn Exton said, “All of the online platforms for women [before 2015] were just reskins of sites built for gay men but turned pink, asking you how much body hair you had, or straight sites that were filled with guys asking you [to have a three-way]. It felt crazy to me, at the time, that no one had truly made a dating product for women.”
HER eventually branded itself as a community and dating app for the FLINTA [female, lesbian, intersex, trans, and agender] community. In 2023, it used Lesbian Visibility Day to send out an announcement to all users reiterating its “no TERFs” policy against transphobes, something it felt was particularly important considering the rise of right-wing anti-trans laws and rhetoric.
“[Trans-exclusionary radical feminists’] harmful and transphobic mentality negates the experiences and identities of our trans and gender non-conforming community, fosters their marginalization, and contributes to discrimination and [harm],” the announcement declared. “Besides being sad, hateful clowns who spew out a lot of misinformation, TERFs are also a genuine threat to the LGBTQIA+ community. And that’s just not going to fly here.”
Despite the announcement, HER still found that its trans, nonbinary, and genderfluid users still faced challenges when using the app, including people expressing trans-exclusionary preferences, misgendering, invasive questions, different forms of fetishization, ignorance about the trans experience, and even other users maliciously reporting their profiles as somehow violating the app’s user policies.
Apps like Grindr, Scruff, and OkCupid have since expanded by allowing users to express the range of genders they’re attracted to, making their profiles easier for non-cis users to find.
Two other platforms, Taimi and Lex, take different approaches by centering non-cis users and not focusing solely on gender as a way of matching users. Taimi lets users say whether they’re looking for trans, intersex, or nonbinary users. Lex is a text-based app that’s primarily for “womxn, trans, genderqueer, intersex, two-spirit and non-binary ppl” where users can describe what kind of people and social interactions they’re craving.
As HER and other dating website and apps figure out how to be more welcoming for non-cis users, HER’s non-cis users said the app would feel safer if it provided more education about trans experiences, better profile filtering, more ways to self-identify one’s gender, better account verification methods, and better safety protocols to prevent and penalize transphobia.
“Even in spaces built for all queer folks, there is much work to be done,” Exton wrote.
It joins Kentucky, Georgia, and West Virginia in the cohort of states failing to pass a single bill. Florida passed only one.
Iowa Republicans saw bill after bill fall this session despite prioritizing them. A last-minute effort to push one through as an amendment to another bill also collapsed.
More than 20 bills were introduced during this session. Some were introduced by the governor herself.
One bill tried to remove trans people from the state’s civil rights laws and declare them “disabled” instead. Another would have redefined the word “equal” in state law to specifically exclude trans people from the standard definition of “same” or “identical.”
A third bill would have banned transgender from bathrooms that match their gender identity. One of the worst, known as the “pink triangle law,” would have required special markers on trans people’s birth certificates and driver’s licenses.
The proposed change to Iowa’s civil rights law was so drastic and loathsome that even Republicans refused to entertain the idea.
A crowd of hundreds erupted into cheers when the members of a subcommittee who had heard an hour of testimony against the bill announced they would not advance it any further. The committee was composed of two Republicans and a single Democrat. The vote was unanimous.
In Kentucky, all ten bills that targeted LGBTQ+ residents failed. Republicans overwhelmingly dominate the legislature.
Some of Kentucky’s most atrocious bills would have weakened local nondiscrimination ordinances, restricted drag performances, and allowed doctors to deny care to LGBTQ+ individuals by citing a “moral objection.”
The High Court of Dominica has overturned a colonial-era law banning same-sex relations between consenting adults after a gay man filed a lawsuit claiming the ban was unconstitutional.
The complainant, who remained anonymous, claimed the law led him “to live in constant fear of criminal sanction for engaging in consensual sexual activity” and caused “hateful and violent conduct towards him and other LGBT persons” that stopped him “from living and expressing himself freely and in dignity,” according to BBC.
The ruling stated that the constitution guarantees that “a person shall not be hundred in the enjoyment of his right to assemble and freely associate with other persons” and that this “must necessarily include the freedom to enter into and maintain intimate relationships without undue intrusion by the State.”
Written by High Court Judge Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence, it also said that the current law causes “widespread hostility towards persons perceived to be LGBT both in public and private settings” and “cannot be justified as necessary to respect the rights and freedoms of others or the public interest.”
Activist Daryl Phillip celebrated the ruling, telling BBC it has set the country – which should not be confused with the Dominican Republic – “on a promising path toward restoring people’s dignity and safeguarding LGBTQ people’s rights to privacy, health, and freedom from torture and ill-treatment, aligning with international human rights obligations.” He also acknowledged that the ruling will not make homophobia “stop tomorrow” and that it is “a process.”
Maria Sjödin, executive director of LGBTQ+ organization Outright International, explained that “Decriminalisation helps create an environment where LGBTQ individuals can live openly without fear of persecution, enabling them to access health care, education, and employment without facing discrimination.”
“The repeal of these discriminatory laws is a testament to the tireless efforts of activists, advocates, and allies who have long fought for justice and equality,” Sjödin continued. “It is a victory for human rights and a significant milestone in the ongoing struggle for LGBTQ rights in the Caribbean.”
The anonymous complainant has spent five years battling for the law to be overturned. Originally established during the British colonial era, the Associated Press says it was strengthened in 1998 and carried a potential ten-year prison sentence.
LGBTQ+ adults overwhelmingly favor President Joe Biden – and Democrats generally – over former President Donald Trump and Republicans, a new survey has found. But while queer respondents also said the Democratic Party should be doing more to fight anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, the survey also revealed that LGBTQ+ issues aren’t the most important thing on queer voters’ minds leading into the November general elections.
A survey of 873 LGBTQ+ adults conducted by Data for Progress found that 57% of respondents had a favorable view of the Democratic Party and 51% had a favorable view of Biden. Comparatively, only 20% of respondents had a favorable view of the Republican Party and only 22% had a favorable view of Trump.
Generally, Black respondents and women have higher rates of unfavorable views toward Trump and Republicans.
Trans respondents were more likely than cisgender ones to say that the Biden Administration is doing worse than they expected. While 46% of cis respondents said the Biden administration is doing worse than expected, that percentage was 52% for trans respondents.
Approximately 70% percent of LGBTQ+ people who identify as a Democrat, including 81% of Democratic transgender adults, also say the Democratic Party should be doing more to protect queer Americans from anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. The younger the respondent, the more likely they were to feel this way.
However, when asked about the top issues they consider when deciding who to vote for, queer adults ranked LGBTQ+ issues third behind “the economy, jobs, and inflation” and “other.” The response suggests that a majority of LGBTQ+ voters are not “single-issue voters” and may be especially focused on economic issues since LGBTQ+ workers continue to earn about 90 cents for every dollar that cisgender and heterosexual workers earn, according to the Human Rights Campaign.
Trans respondents, however, ranked LGBTQ+ issues as the top issue they consider when voting. Approximately 50% ranked queer issues as their top consideration, compared to just 11% of cisgender respondents who did the same. Generally speaking, younger respondents said they consider LGBTQ+ issues more often when voting than older respondents.
Interesting, majorities of LGBTQ+ voters, regardless of age, said they believe that neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties care much about people like them. Despite this, majorities of LGBTQ+ voters also said they felt enthusiastic about voting in the 2024 election. Approximately 61% percent of all respondents expressed such enthusiasm, though that enthusiasm was generally lower among younger voters.
The survey’s findings align with a March 2023 survey that found that LGBTQ+ voters overwhelmingly support Biden. That same survey found that a majority of LGBTQ+ voters said they plan to vote in the 2024 elections and that both LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ voters oppose Republicans’ relentless anti-trans campaign.
“Overall, the reason that LGBTQ people seem to vote in large numbers for Democrats is because, unfortunately, today’s Republican Party has made LGBTQ equality a partisan issue,” Zeke Stokes, a GLAAD consultant, told ABC. “There are LGBTQ people on all places of the ideological perspective when it comes to what we would traditionally consider conservative to liberal in this country. But we’ve got one party, unfortunately, who’s put a target on our backs, in order to appeal to a minority of their base.”
A 36-year-old trans man named Tee Arnold died earlier this month after he was shot outside a shopping mall in Hallandale Beach, Florida in the middle of the night.
Hallandale Beach police Captain Aaron Smith does not believe the murder was a hate crime and says it was “an isolated incident” sparked by a disagreement between the victim and the suspect. He toldLocal 10 News the suspect is a woman who knew the victim.
Police transported Arnold – who also went by Lagend Billions – to HCA Florida Aventura Hospital after he was shot around 1:30 am on April 3. He died at the hospital on April 7.
Arnold had previously posted to social media that his life was in danger, writing that he had a “reward” on his head.
The Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents Blog wrote that Arnold had a large extended family and “was a significant male adult figure in the lives of his nieces and nephews.”
It continued, “Friends, former coworkers, neighbors all seem to have stories about this man taking time to connect and listen to them, to support them especially during difficult times. These recurring themes of his compassion, kindness, and showing up wind through a lot of the countless tributes pouring in on social media.”
One friend, CeCe Gates, wrote on Facebook that Arnold was there for her when she was a terrified new mom.
“I thank you for always answering the phone when I was lost, for never being afraid to tell me when I’m wrong, telling me to pray when I was weak, always offering words of encouragement… sometimes I never had to say anything… in the silence you knew I just needed someone to be there… 15 years of friendship and I never thought I would be saying goodbye like this … thank you for blessing the world with your greatness, laughter, and good energy. Thank you for showing the world that there is nothing better than being your true authentic self.”
In a statement reported byThe Advocate, Victoria Kirby York, director of public policy and programs at the National Black Justice Coalition, stated, “Tee Arnold is the fourth death driven by hate of a trans man this year, marking a concerning rise in fatal violence against our brothers.”
“Weeks prior to his death, Tee posted that his life was in danger, indicating that if the police had taken action on the threats against his life, this tragedy could have been prevented. We also cannot ignore that this murder occurred in Florida, a state that has been leading the charge in anti-trans legislation and rhetoric. Similarly, we cannot forget that, more often than not, requests for law enforcement protection from Black LGBTQ+/SGL people are not provided even though we face disproportionate hate-driven violence.”
The Human Rights Campaign has documented seven other trans people who have died by violent means in 2024.
A reward of up to $5,000 has been offered to anyone with information that may lead to an arrest in Arnold’s death. Those who know something can remain anonymous if they choose and can call Hallandale Beach police at (954) 457-1400 or Broward Crime Stoppers at (954) 493-TIPS.
A defiant conservative majority on the board of the Murrieta Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) voted to ignore an order from the state of California to rescind a discriminatory policy that requires teachers and school administrators in Riverside County to out any trans or nonbinary student that asks to be called by a name or pronoun different than the ones listed on their birth certificate.
A packed audience in the ruby red district cheered the result.
“We have a right as a board to defy a dictatorial governor and bureaucracy — or whatever — that tries to take away our rights as parents and as citizens — as a duly elected board,” board member Nick Pardue told constituents at the meeting last Thursday. “We have legal standing and we should absolutely stand up for our rights against dictators.”
A report released on April 10 by the California Department of Education found that the notification rules were discriminatory and therefore illegal. The department ordered the Riverside County school system, which contains Murrieta Valley, to provide written notice to all employees within five days that the notification policy is “inconsistent” with the state education code and will “not be implemented,” according to The Los Angeles Times.
The department told MVUSD that the policy “provided no educational or administrative purpose that could justify the discrimination of LGBT+ students,” and warned it “singles out and is directed exclusively toward one group of students based on that group’s legally protected characteristics of identifying with or expressing a gender other than that identified at birth.”
Murrieta Superintendent Dr. Ward Andrus’ followed the order with a notification to staff reversing the policy after the April 10 order was received. The district also sent an emailed notice to parents, faculty, and staff members stating that the policy was rescinded.
Thursday’s vote by the board reverses the reversal.
The right-wing board members undertook the defiant vote despite a warning from the district’s law firm to board President Paul Diffley, who sponsored the outing rules. The law firm warned that “‘going ahead (with the policy) in such an environment’ could cost the district $500,000 in legal expenses.”
Among a majority of speakers in favor of the reversal, the board’s student member, Isabella Dadalt, cowed the audience into silence as she ran down a long list of reasons the outing policy was harmful to children.
“I do not believe that their students would ever withhold information from their parents unless they were genuinely forced to,” Dadalt said. “So if you’re a parent, and you feel [offended] by the fact that your student is going to a teacher instead of you, I think you need to rethink your parenting.”
Board member Linda Lunn, who voted against the policy reinstatement, told the Times the divisive cultural battle was a waste of district time and resources.
“This is weaponizing Murrieta Valley Unified to play politics with Sacramento, and they’re using taxpayer money to do it,” Lunn said.
“I believe in following the law and the Education Code,” Young said. “They don’t all seem to understand that the Code is the law.”
Similar battles are being waged in other Riverside County school districts, including Temecula and Chino, both hotbeds of “parental rights” activism.
“We will continue to stand strong, linked arms all over California, to ensure the government does not infringe on parental rights — period,” Chino Valley School Board President Sonja Shaw said recently.
The state investigation in Murrieta was prompted after two teachers filed a complaint. One, 6th and 7th grade teacher Karen Poznanski, is also a district parent with a nonbinary child.
“This policy, whether enforced or not, hindered our LGBTQ+ students from living authentically,” Poznanski told The Times. “Moreover, it not only compromised their privacy and dignity, but also perpetuated harm and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals and their families.”
Poznanski called the reinstated policy an example of discrimination and a misuse of power “in its most blatant form.”
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed 13 Republican bills on Tuesday, including one that LGBTQ+ advocates say would have erased transgender people from legal recognition in the state.
Senate Bill 1628, the so-called “Arizona Women’s Bill of Rights,” was introduced by state Sen. Sine Kerr (R) in February. Similar to laws introduced in other states like Indiana and Iowa, it would have removed the word “gender” from state law, replacing it with the word “sex,” which it defined strictly according to biology. The proposed law defined gendered terms like “boy,” “girl,” “man,” “woman,” “mother,” and “father” according to biological sex and would have banned trans people from single-sex environments like bathrooms, locker rooms, sports teams, and domestic violence shelters that do not align with the sex they were assigned at birth.
Critics said the bill would have erased trans and nonbinary people from public life in Arizona.
“This effort to erase trans people and try to force them to fit into boxes that they don’t fit into is totally unacceptable to me,” state Sen. Eva Burch (D) told the Arizona Senate Health and Human Services Committee in February. “I’m not afraid of trans people, I’m afraid of what’s going to happen to them if we keep treating them like this.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona’s Hugo Polanco warned that S.B. 1628 would have also prevented trans people from obtaining legal documents like IDs that accurately reflect their gender identity.
“This bill would force transgender people to live a lie and put them at risk of harm by disclosing the sex they were assigned at birth on documents like drivers’ licenses, marriage licenses, school records and burial paperwork,” Polanco said in February. “All of us, including transgender people, need accurate and consistent identity documents that reflect who we are. That’s what IDs are for.”
Arizona’s Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved the bill in a 31–28 vote along party lines earlier this month, KJZZ reported. The bill was then sent to Hobbs, who had previously said she opposed it.
“As I have said time and again, I will not sign legislation that attacks Arizonans,” Hobbs said in a statement about her veto of SB 1628 earlier this week.
This is not the first time Hobbs has vetoed anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. In April 2023, she vetoed S.B. 1005, which sought to allow parents to sue school districts for enforcing LGBTQ+ supportive policies. In May 2023, she vetoed S.B. 1001, which proposed requiring trans and nonbinary students to obtain written parental permission to use pronouns and names matching their gender identity. Last June, she vetoed two anti-LGBTQ+ bills, one that would have banned trans students from using the correct locker rooms and restrooms at school, and another that she described as “a thinly veiled effort to ban books.”
In June 2023, she also signed two executive orders allowing state employee health insurance plans to cover gender-affirming surgery and banning state agencies from promoting or funding so-called “conversion therapy.”
