Maggie Baska

Republican lawmakers in Tennesseehave introduced a bill that would allow cisgender students to sue a school if they are ‘forced’ to share school facilities with trans students.

Jason Zachary, a Republican congressman from Knoxville, introduced House Bill 1233 at the same time Mike Ball, a Republican senator from Riceville, introduced its sister bill in the Senate, SB 1367.

The bills would effectively allow students the ability to refuse to share facilities – such as bathrooms, locker rooms and dorms – with trans students. Cisgender students could then sue publicly-funded schools that do not provide them with “reasonable accommodations”.

Zachary argued his bill arose from schools’ confusion over handling bathroom access to students based on their gender identities. He told The Tennesseanthat his bill would provide protection for “all children” and present a “clear path forward” for schools to follow.

Zachary described how one high school reached out to him after dealing with a “problem with boys using the girls’ restroom”. He said the school felt “handcuffed” and that there’s “not much they can do about it”.

“This bill takes care of that,” Zachary said. “It stops all that and just provides absolute clarity.”

Chris Sanders, executive director of the Tennessee Equality Project, told The Tennessean that the state’s legislature is “going on the attack against trans students and youth”. He added: “Now, the legislature comes along and says ‘hey everybody, there’s this category of people that we will protect you from if you want to be protected from’.”

Under the bill, cisgender students would be allowed to submit a written request for reasonable accommodation if they say they’re not comfortable with sharing school facilities with trans people.

If they later “encounter a person of the opposite sex in a multi-occupancy restroom” or other facilities, a cisgender student could sue the school for not providing them with reasonable accommodations.

The bill further says that sex is defined as a person’s biological sex at birth instead of their gender identity. As such, Zachary said trans students would have to, by default, use the facilities which are in accordance with their gender as assigned at birth.

“If they were born as a boy, they will use a single-occupancy restroom,” Zachary explained, referring to a hypothetical trans girl.

The major problem with Zachary’s bill is that it would go against federal law. President Joe Biden signed an executive order that banned discrimination in educational facilities based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Schools are within their right to demoralise children who support trans rights, according to a terrifying court ruling about a school in South Carolina.

A principal at an elementary school in Moore, South Carolina was in the right when she banned a student’s pro-trans essay from a school booklet, a federal appeals court has ruled.ADVERTISING

The child, named in court documents only as RRS, was 10 years old when she was assigned to write an “essay to society” in 2019. The court heard her maternal grandfather is part of the LGBT+ community, and RRS is a “proud advocate of LGBTQ rights”.

So she decided to write about LGBT+ equality for the assignment. Her essay, reprinted here verbatim, stated the following:

“To society,

“I don’t know if you know this but peoples view on Tran’s genders is an issue. People think that men should not drees like a women, and saying mean things. They think that they are choosing the wrong thing in life.

“In the world people can choose who they want to be not being told that THEIR diction is wrong. I hope people understand that people can hurt themselves from others hurting their feelings. People need to think before they speak because one word can hurt someone’s feelings. We need to fix this because this is getting out of hand!”

The court heard Anderson Mill Elementary School principal Elizabeth Foster reviewed the essays submitted by the fourth grade class before they were compiled into an essay booklet. But she instructed RRS’ teacher to inform the child that her essay would not be included in the booklet because, in her view, the topic was “not appropriate”.

RRS then revised her essay, which addressed bullying instead of LGBT+ rights.

US circuit judge Stephanie Thacker, a Barack Obama-appointee, wrote in her judgment: “Principal Foster’s initial refusal to include [the student’s] essay in the fourth grade class’ essay booklet was actuated at least in part by her concern that the essay’s topic was ‘not age appropriate’ for fourth graders.”

Mother filed complaint against school after ‘abusive’ messages from principal

Hannah Robertson, the mother of RRS, filed a complaint against the South Carolina school on 6 March, 2019.

Shortly before she filed the complaint, Robertson said Foster had “defended her decision” to not include RRS’ LGBTQ-themed essay in the essay booklet through “a series of increasingly abusive, harassing, emotionally distressful and/or clearly unwarranted communications with” her.

During these conversations, Robertson said Foster provided the following justifications for her decision including: “the original paper would make other parents upset”; it “would create a [sic] undesirable situation at the school”; “was not acceptable”; “it was not age-appropriate to discuss transgenders, lesbians, and drag queens outside of the home”; and “due to the type of school this is, the people that work here and the students and families of the students that go here, the topic would be disagreeable”.

In a letter dated 15 March, 2019, Foster informed Robertson that she had decided that both of the child’s papers would be published in the essay booklet. In turn, Robertson cited concerns about the child’s privacy and said she no longer wanted the original essay to be in the booklet.

Robertson argued the South Carolina principal’s removal of the trans essay as part of the classroom assignment amounted to a violation of her child’s First Amendment rights, arguing Foster deprived RRS of her “right to engage in protected speech”.

But a lower court dismissed the student’s claim.

The family appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

However, on Tuesday (3 March), a three-judge panel for the appeals court upheld the original ruling. The judgement cited the 1998 Supreme Court decision in Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, which declared that schools could censor students as long as it was “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns”.

The court held that the principal’s decision to ban RRS’ essay fell within the Supreme Court judgment because Foster was motivated, at least in part, by a concern that the topic was not “age appropriate”. As such, the court found the South Carolina school’s decision not to publish the trans essay did not infringe on RRS’ First Amendment rights.

Jasmine Rogers Drain, partner at Halligan Mahoney and Williams and who represented the school, did not wish to comment on the ruling.

Eric Poston, managing partner at Chalmers Poston LLC, represented the family in this case. He told PinkNews: “It’s well known in the legal field that, with very few exceptions, appellate judges have already made their decision by the time the attorneys are able to argue their case in front of the judges themselves in what is known as ‘oral argument’.”

Poston explained this case’s oral argument “served only to perpetuate the stereotype” as it appeared the judges were unaware of basic facts about the case.

“When I asked if they had read the essay, I heard crickets – same result when I asked if they were aware that this girl’s mother and grandfather are active members of the LGBTQ community,” Poston said. “They also didn’t appear fully aware of the actual quotes from the principal as to why she banned the essay.”

He added the “most disappointing, preposterous question” he received was whether or not “I agreed that a teacher should be able to decide what they do and do not teach/allow in their classroom”.  Poston told PinkNews: “What made this question so mind boggling is that it revealed how absolutely unaware the judges were of even the most basic facts of the case – that the teacher found the essay acceptable and planned to publish it until the principal single-handedly prevented her from doing so.”

This article was edited to include comment from Jasmine Rogers Drain, the attorney representing the school in this case, and Eric Poston, the attorney representing the family.

Young trans people and their families living in Alabama have been warned to “run” after the state banned gender-affirming care for minors.

Marie Willa, who posted on TikTok as MissWilla, pleaded for parents living in Alabama to get their trans children out of the state and to “somewhere safe”.×ADVERTISING

In an emotional video on TikTok, Willa, a trans woman, said: “I come to you tonight on a very serious note with a dire warning and a plea for help.

“If you are the parent of a transgender child that is 19 or under and you live in the state of Alabama, your child lives in the state of Alabama, get out.

“Get your child out to somewhere safe.

“They have just made it a felony to provide any gender-affirming care to any transgender person age 19 or younger.”

https://www.tiktok.com/embed/v2/6935634053739678981?lang=en-us

She warned the ban would “drive the suicide rate up just astronomically high” and pleaded for parents to “get your children to safety”. Willa also called on the wider community to “help us”.

Alabama Senate votes to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth

On Tuesday (2 March), lawmakers in Alabama passed senate bill 10 (SB10), an anti-transgender bill that will prohibit medical professionals from providing critical healthcare and gender-affirming treatment to trans people under the age of 19.

The bill would bar medical professionals from administering hormones or puberty blockers to trans youth, in addition to prohibiting gender-affirming surgeries for trans minors.

If the bill passes into law, it would make it a Class C felony for medical professionals to provide gender-affirming care to trans minors. This class of felony would result in a 10-year prison sentence or a $15,000 fine in Alabama.

Even if you consider yourself to be in good health, it’s important to keep up with…

The bill would also require teachers and staff at schools in Alabama to share with students’ parents if they learn that a “minor’s perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex”. In effect, it would require teachers to “out” trans students to their parents.

The Montgomery Advertiser reported SB10, dubbed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, passed by a vote of 23-4.

If the Alabama House of Representatives approves its companion bill, HB1, and the proposal is signed by governor Kay Ivey, Alabama would be the first state in the US to pass a bill of this kind.

Republican senator Shay Shelnutt proposed the bill. According to the Montgomery Advertiser, he said he wanted to “protect children” by passing the bill. Shelnutt said: “I don’t think the same way I did at 14 when I was 25.

“You know the male brain – I don’t know when it fully matures, but you know, the human brain is not fully mature, and you know they are going to think differently.”

But the ACLU of Alabama said the bill would “criminalise medical professionals who choose to support transgender youth’s identity, forcing them to choose between the possibility of government prosecution and adhering to the evidence-based clinical guidelines of their field”.

LGBT+ activist and actor Elliot Page called on lawmakers to protect trans kids and vote no on these bills. Page wrote on Twitter: “Efforts to criminalize trans kids are deadly and we need to fight back against Alabama’s HB1/SB10.

“Trans kids’ lives depend on stopping this bill.”

‘Make some noise’

Willa’s initial video received over 310,000 views on TikTok with many people in the comments asking how they could help the trans children and their families affected in Alabama. She posted a follow-up video calling on people to speak up against the oppression of trans and LGBT+ youth in Alabama.

“Silence and inaction of good people has always been the greatest tool used by oppressors of marginalised communities,” Willa explained. “So the best answer I can give you: Make some noise.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution rebuking conversion therapy on trans patients, correctly citing that being trans is not a “mental disorder”.

The APA is the leading scientific and professional organisation representing psychology in the US, with more than 122,000 researchers, clinicians, consultants and educators as its members. The prominent psychological association has decried the use of conversion therapy – the dangerous, discredited ‘treatment’ to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity – for trans people.ADVERTISING

In a February resolution, the APA stated that “transgender and gender non-binary identities and expressions are healthy” and that “incongruence between one’s sex and gender is neither pathological nor a mental disorder”.

The American Psychological Association noted “many transgender and gender non-binary individuals lead satisfying lives and have healthy relationships”. It added conversion therapy only serves to promote “stigma and discrimination against transgender and gender diverse people”.

The resolution also emphasised that “individuals who have experienced pressure or coercion to conform to their sex assigned at birth or therapy that was biased toward conformity to one’s assigned sex at birth have reported harm resulting from these experiences, such as emotional distress, loss of relationships and low self-worth”.

Jennifer F Kelly, president of the APA, said there is a “growing body of research” that shows that transgender or non-binary gender identities are “normal variations in human expression of gender”.

“Attempts to force people to conform with rigid gender identities can be harmful to their mental health and wellbeing,” Kelly said.

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) applauded the APA for denouncing trans conversion therapy. Alphonso David, president of the HRC, said there is “no question” that “denying a person’s gender identity is wrong”.

“It’s detrimental to their mental health, their physical health and their overall sense of self-worth—and this includes young people,” David said. “The consensus from the [APA] further reinforces that we must rely on transgender people and their healthcare providers to determine treatment for gender-affirming care in accordance with current medical best practices — this is not the place for politicians.”

He also warned it is “incredibly dangerous when strangers can legislate personal healthcare decisions”.

The Trevor Project’s 2020 national survey found that 10 per cent of the over 40,000 LGBT+ youth who responded to the survey had undergone conversion therapy. Seventy-eight per cent of LGBT+ youth who had gone through conversion therapy said it occurred when they were under the age of 18.

Sixty-one per cent said they were forced into conversion therapy to change their sexual orientation, eight per cent said it was to change their gender identity and 27 per cent said it was to forcibly change both their gender identity and sexual orientation.SPONSORED CONTENT

Sam Brinton, vice president of advocacy and government affairs at The Trevor Project, said the organisation is “extremely grateful” to the American Psychological Association for using its platform and expertise to “advocate for better health outcomes for all LGBTQ youth”.

“When transgender and non-binary young people are pressured to conform to the sex they were assigned at birth and abide by society’s rigid gender norms, it can be incredibly harmful to their mental health and sense of self and contribute to increased risk for suicide,” Brinton said.

“That’s why we must come together to end the dangerous and discredited practice of conversion therapy and to stop these proposed bans on gender-affirming medical care from becoming the law of the land.”

Across the pond, conversion therapy is still legal, even though the UK government vowed to ban it

On 28 March, it will have been 1,000 days since the Tories pledged in 2018 to “eradicate” the abhorrent practice as part of their LGBT+ Action Plan.

Prime minister Boris Johnson said conversion therapy “has no place in civilised society” last July, but he and equalities minister Liz Truss claimed the government would have to do more research before banning the practice, which has often been compared to torture.

Mental health professionals, faith communities and LGBT+ rights organisations have joined together in a coalition, organised by Stonewall, to urge the government deliver the ban, and end conversion therapy once and for all ahead of the 1,000 days mark of inaction by the government to stop conversion therapy.

“Being LGBT+ is beautiful, and there is no place in our society for any so-called ‘interventions’ which tell us otherwise,” said Stonewall chief executive Nancy Kelley.

“The UK government must stop dragging its feet and make good on its promise to bring in a full legal ban, and put a stop to conversion therapy in the UK for good.”

The coalition is encouraging people across the country to email their MPs and explain why the UK urgently needs a legislative ban on conversion therapy.

It is also campaigning for specialist support for LGBT+ conversion therapy survivors and victims.