Youngkin will block schools from accommodating transgender students

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can sign something for my non binary kid and some jerk teacher can refuse to refer to them as they.

That’s awful.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This is how I’m reading it too. It seems like in order for a teacher to actually be required to use correct names and pronouns, we have to go to court and ask for a name change and get a new birth certificate and all that. But yeah I too could be wrong.

+1 This is how I'm reading it too. That even if you have a note from the parents it asserts that any teacher is considered within their constitutional right to not call the student by their preferred name/pronouns unless they are legally binding. So while this order is cloaked in being all about parent rights it basically a) makes teachers have to report students, and b) not bind teachers to what parents and students select if it happens to not coincide with the students' birth record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is just awful. There are so many statistics about the danger many of these kids are in from their parents and others, and from suicide. And Youngkin wants to make sure these kids are in danger.

Can you cite these statistics?

NP
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/

It is true that transgender youth are more likely to commit suicide. Considering that dysmorphia is often enough comorbid with a bunch of other stuff, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21671938/, causality is far from clear. BTW do you really think the Trevor project came into this analysis trying to find the answer, in a spirit of scientific inquiry? Or maybe do you think you should interpret their study through the lens of understanding they are advocates for a position.

This "but they'll commit suicide" argument -- maybe it's true, but the evidence is not speaking loudly, if at all. Could even be the other way, that encouraging transitions leads to more suicides. Given the lack of careful causal analysis in this literature, we'll probably never know. That argument certainly does grab attention though.

BTW do you think people really "want these kids to be in danger"? I expect most believe (rightly) that gender dysmorphia is mostly a fad and that a return to common sense in the schools will do more good than harm for kids. I think you're turning your opponents into monsters to make yourself feel more righteous. They're not.

You can’t just muse about the cause of suicides. Parental and community support of gender identity significantly reduces suicide rates.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578185/

First, that’s a study of young transwomen, when the majority of the trans-identifying teenagers now are young trans men. It’s also from 2015 and earlier, which at seven years ago is not the same cohort as teenagers today. Read some detransition stories. Medicalization of young people who identify as trans happens at a never-before-seen level now.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about names and pronouns. Needing to tell parents when that could put the child in danger. Teachers and other staff members being protected while they misgender students.

NP. If the newest WPATH SOCs go into effect in VA, then we ARE talking about medicalization, because they recommend access to medical treatment for trans kids without parental consent if parents do not support transition. Therefore, it is an entirely realistic scenario that a child at school could adopt new pronouns and then (because the parents are not supportive), use the schools to get access to medical care. This is not an unlikely scenario under the new SOCs.

[Anonymous]

I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can sign something for my non binary kid and some jerk teacher can refuse to refer to them as they.

That’s awful.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

This is how I’m reading it too. It seems like in order for a teacher to actually be required to use correct names and pronouns, we have to go to court and ask for a name change and get a new birth certificate and all that. But yeah I too could be wrong.

You are reading it wrong.

Read the entire document through the sample guidance.

The only thing that requires legal documents is if you want to change your child's name or gender on their official legal school documents, like diplomas.

Everything else just requires a signed letter or email that you are aware this is happening and that your kids belief is sincere (ie not a joke or prank).

Using a nickname associated with your child's birth name does not require any permission.

So a female Samantha can go by a male Sam, and no one needs permission, notification or any documents. Or a male Alex can go by a female Lexi. The teacher can call them that, the kids can be asked to be called that, and the parents do not need to give permission.

It is all in the guidance.

If this is as important as many on here say, then it is worth reading through the entire 20 page document, as well as some of the legal precedent cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is just awful. There are so many statistics about the danger many of these kids are in from their parents and others, and from suicide. And Youngkin wants to make sure these kids are in danger.

Can you cite these statistics?

NP
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/resources/article/facts-about-lgbtq-youth-suicide/

It is true that transgender youth are more likely to commit suicide. Considering that dysmorphia is often enough comorbid with a bunch of other stuff, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21671938/, causality is far from clear. BTW do you really think the Trevor project came into this analysis trying to find the answer, in a spirit of scientific inquiry? Or maybe do you think you should interpret their study through the lens of understanding they are advocates for a position.

This "but they'll commit suicide" argument -- maybe it's true, but the evidence is not speaking loudly, if at all. Could even be the other way, that encouraging transitions leads to more suicides. Given the lack of careful causal analysis in this literature, we'll probably never know. That argument certainly does grab attention though.

BTW do you think people really "want these kids to be in danger"? I expect most believe (rightly) that gender dysmorphia is mostly a fad and that a return to common sense in the schools will do more good than harm for kids. I think you're turning your opponents into monsters to make yourself feel more righteous. They're not.

You can’t just muse about the cause of suicides. Parental and community support of gender identity significantly reduces suicide rates.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7578185/

First, that’s a study of young transwomen, when the majority of the trans-identifying teenagers now are young trans men. It’s also from 2015 and earlier, which at seven years ago is not the same cohort as teenagers today. Read some detransition stories. Medicalization of young people who identify as trans happens at a never-before-seen level now.

But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about names and pronouns. Needing to tell parents when that could put the child in danger. Teachers and other staff members being protected while they misgender students.

NP. If the newest WPATH SOCs go into effect in VA, then we ARE talking about medicalization, because they recommend access to medical treatment for trans kids without parental consent if parents do not support transition. Therefore, it is an entirely realistic scenario that a child at school could adopt new pronouns and then (because the parents are not supportive), use the schools to get access to medical care. This is not an unlikely scenario under the new SOCs.

So you think that if this order is not signed, a minor could, through the school, get hormone blockers or testosterone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would want to know if my kid was, say, throwing away all her lunch at school and not eating, because this would be a sign of an eating disorder. I’d want to know if my kid was being bullied or being a bully to someone else. Why can’t I also know if my kid is demanding to be called a different name and pronouns at school as well? It’s wrong to keep this information from parents when kids spend a lot of their waking hours at school. It’s still a parenting issue, not just a schools issue.

I hope you see that the order is MUCH more than that, but the answer is obvious: trans kids get abused by their parents all the time when they find out. Look at the stats; they are horrifying. A absurd number of trans kids wind up homeless. Many teachers want those kids to feel safe around them.

+1, teachers can protect children as well, it literally part of our job. Some parents are closed-minded A$$HOLES, why would I encourage student harm/fear? The kids who want their parents to know have already told them. If your child is trans and you don’t know, then your child is afraid of you.

+1

I agree with this to a point. But I think it is important for those of us who support trans rights to also recognize that it *is* also a thing right now for girls with no history of gender dysphoria nor even any stereotypical masculine interests, to play around with trans identities and identify as males or non-binaries in a social way. For some, it may be part of the usual discomfort with puberty and this is a new way to deal with it. (If there was a way not to have a gender when I was in middle school I think I would have leaped at the chance too!) The only thing these kids do that is "trans" is use the pronouns and name and wear a tighter sports bra so their breasts are less visible. Some of them aren't telling their parents because they aren't yet convinced it's a real thing and don't want to get bogged down with parental concern (or even parental support).

At the same time, there are kids who more clearly have a gender dysphoria/trans history who are on a different trajectory and need different supports. I worry that the trans kids who are on a more sustained trajectory are get caught up in a wave of backlash against a larger group of kids who are not "trans" in a sustained way, just experiencing some identity confusions during puberty. I also worry that adults are going to be too heavy-handed with these kids who are trying out identities. And I think it's wrong to put teachers in the middle of this all as reporters.

Agree. Kids can call each other whatever they want, but when adults get in on it and appear to support and sanction whatever crazy idea the teen has, it takes on a life of its own. So many of my daughter's friends are gay and trans that it seems unbelievable. All of these are wealthy white and Asian girls with liberal parents in MoCo. Maybe if we didn't indulge every whim of these teen girls, they might have a chance to figure it out on their own.

I'm the PP and not sure I agree with you on this though. I think if a teen asks an adult to support them in this, they should. It's a sign of respect and gives kids a sense of autonomy and agency in their lives that it is healthy. I don't think it's a "crazy idea" just a normal identity exploration with a new name. And there are some kids who are figuring out that they are trans among that group too. This gives them greater safety in numbers. I think the dialogue just needs to recognize this. And the thing is, we don't really know what all the "real numbers" are since this is the first generation raised where there is not a major, serious stigma against gay/trans. The same numbers seem to be emerging in other countries where gay/trans has been de-stigmatized. And I've known a lot more adults who have come out as trans--they just always thought of themselves as off. SO I'm definitely not in the 'i'm sure it's all a crazy idea' camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

no, no courts have decided that teachers have a right to refuse to use preferred names and pronouns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

That was the sixth circuit, which doesn’t encompass Virginia, and a big part of the issue was that it was a university. The court made a big deal out of the free speech rights of university professors specifically because it’s academia. I don’t think that’s applicable to high schools. So no this was not already the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

no, no courts have decided that teachers have a right to refuse to use preferred names and pronouns.

The Loudoun County teacher won his court case not to be compelled to use pronouns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

That was the sixth circuit, which doesn’t encompass Virginia, and a big part of the issue was that it was a university. The court made a big deal out of the free speech rights of university professors specifically because it’s academia. I don’t think that’s applicable to high schools. So no this was not already the law.

The Loudoun County teacher won his case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

That was the sixth circuit, which doesn’t encompass Virginia, and a big part of the issue was that it was a university. The court made a big deal out of the free speech rights of university professors specifically because it’s academia. I don’t think that’s applicable to high schools. So no this was not already the law.

The Loudoun County teacher won his case.

I believe won at the Virginia supreme court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The data suggest taking steps to create an affirming home or school environments could be crucial suicide-prevention tools. The report found that fewer than 1 in 3 trans and nonbinary youth felt affirmed in their gender at home, and LGBTQ youth who felt high social support from their family reported attempting suicide at less than half the rate of those who felt low or moderate social support. The survey found that LGBTQ youth who reported their school to be LGBTQ-affirming also reported lower rates of attempting suicide. “Sometimes people look at a broad social trend like this, and they think about laws that need to change, policies that need to change, and those do need to happen,” Paley says. “But every single person has the ability to create a different experience for the young people in their life.”

https://time.com/6173081/suicidal-thoughts-lgbtq-youth/

We are in very liberal northern virginia where almost every house has one of those rainbow in this house we believe signs.

Parents here are not sending their kids to conversion camp for being gay or trans. They are throwing them parties.

There is no reason for schools to hide this kind of information from parents.

Read the actual document.

Not the filtered through bias media summaries.

It is a well thought out document.

There are definitely POS Youngkin-voting parents in this area.

POS politicians like Karl Frisch try to command the stage and set the agenda. Our kids may not end up crossing genders, but parents may cross political lines to vote for common-sense politicians like Youngkin.

Anyone I know who crossed political lines to vote for Youngkin no longer think he has common-sense and deeply regrets their decision. And I'm a moderate and know quite a few.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

That was the sixth circuit, which doesn’t encompass Virginia, and a big part of the issue was that it was a university. The court made a big deal out of the free speech rights of university professors specifically because it’s academia. I don’t think that’s applicable to high schools. So no this was not already the law.

The Loudoun County teacher won his case.

That was about sharing his opinion about the issue. It wasn’t about his actual right to misgender a student.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I looked at the model policies and they mostly seem appropriate to me. The one thing I disagree with though is that teachers have a consistitutional right to refuse to use the child’s preferred name and pronouns. If the school decides it is school policy to used the names students chose for themselves, then it is very disruptive for teachers to refuse to do so. Imagine if a teacher refused to call a student “Mohamed” or “Jesus” because they claimed that violated their religious beliefs? Religious & speech rights are never absolute. And given that gender identity/expression is a protected class, it is hard to argue that teachers can freely refuse to recognize preferred gender identity. Your religious beliefs on gender do not give license to discriminate. Eg - an Orthodox teacher could not refuse to teach female students based on religious beliefs.

This was already decided in the courts.

Teachers cannot be required to use different pronouns.

This pronoun exemption is not something Youngkin created. It was already decided in the courts. I believe the case is cited somewhere in the document.

Read the entire document.

It is very moderate and reasonable, and not at all what the detractors and headlines will have you believe.

Parents of trans kids need to read the entire document. It might allay some of your fears and concerns.

That was the sixth circuit, which doesn’t encompass Virginia, and a big part of the issue was that it was a university. The court made a big deal out of the free speech rights of university professors specifically because it’s academia. I don’t think that’s applicable to high schools. So no this was not already the law.

The Loudoun County teacher won his case.

That was about sharing his opinion about the issue. It wasn’t about his actual right to misgender a student.

Oh and it was just preliminary relief, not a win that would create law.