By Katie Currie and Percy Koontz
John Bazemore/Associated Press
In recent months there has been an increase in anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in state governments. Some examples are bills in Florida, Texas, and Maryland, with other states developing similar legislation.
Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill, or “Don’t Say Gay” bill, as dubbed by its opposers, bans discussion around gender and sexual orientation in public school for students up to the third grade. However, this could affect higher grades due to a clause specifying that anything deemed “not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards” can be regarded as a violation.
Jabari Lyles, former Director of LGBTQ+ affairs for the mayor of Baltimore city and previous Executive Director of the Maryland Chapter of GLSEN, addressed the motivations behind this Florida bill, saying, “I think that they believe that in some way this will show them some sort of protection, and I think that it's the opposite.” Their statement on the potential harm caused by this bill continued, “I think that the bills make it really unsafe for LGBTQ youth.” Lyles added, “Banning those topics deprives young people of learning about themselves and also learning about each other. It creates an unsafe environment, and I think it also sends a message that LGBTQ+ identity is something that is inappropriate for young folks.”
Eryn Balchunas, RPCS sophomore, agreed with this statement by saying, “They are going to have to learn about it somehow, and to learn about it safely and easily in an environment where they feel loved is going to be much better.” Balchunas continued by saying, “the fact that it is labeled K-3rd grade is obviously saying that they think that queer people are inherently sexual.”
In addition to this, the bill also addresses school procedures for notifying students’ guardians about mental or physical health concerns. The bill states that guardians can access any of their student’s education and health records held by the school district. Furthermore, schools are prohibited from establishing procedures that would prevent guardians from being notified about their student’s health. While supporters of this bill argue that it exists to allow parents to be more involved in schooling, many students like Balchunas disagree: “The goal is to promote LGBTQ+ erasure.” Balchunas continued her statement by saying, “We’re here, we're not going anywhere, there's nothing that you can do about it.”
While the bill states that information about students can be kept from their guardians if there is a possibility the child might be put at risk, access to school information could endanger students who would like to keep their identities private. Parents will also have the ability to sue school districts deemed in violation of the bill’s provisions.
In retaliation, throughout Florida, students held large walkouts from schools and other Pro-LGBTQ+ protests. However, the bill was signed into law on Monday, March 28th. Miguel Cardiba, the United States Secretary of Education, issued a statement that he would “be monitoring this law upon implementation to evaluate whether it violates federal civil rights law.” This bill is due to take effect on July 1st, 2022, near the end of the current school year.
Following this bill’s passing, several other states, including Alabama, Arizona, Ohio, Louisiana, Iowa, and South Carolina, are drafting legislation similar to the “Parental Rights in Education” bill.
In addition to Florida's law, legislators from Texas have also introduced three Texas bills restricting gender-affirming care for trans youth.
The most controversial of these three bills is the “Adding Sexual Reassignment to The Definition of Child Abuse” bill, which would place aspects of gender transitioning processes under the legal definition of abuse. Actions newly defined as abuse under this law are providing or consenting to HRT (hormone replacement therapy), cross-sex hormones, or puberty blockers to any child other than intersex children for gender transitioning or gender reassignment.
For transgender children whose parents provide them with gender-affirming care, courts will determine per case whether or not that child should be placed into foster care. This redefinition also potentially threatens criminal penalties for doctors, nurses, and teachers who do not report parents for providing gender-affirming care. Balchunas emphasized her issue with this Texas legislation, “Child abuse. That's a big word. That's a heavy title to be placing on somebody who’s just trying to live their life.” Pro- LGBTQ+ groups have shared similar sentiments.
This bill also outlines that physicians or health care providers must not perform any sterilizing surgeries for the purpose of “affirming the child’s perception of the child’s sex.” Healthcare workers also may not provide hormonal therapy or “remove any otherwise healthy or non-diseased body part or tissue.” The only exception is if the child is intersex with the consent of a legal guardian. Health care providers may be stripped of their licenses and certification if convicted of providing gender-affirming care to children.
The final Texas bill relates to the provision of mental health counseling to treat gender dysphoria. This bill would make providing treatment for gender dysphoria to children by affirming gender identity illegal. It also outlines that mental health providers or children who give or receive gender-affirming therapy for gender dysphoria may take the mental health provider or child to court over this violation.
Lyles discussed ways to support trans youth in Texas despite the restrictions of these bills, stating, “We know that gender-affirming care for young people can look many different ways, it isn't always puberty blockers or hormone treatment, it can be being allowed to have access to gender-affirming clothing, or hair, or whatever that is. I think that number one is letting trans youth know that they are perfect as they are.” Lyles' words were exemplified in their statement, “Show them the support that they do have regardless of the bill.”
In Maryland, the state is reviewing the “Save Women’s Sports” act, which would limit transgender women from participating in women’s sports. This bill is also called “Selina’s Law,” after high school athlete Selina Soule, who lost qualification for the New England Track and Field Regionals after finishing behind two transgender women. Soule’s family and the families of three other high school athletes filed a lawsuit to block transgender students from playing in women’s athletic events in Connecticut.
This bill applies to public schools, schools that compete against public schools, and any interscholastic or intramural athletic teams sponsored by those schools. Furthermore, government entities, organizations, or athletic associations may not take any legal actions against school boards for upholding this.
Individual students may take civil actions against schools or athletic organizations for allowing transgender individuals to play on a team matching their gender identity. Finally, if the reporting student faces backlash from the school or athletic organization, the state government may take legal action against said school or organization.
A Bill in Utah, similar to the Maryland bill, was vetoed by republican Utah Governor Spencer Cox, much to his party’s surprise. Cox defended his reasoning for this veto in a statement published on March 22nd, saying, “Politically, it would be much easier and better for me to simply sign the bill. I have always tried to do what I feel is the right thing regardless of the consequences.”
Cox’s intent was for the bill to be a fair collaboration between people who wanted protections for women’s sports and those who wanted transgender youth in high schools to participatate in sports. However, the day before the bill passed, significant changes that would cause a total ban on transgender participation in sports were issued, reversing compromise efforts.
In his statement, Cox highlights the small number of transgender youth in Utah, “Four kids and only one of them playing girls sports. That’s what all of this is about. Four kids who aren’t dominating or winning trophies or taking scholarships. Four kids who are just trying to find some friends and feel like they are a part of something. Four kids trying to get through each day. Rarely has so much fear and anger been directed at so few.” Cox continued with his statement, saying, “I want them to live. And all the research shows that even a little acceptance and connection can reduce suicidality significantly. For that reason, as much as any other, I have taken this action in the hope that we can continue to work together and find a better way.”
Despite Cox’s heartfelt statement, Utah state lawmakers overrode his veto on March 25th, which will make this bill go into effect on July 1st of this year.
Lyles echoed many of Governor Cox’s statements and addressed the misinformation about trans people in athletics. Lyles also addressed the unwarranted effects that legislator’s passing of this bill could have, “I think they believe that they are going something good, but just like these other bill I think the goal is to show what people really think about trans women and to create negative messaging and stereotypes about who trans girls are. If anything, it shows us that folks don't really understand anything about gender or sports or school. However, they still think they can make decisions about all of that.”
Lyles continued their statement by making several calls to action for people in Marylands,”there needs to be continued organizing advocacy and education because these bill are just founded on just untrue beliefs” Lyles continued to say, “we can't underestimate the power of organizing and advocacy and education… and continuing to hold our legislators accountable.”
Comments