Federal Anti-LGBTQ Students Bills

I wish it were more complicated than this, but it isn't.

For cultural right-wingers, the idea is that the dominant culture in this nation should be white (European), male, (a certain type of) Christian, and unfailingly straight.

Add "with wealth and poverty flowing towards those who deserve them" and you get right wing free marketeer.

Add "because God says so" and you get Christian nationalist.

And to get MAGA, you add anger and vengefulness aimed at anyone who ever dared to contradict any of the above.

We've seen the varieties of anti-LGBTQ bills championed on the state level, from censoring books that dare to mention that such persons exist to requiring schools to force all students to perform straight identities, regardless of how true those may be.

Unfortunately, we're seeing more of the same baloney on the federal level, especially in the House.

Back in May, the House passed a bill entitled "The Stopping Indoctrination and Protecting Kids Act" (so..um.. SIPKA?). It's short and simple. 

For one, it would forbid any ESEA funds being used to teach "gender ideology," and if you're wondering what exactly that is, the bill refers you to Donald Trump's executive order Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which defines "gender ideology" in part as "the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one's sex." That's part of a long rant that boils down to "biology and science say there are just two sexes and so your gender is determined by your genitals period the end shut up" which ignores the actual science of sex. But opposition to "gender ideology" is a particular type of marker, indicating someone who doesn't want to argue that LGBTQ people do not actually exist, and that anyone who claims otherwise is delusional or stupid or evil.

The other part of the bill requires schools to obtain parent permission before making any accommodations for "gender markers, pronouns, or preferred name on any school form" for a student in elementary or middle grades. Works fine except for all those students whose parents do not support or accept them. 

House Education and Workforce Committee also reported out HR 8705-- "Civics and History Advancement to Restore Learning, Integrity and Education Act" (CHARLIE Act, because they are determined they really think they've got something with that guy).  Rep. Burgess Owens of Utah tossed this one out there, and it's more of the same--                          

The bill says "no funds may be used for discriminatory equity ideology or gender ideology." You may have missed the part where Dear Leader tossed out "Discriminatory Equity Ideology" as an alternative meaning for DEI, but it's once again the notion that anything that tries to push straight white male Christians out of the spotlight on center stage is Very Bad and is, in fact, discrimination. 

But by censoring any piece of history education that doesn't center straight white Christian men, these guys hope to restore balance and fairness. They are so sure that they lost that center stage spot because evil lefties took over education and started indoctrinating children-- so the obvious solution is to get in there and start indoctrinating children to the right way of thinking. 

"We just want neutral instruction," say the supporters, believing in their hearts that a truly neutral view of American history and society would present straight white Christian men in a central spot.\

Well, none of this is new, but it's worth noticing that these kinds of attempts to enforce the culture right's ideology on students is now getting pushed at the federal level (you know-- the level where MAGA says they want to send control of schools back to the states). Now is no time to stop contacting your elected representatives, no matter who they are. 

A Mother Takes School To Court Over Her Child's Name

Here's a case that shows everything hard and challenging about policies around LGBTQ students in school.

Michelle Landerer is suing the Dover Area School District in York County, PA over the gender identification of their child. The child had been previously diagnosed with PTSD, Conversion Disorder, General Anxiety Disorder and ADDl she already regularly saw a counselor selected by her mother.

In middle school, the student asked to be identified by a name and pronouns different from those assigned at birth. The child told the district that he did not want his mother to know about the change, and the district honored that request.

Landerer found out and told the teen that he could change his name when he was 18. The summer of 2022, the child confided with the private counselor that he thought he might be trans, leading to a series of discussions with Landerer, the counselor, and the child. The child told mom that he felt pressured by the school to stick with the name. Landerer herself sent off an email to the district:

(Teen’s legal name) is registered as (teen’s legal name) and I expect she will be addressed as such. NOT (Teen’s chosen name)... There is NO room for discussion about this matter and have discussed this with (teen’s therapist) as well so I am expecting there to be no confusion…

The 14-year-old told Landerer that he had told the district to use his birth name. Apparently what he actually told his teachers was to use his birth name in front of his mother and his chosen name the rest of the time. That secret did not last long. Said Landerer:

Even though they were well aware of my daughter's mental health issues and her educational disabilities, they took it upon themselves without my knowledge and without my consent to socially transition her and did this for an entire year without me knowing.

The lawsuit claims that the district interfered with Landerer's rights 

Defendant School Board and the individual members of the Board of Directors know or should know that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States and Third Circuit, provide that the fundamental right to direct the care, custody, and control of children resides first in the parent and cannot be infringed by state actors absent a compelling state interest.

 Also, she charges that the school infringed on her freedom of religion and her beliefs, in part, that “human beings are created male or female by God and the natural created order regarding human sexual identity cannot be changed.” 

She would like the court to order that the district cannot treat students differently from their birth gender or use any other name for the child without prior written consent of a parent. She wants the court to out LGBTQ students to their families, and she wants a jury trial.

Landerer is represented by the Child and Parental Rights Campaign, a "nonprofit public-interest law fir founded to defend parents' rights to shield their children from the impacts of gender identity ideology." They do advocacy, legal representation, coordination, and activism. They offer a church transgender response guide: 

For too long churches have remained silent thinking they would be safe within their walls as our young people fall prey to an ideology that’s enticing them to reject God’s created order and harm their bodies by rejecting their sex, and as families are being torn apart.

The Georgia firm, founded in 2019, has scored huge grants from the National Christian Foundation, the National Philanthropic Trust, and the Alliance Defending Freedom. The Landerer case seems to be their one big get.

There's a lot going on here.

I sympathize with Landerer. It's a big shock when your child makes a life decision and leaves you completely out of the loop. It has to be a gut punch. 

But what does she hope to accomplish here? Is she really going to go to the mat in order to torch her relationship with her child in order to stand firm on her conservative pseudo-religious point? Because, while I obviously do not know the family dynamics involved, if Landerer's end game is to have a warm happy relationship with her child, this does not seem like the way to get there.

As with all such cases, one must also wonder where exactly the child's rights lie in all this. It doesn't seem hard to see why the child didn't want the news to get to Mom. Landerer is standing up for her parental right to have total control and direction over her child's life, but does the child have any rights to make choices for his own life? Can Landerer also take him to court if he won't wear a skirt? What if he insists on speaking with a low "male" voice instead of a high "girl" voice? What if he refuses to attend church services? The suit is over the district interfering with Landerer's rights to direct the child's life, but what if it's the child who interferes with those "rights" instead?

Which is the needle that must be threaded by every district caught in one of these cases. Where exactly is the line between the rights of the student and the rights of the parent? How does a school make the call when dealing with a student who has a host of issues that add up to "diminished emotional regulation" on top of being thirteen? How much freedom should a parent allow a child, and how much does the child need a firm guiding hand? And will hiring a right wing law firm that hopes to use your child to make a political and legal point help anything?

Okay, I know the answer to the last one.

But the rest are hard. This case, like the many similar instances across the country, presents a complex and difficult problem to sort out, yet these situations keep prompting simplistic answers.

The parents' rights always take first place and the school should always give control and information to the parent? The child is not chattel. The child has rights of their own, most notably the right to be safety, a right that the school is obligated to protect, even if the danger to the child is the parent. And certainly a right to define their own identity. LGBTQ students are particularly prone to being victims of abuse and being put out on the street. "The parent is always in the right" is not an answer.

The school should always follow the preferences of the child? They're a child, and the hope is always that the parents be in the loop. "Always leave the parents out of this" is a troubling default position for any school. And while a child has that right to define themselves, how much responsibility does the school have to play along? 

Schools that try to convince students to be LGBTQ would be way out of line-- if they existed. Likewise, asserting that all LGBTQ people are always wrong and deluded and sinful and demonic is not only unhelpful, but doesn't strike me as any sort of Christlike love and grace.

The absolute ideal is for parents, school staff, and children to sit down together, share, communicate, and figure out how best to move forward. There are many slices of rights and responsibilities at play in these cases, and no one size fits all policy solutions will actually fit all. I feel sad for everyone in this story, and I hope that other stories like it end up somewhere other than in a courtroom.