Freethought-Now
It is the time of the year for growth, change and development. Birds are singing, plants are growing, and for those of us here in the Midwest, we have emerged from our winter hibernation.
Unfortunately, not everything developing in the world is as cheerful as the flowers in your local park.
The rights of transgender youth have been continually under attack in this country. From the right to play sports to the right to access best practice medical care, these kids have spent the past few years as a political punching bag in the Christian nationalist culture war. And we’re seeing yet another major question creep up to the Supreme Court: Should school teachers and administrators be required to inform parents that a student may be questioning their gender identity?
This is the question being asked in school districts across the country, and specifically in Mirabelli v. Bonta, where a California law barring schools from instituting policies that would make forced outing mandatory has been challenged. Represented by the conservative Catholic Thomas More Society, a group of teachers and parents brought free speech, free exercise and due process claims against the Escondido Unified School District, and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, California state Superintendent Tony Thurmond and members of the California State Board of Education. The group claims that the law unconstitutionally requires teachers to lie to the families of transgender students and force them to use “opposite sex pronouns and a new name” for said students. On the parents’ end, the claim is that schools are circumventing the ability of parents to consent to the social transition of students. Since 2023, this law has been bouncing through the judicial system until its most recent turn before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that while the case continues its appeal process in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, students may not receive the protection this law provides.
The decision itself is not surprising, but it is concerning for those watching for the future of trans rights in this country. The court repeatedly misgenders two trans students in the ruling and makes a not-so-subtle implication that the two students in question experienced mental health issues and suicidal ideation as a direct result of experimenting with a social transition — with absolutely no acknowledgment that the poor mental health outcomes of these children just might have more to do with being in a nonaffirming, and potentially dangerous, home environment. The Supreme Court focuses exclusively on the experience of the parents, while showing a blatant and utter disregard for the safety of the minors, not only in this case, but across California.
Before I go any further, however, I want to be very clear about what exactly we are talking about here — and more specifically what we are not talking about. This is not about hormone replacement therapy, or surgeries, or any permanently life-altering procedures. Gym teachers are not suddenly supplying kids with sex-altering physical medical treatments. We’re talking about kids experimenting with a new name and pronouns, and maybe clothing and a haircut, depending on the circumstances. In some cases, it may not even be that, and instead, we might be talking about a kid who simply goes to a school counselor or trusted teacher to express that they don’t necessarily feel like their assigned sex at birth and are trying to figure out what that means for them.
Under the challenged California law, teachers and school employees are granted two of the most important tools for protecting kids from serious harm in these situations: nuance and discretion. Every family is different. Every student is different. Every situation is different. Certainly, there are plenty of circumstances in which helping a child come out to their parents is the safe, right and healthy thing to do for them. However, even in the most open and affirming families, coming out can be a big deal emotionally, and kids may need time and support from other trusted members of their community before they are ready to tell their parents. And in the worst-case scenario, students could face extreme abuse, conversion therapy, being thrown out of their homes or any other number of harmful outcomes. Typically, if a child trusts an adult at their school enough to come to them with this information, that adult knows which situation the child is in, and should be given leeway to respond in a way that prioritizes the child’s safety above all else.
Six states require school staff to inform parents if their child makes certain disclosures about questioning gender identity — no exceptions. Only two states require forced outing if parents actively request that information. An additional seven states do not require forced outing of a trans student at the mere disclosure of questioning gender identity, but do require it before staff can actually use a student’s requested name and pronouns. That means that, to varying degrees, school staff in 15 states have lost their right to use their best judgment to protect students from harm.
This is a critical piece of the broader Christian nationalist goal to eliminate trans people from public existence. They have framed it as a “parents’ rights” issue: the parents’ right to know what is happening with their child, the parents’ right to know how teachers are treating their child, the right of the parent to raise their child as they see fit. These are appealing proposals to parents regardless of their feelings on transgender people. Most parents want to know what is happening in their children’s lives. They want to know whether their child needs extra support, is struggling, or is otherwise going through something difficult. But for Christian extremists, it is not actually the right to simply know about something going on in their child’s life; it’s the right to control every aspect of their children. Many of these families and the groups supporting them believe that they can force their child out of transness: through prayer, through church groups, through massively discredited practices billed as “reparative therapy,” and/or physically and emotionally abusive behavior labeled as “discipline.” Children in this religious framework have no agency, no rights to their own self-determination and exploration of identity. The only option they are given is to fall perfectly in line with their “God-given” gender role, regardless of the consequences to their physical and mental health as adults.
Children should have the right to change and develop and build an understanding of themselves — especially at school, which for most kids is the center of their social world, and where they spend the majority of their time. Kids need the ability to test the kind of person they want to become as they get older, free from the fear that adults in their lives may put them in dangerous situations.
Unfortunately, it seems, the Supreme Court is positioning itself to be unwilling to recognize that right in the coming years. This case is headed back to the 9th Circuit for further proceedings, but I have very little doubt that this will be returning to Washington, D.C., before we know it.
Disclaimer: The views in this column are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
The post The dangers of forced outing appeared first on Freethought Now.