16 • JUNE 29, 2018 • LOSANGELESBLADE.COM
VOLUME 02 ISSUE 17
Rejecting the Scarlet ‘T’ Appeals Court upholds trans students’ rights
Jon W. Davidson has been a leading LGBT legal rights advocate and constitutional scholar for more than 30 years. He recently stepped down as the national legal director of Lambda Legal.
EDITOR’S NOTE: California has built a history of protecting transgender students through nondiscrimination and specific laws and policies. And while Education Sec. Betsy DeVos has diligently worked at rolling back such protections, the courts have ruled in favor of the students. Jon Davidson explains the most recent ruling.
Notwithstanding repeated attempts by the Trump administration to backpedal on civil rights progress for transgender Americans, the federal courts once again have ridden to the rescue. On June 18, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, becoming the second federal appellate court to expressly hold that transgender students are entitled to use public school restrooms that are consistent with their gender identity. The decision is notable for its powerful rejection of right-wing attempts to sow misunderstanding and fear about those who are transgender. The case was brought by the well-funded, anti-LGBTQ organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). ADF is representing several students and their parents who claim that these students’ right to privacy is being violated by a Pennsylvania school district policy allowing transgender students to use singlesex facilities that match the gender with which they identify. ADF sought to have the policy enjoined while the lawsuit proceeds. After the
ACLU intervened on behalf of a student and an LGBTQ youth organization, a federal district court rejected ADF’s request and it appealed. The Third Circuit unanimously ruled that the lower court correctly rebuffed ADF. Relying on expert testimony on gender-identity issues, the appellate court explained that policies that exclude transgender people from facilities that are consistent with their deep-rooted sense of gender adversely affect “the physical and mental health, safety, and well-being of transgender individuals.” Such exclusionary policies exacerbate the risk of, “anxiety and depression, low self-esteem, engaging in self-injurious behaviors, suicide, substance use, homelessness and eating disorders,” among other harms. Indeed, as the court noted, the rate of suicide attempts by transgender individuals is nine times the general population. But, as the expert testified, when transgender students are respected and allowed to use facilities that conform to their gender identity, those students “reflect the same healthy psychological profile as their peers.” The appellate court questioned whether merely allowing transgender students to share restrooms and locker rooms with students who are not transgender violates anyone’s rights to privacy. After all, it is common for individuals to be partially undressed in such facilities and a transgender student’s presence there “provides no more of a risk to students’ privacy rights than the presence of an overly curious student [who is not transgender] who decides to sneak glances at his or her classmates performing their bodily functions.” But even if there were an intrusion on privacy rights, the Third Circuit held that it was amply justified by the government’s compelling interest in protecting transgender students from the harms of exclusion. The risk to them, the appellate court explained, “cannot be overstated— indeed, it can be life-threatening.” Inclusive policies not only protect transgender young people, the Court added; they benefit all students by fostering “an environment of inclusivity, acceptance, and tolerance” that creates a better learning environment,
“reduce[s] prejudices and promote[s] diverse relationships which later benefits students in the workplace and in their communities.” The Boyertown school district properly protected all students who desired additional privacy by replacing “gang showers” with single-user showers with privacy curtains behind which students can undress and dress. In addition, the school district maintained eight single-user restrooms available to all students desiring greater privacy. The appellate court condemned ADF’s assertion that only transgender students should be required to use those restrooms, as some schools have done, as a position that would “very publicly brand all transgender students with a scarlet ‘T.’” Trans students should “not have to endure that as a price of attending their public school,” the court held. In reaching its decision, the Third Circuit relied on the Seventh Circuit’s ruling last year in Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education, which reached similar conclusions and was later resolved when that school district agreed to pay $800,000 in settlement. The court also noted that the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that discrimination against transgender individuals is a form of sex discrimination. Numerous federal district courts have agreed that transgender students, employees, and tenants cannot be shunned in the ways the ADFs of the world seek. Unfortunately, the Trump administration continues to align itself with such anti-trans efforts. The Department of Education has withdrawn Obama administration guidance that urged schools to follow the sorts of policies the Boyertown district adopted. Likewise, the federal Bureau of Prisons in May rolled back Obama era rules designed to protect the safety of transgender inmates that had allowed them to be housed and use restrooms that match their gender identity. The Department of Justice also continues its efforts (thus far, in vain) to justify the President’s Executive Order barring transgender individuals from military service. With Congress refusing to intercede, we have only the courts to protect us. Thank goodness they continue to prove up to the task.
ADDRESS 5455 Wilshire Blvd #1505, Los Angeles, CA 90036 PHONE 310-230-5266 E-MAIL email@example.com INTERNET losangelesblade.com PUBLISHED BY Los Angeles Blade, LLC PUBLISHER TROY MASTERS firstname.lastname@example.org 310-230-5266 x8080 (o), 917-406-1619 (c) SALES & MARKETING ADVERTISING AND PARTNERSHIP DIRECTOR MICHAEL JORTNER MJORTNER@losangelesblade.com 310-230-5266 x9459 PALM SPRINGS ACCOUNT EXEC BRAD FUHR, 760-813-2020. email@example.com NATIONAL ADVERTISING RIVENDELL MEDIA firstname.lastname@example.org, 212-242-6863 MARKETING DIRECTOR STEPHEN RUTGERS email@example.com, 202-747-2077 x8077 EDITORIAL CALIFORNIA EDITOR KAREN OCAMB firstname.lastname@example.org NATIONAL EDITOR KEVIN NAFF email@example.com, 202-747-2077 x8088 INTERNATIONAL EDITOR MICHAEL K. LAVERS firstname.lastname@example.org EDITORIAL ASSITANT MARIAH COOPER email@example.com CONTRIBUTORS
CHRISTOPHER KANE, AUSTIN MENDOZA, JOHN PAUL KING, JOEY DIGUGLIELMO, CHRIS JOHNSON, LOU CHIBBARO JR., MARIAH COOPER, REBEKAH SAGER, JON DAVIDSON, SUSAN HORNIK
CREATIVE DESIGN/PRODUCTION AZERCREATIVE.COM DISTRIBUTION CHRISTOPHER JACKSON, 562-826-6602
All material in the Los Angeles Blade is protected by federal copyright law and may not be reproduced without the written consent of the Los Angeles Blade. The sexual orientation of advertisers, photographers, writers and cartoonists published herein is neither inferred nor implied. The appearance of names or pictorial representation does not necessarily indicate the sexual orientation of that person or persons. Although the Los Angeles Blade is supported by many fine advertisers, we cannot accept responsibility for claims made by advertisers. Unsolicited editorial material is accepted by the Los Angeles Blade, but the paper cannot take responsibility for its return. The editors reserve the right to accept, reject or edit any submission. A single copy of the Los Angeles Blade is available from authorized distribution points, to any individual within a 50-mile radius of Los Angeles, CA. Multiple copies are available from the Los Angeles Blade office only. Call for rates. If you are unable to get to a convenient free distribution point, you may receive a 26-week mailed subscription for $195 per year or $5.00 per single issue. Checks or credit card orders can be sent to Phil Rockstroh at firstname.lastname@example.org. Postmaster: Send address changes to the Los Angeles Blade, PO BOX 53352 Washington, DC 20009. The Los Angeles Blade is published bi-weekly, on Friday, by Los Angeles Blade, LLC. Rates for businesses/institutions are $450 per year. Periodical postage paid at Los Angeles, CA., and additional mailing offices. Editorial positions of the Los Angeles Blade are expressed in editorials and in editors’ notes as determined by the paper’s editors. Other opinions are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Los Angeles Blade or its staff. To submit a letter or commentary: Letters should be fewer than 400 words; commentaries should be fewer than 750 words. Submissions may be edited for content and length, and must include a name, address and phone number for verification. Send submissions by e-mail to email@example.com.
©2018 LOS ANGELES BLADE, LLC.
Losangelesblade.com, Volume 2, Issue 17, June 29, 2018