Virginia school board votes to refuse to follow administration’s anti-trans order

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

A public school district in northern Virginia voted yesterday to keep its current pro-trans policies despite the administration’s orders to ban trans students from using the restrooms and locker rooms associated with their gender.

The Loudoun County School Board voted to maintain its current policies regarding the facilities just days after the U.S. Education Department (ED) ordered the district – along with four nearby school districts – to ban trans students from using the facilities associated with their gender. The administration claimed that letting trans students use the appropriate facilities violated Title IX, the law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex in education.

The current administration reversed President Joe Biden’s interpretation of Title IX, which found the statute’s prohibition on discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. The rules rely on the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which found that sex-based discrimination necessarily covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, because it’s impossible to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people without taking sex into account.

That is, denying trans students use of restroom facilities or making use of such facilities difficult solely because of their sex assigned at birth was, to the Biden administration, a form of illegal sex-based discrimination. And since many students can’t last an entire day of school without using the restroom, such discrimination could effectively deny trans students an education.

The ED investigated the Virginia school districts, saying it had gotten complaints alleging “that students in the Divisions avoid using school restrooms whenever possible because of the schools’ policies, and that female students have witnessed male students inappropriately touching other students and watching female students change in a female locker room.”

There is no evidence that trans people are a threat to cisgender girls and women in restrooms, but a 2021 study from UCLA’s Williams Institute found that trans people are four times more likely than cis people to be victims of violent crime.

The ED then ordered the schools to rescind their trans-inclusive policies within 10 days and to “adopt biology-based definition of the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ in all practices and policies relating to Title IX.”

But the school board in Loudoun County voted 6-3 to keep its current policy, explaining in a statement that they are following precedent set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In 2020, that court affirmed a lower court decision in favor of trans student Gavin Grimm, who had sued his school district after he was told to use the bathroom in a bucket in a converted janitor’s closet and was called a “freak” at a school board meeting about his bathroom usage. The court found that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution prohibited his school district from discriminating against him.

“Our priority remains the same: doing what is right for Loudoun County’s young people; focusing on educating our students and ensuring our schools are places where every child feels they belong,” the Loudoun County School Board said in a statement.

The other four school districts ordered to end trans equality have not yet said how they will proceed, but they have to respond by Friday, which will be the end of the 10-day period. Prince William County School Board members met with lawyers last week and issued a statement saying that it “continues to review and work through legal issues related” to the ED’s order and that the board “remains firmly committed to fostering a safe, inclusive, and respectful learning environment for all students and staff.”

NC Dems’ defection fuels the passage of several harmful Republican bills

Read more at NC Voices.

Four North Carolina Democratic lawmakers broke with their party in voting to override Governor Josh Stein’s veto of eight bills, a move that helped push several harmful measures into law.

The four Democrats who voted with state Republican lawmakers on one or more of the override votes were:

  • Cecil Brockman (D-Guilford) – Helped override 2 bills
  • Carla Cunningham (D-Mecklenburg) – Helped override 5 bills
  • Nasif Majeed (D-Mecklenburg) – Helped override 2 bills
  • Shelly Willingham (D-Edgecombe) – Helped override 6 bills

In both of the state’s legislative chambers, a 60% threshold is required to override a governor’s veto of a bill. Due to the four democratic lawmakers going against their party, House Democrats were unable to sustain Governor Stein’s vetoes on eight bills, including House Bill 805, House Bill 318, Senate Bill 266, and House Bill 193.

Here is a breakdown of the bills and how the four lawmakers voted:

Senate Bill 266 is a harmful bill that will raise utility bills for North Carolinians, roll back clean energy progress, and shift costs onto working families so that large corporations pay less. 

The veto override passed 74-46, with Cunningham, Majeed, and Willingham being the deciding votes.

House Bill 193 is a dangerous policy that allows nearly anyone with minimal training to carry a concealed firearm at a private school, creating a serious safety risk for students, teachers, and school support staff. 

The Republican veto override passed 72-48, with Willingham being the deciding vote.

In an interview with Bryan Anderson, Willingham stated that Governor Stein personally called him on Monday night to ask him to sustain his vetoes of several harmful bills. 

Willingham declined, saying, “Governor Stein, he’s just getting to know me. I think now he knows that whatever I say I’m going to do, that’s what I’m going to do. So he could take that to the bank.”

“They say, ‘Well, we want you to sustain the governor’s veto,’” Willingham said. “My thing is I sustain my vote.”

House Bill 805 was originally a bipartisan bill that would have helped people who appeared in sexually explicit photos and videos online to have them removed. However, state Republicans changed the bill to attack transgender North Carolinians along with other controversial provisions. 

In his veto statement, Governor Stein said that while he agreed with the portions of House Bill 805 protecting women and minors  from sexual exploitation on websites, the attacks towards transgender North Carolinians are “mean-spirited.”

Governor Stein wrote, “My faith teaches me that we are all children of God no matter our differences and that it is wrong to target vulnerable people, as this legislation does.”

Ultimately, state Republicans overrode Governor Stein’s veto, 72-48, with Majeed being the deciding vote.

House Bill 318 is an anti-immigration measure that will force sheriffs to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

In a statement following his veto of HB 318, Governor Stein stated, “My oath of office requires that I uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, I cannot sign this bill because it would require sheriffs to unconstitutionally detain people for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released. The Fourth Circuit is clear that local law enforcement officers cannot keep people in custody solely based on a suspected immigration violation. But let me be clear: anyone who commits a serious crime in North Carolina must be prosecuted and held accountable regardless of their immigration status.”

Despite the bill setting up a dangerous precedent, state Republicans overrode Stein’s veto, 72-48.

Rep. Carla Cunningham, who was the deciding vote, gave a speech on the House floor defending her action to help Republicans override Gov. Josh Stein’s veto of the anti-immigration bill. 

In what Rep. Cunningham referred to as sharing her “unapologetic truth”, the Mecklenburg lawmaker went on to state, “First, as a people, we need to recognize that it’s not just the numbers that matter, but also where the immigrants come from and the culture they bring with them to another country. As the social scientists report, all cultures are not equal.”

 “Some immigrants come and believe they can function in isolation, refusing to adapt,” Cunningham stated. “They have come to our country for many reasons, but I suggest they must assimilate, adapt to the culture of the country they wish to live in.”

She added, “It’s time to turn the conveyor belt off.”

North Carolina Democratic Leaders Push Back

Several Democrats decried the override vetoes on the eight bills, including the Duke Energy bill, attacks towards transgender North Carolinians, and allowing concealed carry on private school grounds. 

On the floor, Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, a former judge, pushed back against Cunningham’s remarks, stating, “We all agree we want safe communities. That’s no longer the issue with this bill — it is scapegoating. It is scapegoating immigrants.”

“Research has shown us that the immigrant community is less likely to commit crimes than the US citizen. That is a fact. We need to work towards finding solutions, not creating divisiveness and ignoring community concerns. This is furthering an anti-immigrant agenda no matter the cost. And when police act as immigration agents, witnesses or victims of crime are going to be less likely to report crime.”

According to the News & Observer, Senate Democratic Leader Sydney Batch called Cunningham’s remarks “absolutely uncalled for.”

“The very fact that you would say that not all people, or not all immigrants, are equal, is just – one, it’s contrary to our Constitution. It’s contrary to how this country was formed. This country was formed because of Native Americans, Blacks that were enslaved, and immigrants, including every single person that was here other than Native Americans,” Batch told reporters

“To say that we are not equal goes and flies in the face of anything that a Democrat, in my opinion, believes and holds, near and dear.”

In a statement last week, the Young Democrats of North Carolina joined Democratic members in condemning Cunningham’s remarks, saying that the lawmaker “disgraced her office with a hate-filled speech attacking the very immigrant communities she was elected to serve.”

“You will be held accountable by your community,” the group stated. “Good luck.”

A school district just banned rainbow flags. It may soon remove protections for LGBTQ+ students too.

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The school board of Johnston County, North Carolina, voted 4-2 to ban district schools from displaying rainbow Pride flags on Tuesday. The ban is just the latest in a long line of conservative efforts to ban the LGBTQ+ flag from schools and government property.

According to The Raleigh News & Observer, the newly approved policy states: “Principals and teachers shall limit displays in the classrooms, school buildings, ball fields, school grounds, and buses, such as signs and flags, to materials that represent the United States, the state of North Carolina, Johnston County, the school name, mascot, post-secondary institutions, school-sponsored events, sponsorships, military flags, family photos, student art and/or the approved curriculum.”

One board member who voted against the measure, Kay Carroll, said, “It’s important that they know when they see somebody wear a human rights pin or a rainbow pin, the message is that this is a safe place for people in the LGBTQ+ community…. It’s comforting to see these symbols of acceptance and tolerance. When they see these symbols — which are signals — they know they are safe to be their authentic selves. We’re just treating human beings decently.”

The school board claimed that it will continue to support “all students and school employees.” However, the board is currently considering removing sexual orientation and gender identity from its anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies. The board will re-vote on the removal soon after failing to advance the measure in a 3-3 tie vote last Tuesday.

Numerous school districts nationwide have banned the display of Pride flags, with conservative school board members claiming that the flags are a “divisive” form of “indoctrination.”

However, recent polling by the Trevor Project suggests that LGBTQ+ students may benefit from visible displays of support, considering that 39% of LGBTQ+ young people and 46% of trans and nonbinary young people reported attempting suicide in the past year, and 49% of respondents between ages 13 to 17 said they experienced bullying in the past year. Young people who were bullied were also significantly more likely to have attempted suicide in the past year.

Earlier this year, both Utah and Idaho became the first U.S. states to pass laws restricting the flying of Pride flags in schools and on government property. The move led the capital city governments of Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boise, Idaho, to designate the Pride flags as official city flags, so they can still fly them under the bans.

GOP official just banned “Everyone is Welcome Here” signs in schools because they’re too Democratic

Read more at LGBTQ Nation.

The attorney general of Idaho issued an opinion telling schools not to allow teachers to post signs that say “Everyone is Welcome Here,” claiming that the message that public education is for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or other categories is Democratic in nature and therefore illegally partisan.

“These signs are part of an ideological/social movement which started in Twin Cities, Minnesota, following the 2016 election,” Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador (R) said in guidance issued to a school. “Since that time, the signs have been used by the Democratic party as a political statement.”

.Labrador also noted that the state Democratic Party is selling signs that say “Everyone is Welcome Here,” but state Democrats say that they only started selling those signs at cost in order to draw attention to conservatives’ early attempts to ban them.

The conflict centers on Idaho’s H.B. 41, which took effect last week and bans school employees from displaying flags or banners that show “opinions, emotions, beliefs or thoughts about politics, economics, society, faith or religion.”

Earlier this year, the state’s West Ada School District banned Sarah Inama, a teacher at Lewis and Clark Middle School, from displaying a sign that says, “Everyone is Welcome Here.” It showed a drawing of people’s hands with different skin tones, each with a heart on it.

The district also ordered her to take down another sign that read, “In this room everyone is welcome, important, accepted, respected, encouraged, valued, equal” on top of a background of rainbow colors. The rainbow colors included seven stripes, which differs from the six-striped rainbow Pride flag.

The controversy over the signs garnered national headlines in March, and the state attorney general’s office looked into how the law would apply in such cases, issuing an opinion last week.

The attorney general determined that these specific signs would violate H.B. 41 and claimed that the statements in the signs are part of a political movement and not, as defenders of the signs argued, generally agreed-upon beliefs about the nature of public education.

Labrador’s guidance hyperlinked a 2017 news story about a group of women who protested racist graffiti that appeared at a local high school the day after the president was elected to his first term, according to the Idaho Capital-Sun, which posted the attorney general’s opinion. The women carried signs that read, “All are Welcome Here.”

The guidance then claimed that Inama started posting the “Everyone is Welcome Here” sign in 2017, “during the height of the above-referenced social movement.”

In March, Inama disagreed that the message is political or partisan.

“I don’t agree. I don’t agree that this is a personal opinion,” she told KTVB at the time. “I feel like this is the basis of public education.”

Inama resigned in May.

SCOTUS rules parents have a right to prevent their kids from reading books with LGBTQ+ characters

*This is reported by LGBTQ Nation.

The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Mahmoud v. Taylor, the case brought by parents who said that their First Amendment rights were violated when schools used books that included LGBTQ+ characters.

The decision was 6-3 along ideological lines, with the Republican-appointed justices siding with the religious parents who wanted to opt their children out of reading books like Prince & Knight and Uncle Bobby’s Wedding in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school system.

“The Court does not accept the Board’s characterizations of the LGBTQ+-inclusive instruction as mere ‘exposure to objectionable ideas’ or as lessons in ‘mutual respect,’” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority. “The storybooks unmistakably convey a particular viewpoint about same-sex marriage and gender.”

“Regardless, the question in cases of this kind is whether the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would ‘substantially interfere with the religious development’ of the child or pose ‘a very real threat of undermining’ the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child.”

“Casting aside longstanding precedent, the Court invents a constitutional right to avoid exposure to ‘subtle’ themes ‘contrary to the religious principles’ that parents wish to instill in their children,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. “Exposing students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist, and that their loved ones may celebrate their marriages and life events, the majority says, is enough to trigger the most demanding form of judicial scrutiny.”

The case involved several sets of Christian and Muslim parents who objected to their kids reading books that mentioned LGBTQ+ people. The district had an opt-out policy that they later rescinded because, the district claimed, the opt-outs were becoming “unworkable.”

Some parents in the district protested to get the opt-out policy reinstated, while others protested in favor of learning about LGBTQ+ people.

“The books geared to younger kids are just showing a diverse range of families,” said Christina Celenza, a mother of a student in the district, during one of the 2023 protests. “We have a two-mom household, so my wife and I are really proud and out, and, of course, my kid in kindergarten or pre-K is going to probably talk about his family and his two moms.”

The district didn’t budge, so several parents sued. Two lower courts denied them a preliminary injunction, but the Supreme Court just granted them one.

The parents want the courts to ultimately order teachers to notify them of every possible discussion where LGBTQ+ people may come up so that they could opt their children out, lest their kids learn that LGBTQ+ people exist. They claimed that knowing that LGBTQ+ people exist is contrary to their religious beliefs and violates their right to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

Public education advocates warn that the ruling could lead to even more requests for opt-outs of public education on wide-ranging topics including Earth Day, critical thinking, and anti-drug programs.

Free speech and LGBTQ+ advocates denounced the ruling.

“This ruling is a deeply disappointing blow to the right to read under the First Amendment,” said U.S. Free Expression Programs staff attorney for PEN America Elly Brinkley in a statement. “It is a fundamental betrayal of public schools’ duty to prepare students to live in a diverse and pluralistic society. By allowing parents to pull their children out of classrooms when they object to particular content, the justices are laying the foundation for a new frontier in the assault on books of all kinds in schools.”

“While religious liberty is fundamentally important, it should not force public schools to exempt students from lessons that don’t align with their families’ personal religious or cultural beliefs,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang in a statement. “LGBTQ+ themed books are already among the most banned and challenged in school districts and libraries across the country. Today’s decision will make it even harder for these books to find their way into the hands of students who simply want to read — and who may find validation and acceptance in the process.”

“Today’s ruling does not change schools’ obligation to prepare students to interact with and thrive in a diverse and ever-changing world,” said GLAD Law’s Mary L. Bonauto. “LGBTQ+ people and families exist, students in our public schools have LGBTQ+ parents, and books that include LGBTQ+ people should not be treated differently than those without LGBTQ+ people.”

“The Court’s decision does not require our schools to abandon these efforts. Parents, students, educators, and neighbors can encourage opportunities for learning about diverse people and families by staying involved with school districts, school boards, and in our local communities.”

Amid Trump’s funding threats, a rural Colorado school district looks to remove LGBTQ policy protections

*This is reported by Chalkbeat.

Citing President Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding for school districts that provide protections for LGBTQ people, school board members in the Montezuma-Cortez district in southwestern Colorado are poised to remove sexual orientation and gender identity from the district’s nondiscrimination policy.

“Our district uses federal grant monies and Trump has indicated those grants are at risk if any district continues to support certain previously protected classes like sexual orientation, gender expression, or gender identity,” Mike Lynch, a school board member and the policy committee chair, said at a board meeting late last month.

The proposed policy changes in Montezuma-Cortez represent just one example of how some Colorado school districts are rushing to comply — or over-comply — with federal ultimatums based on questionable legal foundations. Many legal experts say the Trump administration cannot, on its own, exclude transgender people from federal anti-discrimination law and that Colorado law, which includes protections for LGBTQ people, supersedes school district policy anyway.

But efforts to remove protections at the local level send harmful messages about who is valued and who isn’t, they say.

“I think it does damage to queer students because it signals that this school district … doesn’t believe that these students are worthy of protection,” Scott Skinner-Thompson, associate professor of law at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Montezuma-Cortez, a conservative-leaning district with about 2,400 students, has taken other steps to curtail LGBTQ symbols and school activities in recent years. The school board is scheduled to take a final vote on the proposed nondiscrimination policy on June 24.

MB McAfee, a retired social worker and district resident, said she doesn’t know of any case where federal funds were withheld by the Trump administration, but worries about that possibility, particularly when it comes to money for students with disabilities.

But she’s also angry about the proposed policy changes, calling them “another step toward exclusion.”

“If we do that,” she asked, “then what’s going to be next?”

School districts react to funding threats

Trump has targeted transgender rights since his first day in office. In January and February, he issued several executive orders on the topic, including one that describes sex as determined at conception and unchangeable and another that threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that allow transgender girls to play girls sports.

The Trump administration has moved to strip federal funding from Maine because that state allows transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams. A judge blocked the federal government from withholding school lunch money while the case continues.

So far, no school district has lost money because of policies protecting transgender students. But Lynch emphasized that risk when he explained the proposed policy revision to the school board in May.

Asked by Chalkbeat what executive order or federal guidance required the removal of “sexual orientation” from the policy, Lynch later said by email that he’d mistakenly cited the term when he spoke to the board about federal dollars being in jeopardy.

For now though, “sexual orientation” isn’t being restored to the policy, he said.

Montezuma-Cortez isn’t alone in making changes spurred by the Trump administration. Officials from several Colorado districts, including Woodland Park and District 49 near Colorado Springs, have cited Trump’s executive orders in pushing policy changes or other efforts aimed at revoking protections for transgender students.

In May, District 49 sued the state and the Colorado High School Activities Association arguing that Colorado law and the association’s policy violate students’ constitutional rights by allowing transgender youth to play on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

Montezuma-Cortez school board members had little to say about the implications of the proposed nondiscrimination policy changes.

Asked about the legal or practical implications, Lynch said he’s not an attorney and doesn’t know. School board President Sheri Noyes did not respond to Chalkbeat’s request for comment. Vice President Ed Rice declined to respond to specific questions from Chalkbeat, saying by email that the policy’s opening sentence “answers everything.”

As proposed, that sentence says, “The Board is committed to providing a learning and work environment where all members of the school community are treated with dignity and respect.” The current version of the policy says “safe learning and work environment” but the revision takes out the word “safe.”

Democrats lash out as Texas Legislature bans school clubs that support gay teens

*This is reported by the Texas Tribune

Democrats took to the floor of the Texas House on Saturday to label a ban on clubs that support gay teens the work of “monsters” and to say the ban endangers children and strips them of their dignity.

The Democratic representatives grew emotional in opposition to a bill that would ban K-12 student clubs focused on sexuality and gender identity.

Senate Bill 12, authored by Sen. Brandon Creighton, won final legislative passage Saturday after lawmakers in both chambers adopted the conference committee reports that specifically clarified that schools will be banned from authorizing or sponsoring student clubs based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Backers proclaimed that the bill enshrines a parent’s rights and puts the parent not just at the table, but at the head of the table where the child’s best interests are decided. They also targeted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, claiming that they project ideologies on students and put too much focus on race, sexuality and gender identity instead of the quality of education.

Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, emphasized that these clubs exist because of a long history of oppression against the LGBTQ+ community. He warned against demonizing students and teachers for discussing gender and sexuality.

“The real monsters are not kids trying to figure out who they are,” Wu said during the House discussion. “The monsters are not the teachers who love them and encourage them and support them. They are not the books that provide them with some amount of comfort and information. The real monsters are here.”

Lawmakers shared personal stories about LGBTQ+ youth. Rep. Rafael Anchía said his daughter was a vice president of a pride club at her school. He stressed that these clubs “are no more about sex than 4-H or ROTC or the basketball team.”

“It wasn’t a sex club,” Anchía said. “They’d get together and they’d watch movies. They’d color. They’d go to musicals. It was about a kid who felt weird who found her people and everything about it was good. I don’t know why grown-ups in this body are so triggered with my daughter getting together with her classmates in a school-sponsored activity.”

Anchía also told the Texas Tribune he “didn’t sign up for five anti-LGBT bills this session.”

Rep. Jolanda Jones, D-Houston, shared her experience as a Black woman and a lesbian, saying she didn’t come out until the age of 50 because she knew “the world wasn’t safe.” She warned that banning LGBTQ+ clubs could worsen bullying.

“And we have the nerve to say that we care about mental health,” Jones said. “We’ve passed bill after bill about access to care, about youth suicide, about prevention and treatment. But this bill makes kids sicker, sadder, more alone. This bill doesn’t protect children. It endangers them. It doesn’t give parents more rights. It strips children of their dignity.”

SB 12 is often referred to as the “Parental Bill of Rights” because it claims to give parents more control over their children’s schools. But Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, addressed those who are “afraid that your kids or your grandkids might grow up queer,” warning that the bill could harm family relationships.

“Getting silence in schools from the LGBTQ community, which is what this bill is designed to do, will not stop your kids from being gay,” Zwiener said. “It will just make them afraid to come out. It will make them afraid to live their lives as their full selves. It will make them afraid to tell you when they figure out that they’re LGBTQ and it might damage your relationship with them forever.”

Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, argued that allowing religious organizations in schools but banning “clubs that allow students to be who they are, is a double standard that flies in the face of the principles you say you support.”

“An LGBTQ person can’t change who they are any more than the fact that I can’t change that I’m Black,” Collier said. “What you’re saying to students today is that you will be accepted as long as you are who we say you should be.”

If signed by the governor, the bill will become law on Sept. 1.

Police officers forcibly remove mom of trans kid from meeting for saying just one word

*This is being reported by LGBTQNation.

The mother of a transgender child who tried to speak out against proposed changes to her school district’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies was forcibly removed by four police officers when she said one word at a meeting of the City Schools of Decatur Board of Education on Tuesday evening.

That word was “cowards.”

“I’m practicing my rights as a parent. I’m in no way resisting,” she said as she was carried out. “I’m not resisting, and this is what fascists do!”

Kotler went to the emergency board meeting to speak against changes to the district’s DEI policy, which used to require that “all learning environments… be inclusive, safe, secure, and supportive while also ensuring that no student group is marginalized.” This policy, as well as four others, was changed to remove words like “equity” and “Americans with Disabilities Act.” Two of the policies were rescinded completely.

The district’s DEI policy now states that it is “designed to achieve fair and just access to opportunity and resources that provide all humans the ability to thrive.”

Kotler, who is the mother of three children, including one transgender daughter and one nonbinary child, went to the meeting and shouted “Cowards!” at the board. Advocate reports that Board Chair Carmen Sulton asked her to leave.

“I said one word, I have already stated I have no intention of speaking again until public comment,” she responded. “I’m going to sit here. I have offered that if it makes the board feel comfortable, you, as a security employee, are welcome to sit next to me. If I speak again outside of public comment, I will leave. I have the right to be here, I have not used harsh language or threats.”

Police then approached her, but she didn’t get up. So they lifted her out of her seat and dragged her away, dropping her off on the stairs in front of the building.

“I’m practicing my rights as a parent. I’m in no way resisting,” she said as she was dragged off. “I’m not resisting and this is what fascists do!”

“It’s beyond evil that anyone is threatening these programs,” she later told Atlanta News First. “Our children spend a huge chunk of their lives at school. Their own sense of self and self-worth is developed at school. If we stop policies and programs that make those spaces inclusive and safe for everyone, we know what happens.”

“There are marginalized children and economically disadvantaged children in our district who rely on these programs.”

Decatur’s is one of many school districts across the country rewording their DEI policies in light of the new presidential administration’s antipathy towards promoting equal rights for minority students, particularly those who are transgender and nonbinary.

Trump admin cut off food aid for kids in Maine to punish state over trans athletes. They’re suing.

*This is being reported by LGBTQNation.

When Maine Gov. Janet Mills (D) told President Donald Trump, “See you in court,” she meant it.

On Monday, Maine sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins over the department’s halt on federal funding for education programs in the state in retaliation for its refusal to ban transgender women and girls from school sports.

As Reuters notes, Rollins announced the funding freeze in an April 2 letter to Mills, saying that the decision was “only the beginning” but that the governor could “end it at any time by protecting women and girls in compliance with federal law.” The funding freeze jeopardizes programs that provide free or reduced-price meals to children in Maine schools, childcare centers, and after-school programs.

Mills has publicly clashed with the administration, and with Trump specifically, over its assertion that allowing transgender women and girls to participate in women’s and girls’ sports violates Title IX, the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in schools that receive federal funding.

In February, the Maine Principals Association announced that it would not comply with Trump’s February 5 executive order banning transgender student-athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. After Trump threatened to cut off the state’s funding, Mills and Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey accused the president of using school children “as pawns in advancing his political agenda” and vowed to “take all appropriate and necessary legal action to restore that funding and the academic opportunity it provides.”

“The State of Maine will not be intimidated by the president’s threats,” Mills said.

During a February 21 meeting with Democratic and Republican governors at the White House, Trump singled out Mills, asking whether she planned to comply with his anti-trans executive order. Mills said that her state was “complying with the state and federal laws.” When Trump continued to petulantly insist that Mills comply with his order, the governor told the president she would see him in court.

In its lawsuit, Maine calls the USDA’s funding freeze a “blatantly unlawful action” in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Rollins, the state argues, “took this action without following any of the statutory and regulatory requirements that must be complied with when terminating federal funds based on alleged violations of Title IX.”

The state argues that Rollins provided no legal basis for her assertion that by allowing trans students to participate in women’s and girls’ sports, Maine is in violation of Title IX and that her interpretation of the law is wrong. “Indeed, several federal courts have held that Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause require schools to permit transgender girls and women to play on girls’ and women’s teams,” the complaint reads.

However, the state is not asking the court to interpret Title IX. It merely asks the court to vacate Rollins’s “arbitrary, capricious” funding freeze for failing to meet the “statutory and regulatory requirements that the federal government must comply with before it may freeze federal funds owed to a state.”

In a statement, Frey said that Trump “and his cabinet secretaries do not make the law, and they are not above the law, and this action is necessary to remind the president that Maine will not be bullied into violating the law.”

Hate influencer Chaya Raichik harasses trans teacher & forces her to resign

*This is reported by LGBTQNation and a follow up to our earlier article breaking this news.

English teacher Rosia Sandri was left “heartbroken” after submitting her resignation on March 31 following a campaign of hate against her that followed a TikTok video she posted highlighting her experience as a trans woman in education. That video was shared by transphobes, who called for her to be fired.

Sandri came out as a trans woman seven years ago and taught English for three years at Red Oak High School in Ellis County, Texas. Sandri said her colleagues at the Red Oak Independent School District (ROISD) supported her, and she didn’t directly come out to her class but instead started dressing differently.

Students who noticed asked if they should call her by a different name or use certain pronouns; she told them they could call her “whatever they were comfortable with” but preferred she/her pronouns.

Sandri also has a TikTok account where she posts informative videos educating people on what it is like to be trans, and she filmed some videos after hours in her classroom.

Many of her former students follow her on that account and express their support in comment section, writing “best teacher ever” and “We miss you, stay strong. Lovely makeup.”

These videos, unfortunately, caught the attention of anti-trans influencer Chaya Raichik, who runs LibsOfTikTok. Raichik reposted one of Sandri’s videos, deadnaming and misgendering her. In the clip, Sandri talked about her pupils being supportive of her journey.

“They call me ‘ma’am. ’ They call me ‘miss,’” she said. “They use my correct pronouns and know my correct name, and it’s incredibly affirming.”

Raichik asked her over 4 million followers, “Would you feel comfortable with this person teaching your kid?”

Raichik is notorious for using her social media following to single out LGBTQ+ people and allies, presenting their innocuous interactions with children as “grooming.” Her followers harass and threaten businesses and institutions that support LGBTQ+ people, some going as far as to send bomb threats to children’s hospitals for providing gender treatment to trans youth. Schools targeted by Libs of TikTok faced similar repercussions.

Sandri was out sick when Libs of TikTok reposted her video but stated that she started receiving threats and harassment on her personal and school email. The human resources department at ROISD and the deputy superintendent reported that they have also received threats and have placed Sandri on administrative leave for two days while the school launches an investigation.

Texas state Rep. Brian Harrison (R) shared the Libs of TikTok post and called for Sandri to be fired.

“As the State Representative for Red Oak ISD, I am demanding that THIS TEACHER BE IMMEDIATELY TERMINATED!” Harrison tweeted.

On Monday, Sandri agreed with the school that she would resign.

“When I signed that resignation, it felt like my dream was being taken away from me,” Sandri told NBC“I’m not going to get hired again as a teacher in Texas, and that hurts. It hurts I have to leave my students in the middle of the year…they keep on messaging me and asking if it’s illegal to be a trans teacher.”

Harrison later told NBC News that he was proud to have helped remove Sandri from her job.

“Any teacher who claims to get gender euphoria from their minor students and teaches them that boys can become girls should be terminated immediately,” Harrison said.

Despite this, Sandri has stated that she still wants to be a teacher and hopes to find a way.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑