Category: The Texas Tribune

Why some Texas teachers are being forced to “deadname” trans students under a new state law

Read more at the Texas Tribune.

Ethan Brignac, a transgender student at Wylie East High School, has been “Ethan” since seventh grade — to his friends, family and teachers. When he reached high school, his dad further validated his chosen name by requesting “Ethan” be used in school records, including in his email, class rosters and ID, which his teachers honored until this fall.

Three weeks after Brignac started his senior year, Wylie East administrators called him to the library and gave him a new ID. On it, in white capital letters, was a name he hadn’t been called in five years.

“In the first week of school, when I was kind of trying to convince my teachers to call me Ethan, I was like, ‘Hey, look, it’s still on my ID,’” said Brignac, who did not want The Texas Tribune to publish his birth name because it causes him discomfort. “Then one of my teachers this year said, ‘Okay, they’re gonna fix that soon.’”

Now, he said, some teachers seem to wedge his legal name into every interaction, outing him to peers and resurrecting the dread he felt before school records reflected his chosen name.

“It was definitely a big change having my deadname kind of sprawled everywhere,” Brignac said, referring to a derogatory practice of calling a trans person by their birth name. “It was like, wow, okay, that wasn’t just a social media post I saw, this is real life.”

A Wylie spokesperson said the move was “to ensure full compliance with state law, including Senate Bill 12.”

A sweeping piece of legislation that went into effect Sept. 1, SB 12 bars public school employees from socially transitioning a student, which it defines as helping to change a student’s sex assigned at birth by using a different name, pronoun or other practice that denies the birth sex. Dubbed the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” the law allows guardians to report school-supported social transitioning to the school board, among other powers.

The law also prohibits K-12 faculty from referencing LGBTQ+ identities in class instruction and casual conversations, and it bans school-sanctioned clubs that center sexual orientation or gender identity.

Several transgender students at Texas schools that enforce birth names told the Tribune the new policies have transformed school from a place of support to one that rejects who they are. Considered a derogatory practice in the LGBTQ+ community, dead-naming undermines the wishes of trans people and in some cases, forcibly reveals their trans identity, which can cause or worsen mental health problems among these children, studies have found.

Some parents of trans Texas students say they are frustrated because the law appears to ignore their rights for those of other guardians. A few of these parents joined advocacy and teacher groups to file a lawsuit against SB 12 in August, seeking to pause districts from enforcing the law while the case proceeds.

Parents who support SB 12 say the law boosts their role in their children’s education. Many of them want to erase LGBTQ+ topics from K-12 schools, saying they prompt children to question their identities or that schools force progressive views onto their kids.

“We live in an insane world where a school board has to remind teachers that they cannot tell children, you know, suggest to kids they might be homosexual or they might be actually a girl if they’re a biological male,” said Jeffrey Keech, whose children go to Wylie schools. “It’s unbelievable to me that this even is an issue.”

The Tribune contacted two dozen districts across the state, including districts in the Austin, Houston and San Antonio areas, and spoke with a dozen teachers, parents and transgender students about how schools are implementing SB 12, finding that administrators are taking varied approaches. This is because the law leaves the Texas Education Agency and school districts to decide how to implement it, said Rachel Moran, a law professor at Texas A&M University who directs the education law program.

Some Texas school districts and boards, like Wylie, have adopted policies to ban teachers from aiding in social transitioning, but many have not yet — and are still allowing teachers to honor students’ preferred names and pronouns.

TEA would not respond to questions about how school districts are implementing SB 12, how many districts have complied with the law or deadlines for doing so.

Moran said schools might adopt hard-line policies to shield themselves from retribution.

“This is true with any broad mandate — some are going to be overcomplying,” she said. “It has a real chilling effect. They’re afraid to get anywhere close to a perceived line.”

Teachers told the Tribune the law leaves them anxious and confused because they are unsure when they can use nicknames or how they should respond to parents who request their children’s preferred names and pronouns be used. They lament that they won’t be able to support students who come out as queer. School district officials also worry how the policies will interfere with federal and district rules and daily affairs.

Now, Texas public school students sit in the crosshairs of debates over free speech, race, religion and gender and sexuality in school.

SB 12 is part of a slate of laws that increase oversight of K-12 schools, including new rules that mandate the Ten Commandments in classrooms and clear the way for book bans. In federal and state governments and now school board meetings, disagreements have escalated from “I don’t think that you have the right idea,” to “I don’t think you’re the right kind of person,” Moran said.

Once a place to hear diverse perspectives, she worries schools will leave children unable to tolerate different views.

“The stakes are not just whether I win or lose this particular culture war,” Moran said. “It’s whether I preserve a tradition that has been so formative of our democracy.”

School policies vary

In addition to the ban on social transitioning, SB 12 prohibits hiring, training, programs and activities centered on race, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation — referenced in the law as diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives.

It also requires schools to tell parents their rights, such as allowing them access to school records and course content, and requiring that they give permission for their child to receive health care, hear lessons about sexuality and join clubs.

Among parts of the bill that confuse teachers and administrators is how to respond when parents ask that schools use their child’s preferred name and pronouns or what to call students who have already transitioned.

More than two months after the deadline to comply with SB 12, districts are implementing the bill differently.

Conner Carlow, a former registrar who now works as a classroom support specialist in the Leander school district, said faculty can continue to call students by their preferred name if that was done prior to SB 12 going into effect. However, faculty cannot use new names or new pronouns moving forward, and administrators must approve fresh changes on a case-by-case basis through a form parents submit. These updates are only allowed if they appear unrelated to social transitioning, he said.

The name change form is the only written directive Carlow has gotten regarding SB 12. Leander spokesperson Crestina Hardie would not say how the school district is handling name changes because the board has no policy about it. Hardie said the school district is waiting to enact new rules while it reviews the law and gets clarification from TEA and the district’s legal counsel.

“SB 12 deeply impacts personal and highly complex areas of school life, and the biggest challenge for districts statewide is the lack of clarity and consistency in how these laws intersect with existing Board policy, federal protections and day-to-day school operations,” Hardie said.

The Cypress-Fairbanks and Conroe school districts adopted policies that ban DEI practices and prohibit social transitioning or providing information about it.

Argyle and Academy school districts have posted parental rights resolutions, but nothing on social transitioning.

Deer Park linked SB 12 on its website, but it is unclear how the district will implement the law, including gender-affirming names and pronouns.

Wylie distributed a fact sheet advising employees to use the names and pronouns in school records and barring them from discussing race, color, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation.

Although officials disagreed with parts of the law, Houston-based DRAW Academy rolled out the new rules. The 98% Hispanic charter district issued parental notices and consent forms, banned DEI and limited instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity, according to superintendent and CEO Patricia Beistegui.

“DRAW Academy stands for Diversity, Roots, and Wings, founded under the core belief that diversity and inclusivity is a strength in our democracy,” Beistegui said in an email. She said SB 12 is designed to make positive changes but actually revokes protections.

SB 12 and the way schools are implementing it forces teachers to blindly try to follow the law, said Charlotte Wilson, a Garland ISD special education teacher.

“It’s not clear to teachers what we can say or even do,” Wilson said, referencing instruction about race and LGBT topics. “Teachers are afraid because we don’t want to lose our certifications.”

Wilson wants a say in her children’s learning, but she thinks the law might lead teachers to skip lessons that touch on prohibited themes, undermining students’ quality of education.

“We already highlight different cultural historical events throughout the year, like MLK Day, Hispanic Heritage Month, women’s history,” Wilson said. “If we approach Pride Month the same way, as part of America’s inclusion, and communicate about what’s being taught, that shouldn’t violate anyone’s rights.”

Carlow said Leander’s bar on LGBTQ+ topics makes it hard to support his students. He remembers grappling with his sexuality as a middle schooler and how hard that was.

“I wasn’t telling my parents what was going on, so I imagine these kids aren’t either,” Carlow said. “The fact they’re willing to tell us before even the parents is a big deal, and now the fact that we have to just not accept them, I mean, it’s awful.”

“Called something I’m not”

The varied approaches to SB 12 means transgender students across Texas are experiencing different levels of alienation.

Pride flags fly and teachers use gender-affirming pronouns at Alief Early College High School, said Marshall Romero, a transgender third-year. The only change he noticed was a permission slip to join the speech and debate club.

An Alief spokesperson said the district also sent parents an opt-in and opt-out form for school health services.

Romero said the school remains largely supportive of LGTBQ+ students.

“I never had to worry about the teacher or any instructor telling me, like, ‘Hey, I can’t call you that, or I’m not going to call you that,’” Romero said. “Being able to be called by a name that reflects who I am, being called by certain pronouns, just really gives me a quality of life that I feel like I can hold on and is worth living.”

Cassie Hilborn, a Woodlands High School junior, yearns to be called her gender-affirming name at school. One of Hilborn’s earliest memories is looking in the mirror and wishing she was a girl. During the pandemic, she watched a YouTube video explaining what it meant to be transgender and finally understood why she felt misaligned with her body.

But the past year’s onslaught of transgender-focused federal and state policies stripped her confidence and dashed her plan to wear feminine clothes and ask her teachers to use her chosen name.

“It feels like every day I look at the news and then the headline just reads, ‘Sorry, more things you’ve lost,’” Hilborn said.

The Conroe school board, which governs Woodlands High School, was among the first in Texas to bar teachers from using gender-affirming names and pronouns.

At the school Dungeons & Dragons club, Hilborn’s peers and faculty adviser call her “Cassie,” but everyone else uses the legal name on her ID, which she hides under blue masking tape. She wants her classmates and teachers to know she’s transgender, but laws like SB 12 have discouraged her from coming out.

“Now, even teachers that might have respected my identity have been told that they unequivocally are not allowed to do so,” Hilborn said.

Once school records reflected Brignac’s preferred name, his grades climbed. He became president of the National Art Honor Society and founded an art mentorship program. He raised his hand so often that one teacher joked about it.

His stepmom Shannon Keene worries that being misgendered at school will thrust him back into isolation, like she saw before he entered high school.

This year’s reversal “made him feel rejected as a human being,” she said.

Having socially transitioned in seventh grade when he cut his hair and asked to go by Ethan, Brignac’s peers have been confused to hear his feminine name now used.

He’s reminded every day that his state and school deny his identity. “It’s rough being called something I’m not,” said Brignac, who now avoids talking in class.

Queer young people have disproportionate rates of depression and mental illness. But a study of 129 transgender and gender nonconforming students found that having their identities affirmed decreases symptoms of severe depression. Being called preferred names and pronouns is correlated with a drop in suicidal thoughts by 29% and suicidal behavior by 56%, according to the study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health in 2018.

Refusing to use preferred names tells transgender and nonbinary students they’re unworthy of respect, said Johnathan Gooch of Equality Texas, a nonprofit that advocates for LGBTQ equality.

“It’s as if someone else picked a nickname for you that you didn’t want, a malicious nickname, that they repeatedly use despite the fact they know what you prefer to be called,” Gooch said.

Parental rights for all?

Some parents who support expelling discussions about queer identities from schools say SB 12 protects children from viewpoints that might spur them to question who they are.

Around three years ago, after Kevin Brooks’ then-middle school daughter returned from school in the Wylie district and said her friend used nonbinary pronouns, he responded: “Sweetheart, don’t buy into that foolishness.”

The army veteran thinks children are too young to learn about LGBTQ+ identities and that it confuses them to hear that gender and sexuality are spectrums, like some schools have taught.

“Why are you teaching these kids that are as young as 5 and 6 years old all this stuff that they don’t need to deal with?” Brooks said. “I told my son the other day, I wish you’d stay innocent till you’re 35 years old, because the stuff that’s going on in the world right now absolutely just, it not only mortifies me, it terrifies me. It just really pisses me off.”

Brooks hasn’t heard of teachers at Wylie discussing LGBTQ+ identities, but he’s terrified to imagine them pledging allegiance to a rainbow flag, which happened in a California classroom in 2021.

In May, Don Zimmerman participated in a protest against a transgender teacher at Cedar Ridge High School in the Round Rock district, where he lives and previously ran for the school board.

Students and at least one faculty member stood across the street with posters saying, “Y’all means all.” To Zimmerman, the faculty member’s presence is proof of schools “coaching children and encouraging them to embrace and publicly protest in favor of this transgender extremism.”

“The school is so hell bent on this agenda of promoting transgenderism and the LGBT lifestyle, …and the parents feel so powerless at stopping the public schools agenda that they go to the Legislature and get these laws passed,” said Zimmerman, who sent his third grader to private school to shield him from LGBTQ+-themed lessons.

Parents of transgender students say new policies complying with the so-called “parents’ bill of rights” are a slap in their face. Keene, Brignac’s stepmom, said policies against using gender-affirming names and pronouns pander to conservative views and hurt gender-queer children, who are 3.3% of youths ages 13-17 in the U.S.

Brignac’s biological mom told the Tribune she is now seeking to change her son’s legal name so he hears Ethan when he graduates.

“I fail to see the correlation between a parent asking that their child be called by their preferred name and pronouns and providing direct instruction on gender identity,” Keene said. “It’s about control, not about rights. And it’s also just blatant disregard for a person’s sense of self. And to do that to kids is unconscionable.”

0

LGBTQ+ Texans fought to be recognized. That work is eroding under a conservative pressure campaign.

Read more at The Texas Tribune.

Arlington Mayor Jim Ross stood under the June sun and delivered an impassioned speech in front of a crowd awash in rainbows and glitter.

“You know Martin Luther King taught us way back in the ‘60s, that there’s only one thing strong enough to overcome hate,” the North Texas mayor said.

“Love! Love!” the crowd gathered at the city’s annual Pride celebration shouted, answering his call.

His faith, he continued, instructed him to love his neighbor regardless of their differences.

“So I wanted to come here and say thank you for loving us,” he said. “And I love you!”

Five months later, Ross faced a similar crowd at City Hall on Oct. 14. There was no love in the room.

The Dallas-area suburb was — in an effort to comply with new presidential executive orders — considering eliminating the city’s protections for LGBTQ+ people that prohibit employers and any business providing accommodation from discriminating against them.

More than $60 million in federal funds for parks, roads and public safety were at stake, city leaders said.

“It’s a horrible balancing attempt,” Ross said in a recent interview with The Texas Tribune, referring to protecting the city’s budget and its residents.

Other Texas cities, including Dallas and Fort Worth, have revised city policies and ended programs that comply with Trump’s executive orders that end diversity and inclusion efforts. Arlington is believed to be the first city to consider ending explicit protections for LGBTQ+ residents.

The City Council tabled its vote and is expected to revisit the issue Monday night. The impending vote is the result of a pressure campaign waged by conservative activists, state Republican lawmakers and the White House to roll back protections for LGBTQ+ people they say are unfair and harm women and children.

LGBTQ+ advocates, meanwhile, argue that such revisions push residents further away from public life. And these decisions erode the recognition and acceptance this community worked for decades to secure.

Texas — like many states — has a long history of criminalizing certain acts by LGBTQ+ people. While the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned sodomy laws and legalized same-sex marriage, Texas state lawmakers and Gov. Greg Abbott have since 2023 sought to undo those victories by passing a suite of laws that put new limits on how LGBTQ+ people live their lives and express their identities in public.

Meanwhile, at the federal level, President Donald Trump has, since returning to office in January, instructed government agencies to remove words and phrases associated with diversity, race and transgender people — exerting the full strength of the federal government across the U.S. to achieve its agenda.

It’s those executive orders that triggered the Arlington City Council to review its policies, which LGBTQ+ advocates fought to put in place to provide protections that don’t exist at the state and federal levels.

Brad Pritchett, interim CEO of Equality Texas, one of the state’s oldest advocacy groups, said the policies at the city level are one of this community’s few available safeguard.

“It has fallen on local municipalities to find a way to protect the folks that live in their communities,” he said. “And I think when we see these types of non-discrimination laws passed at the local level, what that’s really doing is sending a message to the residents of these cities that who you are should not impact whether or not you have a job, a roof over your head, or can access basic services.”

Many of the recent efforts to curtail the LGBTQ+ community have been largely targeted toward transgender people. However, Pritchett said the Arlington debate shows more is on the line for all LGBTQ+ people.

“When they shift their gaze to another group of people that they don’t like,” he said, “they’ve proven that they can weaponize government to harm anyone they want.”

Conservative leaders say they aim to reset an imbalance pushed by former Democratic presidential administrations and to protect women. Passing these laws and executive orders, conservatives argue, is a necessary step toward acknowledging the differences between the two genders.

“I think what’s been missing a lot of times from the opposition is the recognition of the rights of women and the vulnerability that women have in these private spaces,” said Mary Elizabeth Castle, director of government relations at Texas Values, a statewide nonprofit that advocates to end abortion, expand religious liberties, and other conservative causes. “It’s very important to have that in law because the dignity of the two sexes is not recognized. A lot of rights and modesty that belong to women are diminished.”

“I promised to obey the law”

Ross, the Arlington mayor, first learned the city might have to revisit its anti-discrimination policies when the city’s lawyer told him the municipality lost out on a $50,000 federal grant because a certain policy used the word “inclusive.”

Ignoring Trump’s orders could come at too great an economic loss for the city. And his job is to obey the law, he said.

“I took an oath, and I promised to obey the law,” Ross said. “I didn’t say I’ll follow the law unless I disagree with it, so I’m torn. I don’t want to do things that are harmful to any part of our community or that paint the perception that we don’t love every single person here.”

To be sure, executive orders are not laws. They serve as marching orders for agencies across state and local governments, said Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, a nationwide LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

The manner in which the Trump administration has issued its orders is meant to intimidate and bully, Oakley said.

“It’s really frustrating if you’re a person who cares about the rule of law,” Oakley said. “It is not clear how folks are supposed to implement these things, and it sets up this culture of fear and intimidation because there’s no safe harbor. Either the president will come after you, or the governor will come after you.”

Presidents of both political parties have used executive orders increasingly to drive policy outcomes. For example, President Joe Biden used executive orders to push a climate-friendly agenda and diversity efforts in the wake of the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement.

Sherry Sylvester, a senior fellow at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said rolling back Biden-era DEI efforts was a return to the status quo — and fundamentally American.

“When you remove Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies from agencies, universities and public schools, all you’re saying is all decisions must be made on merit,” Sylvester said. “When you interview people for a job, you’ve hired a person who is most qualified for the job. You get no points if you’re African American, no points if you’re female, no points if you have a gender identity based on your sexual preference.”

Executive orders are meant to spur local governments to act quickly and comply to win much-needed capital to keep their cities operating. Conservatives supporting Trump’s efforts say the tactic began with former President Barack Obama.

In 2011, Obama issued a directive intended to crack down on sexual violence in public schools and universities. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Education updated those rules and said that schools receiving federal funding had to respect a transgender student’s gender identity, which Castle said sparked a movement to oppose such acknowledgements, including in Texas.

In 2017, the Texas Legislature attempted to pass a bill restricting transgender people’s access to restrooms. It died in the legislative process. With Trump back in office this year, the movement to regulate transgender people’s actions in public gained momentum and lawmakers passed a bill restricting the restrooms transgender people can use in government buildings and schools. Castle insisted that such a bill would promote safety in restrooms.

“No one is being denied going to the restroom,” Castle said. “They just have to go to the restroom based on their biological gender.”

The result of Trump’s orders naming transgender people undermines decades of work by the LGBTQ+, the scientific and medical community to participate in public life, said Elana Redfield, federal policy director for UCLA’s School of Law. And they undermine years of scientific research that helped governments and communities understand transgender people’s place in society.

“We can’t function in society without bathrooms,” Redfield said. “It’s very difficult to have a job, take public transportation, travel long distances, go shopping, or do anything without access to bathrooms. These kinds of laws really do have the potential to deeply, deeply exclude transgender people from all aspects of society.”

A renewed movement for queer equity

LGBTQ+ Texans are familiar with laws regulating their right to exist publicly and have fought for an equal standing with everyone else for just as long. The modern movement can be traced back to the 1960s, said Wesley Phelps, a historian at the University of North Texas whose focus is the LGBTQ+ community in the south.

At the time, Texas advocates fought sodomy laws banning sex for gay men and lesbian women.

“There were activists all over Texas who understood that as long as that sodomy law was on the books, as long as it was illegal to engage in sex with someone of the same sex, queer people would always wear that stigma of criminality,” Phelps said. “You could be denied employment, you could be denied housing, you could be denied food stamp assistance, because if you were gay, you were an admitted criminal.”

By the 1970s, advocacy groups had been established in major cities, including Dallas and Houston. And in these cities, activists formed political advocacy groups. The sentiment eventually spread farther, reaching Austin, San Antonio and El Paso. Part of that movement included adding local protections to city charters that prohibited housing and employment discrimination that don’t exist at the state or federal level.

And in 2003, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the sodomy law unconstitutional.

The push to eliminate protections for the broader LGBTQ+ community will trigger a backlash, Phelps said.

“I think things like that have reignited a movement for queer equality today,” Phelps said. “It’s not just that we’re entering a period where it’s going to be difficult to win victories, but the ones already achieved are under threat.”

Many Texans told The Texas Tribune that they plan to stay put, regardless of the policies seeking to regulate their everyday lives. They are turning to optimism and each other, reminding themselves of their right to live openly, they said.

In Houston, Daron Yanez Perez hosts support groups for transgender men. Trans Men Empowerment, which he founded in 2023, has more than 200 members and hosts meetings in person and online. As part of the programming, Perez invites policy and mental health experts who help the members understand how the policies affect them.

Many of Perez’s members are reluctant to use public restrooms, he said, out of fear for their safety. Perez said he would not use the women’s restroom because he does not think women would feel comfortable sharing a restroom with him.

“They’re using restrooms to go after us because they don’t like us, but we’re not going anywhere, we’ve always been here,” Perez said.

In Dallas, Javier Enriquez helps LGBTQ+ people who struggle with loneliness. Enriquez, who is president of the Dallas Social Queer Association, hosts about a dozen events a month. Up to 40 attended each event, which include gay trivia and activities tailored for disabled, elderly people, Hispanic and Asian Pacific Islanders who identify as LGBTQ+.

Enriquez said directives that spell out limits for transgender people and rainbow crosswalks are a distraction from real issues like potholes and unmet trash service. And LGBTQ+ Texans as a community are used to enact that distraction, he said. The resources spent on removing the rainbow colors from the crosswalks, he said, could be put to better use on the city’s infrastructure.

Still, he acknowledged that the orders have instilled fear.

“There are people, especially our transgender siblings, who are worried about being able to call Dallas their home with everything going on, and not all of them have the privilege of the resources to be able to move out,” he said. “And to some of them, this is home, where they built their lives and families… and despite what happens in this world, we are here and we aren’t going anywhere.”

0

Texas A&M System to vote on requiring prior approval for lessons on “race and gender ideology”

Read more at Texas Tribune.

The Texas A&M University System’s board of regents will vote on Thursday on whether to prohibit faculty at its 12 universities from teaching “race or gender ideology” unless those lessons are pre-approved by each campus president or a delegate.

The proposal appears to be the first time that a Texas public university system offers definitions of what kind of instruction related to race and gender should not be permitted. 

“Race ideology,” the draft of the proposal says, would encompass any concept that “attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity” or “promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity rather than academic instruction.” The proposal would define “gender ideology” as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.” 

The policy does not say how the university would decide what constitutes “race ideology” or “gender ideology,” or what would happen if a faculty member is accused of violating the rule. A Texas A&M University System spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

The regents’ Committee on Academic and Student Affairs will hear presentations and consider the proposed policy on Thursday morning, according to the agenda for the meeting. The full board of regents will take public testimony on the proposal and vote on it later that day. The meeting will be livestreamed and the public is invited to testify.

Leonard Bright, president of the Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said faculty were not consulted on the proposed changes, which he called “a direct violation” of their expertise and freedom to teach. 

“And if that’s the case, there’s just going to be a further black eye on higher education here in Texas,” he said.

Robert Shilby, special counsel for campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the proposal would “invite unlawful censorship, chill academic freedom, and undermine the core purpose of a university,”

“Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught,” he said. “Faculty will start asking not, ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”

In a Monday email to faculty, Simon North, interim dean of Texas A&M’s College of Arts and Sciences, acknowledged that the proposal raised many questions about its implementation, “such as the criteria that will determine when course content is considered relevant, controversial, or inconsistent with a syllabus; the mechanisms by which course material would be approved and compliance evaluated; and the timing of implementation.” He added that he is working with the provost’s office to answer those questions and that he will seek input on the proposal from other leaders in the college and department heads. 

“Approval of these revisions could have far-reaching implications for undergraduate education, and the scope of the implications will depend on the answers to these questions,” North said.

Faculty are already signaling they will show up in force to the regents’ meeting to push back against the proposal. Bright, a professor at Texas A&M’s Bush School of Government and Public Service, said professors are organizing testimony, drafting statements and coordinating with colleagues across Texas to oppose the revisions. 

He said the policy would affect disciplines across the university — from political science and history to public service and biology — and that some faculty fear it would shift control over classroom content from faculty to administrators. He added that some of his colleagues believe the revisions are an attempt to “institutionalize indoctrination” and that if the proposed changes are approved, they will likely be challenged in court.

The proposed prohibition comes two months after the system’s College Station flagship fired Professor Melissa McCoul, whose discussion of gender identity in a children’s literature class was secretly recorded by a student and later circulated online, drawing fire from Republican lawmakers and ultimately toppling the university’s former president. 

Since McCoul’s firing, other university systems have begun imposing their own restrictions on classroom content. 

On Sept. 25, the Texas Tech University System instructed its faculty to ensure their courses comply with a federal executive order, a letter from Gov. Greg Abbott and a new state law that recognizes only two sexes. In the weeks that followed, Texas’ other public university systems — including the University of Texas, University of North Texas, Texas State and Texas Woman’s University — announced or began internal audits of their course offerings. All said they were acting to ensure compliance with state or federal law, though few detailed what they were looking for or what changes might follow. 

No state or federal law prohibits instruction on race, gender or sexual orientation in universities. However, recent state legislation has put direct and indirect pressure on how universities implement policies related to race and gender. 

In 2023, the Texas Legislature approved Senate Bill 17, which banned diversity, equity and inclusion offices and initiatives at the state’s public universities. Earlier this year, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 37, which gave governor-appointed university regents the final say on whether to approve new courses and prohibited lessons that “advocate or promote the idea that any race, sex, or ethnicity or any religious belief is inherently superior to any other.” An earlier version of the legislation would have required that college courses “not endorse specific public policies, ideologies or legislation,” but the proposal was narrowed down after pushback from professors who said such a restriction would lead to self-censorship and infringe on academic freedom. 

The Texas A&M Board of Regents will also consider on Thursday a new policy that would bar faculty from teaching material “inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course.” The clause mirrors the reason university officials gave McCoul for firing her. They said she refused to change her course content to match the catalog description, but McCoul and other faculty have countered that course descriptions are often broad and that professors are expected to design their own syllabi and teach according to their expertise.

McCoul has appealed her termination through the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure, which concluded its hearing last week. The committee is expected to share a recommendation with interim university President Tommy Williams in the coming weeks on how to respond to McCoul’s appeal, but Williams is not obligated to follow it.

0

“Bathroom bill” aimed at trans people approved by Texas House after decade of failed attempts

Read more at the Texas Tribune.

Texas House members clashed over a bill that would restrict which restrooms transgender people can use in government buildings and schools, but ultimately approved it late Thursday.

Representatives approved Senate Bill 8 on a 86-45 vote after several hours of tense debate that was at times interrupted by people in the gallery shouting insults at lawmakers who supported the bill. The House gallery, where visitors can watch proceedings, was emptied out by staff and Department of Public Safety officers after the disruptions continued.

SB 8 would restrict bathroom use in government-owned buildings, public schools and universities based of sex assigned at birth and would not allow exceptions for transgender inmates’ housing in prisons and jails. It would also bar those assigned male at birth from accessing women’s domestic violence shelters, unless they are under 17 and the child of a woman also receiving services.

Bathroom bills proposing civil or criminal penalties for entering restrooms not matching biological sex have been proposed in Texas for more than a decade, and 19 other states have successfully passed their own proposals. The Texas House, however, has largely failed to garner traction for bathroom bills after a tense battle over one proposal in 2017. The Texas Senate has passed six different bathroom bills since 2017.

A last-minute amendment from Rep. Steve Toth, R-Conroe, raised the proposed fines to $25,000 against institutions where violations occur, and $125,000 for any subsequent violations. The raised penalties would make SB 8 the most financially punitive bathroom bill in the country. The amendment was adopted without debate.

Supporters of SB 8, which has also been called the “Texas Women’s Privacy Act,” have said the bill is necessary to ensure safety and comfort for women in intimate spaces like changing rooms and bathrooms. The bill’s House sponsor, Rep. Angelia Orr, R-Itasca, said the goal of the bill is to prompt political subdivisions to create their own policies to ensure bathrooms are secure.

“The preference of someone’s sexual appearance does not override the safety and privacy of a biological female,” Orr said.

Orr said the bill does not affect privately owned or funded businesses, and will not create penalties against individuals.

Opponents of the bill have called the restrictions unnecessary, and that the bill would incite harassment against trans people and cisgender people falsely accused of entering the wrong facility. Rep. Jessica Gonzalez, D-Dallas, said she personally had been accused of entering the wrong restroom in the Texas Capitol, which already has a policy similar to SB 8’s proposal.

Questioning from Democrats who opposed the bill attempted to zero in on how the bill would be enforced, as it outlines that agencies will take “every reasonable step” to ensure the policy is followed. Orr said during questioning that it would be up to agencies how to enforce their policy. Previously when the bill was heard in committee, Orr said the policies would be determined based on how someone looked.

“Who do you think is more uncomfortable in the bathroom today? A cis woman, or a trans woman wondering if she’s about to be harassed?” Rep. Erin Zwiener, D-Driftwood, asked.

During testimony in both chambers through the session and on the House floor on Thursday, tensions between lawmakers for and against the bill flared. Several members argued in small groups multiple times and were separated by staffers as debate continued on the floor. At one point, Toth heckled Rep. Rafael Anchia, D-Dallas, for using Bible quotes as he spoke on a failed amendment designed to kill the bill. Toth was warned by a House staffer for the remarks.

Anchia later argued with Rep. Hillary Hickland, R-Belton, away from the floor debate after she chastised his use of the Bible and countered with her own quotes as she expressed support for the bill. Other members cited religion several times after to channel their support and opposition to the bill.

“Everyone is born a child of God, and everyone who is born into this life deserves to be treated that way,” Rep. John Bryant, D-Dallas said. “That is what the Bible says. That is what our hearts tell us. And the only time we act differently is when we get into politics.”

Representatives with family violence shelters expressed concern about the bill’s exclusivity during testimony earlier in the month, and said it could affect not just trans victims of domestic violence, but cisgender women with teenage dependents or adult dependents who are disabled. While four other states have similar sex-based restrictions on shelters, they still allow trans victims to be accepted if they have separate sleeping quarters.

“When you call the hotline, it is often the moment before you believe you will die. I don’t say that with hyperbole,” said Molly Voyles, director of public policy at the Texas Council on Family Violence, during the House State Affairs committee hearing last week when SB 8 was discussed. “Many women fleeing have a son who is 18 still in high school, or a child with a disability over that age for whom they are the primary caretaker. A choice to leave that includes leaving without your child is not a choice at all.”

SB 8 will be sent back to the Senate to approve the changes. Lawmakers have until Sept. 13 to approve any legislation during the second special session.

0

Here are the new Texas laws that will affect trans and LGBTQ+ people

*This is reported by the Texas Tribune.

While largely avoiding the same level of heated pushback of years’ past, Texas lawmakers passed several bills that give LGBTQ+ people in Texas, specifically transgender residents, less opportunity to receive care and maintain their identities in state records.

Texas legislators filed over 100 anti-trans bills through the session, some containing provisions that have been shot down in years’ prior while others proposed new restrictions. Less than 10 were ultimately approved by lawmakers.

The new bills that are likely to be signed by Gov. Greg Abbott represent a yearslong movement from state conservatives to find new ways to restrict the presence of trans and LGBTQ+ Texans, advocates say. The bills that failed may also be resurrected by lawmakers in future sessions. Here’s what to know.

State definitions of man and woman

Several bills filed in the Legislature aimed to craft legal definitions of sex and gender in addition to their target goals — but House Bill 229 makes that goal its sole purpose, establishing state definitions for male and female and applying those definitions across statute.

HB 229 defines a woman as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.”

Most immediately, the bill will bolster an already existing block from state agencies on changes to gender markers on state documents, which was backed by a nonbinding opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton in March. The bill may also force those who have already switched their documents to match their identified gender to have changes reverted when they are renewed.

The longer-term effects of HB 229 are still not immediately apparent, as references to man and woman are used hundreds of times in statute and may ripple into other laws affecting people’s lives. Texas joins 13 other states that have also crafted their own definitions, and several other bills that also passed in the state have individual definitions for related terms like “biological sex.”

President Donald Trump issued an executive order named “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism” in January providing federal definitions of male and female. Similarly, HB 229 has been dubbed the “Women’s Bill of Rights” by supporters, claiming it protects women in the state from men invading their spaces.

Abbott released an executive order of his own shortly after Trump’s affirming the president’s directive, but did not provide his own definitions. In a May post on social media, the governor said he would immediately sign HB 229 into law.

New requirements for medical records and insurance coverage

Tightening the ability to change the gender on state records like drivers’ licenses has been a key issue for conservative lawmakers for years, and while HB 229 sets a precedent in disallowing new changes, another bill creates new requirements entirely. Senate Bill 1188 creates a new section on all state medical records listing patients’ assigned sex at birth and any physical sexual development disorders. It also bans changes to those gender markers for any reason other than clerical errors, and creates civil penalties for medical professionals who do change them.

House Democrats opposing the measure during floor discussion worried that SB 1188 may scare medical providers into inputting vague or inaccurate health information out of fear of fiscal or legal retribution. The bill does allow the new section to include information on a patients’ gender identity, however health care services must opt-in to provide it.

The bill also creates restrictions on where health care providers can store patient data and the physical servers they use to store them, and new regulations on how artificial intelligence can be used to create diagnoses.

SB 1188 is not the only bill opponents have said will create a chilling effect on the LGBTQ+ community. Some bills may be more immediate in blocking options people have to do things like change their state records, but others like SB 1188 and Senate Bill 1257 may reduce what resources are available. SB 1257 was signed by Abbott in May and mandates that insurance companies provide coverage for gender detransitioning care if they already cover gender transition care.

Proponents of the law claim it enforces responsibility onto insurance companies. The law is not a ban on gender-affirming care, however opponents worry it may act as one by incentivizing insurance companies to pull coverage altogether rather than take on potential new costs.

SB 1257 is the first legal mandate for detransition care in the United States, making Texas a testing ground for insurance companies’ appetite to keep or pull coverage. Similar bills in Arizona, Florida and Tennessee did not pass out of their respective state legislatures in 2024.

Less protections and resources for LGBTQ+ youth

Medical gender transition care for minors was banned in Texas by the Legislature in 2023, a restriction that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2024. House Bill 18, primarily an overhaul of rural health care including a rural pediatric mental health care program, bans minors from accessing its resources for gender-affirming mental health counseling “inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”

The current gender transition care ban for minors does not include mental health services, only puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery, which is rare for those under 18. Another proposal headed to Abbott’s desk, House Bill 1106, asserts that parents who do not recognize or affirm their child’s gender identity cannot be held liable for abuse or neglect because of that lack of recognition.

More restrictions on LGBTQ+ presence in schools

Access to materials and resources related to LGBTQ+ subjects are also being restricted by legislators through two key bills primarily aimed at schools. Senate Bill 12 bans Texas schools from teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity and forbids student clubs “based on” those subjects.

The bill would prevent clubs like Gay-Straight Alliances and pride clubs, which are often tailored toward anti-bullying initiatives in schools. Opponents of the bill claim a ban on those clubs would cut off LGBTQ+ students from communities and resources that can save lives.

“One of the deadliest things that our youth go through is experiencing the perception at least of isolation, and GSAs are a powerful way that we can combat that and make sure that our youth are getting support,” said Ash Hall, ACLU Texas’ policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights.

While SB 12 restricts instruction and student groups, Senate Bill 13 gives school boards and new advisory councils greater oversight to remove books from school libraries that go against “local community values.” Some lawmakers and advocates worry school boards and advisory councils would be able to restrict books containing LGBTQ+ material.

A third bill, Senate Bill 18, would have banned “drag-time story hours” at municipal libraries and cut funding to those who host them, however that bill was unintentionally killed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick after a procedural error at the end of the Senate’s deadline to pass bills.

Bills that failed to pass

The small set of bills passed by legislators shift the state’s treatment of LGBTQ+ Texans significantly, but still represent a fraction of what lawmakers proposed. House Bill 239, this session’s bathroom ban bill, was one of the over 100 bills that did not survive and was never heard by lawmakers despite half of the House signing on as coauthors. House Bill 2704 sought a similar ban through private lawsuits rather than criminal charges, but was never picked up by lawmakers.

Also left unheard was House Bill 3817, filed by Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress, which would have created a new felony charge for “gender identity fraud” if a person represented themselves as a gender besides the one they were assigned at birth to state agencies or employers.

Advocates like Johnathan Gooch, communications director for Equality Texas, say that the Legislature has kept its course on anti-trans legislation for the last few sessions, and that bills that didn’t get picked up by legislators may be at the forefront of future sessions.

“We’re hearing rhetoric that we’ve heard for a very long time and just more, more bills, a variety of new ways to narrow the rights of trans people,” Gooch said. “It just doesn’t come as a mistake that the number of bills is escalating.”

0

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.

0

Texas House votes to strictly define man and woman, excluding trans people from state records

*This is reported by The Texas Tribune.

Dozens of trans people and their allies gathered in the outdoor Capitol rotunda Friday, chanting at the top of their lungs.

They will not erase us.

The next day, the Texas House of Representatives preliminarily passed a bill that aims to do just that.

House Bill 229 strictly defines men and women based on the reproductive organs they were born with, and orders state records to reflect this binary. The bill, titled the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” lays out the “biological truth for anybody who is confused,” said author Rep. Ellen Troxclair, an Austin Republican.

The bill passed on second reading 86-36 after an at times tense debate, and is expected to be finally approved next week before going to the Senate, which has already passed several bills with a similar focus.

Surrounded by a cadre of Republican women, Troxclair said the goal of the bill was to ensure women’s rights aren’t “eroded by activists” as more people come out as trans and nonbinary. Democrats argued against the bill for almost three hours with Rep. Jessica González, D-Dallas, saying “it is harmful, it is dangerous, and it is really freaking insulting.”

If this bill becomes law, more than 120,000 trans Texans would be forced to be defined in state records by the sex they were assigned at birth, rather than the gender they identify as, even if they’ve already legally changed their birth certificates and driver’s licenses.

Saturday’s debate rehashed a deep fracture over sex and gender that has animated the Texas Legislature, and much of the country, for the last five sessions. In previous years, legislators focused on tangible questions of bathroom access, youth sports and gender-affirming care for minors.

This year, the proposals that have gained the most traction reflect a more fundamental question: what is a woman?

For conservative lawmakers, the answer is simple, and best defined by reproductive organs. For trans people and their allies, the answer is simple, and best left to an individual’s assertion of their gender identity.

Only one of those groups controls the Texas Capitol.

“We’re a state that believes in truth, and we’re a state that honors the hard-won achievements of women, the women who fought for the right to vote, to compete in sports and to be safe in public spaces, to be treated equally under the law,” Troxclair said on the floor. “But if we can no longer define what a woman is, we cannot defend what women have won. We cannot protect what we cannot define.”

In the bill, a woman is defined as “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to produce ova,” and a man is “an individual whose biological reproductive system is developed to fertilize the ova of a female.” Democrats criticized this as overly simplistic, excluding trans people, but also intersex people and those who can’t conceive children.

“Any biologist knows there are variations in sex chromosomes, hormone levels and other traits … where an individual’s biological characteristics don’t align with typical male or female categorization,” said Rep. Jon Rosenthal, a Democrat from Houston. “The real question is, do you believe that all people have the basic rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of their own personal happiness?”

This bill aligns with an executive order from Gov. Greg Abbott, who declared in January that Texas only recognizes two sexes, male and female, and a non-binding legal opinion from Attorney General Ken Paxton, who said state agencies should not honor court opinions to change someone’s sex listed on official documents.

At the Capitol rally on Friday, Lambda Legal senior attorney Shelly Skeen said revoking these changed documents, and preventing people from changing them in the future, “affects every aspect of our daily lives.” Having a birth certificate or drivers’ license that reflects a different sex than their physical presentation, or that doesn’t align with their passport or other documents, could leave trans people in a legal limbo and potentially open them up to violence, she said.

It could impact the state facilities, like prisons, they are sorted into, the bathrooms and locker rooms they are supposed to use and the discrimination protections they are entitled to, Skeen said. Unlike other bills, like the so-called “bathroom bill,” this legislation does not have civil or criminal penalties for using a facility that doesn’t align with one’s sex.

Troxclair did accept one amendment, by El Paso Democrat Rep. Mary González, to clarify how intersex people, who are born with both sets of reproductive organs, fit into these definitions.

The chamber also preliminarily approved Senate Bill 1257, which would require health insurers that cover gender-affirming care also cover any adverse consequences and costs of detransitioning. The bill, authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes and sponsored by Rep. Jeff Leach, passed 82-37.

Leach said he brought this bill on behalf of people who were left with tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical bills because their health insurance wouldn’t cover the costs of detransitioning.

“The illustration that I think best describes this is, if you take somebody to the dance and they want to go home, then you have to take them home,” Leach said during the debate on Saturday.

The bill says that any insurance company that covers gender-affirming care must cover all detransition-related costs for its members, even if that person wasn’t on the health insurance plan at the time they transitioned. Democrats filed more than half a dozen amendments to narrow the scope of the bill, critiquing the bill as a health insurance mandate. None of the amendments passed.

Last session, Texas lawmakers outlawed gender-affirming care for minors. Trans advocates worry that raising the cost of covering gender-affirming care will result in health insurers not covering the treatments for adults, either.

“If you can make it painful enough for providers and insurers, health care is gone,” said Emmett Schelling, the executive director of the Transgender Education Network of Texas. “It doesn’t just feed into gender-affirming care. It bleeds into health care that we all need, that we all deserve.”

Speaking on the floor Saturday, Rep. Ann Johnson, a Houston Democrat, said the Legislature was telling insurance companies not to cover gender-affirming care.

“The reality is this bill, however you couch it, is about eliminating the existence of trans individuals in Texas,” Johnson said. “Stop pretending that you’re for freedom. Stop pretending that this is about the kids.”

0

Texas A&M System bans drag shows from its universities

*This was reported by The Texas Tribune.

The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents on Friday passed a resolution banning all drag performances from taking place on its 11 university campuses.

This means that Draggieland, a beloved annual event scheduled for March 27 at the Rudder Theatre on the College Station campus, will have to find a new venue. Students have also held drag shows at Texas A&M University Corpus Christi and East Texas A&M University.

The move potentially sets up another First Amendment fight between students and university administrators.

The resolution says the board recognizes the need for universities to foster a sense of community and belonging among students but adds that drag shows are “inconsistent with [the system’s] mission and core values, including the value of respect for others.”

The resolution also says drag shows are “likely to create or contribute to a hostile environment for women,” contrary to university and federal anti discrimination policies.

“These events often involve unwelcome and objectively offensive conduct based on sex for many members of the respective communities of the universities, particularly when they involve the mockery or objectification of women,” the resolution says.

The resolution says having on-campus drag shows may be seen as promoting gender ideology and that both President Donald J. Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott have said federal and state funds may not be used for that purpose. It directs the system’s chancellor and the president of each institution to implement the policy, including canceling any upcoming drag shows.

The vote was unanimous. Regent Mike Hernandez III was absent.

The Queer Empowerment Council, a student group that hosts Draggieland and other LGBTQ+ events at Texas A&M University, said in a statement Friday evening that it was “profoundly disheartened” by the decision.

“The power of drag as a medium of art is undeniable, serving as a platform for self-discovery, inclusivity, and celebration of diversity. QEC firmly believes that the Board of Regents’ decision undermines these values, which are vital to fostering a supportive and inclusive environment for all students,” the council said.

It is exploring whether it can hold Draggieland on the same or a different date at a different venue.

“We are committed to ensuring that our voices are heard, and that Draggieland will go on, no matter the obstacles we face,” the group said.

In 2023, West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler canceled an on-campus drag show, similarly arguing such performances degrade women.

The students said his comments were off base and sued him for violating their First Amendment rights as well as a state law that prohibits universities from barring student organizations from using their facilities on the basis of the political, religious, philosophical, ideological or academic viewpoints the organizations express. The court has allowed Wendler’s cancellation to stand while it makes a decision.

“They are imposing a restraint on an entire category of protected speech under the First Amendment and in no public college campus should that ever occur per our Constitution,” said JT Morris, senior attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, of the regent’s decision Friday. Morris is representing the students in the West Texas A&M case.

Civil rights groups also condemned the resolution. Ash Hall, policy and advocacy strategist for LGBTQIA+ rights at the ACLU of Texas, said the West Texas A&M lawsuit plus one her organization spearheaded and ultimately blocked a statewide ban on drag shows “makes this kind of absurd.”

“To do this now, while that’s already happening, is a waste of time and resources and makes it seem like the Board of Regents is more focused on culture wars than educating their students,” they said.

Sofia Sepulveda, field director for Equality Texas, noted that not all drag is performed by men.

“Women performers also delight in a chance to poke fun at stereotypes that have held women back for generations,” she said.

She also criticized the gender disparities among the flagship’s faculty.

“If A&M is worried about creating a hostile environment for women, then why don’t they hire more women?” Sepulveda said. “Right now, only 40% of the faculty at Texas A&M are women, 60% are men. That’s a serious issue.”

Draggieland organizers have said the event is an important outlet for the LGBTQ+ community at a time when it has come under attack from conservative policymakers in Texas and across the nation.

Students raised funds to keep the show going when the university stopped sponsoring it in 2022. In the years since, they’ve seen LGBTQ+ representation and resources on campus diminish.

Last year, Texas A&M University cut an LGBTQ+ studies minor and stopped offering gender-affirming care at the Beutel Student Health Center. In a statement Friday afternoon, the university said it had begun coordinating with the division of student affairs to notify student organizations about the board’s decision.

Regents were also expected to discuss Friday who should be the system’s next leader after Chancellor John Sharp retires this year. Regents met in Houston earlier this week to interview candidates. They did not make a decision on a finalist Friday.

0

Transgender Texas kids are terrified after governor orders that parents be investigated for child abuse – The Texas Tribune

This blog originally appeared at Kxan In Depth Investigate

Abbott’s order came in response to Attorney General Ken Paxton’s non-binding legal judgment that gender-affirming care amounts to child abuse. Paxton is also engaged in the political battle of his life in Tuesday’s primary election.

Paxton’s ruling cited operations for body modification that, according to medical professionals, are infrequently, if ever, carried out on kids. But he also asserted that providing care that is widely regarded as gender-affirming, such as entirely reversible puberty blockers, would amount to child cruelty. According to specialists, the gender-affirming model of care spends more time focused on social transition for children than it does on medical care.

Read full article – https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/28/texas-transgender-child-abuse/

If you’re ready to look for a better state or county for you and your family (or family of choice), reach out to us at www.FleeRedStates.com

0

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑