Madison is a liberal enclave in a politically mixed state. (Photo by Lawrence Iles/Icon Sportswire … [+]
In the latest salvo in the legal battle over minors and gender identity, a judge has enjoined the Madison Metropolitan School District from implementing part of its “Guidance & Policies to Support Transgender, Non-binary & Gender Expansive Students”.
The injunction affects school children ranging in grades from kindergarten to high school. According to the policy, students must have the permission of at least one parent to change their name and gender affiliation in the official district system. However, the policy also states that: “Students will be called by their affirmed name and pronouns regardless of parent/guardian permission to change their name and gender in MMSD systems.” In other words, students can’t officially change their names or genders without at least partial parental consent, but teachers and staff must respect the wishes of students who wish to be addressed by another name or gender, regardless of whether there is parental consent.
The school district is doubtless within its rights to implement this policy. The district, like many school districts, has concluded that it is in the best interests of students for teachers and staff to affirm their perception of their own gender identity. They shouldn’t need parental consent to do that.
The tricky question is what happens when parents want to know what name a teacher calls their child at school or what pronouns the teacher uses when addressing the student. According to the district policy: “School staff shall not disclose any information that may reveal a student’s gender identity to others, including parents or guardians and other school staff unless legally required to do so or unless the student has authorized such disclosure.”
At a minimum, this policy requires teachers to withhold information from parents. The plaintiffs in the case against the school district argue that the policy requires outright deception. If the teacher calls a student, say, “Mary” in the classroom, but calls the student “Mark” when speaking with the student’s parents, the plaintiffs argue that this is a form of deception.
For now, the judge in the case has sided with the parents. The judge’s order states: “NOW, THEREFORE, Defendant Madison Metropolitan School District is hereby enjoined, pending Plaintiffs’ appeal, from applying or enforcing any policy, guideline, or practice reflected or recommended in its document entitled ‘Guidance & Policies to Support Transgender, Non-binary & Gender-Expansive Students’ in any manner that allows or requires District staff to conceal information or to answer untruthfully in response to any question that parents ask about their child at school, including information about the name and pronouns being used to address their child at school.”
The judge clarified that his order “does not create an affirmative obligation to disclose information if that obligation does not already exist at law and shall not require or allow District staff to disclose any information that they are otherwise prohibited from disclosing to parents by any state or federal law or regulation.” So it is unclear how this order only affects situations like the “Mary/Mark” example. One could argue that if a teacher deliberately uses one name when talking to the student and another name when talking to the parent, then the teacher is being deceptive. But one could also point to the judge’s language that the order “does not create an affirmative obligation to disclose information,” to argue that the teacher need not reveal that the student is called Mary in class unless the parent specifically asks.
The litigation is still at an early stage and there may be appeals. It would not be surprising if the case became a campaign issue. Madison is a very progressive city in a purple battleground state. The case pits two sides who perceive themselves fighting for their basic rights. Advocates for transgender youth see this case as a fight for safety, autonomy, and dignity. The parents in this case see it as a battle to maintain a parental role in guiding their children in making fundamental choices. It is a complicated issue. Given what the Nation has seen from the presidential race so far, one can only imagine how the candidates are likely to handle it.
