While no one of conscience would deny that transgender students deserve to live free of discrimination because of their chosen identity, the J-2 Transgender Student Policy Implementation Procedure (PIP) that APS put on their Engage Page this week goes far beyond anti-discrimination.
In a nutshell, this PIP prevents parents from teaching their own children their family’s viewpoints on human sexuality and identity; it revokes from parents authority over children’s safety and well-being and awards that authority to the public school and to the state; and it installs the public school as a self-sanctioned wall between parents and their children, making the school the arbiter of ideological indoctrination toward whatever political and cultural trends the school prefers, regardless of biological facts, practical implementation, and obvious reality.
This PIP also violates the law, as it denies Title IX protections to girls regarding private spaces, participation in sports, and freedom from unfair or unsafe experiences in school and public settings. The PIP also counters FERPA guidelines, despite its assertion that it is FERPA-compliant.
Children will be conditioned to not only accept, but to embrace and participate in the transgender experience and lifestyle. Promotion of an ideology is not evidence of an anti-discrimination procedure, but of indoctrination.
Anyone who counters or questions the transgender agenda is labeled a homophobe, transphobe, and hater, and is accused of fearmongering. This has been the experience of APC parents as we have sought to address our concerns about this PIP. However, the above descriptions of what this PIP will do are not predictive or groundless. They are based on transgender activists’ own stated goals, and the lived experience of students and parents in APS schools. Here are a few of their stories:
“My son was in the “I Am Jazz” book reading in February. He came home and asked his mom if the doctor could decide that he was a girl someday and that he'd be a girl from then on because the doctor said so. An even bigger deal than that, though, was when we tried to talk with him about the event. He was EXTREMELY uncomfortable, like he thought he was in trouble when we were just trying find out what happened and what he understood about it. He could obviously tell something wasn't right and had no desire to talk about it. I don’t think anything taught in public school should cause a rift between parents and their kids. APS, HRC and everyone else involved with this are deliberately using the natural trust young children have in adults, perverting it for their own ends and using the classroom as a way around parental authority for subjects they know very well are controversial. That’s despicable.”
“My middle-school, autistic daughter announced last year that she’s agender. We’re not supportive of transition, and believe (along with her therapist) that this has much more to do with autism, body dysmorphia, and peer affirmation than with sexuality or gender identity. When my daughter told us she’d been using the boys’ bathroom at school I let the principal know that I did not want my daughter in the boys’ bathroom. The principal said, ‘Our school policy is to let kids use whatever bathroom they prefer.’ In other words, school policy takes precedence over parental authority. That’s B.S.”
“My fourteen-year-old son was asked if he had a girlfriend; he said no. This girl in his class concluded, ‘Then you're gay.’ He said, ‘No, I'm not.’ She asked if he was having sex with anyone. He said no. She then proceeded to call/label him ‘Alphabet Soup’, meaning androgynous or asexual.”
“My daughter told us what happened to her around [GLSEN’s] Day of Silence. As she was entering the cafeteria a sixth-grade teacher who was manning the sign-up table at the cafeteria entrance asked my daughter if she was going to sign up for the Day of Silence. She told him no. This is the teacher who sponsors the GSA club. Another teacher also announced that students participating in the Day of Silence would receive extra credit. My daughter did not want to go to school on the day of this event because she did not want to be the only one not participating. So we let her stay home.”
“Two older students from the GSA club presented their views on gender identity and neutrality to my daughter’s ninth-grade health class. This happened during normal class time (I’m told for approximately 15 minutes, including use of PowerPoint and Kahoot), and therefore presumes the acceptance and advocacy of the teacher, school, and district. I reviewed the Health Education overview and the Family Education Opt-Out Procedures regarding Health Class and failed to find any reference to Gender Identity/Neutrality in either document. After a limited web search, I also could not find any Arlington School Board guidance regarding instruction on this controversial topic. I believe the topic should NOT be taught without first informing parents, and providing the opportunity to Opt-Out. My daughter was uncomfortable during the presentation, as it’s contrary to my family’s values and beliefs.”
“At the high school where I work, we had a student who wanted to be addressed by a boy’s name and started to dress like a boy. She also wanted to use the boys’ restroom. Even though the school offered her another restroom to use, she reached out to the Dr. Murphy and was allowed to use the boys’ restroom. Suddenly we had an influx of boys using the restroom on the 2nd floor. We share a building and were getting complaints. When we asked the male students why they were going to the 2nd floor bathroom instead of the 3rd floor (where almost all our classes are) they said they felt very uncomfortable with the female, transgender student using the bathroom on the 3rd floor. High school students may not admit it but it bothers them.”
This J-2 PIP is not an anti-discrimination procedure, it is a disproportionate accommodation procedure that promotes transgender student preferences. It compels compliance that goes beyond anti-discrimination, because accommodations and preferences are afforded to some students and staff members at the expense of others.
Taking the J-2 PIP one section at a time, APC finds the following issues troubling:
1. Many of the requirements of this PIP do not ensure safety for all students, namely for girls. “Continuous training” for staff is not only vague, but also does not show any tolerance for employees’ conscience or cultural diversity.
2. The underlying premise is flawed: biology clearly defines male and female by empirical data based on science. This PIP does not reflect empirical data.
3. Single-user bathrooms are stigmatizing to everyone. If transgender students feel stigmatized when asked to use them, any student will feel stigmatized.
4. This is an accommodation that denies girls access to fair and equal competition because of the known physiological advantages of males. This procedure eliminates the equal educational opportunities and learning environments that are free from discrimination for biological girls.
5. This, along with other sections of the PIP, provides no guidance on what “gender-neutral” actually means. Who decides what is “gender-neutral”?
6. The PIP should provide for a parent to give consent for their child to share a room overnight with a child of the opposite biological sex, but it does not. The privacy procedures implied here stand in opposition to parental authority and rights over their children’s protections. This PIP abrogates reasonable parental prerogatives and duties to oversee the social and emotional wellbeing of their children.
7. This section compels speech, denying teachers and staff their first amendment right to free speech. How can teachers teach when their attention must be focused on using the correct preferred pronouns for every child in the class? Infinite pronoun choices are untenable for a functioning classroom.
8. We are concerned that this is not compliant with FERPA. Minors do not have privacy rights from their parents. No school system should create a procedure that deliberately lodges the school between a student and the student’s parents.
The “survey” APS put on the Engage Page about this PIP would be laughable if it weren’t such a transparent slap in the face to parents and the community. Comment boxes do not provide quantifiable data, and serve only as a check-the-box so APS administrators can claim that they sought community input.
Nonetheless, APC does encourage all parents who have concerns about any aspect of this PIP to submit their comments via the “survey” form. We will continue to act in good faith with APS despite the fact that APS has consistently failed to act in good faith with parents.
If/when this PIP is implemented in the 2019-20 school year, APS has agreed with the Arlington Gender Identity Allies that a more comprehensive, school-board sanctioned Transgender Student Policy will be created by 2021. (See FOIA request, page 21, dated February 22, 2019.) In other words, this PIP is just the beginning.
Given APS’s clear intention to circumvent parents’ authority over their children, if you are not completely comfortable with transgender ideology becoming a fixture throughout your child’s school day, APC recommends that you consider making your voice heard at every level: classroom teacher, staff, principal, administration, and school board. As Patrick Murphy, Superintendent, will make the final decision about approving or disapproving this PIP, communication to his office is paramount.
Our schools do not belong to one minority advocacy group, nor are they funded by such a group. The time to act is now.