Appeals Court Blocks District Policy That Requires Students to 'Respect' Gender Identity
By: Mark Walsh (Education Week)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A federal appeals court on Friday blocked an Iowa school district's policy that bars staff members or students from refusing to "respect" a student's gender identity, such as by not using the name and pronoun a transgender student uses.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, in St. Louis, said the policy was unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment, and could lead to a substantial risk that administrators would arbitrarily enforce it against students.
The Sept. 29 decision in Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar Community School District comes at a time when school districts across the country are grappling with policies that impact transgender students and facing sharply contrasting pressures on what they should or must do.
A concurring judge suggested that the Iowa district is essentially caught between a rock and a hard place, with the First Amendment on one side and federal and state law dictates against bullying and barring discrimination based on gender identity on the other.
"I agree that schools are limited in their ability to regulate speech that is merely offensive to some listener," Judge Jane Kelly said, but the district "has a duty, under federal and state law, to protect students from harassment and discrimination on the basis of sex."
That extends to gender identity, Kelly said, explicitly under Iowa law and through recent legal interpretations of federal Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which in its statutory language bars discrimination based on sex.
Kelly called the district's policy "appropriately inclusive." The district seeks to "ensure a safe, affirming, and healthy school environment where every student, including those of all gender identities, can learn effectively," Kelly said, but the district "may have used language that is insufficiently tailored to its effort to achieve this goal."
Some provisions of district's policy superseded by a new state law
The 7,500-student Linn-Mar district adopted its broad policy on transgender and gender non-conforming students in April 2022. The policy included provisions to develop gender support plans for transgender students and keep gender identities confidential, even from parents, unless authorized by the students.
The policy also includes a section on "names and pronouns," which says that any "intentional and/or persistent refusal by staff or students to respect a student's gender identity is a violation of school board policies," including its anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.
Parents Defending Education, a national group that has figured prominently in debates over transgender policies in schools, sued the district in federal district court, along with several anonymous parents in the district, alleging violations of parents' 14th Amendment substantive due process rights to direct the upbringing of their children and students First Amendment free speech rights.
The district court declined to issue an injunction against the policy, and while that ruling was pending appeal, Iowa passed a law, effective July 1 this year, that bars school districts from providing false or misleading information to parents about a student's transgender status or intention to transition to a gender different from what is on the student's birth certificate.
The 8th Circuit panel ruled that the plaintiffs' claims against the policy's gender support plan and confidentiality provisions were moot because those provisions were superseded by the new state law.
"The new Iowa statute provides [certain] parents all of their requested relief," Judge Steven M. Colloton wrote for the court. "The district may not knowingly give false information to a parent about a student's gender identity, and must notify a parent of a student's request for a gender accommodation from a licensed practitioner."
Court rejects district's arguments that policy is limited in scope
But at least one anonymous parent had standing to revive the First Amendment challenge to the "respect" policy, the court said.
"Parent G asserts that her son wants to state his belief that biological sex is immutable' [and] disagree with another student's assertion about whether they are male or female," among other ideological objections to the district's policy and transgender status," the court said. "Because of the policy, however, Parent G states that her son remains silent in school when gender identity topics arise to avoid violating the policy."
The school district argued that harassment or bullying is not protected speech at school, and that its policy only requires using a student's preferred name and pronouns but does not restrict "general opinions" about gender identity.
The court rejected those arguments.
"The policy broadly prohibits a refusal to 'respect a student's gender identity,'" Colloton said. "The policy does not define 'respect,' and the expression of opinions like those held by Parent G's child arguably would violate the policy."
Students would not know, for example, whether they were violating the policy if they expressed discomfort about sharing a restroom with transgender students, spoke up in class to argue that biological sex is immutable, or opined about transgender students' participation in team sports, the court said.
"We are not convinced that a student may rest assured that the policy is as narrow as the district asserts in litigation," Colloton said.
The court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings and ordered an injunction blocking the "respect" policy.
No Trump, no fascist references, no trolling
Tags
Who is online
457 visitors
Inching toward sanity...........................
Heaven forbid we should be tolerant of those who are different and respect them because how they identify themselves absolutely has no bearing whatsoever on anyone's life.
Tell it to the girls swim teams across the US.
There are other sports where biological men have overtaken women's sports:
Weight lifting:
Also ... Gymnastics, track, even angling (fishing),
So you support and respect biological males with emotional problems dominating women in sports and elsewhere?
See 1.1
Hilarious that someone flagged this comment.
Some get triggered so easily.
See 1.1.1
Parents Defending Education sounds like some right wing funded crackpots complaining about nothing and making an issue where there is none.
Maybe doing actual research you'll know.
Sounds like you support porn in grade school classrooms, and have no problem with gender "affirming" care for kids.
Like that will happen
So, they don't have to play along with their putt putt games. No matter how much crying they do. This is going to be fun to watch unfold.
Kudos to this federal appeals court! No matter how often a minority of people freak out, freedom of speech and thought is enshrined in our First Amendment.
So what let MAGA call out a transperson. It's been done before and sure it will be so in the future. Transpeople you know what to do - Out the conservatives who date you and buy you drinks and come calling for a date. Transpeople have ways and the means to fight too!
Nowadays, (cell phone) cameras are pervasive.
MAGA don't get caught with your underwire down around your knees in an UNCONSERVATIVE state of mind. OUTED!
Your rambling comment makes no sense, please write something coherent and logical.
Of course it makes no sense to you, not much about other types of humanity does apparently - "One-way." But, what about those conservatives who sleep around with trans-people (they know who they are). It's time to out these bastards. Take away their 'safe places.'
What "safe spaces" are you referring to?
Sex sells.
Sounds like the typical tabloid fodder.
Well, since conservatives can't mind their own business and leave others to do the same. . .perhaps the time has come to expose them for their "down-low" habits? For example, I have heard and read (in books by informed sources) that it is a 'known quantity' that conservatives who attend CONVENTIONS around the country on a regular basis, INCLUDING CPAC AND RNC PRESIDENTIAL CONVENTIONS have sexual liaisons AND "groupies" which shadow the conventioners to fulfill their hotel room and date 'appetites.'
Well, it's time the hookers, call girls, transfolks, and homosexuals servicing these so-called "righteous" conservatives (or who have EVER serviced them) out them. If they won't let others live in peace why shouldn't they cover be pulled off of them-personally?
As I stated earlier, sex sells - particularly when it involves hypocrites, politicians and celebrities.
If the goal is "peace", then why are the males insisting on being allowed into female only spaces and sports? There is nothing peaceful about the males attacking females and their groups.
Interestingly, Stephanie Ruhle's "The Eleventh Hour" had a discussion about trans 'issues' on her show where she tried to get some answers.I found the clip and present it for your consideration. It is a (21) minute video as she is trying to get a deeper set of responses than usual from her guests:
And yes they do have a trans-gender ATHLETE on the panel adding insights and perspective.
Same old special pleading.
All males are not "better" athletes. than all females.
Does not matter one iota.
Either all males compete against other males or compete in an open category. This is the only completely fair resolution for everyone involved.
The only reason the males would be objecting is because they cannot win in an open category. They need an unfair advantage to be a "winner". Equality is their enemy.
I don't have an answer to all of life's or transgender people problems. But, I do know that a man with breasts, hormones, and etceteras should not be competing against males with excellent "raging" hormones. These transgendered people are altered beings, and may be they should not compete at all.
It really does not matter to me. I have no bones to pick with sports or athletes being accepted or not accepted into elite/professional sporting opportunities.
That seems to matter to you. And well it should. I repeat its not where I enter or position myself in this discussion!
Additionally, I respect cis-girls and cis-women and I 'hate' the world for always making problems for us to surmount! We all are just doing the best we can in a world we find ourselves stuck together in!
My focus is on the notion that there are two-genders when it is clear even to a child that calling a man with. . . breasts a man or a woman with a man-sized mustache a woman is a confusion all its own. More importantly, it does not render RESPECT TO THE PERSON. And who among us does not wish to be respected?
There are girls and women. The word "cis" is unnecessary.
A man does not have breasts, and a woman does not have a man-sized mustache unless they have taken enough artificial hormones to grow that which they would not have naturally.
Males, who have been fully transitioned and been castrated, should be classified as women and treated as such legally. and addressed accordingly However, they should not be competing in women's sports and to be completely fair should remain competing in the open category for life.
Males, with a penis, masquerading as females, need a new classification that does not contain the word woman or any reference to being female.
Females, who have transitioned to the point of appearing male, should be addressed as such.
Any person, who has transitioned, should never lie to their dates or potential partners about their birth gender because what they are seeing is not really what they are getting.
At no time, should it be legal to allow minors to transition so their "appearance" should be a mute point for school age children.
Look. Why are you picking at acceptable wording? Is cis-girl or cis-woman to be the latest "offense" to conservatives? What is this about?
Let's not be a nit-picker, please. Time is valuable and I can't waste it on 'grammar-policing.'
So what are you saying? That it does not happen? That it should not happen? That when/where it does occur that it should not matter? What are you sayin' really?
You approve of science. Does science not call transpeople something different than what you call insist on? Does science get it wrong?
As for the remainder of this comment. . . I have no stance on it. Why? Because it goes beyond me. It is perfectly okay not to have an OPINION about everything people can do to themselves in this life.
You know, "Freedom." The nation prides itself about it.
I won't oblige you, 'grammar police.' The termage: "cis," "cis-gender," "cis-girl," and "cis-woman" has been provided to us in our lexicon of speech. You can use it or not as you choose to. However, you don't get to set the narrative as to what I can say in discussion on these 'servicable' expressions! That being said, I will accept your use of the standalone terms girl and woman. Of course I will.
See? Compromise is not a dirty word!
How many men compete in women's sports?
I fully understand that it is not fair to the individual women who are potentially effected but the numbers are miniscule. Why is this constantly discussed as if it is a huge national issue? Nikki Haley even said it is the "women's issue" of our times. Really, I would have thought that equal pay or abortion rights would have been a bigger issue.
Doesn't matter.
The number should be zero.
Problem is, that number is growing.
"Cisgender was coined to differentiate that category from all the other invented categories that philosophy ascribes to; a philosophy we reject.
Hence, this is not nitpicking or 'grammar policing.' It is rejecting a term that doesn't apply to our worldview.
Do you only honor your worldview in discussion. How is that good communication skill?
I know what/how/why the social construct, "cis-" appeared in our vocabulary usage. It did so because it became, became mind you, necessary because of the emergence of trans-people entering the scene on a more regular basis and the need for something to aid in discussion about which group of people is being referred to in discussion.
"Cis-" is a clarifier in discussion.
Now conservatives are choosing to ask that a clarifying term be forced out of discussion and rhetoric simply because some 'revelation' to end its use buoys up their talking point that girls and women are naturally born and those others have no value conservatives need to respect?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You know, conservatives really ought to watch how and whom y'all devalue in this country. Because, at the end of day, with material things stripped away, people are all we are.
It does not hurt you to let people find their way in this world as the mantra goes: It's okay to be yourself. You have the freedom to be yourself as long as it causes relatively no harm to others.
Respect is a two-way street.
Transsexualism is not a contagion.
Words are made for man's usage; man is not made for words to have control over.
What do you mean by 'honor'?
Which is pretty much only valid for those with your worldview on this subject. It would make perfect sense for you to use such terms with those who also agree with you about the subject.
I don't know that those who share my worldview on this subject consist only of conservatives. I feel certain there are those on the left who share them as well.
In any case, it isn't a matter of forcing out the terms as much as it is not recognizing them as valid, which is only logical, since it doesn't reflect our worldview. To do otherwise is to validate a worldview we do not agree is true.
Nor is it a case of 'conservatives' not valuing those who differ from our worldview. That represents a false choice fallacy, such as "If you don't do X then you're a chicken." It is, rather, a case of not valuing a worldview we consider to be based on untruths and incompatible with reality.
And now, speaking strictly for myself, there are occasions where I do struggle with devaluing the person. For instance, when a person wearing one of those leather dog masks is being led around in public by a chain by someone else, it is very difficult not to devalue them as, to my mind, they devalue themselves. They are willingly debasing their human dignity. It's very hard not to go along with them in self-devaluation.
Depends on what those people are doing in 'finding their way". Forcing their beliefs on those who do not believe them is a red line. Men competing as women, Indoctrinating and sexualizing school children and men using women's bathrooms are a few examples that we consider to be harmful. Simply because you disagree isn't sufficient for us to change our minds. In the end, your argument seems to come down to "We should support people in believing whatever they want to believe." Again, to paraphrase Voltair, a society that will believe anything will do anything. Not the society I want to live in.
Words should reflect truth, not be redefined in order to make a false narrative more plausible.
noun
So it's a ' gay ' thing. But, you are not ACTUALLY saying it is a ' trans ' thing either! That would mean you're being perfectly clear all around now. /s
The verbiage is harmless, but. . . . Personally I don't want to argue over terms found in popular culture! It is only now that I am finding out that is an issue for conservatives.
Try as I might, some people's persistent on the small stuff can disrupt and even destroy discussions.
Who suggests anybody live in a society where you will voluntary or under duress believe in ANYTHING? Your being 'dramatic.' Moreover, no one has asked you to leave your 'mark' in the line to do/accept anything. We're just talking about OTHER people's realities.
Did you notice, none of this about the Church? Nobody is asking you to "be," "wear," "act a certain way," just accept another's CONDITION in the world and you have the gall to publicly grumble about the small stuff.
One day we ought to have a true discussion about "small hills" that become mountain ranges in these culture 'wars.'
Then, no, I don't honor them.
As to what you say in the subsequent posts, it's clear there is little point in continuing. Have a nice day.
Well good. Then nobody will mind if we keep women's competitions for actual women.
That's not unhinged or anything.
Call it whatever you like. It's not mine or anybody else's fault if conservatives in the real world can advocate for limited freedoms for transpeople and homosexuals while "dicking" and "licking" them down on the Down-Low. I'd suggest conservatives and MAGA keep their laced-up, straight-and-narrow conduct and acts perfect like they INSIST others do. If they can't then what is there for them to bitch about?
Funny. Homosexuals for "centuries" were held back and locked out of society because of conservative spouting warnings about our being open to blackmailed and the like while on government and private jobs.
In fact the solution was to get rid of the fear of blackmail and adjoining exposure by being real about who we are on a daily basis.
Problem (of being blackmailed) solved!
It's not blackmail if straight conservatives keep their "dicks and licks" in the family where they swear to onlookers their 'tools and tongues" belong! That is, a conservative can't get outed if he don't stick 'em or lick 'em. Just sayin'
I really hope transsexuals out them. I really do. The time is 'ripe' to do so.
Don't worry about my classiness, MAGA! Worry about your cohorts and where they are when they are 'away' in a remote corner of America doing a little of this and a little of that to Tom(lina), Dick(sima), and Harry(sia)!
I would suggest that all the hookers, call girls, and trans persons take images of their conservative dates at the next convention (while they sleep too). And most definitely at the Republican National Convention.
Won't leave people alone to enjoy their time on this earth, so OUT THEM ALL!
You are MAGA! I am pretty sure of it. Don't worry, MAGA. Just keep dicks and licks out of the orifices of others that are not legally wedded to y'all!
Nothing criminal about taking a picture of an individual who has bought dinner, a show, and a 'night' on the town or any combo of the sort: who falls asleep in another person's bed ( not belonging to his/her spouse) . Indeed, the other spouse should love to know what's really going on when the cat's away and the mice play!
Just getting real 'bout it. Y'all be real too!
Oh btw, its MAGA that recently pointed out: privacy is not a right in the constitution.
[removed]
Or I could just not address you at all! That's a possible (likely) option! Mutually?
Oh, it just got real. We're done for the month of October. Adios!