Transgender Students Just Scored a Big Victory in Public Schools

In South Dakota, at least.


Update (3/1/2016): South Dakota’s Republican Gov. Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill on Tuesday that would have required transgender students to use school bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding with their birth sex, rather than their gender identities. South Dakota would have been the first state to approve this type of legislation. Daugaard said he rejected the bill because it did “not address any pressing issue” and because he believed questions of bathroom use would be better left to local school officials.

When Thomas Lewis, 18, came out as transgender at his South Dakota high school last March, the simple act of going to the bathroom became a lot more complicated. His counselor advised him to hold off on switching to the boy’s bathroom right away; he was newly transitioning and still appeared somewhat feminine. “I didn’t want it to be awkward for anyone,” Lewis says. But he didn’t want to continue to use the girl’s room, either—the thought of it made him panicky. So he’d stop home at lunch to relieve himself and then return to class. These days, he still often goes home out of habit, “but I can also use the men’s room at my school, and I do.”

Transgender students are at risk of “being put into a kind of problem box,” says 18-year-old Thomas Lewis.

Though maybe not for long. South Dakota is one signature away from becoming the first state in the country to prohibit transgender students from using school bathrooms and locker rooms corresponding with their gender identities. Gov. Dennis Daugaard has until March 1 to sign or veto a bill, passed by the state Senate in mid-February, that reserves multiperson bathrooms, locker rooms, and shower rooms in public schools for kids of the same biological sex—as determined by their chromosomes and anatomy at birth.

For transgender students, that means either going to a bathroom where they feel out of place or opting instead to use a unisex or single-person bathroom—an option that some say unfairly singles them out as different. “You’re putting more stigma around them, and there’s now more of a chance for them to be ostracized in school because they’re being put into a kind of problem box,” Lewis says.

“This legislative session has the most anti-trans bills we’ve seen,” says an ACLU attorney.

The bill’s supporters say the measure will protect students’ privacy. But opponents of the bill have argued it violates Title IX, a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs. The Obama administration seems to support that interpretation.

Even so, South Dakota isn’t the only state considering a so-called “bathroom bill.” An increasing number of kids are coming out as transgender at earlier ages, and lawmakers in at least 10 other states (highlighted in green in the map above) have introduced similar bills already this year. While they’re not necessarily the first to do so—similar legislation was proposed in several states last year, as my colleagues Julia Lurie and Sam Brodey reported—momentum appears to be growing. “Certainly this legislative session has the most anti-trans bills we’ve seen,” says Chase Strangio, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Transgender issues have become more visible in the United States over the past year, thanks in part to the high-profile transition of Olympic gold medalist Caitlyn Jenner and transgender characters on screen, like Jeffrey Tambor’s Maura in Transparent. (Jenner has joined transgender actress Laverne Cox in opposing the South Dakota bill on social media.) But “with increased visibility comes increased targeting,” says the ACLU’s Strangio, who adds that the bathroom bills may be part of a conservative backlash to the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage in June 2015.

The bills are likely all welcome news for a deep-pocketed conservative group called Alliance Defending Freedom. The Arizona-based group emailed school districts across the country in 2014, urging them to adopt its “Student Physical Privacy Policy,” which states that “student restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that are designated for one sex shall only be used by members of that sex.” With more than 3,000 allied attorneys and $44 million in case funding, the Alliance has offered free legal counsel to school districts that adopt its policy and are sued as a result.

In October last year, the US Justice Department and Education Department came out in support of a Virginia transgender teenager, Gavin Grimm, who is currently suing for access to the boys’ bathrooms at his high school. In friend-of-the-court briefs, both departments argued that the Virginia school’s policy of barring Grimm from these bathrooms denied “a benefit that every other student at this school enjoys: access to restrooms that are consistent with his or her gender identity.”

“Bathrooms don’t need to change—people do.”

“Treating a student differently from other students because his birth-assigned sex diverges from his gender identity constitutes differential treatment on the basis of sex under Title IX,” lawyers for the two departments wrote. The lawsuit, which began last June, went in January to a federal appeals court—the first time a federal court has considered whether such restrictions on bathroom usage violate the federal civil rights law.

Even outside the courtroom, restrictive bathroom policies could be costly for schools and put their Title IX funding at risk. And if South Dakota’s bathroom bill becomes law, it’s also unclear how schools there would enforce the rule. It “would require really intrusive examination of students’ identity documents and possibly anatomy,” says Kris Hayashi, executive director of the California-based Transgender Law Center.

Lewis, who’s graduating soon, worries the South Dakota bill, if enacted, will deter other students from openly living as transgender. “There’s definitely a lot of, ‘If I did fully come out, not only might I get a bad reaction from my family, but I can’t use the bathroom where I want to use the bathroom at school,'” he said, urging legislators to have an open mind. “Bathrooms don’t need to change—people do.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate