Are Transgender Civil Rights Under Attack? A Look Back at the Past Week

A Tough Week for Transgender Students and Families

After years of attacks on rights of transgender students, this past week has seen an onslaught of anti-transgender media, court cases, and federal and state activity. For parents of transgender students, transgender students, and the transgender community, it is just too much. They are exhausted, so all allies need to continue to step up to fight alongside them against such attacks.

“Children's well-being now, ability to live life without scarred spirits, and their very lives are at stake.”   - Robert Rigby

Since last Wednesday, we have seen almost  nonstop attacks on the rights of transgender students to exist. Here is a timeline: 

1. December 4: Opening arguments began in the US v. Skrmetti Supreme Court case where the state of Tennessee is trying to eliminate gender affirming care for transgender children, despite parental consent and doctor’s approval.

2. December 6: A Fairfax Circuit Court hearing on Jane Doe v. FCSB where America First Legal argued a religious objection on behalf of the children of a West Springfield parent, Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, against pronoun and bathroom policies in Fairfax County.

3. December 9: Yet another Federalist opinion piece was published attacking transgender civil rights and transgender allies by Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, Independent Women’s Network (IWN) Fairfax Chapter Lead.

4. December 10: Trump nominated known transphobic election denier Harmeet Dillon as the Assistant Attorney General (AG) in charge of the civil rights division in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

5. December 11: A vote was passed in the House on a Republican-amended military budget bill that will ban gender affirming care for military family children.

6. December 11: Chesterfield County School Board undermined the safety of transgender students through a controversial policy revision.

Below, I will cover these attacks on the rights of transgender students to exist in life and public school; however, before doing so, I would like to remind everyone of some successes in the past week. Although we will need to continue the fight for LGBTQIA+ civil rights and the right of transgender people to exist, we also need to celebrate our successes: Prattville Pride won an injunction to permit them to participate in the Prattville annual Christmas parade, Montana Supreme Court blocked a ban on healthcare for transgender youth, the U.S. Supreme Court turned away a Wisconsin case against transgender students, and local group, Transgender Education Association won an award for their advocacy.

Click on the arrows below to read more about about this rough week of attacks on transgender civil rights. 

1. Gender Affirming Care under Fire at the Supreme Court (L.W. v. Skrmetti)

On December 4th, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began hearing oral arguments in the case of L.W. v. Skrmetti, to determine whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1 prohibiting gender-affirming care for minors violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Tennessee, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP brought the lawsuit on behalf of a 16-year-old transgender girl, her parents, two other plaintiff families, and a Memphis-based physician. 

Glorious but cold day for Supreme Court rally

Lambda Legal described the case as whether “transgender minors in Tennessee can access the same medical care that is commonly provided to non transgender minors and whether their families can make healthcare decisions in consultation with their doctors without the interference of politicians.” The lawyers argued that the Tennessee law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it “unfairly discriminates against transgender youth by denying them the same care that is available to other youth, such as hormone therapy or puberty blockers.”

Lambda Legal noted two historic firsts associated with this case: the Solicitor General of the United States, Elizabeth Prelogar, also represented the interests of the transgender community, and this is the first case at the Supreme Court where parties are represented by an openly transgender lawyer, Chase Strangio, co-counsel from the ACLU.

I and other FCPS Pride board members attended the rally in support of the civil rights of transgender youth and their families. As you can see from the photos below, the Freedom to Be Ourselves rally was a glorious affair with music, rainbows, and people from all over the country who showed up in the extreme cold to support civil rights for transgender people. Straight, gay, trans, non-binary, and cis people of all races and religions rallied against the dark disinformation campaign from the sad, small affair with paid agitators and angry operatives screaming negativity and hate against parents and their children in our rally. The outcome of this case will have far reaching consequences. Over half of the states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth, and far-right groups are targeting trans youth with coordinated disinformation campaigns and legal cases (see below). In Virginia, a negative SCOTUS decision would make school district defense of supportive transgender student policies more critical, but also more difficult.

Sign made by parents at the Free to Be Ourselves rally

2. Religious Objection to Using Pronouns and Bathroom Access (Jane Doe v. FCSB)

On December 6th, Judge Kassabian heard a demurrer request by the FCSB in the Fairfax Circuit Court after America First Legal added new plaintiffs to its lawsuit. Fundamentally, the lawsuit asserts that religious freedom supersedes other freedoms, and therefore permits violation of FCPS anti-bullying policies and infringement of the rights of transgender students to their pronouns, names, and right to use the bathroom of their gender. 

In August, America First Legal added three additional plaintiffs, the minor sons of Stephanie Lundquist-Arora, after the claims of the graduated high school senior, Jane Doe, were rendered moot because Doe had graduated. Lundquist Arora is known as the IWN Fairfax Chair, a “concerned parent” on Fox and Newsmax, and a columnist (for various far right media outlets) whose opinion pieces regularly attack FCPS policies and personnel, and LGBTQIA rights. News reports indicate that Lundquist-Arora dropped out of the 2023 school board election after video surfaced of her mocking an autistic student.

Last Friday, the FCSB lawyer, Noah Sullivan of Gentry Lock, argued to dismiss the case based on standing questioning “What real conflict is there between [the plaintiffs] religious practices and what the School Board’s policies require?” Sullivan declared that the plaintiffs admit that there is no conflict, rather raise “erroneous procedural arguments.” 

There was a mildly humorous point during the trial when Ian Prior started to say “LCPS” instead of “FCPS” during his argument. This was funny, as Prior, the America First Legal counsel, is the founder of Fight for Schools, and has been deeply involved in the culture wars in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). 

Ultimately, the judge ruled that four counts will continue because they cover constitutional issues, while three were dismissed with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Prior has trumpeted the decision as a “major win;” however, in truth, this hearing merely determined that the four “pronoun” counts will go to trial, but the three “bathroom” counts were dismissed. At trial, the plaintiff’s will have to prove their case of “compelled speech” which may be difficult as no one is forcing speech. The students are fully within their rights to avoid using pronouns, like the teacher in the Vlaming case.

There was quite a bit of conservative media in the audience, including Luke Rosiak of the Daily Wire and Nick Minock of WJLA, both of whom reported on the case. Unfortunately, Rosiak’s reporting mostly recycled Prior’s talking points, referred to cisgender girls as “normal girls,” and included several irrelevant, inflammatory points to rile up his conservative readers. Similarly, Minock reported Prior’s inaccurate statements about FCPS policy as if they were true; however, he did reach out to others for comment. Interestingly, neither reporter mentioned the petitioner’s name, despite Lundquist-Arora being familiar to both of them.

One should know that there are deep connections among Rosiak, Prior, and Lundquist-Arora, all of whom do work with (or for?) Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), a Project 2025 signatory, and IWF’s affiliated groups like IWN. However, for the most complete and correct coverage of the case, one should review Angela Woolsey’s reporting in Fairfax Now. At this time, there is no court hearing set.

If you would like to learn more about the case, please check out 4 Public Education’s previous blogs:

• A Complex (and Expensive!) Legal Showdown about Student Rights Continues (August 10, 2024)

• A Controversial Legal Attack on Students and Schools (July 19, 2024)

3. Nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to a Civil Rights Appointment

On October 9th, Trump chose Harmeet K. Dhillon, a known Trump loyalist and activist. As the Washington post noted, “If confirmed by the Senate, Dhillon would oversee hundreds of civil rights attorneys charged with anti discrimination and voting rights cases, though she is expected to preside over a broad shift in enforcement priorities from the Biden administration.”

Besides her activism against COVID protections; voting rights; and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, she is a 2020 election denier who has been active against transgender rights and protections. She will likely pursue changes to transgender students’ rights in sports, schools, and health care.

Of course, her activism extends to  the rights of all LGBTQIA people, as well. This means that the civil rights of the entire LGBTQIA community may be abridged under Dhillon’s leadership; however, it is likely that she will continue to focus most of her attention on restricting the rights of the transgender community, which will have devastating consequences.

4. The Federalist Jumps the Shark with Transphobic Content

In this most recent The Federalist opinion piece classified under the subject “Trans Insanity,” Lundquist-Arora continued her verbal attack on the transgender community. To date she has written dozens of pieces in the Washington Times, Washington Examiner, and The Federalist expounding on untruths about LGBTQIA youth and adults, their families, and their allies.

In this opinion piece, Lundquist-Arora claimed that through the smog and traffic jam in Delhi, India, she saw “trans-identifying adults” mobbing a car next to her. Of course, it is entirely possible that men are merely dressing up as women, but she claimed that they were “trans-identifying” without talking to them. Additionally, Lundquist-Arora ignored the critical context that unhomed people of all ages and identities interfere with traffic in Delhi, and the tragic regularity of sexual assaults by cisgender men.

If one takes her at her word that this scenario actually happened and she saw it through the smog, it is a bizarre scenario to use in order to misrepresent transgender people in India, much less in the United States. However, Lundquist-Arora went one step further to tarnish the reputations of those who fight for transgender civil rights when she claimed they belong to a “trans cult.” Once you portray your opponents as belonging in a cult, without any evidence, then you really have lost the argument. 

In that piece, Lundquist-Arora made a series of dubious, easily disprovable, and mean-spirited statements about transgender people, parents of transgender students, and allies:

• A “transgender mob” existed, and it was trying to “weaponize [the] kindness” of Americans.

• Transgender student rights run counter to women’s rights, parental rights, and religious freedom. (Note: this is pure far right disinformation.)

• Those parents and grandparents supporting transgender civil rights are a “tyrannical minority.”

• “The trans cult [is] made up of mostly bored white women.”

• Trans activists are “narcissistic.” 

Based on my own experience, most advocates for transgender civil rights are transgender and/or parents and relatives of transgender children or adults. Typically, transgender allies include individuals/groups who support civil rights for all Americans, no matter their gender identity, race, immigration status, religion, sexuality, or disability. 

In fact, there is a strong kinship among different racial civil rights groups, disability advocates, religious groups, and LGBTQIA advocates. To deny this cooperation is to deny the truth of those of us on the ground, standing up every day for the rights of students, educators, and community members.

As seen at the rally at the Supreme Court, the audience and speakers represented the full spectrum of our country, including women, men, and children who were white, Black, Hispanic, Christian, Jewish, and (even) Republicans. 

There is no need to misrepresent parents of transgender children as beggars, narcissists, cultists, and “alphabet mafia.” The Federalist should be ashamed of itself for repeatedly publishing such lies and hate.

Most civil rights activists know that transgender rights run hand-in-hand with women’s rights, parental rights, and religious rights. Unfortunately, to fully explain this would require an entirely different blog.

5. Restricting the Military Families’ Insurance Coverage

At the last minute, Republican congressman, Mike Johnson (R-LA) added language to the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), that bans insurance company Tricare from providing gender-affirming care for minors under the age of 18.The House voted on the NDAA with the ban in place on Wednesday, December 11th. It was hoped that it would fail, as have previous efforts to add similar legislation into the NDAA; however, the House passed the NDAA with the amended language. The votes were tallied by the Washington Post.

This news has been feared by military families across the country. Its passage means that children receiving life-saving medical care–with parental consent under the supervision of their doctor–will be ripped from their ongoing care and will either suffer without treatment, pay out of pocket, or find other less accessible or safe ways to ensure continued care.

Military families demand and deserve health care for ALL of their kids.

Anyone who requires medical care for a chronic condition, whether it be asthma or diabetes should be sympathetic to the need to have continued access to life-saving medicines and care. Gender-affirming care is most common for cisgender people whose birth gender matches their gender identity. Such care for cisgender people can include hormone replacement therapy (common among perimenopausal women), birth control pills, breast reconstruction following mastectomies, gynecomastia treatments for men, and testosterone treatments. Many such treatments are used on cisgender minors, as well.

I would hope that cisgender women and men who receive gender-affirming care would be sympathetic to ensuring gender-affirming health care for others, including transgender people. Similarly, if cisgender patients’ gender-affirming health care is covered by insurance, so should gender-affirming health care for transgender patients be covered by insurance. 

"Lawmakers are playing politics with the military families' health care: “This is a betrayal of our service members and a threat to national security." - Rachel Branaman, executive director of the Modern Military Association of America

The amendment to the NDAA  is a direct attack on military members and their families. You can find more information, including action items, at this link. 

“The inclusion of this harmful provision puts the lives of children at risk and may force thousands of service members to make the choice of continuing their military service or leaving to ensure their child can get the health care they need.” - Representative Adam Smith (D-WA), top Democrat on the House Committee on Armed Services

6. Chesterfield School Board Chooses Anti-Trans Policies

In an astonishing move on December 11th, a large school district outside of Richmond voted to impose anti-trans policies in their schools despite the overwhelming outcry of parents and school staff. It is said that these policies go beyond Youngkin’s anti-trans model policies and LGBTQIA advocates express safety concerns about these sweeping anti-trans changes.

Despite more than 130 speakers on Tuesday, most of whom opposed these changes, Chesterfield County Public Schools School Board (CCPSSB) voted to reverse their policies, which many say will endanger transgender students. Claiming they were acting according to “parents rights,” the CCPSSB enacted policies against the Superintendent's wishes which permit deadnaming of transgender children, forced bathroom use according to sex on the birth certificate, compel actions by staff, and restrict access to sports. Amendments to the previous policy can be found here. 

All in all, they removed the word “transgender” nearly a dozen times from their policy; however, they continue to reference Governor Northam’s 2021 Transgender Policies in their new policy. Does that mean that they are in violation of their own policies? Or, does it mean they require another vote to amend the policy? Answer: Unknown, but this ironic misstep clarifies that their effort is more about exclusion of transgender students and not about policy.

Despite the desperate pleas and scientific justifications made by hundreds of people, the CCPSSB chose to enact policies that will most likely cause immense harm to the transgender and nonbinary communities of students and their families, while offering no perceivable benefit. In the words of Roberty Rigby of FCPS Pride: “the criminal indifference to the safety of children is stunning.” 

Of course, this policy change will disrupt the schools, including foreseeable issues associated with children using names other than those on their birth certificates, all of which should fall under the new policy. If Susanna goes by “Sue” or Michael goes by “Mike” will the rules apply equally to them as applied to the families of transgender children who will be required to submit written authorization of their approval of naming convention in the school?

Much of these changes were pushed by the far-right evangelical lobbying organization Family Foundation located in Richmond which has a large budget and motivated activists who have been bussed around the state for protests. They can be identified by their tragically ironic mass-produced posters held by grandparents that say “Protect Every Kid” which obviously exclude the kids that they find distasteful like LGBTQIA+ students.

Family Foundation descended on 10/7/21 FCSB meeting

RVA Magazine of Richmond notes that they are on the opposite side of the majority of Virginians on nearly every subject from same-sex marriage to legalization of cannabis. The Family Foundation is against reproductive rights, LGBTQIA+ rights, parental rights, and sex education. In opposition to respected medical organizations, the Family Foundation of Virginia supports “conversion therapy,” which has more in common with torture than therapeutic psychological support. Family Foundation of Virginia is on the SPLC-defined list of anti-LGBTQIA hate groups, as well. 

Can the Chesterfield school district defend the expense, confusion, harm, and inequality caused by these changes? How do these changes improve education outcomes? Answer: they can’t defend these changes, and excluding and scaring students does not improve outcomes.

Anticipating 2025 and More Civil Rights Attacks

If the last couple of years of vicious attacks against transgender student rights have seemed rough, this will only intensify under the next presidential administration. With pressure, policy changes, and key appointments at the federal level, it will make it harder for school districts to hold their ground.

Additionally, it is known that changes at the federal level will create chaos which will make it harder for school administration and staff to know how vigorously to defend and support queer students and staff out of confusion and fear of retaliation.

Robert Rigby, longtime LGBTQIA activist and leader of FCPS Pride, anticipates that in the next year:

“Queer kids and staff are entering an automatically more hostile environment in any school. The burden will fall upon teachers and staff to stand by kids.”

He suggested that we continue with our advocacy for civil rights for our LGBTQIA+ students, families, staff, and community. We shouldn’t stop reminding our local school boards and superintendents via emails and conversations how important it is to support our vulnerable children during these challenging times.