Addressing VA Gov Youngkin's Anti-Transgender Policies

and addressing the hateful rhetoric it has fueled

Last night, after presses went to bed, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) used his 2022 Model Policies to roll back the protections former-Governor Ralph Northam (D) had put in place to help protect transgender youth from discrimination in the Virgina school system (The Hill). Northam’s protections in the 2021 Model Policies for the Treatment of Transgender Students in Virginia’s Public Schools, which:

mandated that transgender students be allowed to access restrooms, locker rooms and changing facilities that match their gender identities, stipulated that schools let students participate in sports and programs matching their gender identities and required that school districts and teachers accept and use students’ gender pronouns and identities without question (The Washington Post).

Youngkin, who used anti-transgender beliefs as part of his platform when running for the Republican nomination for Virginia’s Governor, has instituted new polices that not only reverse the work done to create equity for students within Virginia school districts, but has instituted guidance that will actively cause harm to transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming students. These policies include:

1. the segregation of all students by their birth assigned sex “for any school program, event, or activity, including extracurricular activities.”

2. overnight travel accommodations, locker rooms and “other intimate spaces used for school-related activities” shall be separated by sex assigned at birth limiting that definition to solely male or female.

3. permitting teachers to refer to transgender students by the sex assigned at birth, regardless of whether the parents themselves have requested otherwise.

4. requires teachers to out transgender youth to their parents, under the guise of protecting the child, possibly putting them at risk for abuse at home.

Youngkin and his administration are defending these new guidelines under the guise of parental rights, stating, “The 2021 Model Policies also disregarded the rights of parents” though his 2022 guidelines only protect the rights of parents that are firmly anti-transgender and not those parents who wish to affirm their children and give them a supportive educational environment. Further he claimed the 2021 guidance “ignored other legal and constitutional principles that significantly impact how schools educate students, including transgender students,” without ever really clarifying how that was the case. Though they do acknowledge that they are on the wrong side of federal law, such as Title IX, and Presidential guidance on the treatment and rights of transgender youth in the public school system, by stating the schools will need to modify these guidelines but “only to the extent required” by federal law.

So, why does this matter?

Three important reasons:

1. The guise of protecting “parental rights” is only protecting the rights of a select group of parents while trouncing on the rights of parents who are seeking affirming-care and affirming-environments for their transgender, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming children. Or those parents who wish to raise their children in an environment that is open and accepting of diversity.

2. The policy to deny affirming-care, which includes the use of name and pronouns transgender children identify with, runs counter to what the studies and research on affirming-care indicate (readers can find some of those studies here, here, here, here, and here).

3. Affirming-care saves lives.

Let’s break the third reason down as it is the most vital of the three.

To begin, peer reviewed studies are clear on the fact that "Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and non-binary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression" (American Medical Association).¹ By ignoring this, the Commonwealth of Virigina is attempting to ignore people who do not fit into Youngkin's limited understanding of human diversity.

Further, kids are aware of their gender and know who they are in relation to gender and society at around three to four years old (The Mayo Clinic). It is a recognized stage in child development and subverting this process through legislation that ignores the research will cause harm to the children impacted.

Because, for transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care, which includes the use of chosen name and pronouns, was associated with a 60% decrease in depression and a 73% decrease in suicidality (JAMA). To put it bluntly, the affirming-care model of transgender health care saves lives whereas the contrasting models (conversion therapy and “wait and see”) put lives at risk.

Debunking Counter “Arguments”

One of the most insidious responses I have seen transmisic² and trans-antagonistic opponents to gender-affirming health employ is accusations of genital mutilation. For example:

These are examples of the things I have tweeted at me when I mention gender-affirming health care for transgender youth. Like the anti-abortion rhetoric of the 1980s and 1990s, these tweets are designed to create a false impression of researched and regulated health care as barbaric torture. And they are patently untrue.

The stages of gender-affirming care for youth are primarily social care, changing the name or pronoun to what the child prefers, and allowing the child to dress how they want. As they approach puberty, puberty blockers may be used to delay puberty and give them more time in deciding. Finally, after much consideration and care and when the child reaches an age of consent, surgery may be considered if the teenager/young adult has expressed a desire for it, and it still requires medical evaluation of necessity. This article by CNN looks at the nuances of gender affirming care.

A second, common attack used to derail productive conversation about gender-affirming health care is the intentional slandering of LGBTQIA2S people as pushing “the agenda” and as “groomers.” This is another tactic used by hyper-conservatives in the 1980s and 1990s. Those who employ this attack are seeking to rile up hatred against queer people by accusing them of engaging in pedophilic rhetoric and behaviors. For example:

This rhetoric is double-bladed. The first response they hope to elicit from those reading is fear for the safety of children. This is divorced from the context of what is happening medically, politically, and interpersonally between the accuser and the queer person they are accusing. By playing on the reader’s emotions, they can drive unthinking rejection instead of rational evaluation of what is being said. This rhetoric is doubled down on when they use the word “groomer,” a loaded term to paint the queer person as a pedophile and the person harassing them as the cultural “savior.” Any time vague words like “agenda” and “groomer” are tossed about without proof, the reader should be exceptionally careful to seek out the context the accuser is trying to hide.

A third type of rhetoric anti-trans politicians and agitators employ is false concern. In which they appear to cede ground, “Sure, real trans people are safe,” in order to reframe it as an us vs. them which places all transgender people under immediate suspicion. For example:

There are multiple unspoken assumptions in a statement like the one above. The first being, “Hey, I’ve just got reasonable concerns.” It’s important to present their concerns as reasonable so that they can project an image of protecting rather than attacking. The second is that "real transgender people are rare," which I will address in the point below. The third is that the majority of transgender people are “lying” and are in fact “the violent abuser.” By leaving these assumptions unspoken the person claiming “reasonable concerns” gets the reader to fill in those assumptions as though they were the reader’s assumptions. They ask, as if it's unanswerable, “Can you tell the real trans³ from the violent abuser?” Yet, the answer to that question, is: Yes, you can. Transition is not an uncomplicated, effortless process that any person can just jump into. There are standards of care that have existed back to the 1970s with Harry Benjamin’s Standards of Care and in Germany back to the 1930s with Magnus Hirschfeld.⁴ And the WPATH standards of care are constantly revised based on the latest information from peer-reviewed journals and peer-replicated science.⁵

The fourth type of rhetoric used by transmisic individuals is reducing the presence of trans people in society and the significance of trans lives. Here are two examples:

In the end, when they can no longer rely on rhetoric to manipulate the conversation, many transmisic people will resort to lies and abuse. That is, they turn to the very tactics they project on the queer community. Stating that trans people consist of only 0.1% of the population is a clear and easily debunked lie and they are counting on the reader to not have time to do the debunking. The population of transgender people in America ranges from a conservative estimate of 1.6 million Americans, approximately 1% (UCLA School of Law) to 2% (The Trevor Project) or higher (PEW Research Center). The reason why it is difficult to get a precise number on how many transgender people live in America is the violent rhetoric, legislation, and physical attacks against them. When your community is faced with attitudes like the one in the second tweet above, it is going to be difficult to get anything other than a conservative estimate of how many are in the community.

In the end, the actions of Youngkin, his administration, and Americans who are actively and dangerously transmisic are placing the transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming youth in Virginia schools in increased danger and risking both their physical health and their lives. There is never an excuse or rhetoric that can justify attacks on vulnerable people.

1. The American Medical Association is the largest association of physicians—both MDs and DOs—and medical students in the United States.

2. Misia is derived from the Ancient Greek μῖσος (mîsos, “hatred”) and when turned into a suffix via +‎ -ic is a replacement for the suffix -phobic for use when the individual is demonstrating hatred of the other and not fear of the other.

3. Note how the transmisic person uses “the real trans” in this sentence. He has changed the word transgender from an adjective used to describe a noun (trans [adj] woman [noun]) to a noun (the trans). This is an intentional subversion of proper descriptions designed to other transgender people, as in they are neither men nor women, but some third thing entirely. This is the first step in dehumanizing someone.

4. Magnus Hirschfeld’s research and library were later destroyed by the Nazis in World War II as a way of enshrining their own hatred against transgender women and effeminate gay men. Which says a lot about the side people are taking when they actively try to deny and hide legitimate research into transgender people’s care.

5. The WPATH standards of care received their most recent update 16 September, 2022 (one day prior to the publishing of this piece).