I. ON THE SELF-DETERMINATION OF GENDER IDENTITY

According to a study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, the earliest memory for over 80% of transgender people was gender dysphoria, and the mean age at which gender dysphoria is first experienced is less than 7 [2]. Even the youngest attendees of Ramapo High School are twice this age. They have battled intense gender dysphoria for the bulk of their existence, yet it is claimed that they have insufficient understanding of gender to establish their own identity.

The extent of transgender care provided by 5756 involves no irreversible action; merely the recognition of an individual’s pronouns and gender irrespective of whatever affirmative care they have received. Therefore, with no surgical or hormonal procedures in place, transgender students only demand the same level of respect as cisgender students. Yet it is commonly questioned how transgender individuals have such conviction in their gender, when the same suspicion is not cast on cisgender individuals. Merely because sex assigned at birth does not match one’s gender does not necessarily imply a lack of awareness of one’s gender. Why are cisgender individuals not interrupted in their lives to be asked, “how do you know that you are a woman?” or “how do you know that you are a man?” Why does a discrepancy between sex and gender carry with it a stigma against self-cognition?

The awareness of trans people of their own gender is evidenced by multiple studies which have found that <1% of transgender people regret their transition to any extent [2]. And of those that do and decide to detransition, the reasons for doing so are generally not due to a belief that they are cisgender, but due to conformity, with most citing that “[they faced] pressure from a parent (36%), [that] transitioning was too hard (33%), [that they faced] too much harassment or discrimination (31%), and [that they found] trouble getting a job (29%)” [4]

Considering that those that transitioned claim awareness of their gender dysphoria from the age of under 7, that their gender dysphoria has only intensified over the course of nearly a decade, and that they are extremely unlikely to change their mind and decide that they are cisgender (even if they detransition due to societal pressure), the only rational conclusion is that transgender individuals even as young as 14 years old have the capacity for self-determination.

II. ON THE NECESSITY OF CONFIDENTIALITY

A. FOR MAINTAINING THE CONSISTENCY AND PURPOSE OF THE GUIDANCE DEPARTMENT

A counselor’s only obligation to divulge information to a parent is in regards to a student’s safety, which their transgender identity does not inherently risk. No uninjurious aspect of a student’s identity—such as a nickname, a sexuality, or a particular career interest—must be reported, yet much of the public demands that gender identity in particular is made known to parents. This marks a strong deviation in school policy regarding confidentiality with counselors, and ought to be remedied for consistency’s sake. But if such a correction is not to allow gender identity to remain confidential, and instead other protections for identity are to fall with gender, then the trust between students and the guidance department will surely erode; and a student will lose the opportunity to privately converse with a professional. If a child is not comfortable confiding in their parents, they can confide in a counselor or teacher; with this information barrier erased, if a child is not comfortable confiding in their parents, they may have lost any trusted adult to confide in at all.

If gender identity is reported to parents, but no other aspect of identity is unless it is harmful to the student, then the guidance department has an odd inconsistency in its practices that warrants explanation. If gender identity is reported to parents as well as all other components of one’s identity, a counselor’s role becomes redundant, as their status as a trustworthy third party is absorbed into the parental body’s discretion and knowledge. Both possible scenarios where gender identity is reported lead to contradiction of a guidance counselor’s existing practices and very purpose, respectively, and therefore, in order to maintain the order of the guidance department, gender identity must be confidential.

B. FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE STUDENT

It is a simple principle that if an aspect of a child’s identity is not inherently harmful or immoral, but a parent would scold, punish, or shun them for that identity, then the parent has forfeited the right to knowledge of that identity.

The only harm to identifying as transgender is the harassment that may ensue from transphobic individuals, which to reiterate, is the prime reason for detransitioning. If this is the case, then there is no intrinsic damage resulting from transition, and at most there is a social punishment inflicted by peers. This coupled with the fact that 48% of American LGBTQ+ youth report mistreatment from their parents on the basis of their identity implies that, according to the aforementioned principle, 48% of parents have no right to know that their child is trans [5]. And since there is no method by which to sufficiently determine which parents would accept a transgender child, parents are not obligated to know.

And if a parent is to be fully accepting, then it is highly unlikely that a child would hide their gender identity, which would only bring them further gender dysphoria. Thus the only kind of parent to be concerned with a child obfuscating their gender identity is the kind of parent who would unfairly disparage their child for deviating from gender norms. Yet a parent does not have the right to establish the gender identity of their child: as I have elaborated on in section I, a child is more than capable of gender autonomy.

III. ON THE INTENT OF 5756 AS ACCEPTANCE, AND HOW ITS REMOVAL MAY HARM PARENTAL RIGHTS

Policy 5756’s aim is not exclusively obfuscating a child’s identity from their family (and if it is, it is only to avoid mistreatment from parents (see III)). It ensures that teachers and faculty members respect the rights of transgender students and do not act in a discriminatory or offensive manner in its Safe and Supportive Environment section. While the privacy this policy provides is also critical, by abolishing 5756, the board erroneously erases the guarantee that transgender students are accepted in at least some capacity by their community. Even if a transgender student is open to their parents and their parents accept their gender identity, without 5756, there is nothing preventing RIH from requiring “diagnosis” and “treatment” in order to recognize a student’s gender identity. Unless the diagnosis and treatment is provided by the district, parents are expected to pay for a psychiatric diagnosis, and possibly expensive hormonal or surgical gender-affirming care, depending on how the district seeks to interpret “treatment”. But there is no guarantee that a parent can afford such procedures, in turn allowing a teacher to rampantly misgender a student against both their wishes and their parents’; and if a student transitioned prior to high school and is not noticeably transgender, then such a faculty outing could also damage the student body’s recognition of the student’s gender identity, revealing a facet of the student’s identity that the parents may have wished to keep private.

While the Confidentiality and Privacy section may reduce the agency of parents who would discriminate against their children for being transgender, the removal of the Safe and Supportive Environment clauses similarly prevents parents accepting of their transgender children’s identity from ensuring that their child is referred to by their preferred name without potential obstacles such as psychological evaluations.

If the primary concern of those who supported the abolishment of 5756 is the right of parents to have their children referred to by the names said parents prefer, then should they not also acknowledge that right when the parent does not prefer the birth name? It is set forth in this essay that this paternal right does not exist (see I), but if it is asserted, it must be acknowledged that it can be used to support 5756 as much as it can be used to deny it; and that this principle alone is therefore insufficient to reject 5756.

IV. ON THE RIGHT TO ACCEPTANCE

Perhaps the most relevant provision in P 5756 is that “School staff members should continue to refer to the student in accordance with the student’s chosen name and pronoun at school” [8]. If a certain valid identity exists (such as a transgender identity; section I), that identity ought to be respected. Even in the state of nature, mankind is a multiplicity, and within the resulting community is a realization of difference that results in a mutual recognition of self-consciousness. And so social identity is established as an exalted natural right, endowed with those same axiomatic protections as life, liberty, and property.

Whether a parent or other students respect this identity is irrelevant in this case. The state ought to respect the natural right philosophy which it is founded on, and for an employee of the state to not adhere to a student’s valid identity is a transgression on their right to identity and self-determination.

V. ON THE BENEFITS OF ACCEPTANCE

I shall be terse in this section: the use of a chosen name by peers and teachers resulted in a 29% decrease in suicidal ideation and a 56% decrease in suicidal behavior for transgender students according to a study by the Journal of Adolescent Health [11]. P 5756 requires the use of a student’s chosen name and pronouns by teachers and faculty; and to abolish a policy which implies the reduction of suicidal tendencies in students is to drive transgender students towards suicide.

VI. A REFUTATION OF THE BOARD’S RHETORIC

I have well asserted the principles justifying the reinstatement of 5756; but it would be improper of me to not also address (and promptly refute) the board’s reasoning for abolishment; particularly, in regards to confidentiality.
According to the board, P 9240 contradicts 5756 and therefore the latter ought to be removed, since (according to the former), “Every parent, except as prohibited by Federal and State law, shall have access to records and information pertaining to his/her unemancipated child, including, but not limited to, medical, dental, insurance, child care and educational records”.

And then, from 5756, “If the District changes a student’s name or gender identity, it must also maintain locally a separate record reflecting the student’s legal name and sex assigned at birth until receipt of documentation of a legal change of name or gender.” The parent’s right to access the contents of any document is not abridged by a difference in name, for identification is mere reference; a name and a set of pronouns is not content on its own. When a separate document is created that does not abridge or distort the content that a document is intended to communicate, but instead merely changes the means by which a student is referenced, then the two documents are functionally identical; and to provide one but not the other is by no means a prohibition of access to records.

For instance, were there one transcript of my grades addressing me as “Gian Brar” and another addressing me as “424381”, and all else was identical, it would be ludicrous to suggest that the two are disparate merely because of the difference in the means of identification.

VII. CONCLUDING WORDS

A dark miasma has been cast over this district, and I fear that the ensuing plague will grow a bulbous tumor of intimidation and discrimination which, like a cancerous cell, extends itself from the head administration to the student body; and once the growth of transphobia has made its viral mark, I fear that it cannot easily be excised by a mere change in policy.

For when you expel the minimal protections guarding a minority group, only oppression may follow.

In order to defend the transgender population of the students of the Ramapo Indian Hills school district against the deprivation of the fundamental rights endowed to them and provided without hesitation to cisgender students, we form the RIH Organization for Transgender Rights (ROTR). All who sign below align themselves with our cause, and oppose the abolishment of P 5756.

X ______________________