Texas joins nine other states in targeting trans youth

Posted April 18, 2022

By Natalie Hebert

Staff Editor

Texas policies, bans, and even laws have begun to target the transgender population, especially trans youth.

Texas joined Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, and Florida in 2021 and passed a bill to legally ban public school students from playing on a sports team that they felt matched their gender identity. The students are only allowed to play on sports teams with other members of the same sex listed on their birth certificates. This also includes Texas athletes participating in the Olympics. The Texas state Governor, Greg Abbott signed the bill into law which went into effect legally on Jan. 18, 2022.

The Texas ban follows a decade of politically motivated anti-trans lawmaking, not just in Texas but in other states as well. Infact, in the first few months of 2022, lawmakers already introduced dozens of proposals to further restrict access to sports, health care and teachers education on LGBTQ+ issues.

In late Feb., Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, released a legal opinion defingning medical treatments for transgender youth as “child abuse” and labeled gender-reassignment surgeries “forced sterilization,” among other claims. Soon after, Abbott sent a letter issued to The Department of Family and Protective Services directing them to classify medical treatments for transgender adolescents as “child abuse” under existing state law, such as an "internal policy" and regulation that allow discrimination against LGBTQ+ who are clients and clients with a disability. The letter calls for DFPS to investigate the parents who help their children get access to such treatment, as well as licensed facilities that administer them. It also imposes penalties on the general public or any mandatory reporters, such as doctors, nurses, or teachers who don’t report instances of treatment.

“There is no doubt that these procedures are ‘abuse’ under Texas law, and thus must be halted,” said Texas state governor Abbott. “[DFTPS] has a responsibility to act accordingly. I’ll do everything I can to protect against those who take advantage of and harm young Texans.”

On March 1, the American Civil Liberties Union immediately filed a lawsuit on behalf of the 16-year-old transgender girl, her parents and Texas physician Megan Mooney who was helping the family, once their investigation was announced. ACLU argued that Abbott’s directive has no legal basis and is instead an attempt to endanger transgender youth by depriving them of “medically necessary care”. On March 11, a Texas judge blocked the DFPS investigation from taking place any further, but not investigations in general.

“No court here in Texas or anywhere in the country has ever found that gender-affirming care can be considered child abuse,” said ACLU in a statement. “The opinion released by Paxton cites highly partisan, outdated, and inaccurate information that ignores the consensus of every major medical association and the evidence-based and peer-reviewed standards of care.”

“Major US medical organizations, such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, all say that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for transgender young people,” stated The Guardian.

Texas Freedom Network President, Val Benavidez, also pitched in to say that Abbott’s directive could deny life-saving care for transgender youth.

"Transgender people already experience stigma and discrimination, harassment and violence simply because of who they are,” said Benavidez.

Further, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services stated that denying transgender youth’s health care is discriminatory and illegal under federal law.

Conservative tactics mischaracterize medical care for and athleticism among trans youth. An example of this is, Texas’ directive suggests that surgical interventions are common among trans youth. Gender transitions have diverse social and medical dimensions. One of them being transition-related support, which is often referring to individuals by their chosen name and pronouns. The transition process might also include medications that delay puberty.

Abbott’s directive came after a wave of anti-trans bills that failed to materialize in recent years, such as "transgender bathroom bill" in Aug. 2017, which would have prevented transgender Texans from using public bathrooms according to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. Abbott made it a priority to pass this legislation.

In May 2021, a ban on gender-affirming healthcare for minors missed its legislative deadline and died. The senate passed a similar bill in an 18–13 vote. If the bill becomes law, it would revoke the medical license of any doctor who provides gender-affirming healthcare.

President Joe Biden told transgender Americans in his State of the Union Address as well as an open statement saying he will always have the LGBTQ+ communities back as their President. He also mentioned that him and his wife, Jill Biden, are standing with the incredibly brave transgender youth, their parents, and families throughout Texas and around the country.

“Transgender children bring fulfillment to their parents, joy to their friends, and are made in the image of God,” stated Biden. “Affirming a transgender child’s identity is one of the best things a parent, teacher, or doctor can do to help keep children from harm, and parents who love and affirm their children should be applauded and supported, not threatened, investigated, or stigmatized.”

In 2009, a court order relating to a person’s change in sex to be acceptable proof of identity in order for a marriage license was authorized by Texas Legislature. However, the areas under the Texas Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction has to abide by their definition that, the validity of a marriage, a person’s sex is determined at birth and is not changed by surgery or drug therapy. They only allow a person born a male to marry a person born a female. In 2012 the court changed to having the couple go to trial if they are not of those born genders. On June 26, 2015, bans on same-sex marriage was ruled unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Sodomy laws were constitutional up until 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in Lawrence v. Texas. Texas, alongside both Oklahoma and Kansas, still criminalize same-sex sexual acts. In Texas certain same-sex sexual acts were termed "deviate sexual intercourse" and a criminal offense, Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. The Legislature has failed to act on several proposed bills that would repeal this statute.

A survey was taken in 2010. In that survey 79% of Texans felt that these people were experiencing harassment or mistreatment at work, and 45% reported that they were not hired, 26% reported that they were fired, and 22% reported being denied a promotion because of their gender identity or expression. Data from two large public opinion polls find that 79% of Texas residents think that LGBTQ+ people experience a moderate amount to a lot of discrimination in the state. In response to a national poll conducted in 2011, 73% of Texas’ resident respondents said that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity should be prohibited in the U.S.

In 2013, federal law prohibited employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, yet approximately 429,000 LGBTQ+ workers in Texas are vulnerable to employment discrimination absent explicit statewide legal protections. During the Legislature's 2013 regular session, House Bill 238 introduced by Representative Mike Villarreal, House Bill 1146 introduced by Representative Eric Johnson, and Senate Bill 237 introduced by Senator Leticia Van de Putte would have prohibited this kind of discrimination; however, all these bills died in their respective committees. Since 1999, no bill prohibiting discrimination by employers based on sexual orientation or gender identity has made it out of the committee stage in the Texas Legislature. In 2015 some localities in Texas prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public and private sector employment, while other localities protect local government workers or employees of local government contractors from such discrimination. Approximately 86% of Texas' workforce, however, was not covered by these laws. In March 2021, Texas courts fully recognised that LGBT individuals have employment protections due to the Bostok 2020 SCOTUS federal rulings legal precedent

“Anti-gay activists such as Anita Bryant used such language in the 1970s to demonize lesbians and gays and prevent the passage of anti-discrimination ordinances,” The Washington Post stated. “Ultraconservative groups today use similar framings to argue that acknowledging transgender people is an ‘assault on the sexes.’ The Republican Party platform still explicitly opposes nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people, and Republicans are behind nearly every recent anti-trans bill.”

Despite this, more Texans support same-sex marriage and anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ+ people.

Texas state law does not protect persons from housing or public accommodations discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. House Bill 2215 introduced by Representative Jessica Farrar in the Legislature's 2009 regular session would have prohibited this kind of discrimination; however, the bill died in the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence committee of the House of Representatives.

Texas state law also does not protect persons from insurance discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity or expression. During the Legislature's 2013 regular session, House Bill 206 introduced by Representative Senfronia Thompson, House Bill 541 introduced by Representative Robert Alonzo, and Senate Bill 73 introduced by Senator Rodney Ellis would have prohibited this kind of discrimination; however, all these bills died in their respective committees.