Transparency in Education April 5th Forum Was a Success, but More Public Education Is Needed

Our forum on Wednesday, April 5th, “Understanding Gender Dysphoria and School Policy Forum,” was well attended. Jim Lehmann hosted the forum and led off with the point that the current policy is six years old, outdated, and does not consider the impacts the current policy has on the roughly 99.5 % of the students who do not identify as transgender or gender non-conforming. Dr, Kate Goonan presented a detailed review of gender dysphoria (the history, updated scientific and medical knowledge, the current trends, and the impact of gender dysphoria on young people. Tom Neumark presented a review of the current policy versus the benefits of the existing policy, and both Tom and Kate stressed the importance of parental notification and inclusion. 

Here is a quick view of the current policy versus the proposed policy.


Both presentations are available.

A video of the presentations will be available shortly, which we will post on our site and Facebook.

One of the points made by Dr. Goonan was about the rapid rise in cases of gender dysphoria and what was driving the unprecedented rise in cases (see chart below) and discussed causation, including the impacts of social pressures spreading the instances.

 

Based on the feedback, the two and half hour session was very successful, including the fifty-minute Q&A that was almost exclusively a civil dialogue between the moderators and a group of protesters whom we assume were mostly students. (The library’s closure was the only reason the discussion didn’t last longer.) I think an honest assessment was that we all learned something between the information in the presentations, the questions from the sixty or so folks in the room, and the exchange with the young protesters.

We were disappointed that only one board member chose to attend, as it would have been an excellent opportunity to understand the science, trends, and concerns that drove the policy proposal. The presentations and discussion also did something to disprove what the opponents of the proposal would like everyone to believe; that the proposal is anti-trans and designed to harm the gender non-conforming and transgender community. It actually does the opposite, and we wish the adult protesters outside the event, who handed out literature claiming we “want to destroy FCPS policy 443” and that we want to “marginalize and harm the vulnerable students” had taken us up on our offer to join the forum. They would have learned that the proposal is designed to make the existing policy more inclusive and benefit those vulnerable students.

On April 6, we renewed our offer to meet with the board, present the rationale behind the proposal, clarify any components, and address any concerns.