On Wednesday, a parliamentary committee put forth three proposals aimed at transgender youth.
All were supported by John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, and with Democrats opposed, the Senate Education Committee passed on a party-line vote.
Two bills that Kavanagh introduced last year were modified versions of the law and were vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs. The governor referred to them as “harmful policy directed at trans youth” and stated that she would veto any legislation that “aims to attack and harm kids.”
The language in the second proposal, a concurrent resolution, was identical to the ones Hobbs vetoed last year, but if it were to pass, it might bypass the governor and be put on the ballot in November.
Parents, activists, and transgender students fiercely opposed the proposals during Wednesday’s hearing, calling them dangerous and unfair and urging legislators to vote against them.
Lizette Trujillo, who has a 16-year-old transgender child, said, “I feel actually tired and exhausted after years and years of having to… justify my child’s welfare and life in this state.” “I really wish these bills would stop,” she said.
Bills that address the pronouns and amenities usage of trans students.
Senate Bill 1166, one of the bills, would mandate that a public school inform the parents of students if they begin to address them by pronouns that are different from the gender that was assigned to the student at birth or by names not recorded in school records. Additionally, if it goes against an employee’s “religious or moral convictions,” it would forbid the school from mandating that they use a pronoun that is different from the sex that was assigned to them at birth.
The bill, according to Kavanagh, aims to safeguard individuals’ rights and respect those of their parents. Parents should be aware if their child is transgender so they can “get medical or psychological assistance” for them because trans children have higher death rates and rates of depression, he said. The “overwhelming majority of parents,” he claimed, do “embrace and love their children.”
However, a number of those who made public comments, including some Democratic lawmakers on the committee, disagreed with Kavanagh’s notion and claimed that the bill would put transgender kids in danger. The fact that trans children are overrepresented in the population was cited by Christine Marsh, D-Phoenix. Only 33% of LGBTQ youth in Arizona identified their home as an “LGBTQ-affirming space,” according to a study conducted in 2022 by the Trevor Project, an organization that supports LGBTQ young people. Lawyer Gaelle Esposito spoke on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
Many trans people claimed that coming out to their families was challenging and that it should only be done in accordance with the person who shared their gender identity.
It’s very private how and when a trans person comes out to those who are close to them, according to trans woman Erica Keppler. “The other person’s character and their relationship are typically taken into great consideration when doing it.”
Keppler remarked, “I always told my parents, but after my brother did, we never spoke again.” “Thank God I was an adult at the time.”
If individuals encounter “persons of the opposite sex in a public university restroom,” they have legal grounds to sue the school under the other bill, Senate Bill 1182. Additionally, it would mandate that schools provide transgender individuals who do not want to use a multi-occupancy restroom connected to the gender they were assigned at birth single-occupancy showers.
A multi-occupancy restroom is what Kavanagh referred to as the “most severe area where modesty is violated.” He described a multi-occupancy restroom as one in which kids are standing next to one another in their underwear.
Senior at Hamilton High School in Chandler Dawn Shim informed the committee that there aren’t communal facilities in public schools as they believe and that the bill only “threatens young trans people” rather than accomplishing anything meaningful.
Esposito asserted that entering a locker room with the intent to harm another person is already against the law.
Pronouns for trans students and service access may be put on the ballot in this resolution.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013, a concurrent resolution, would address both of those issues if passed.
It would require a school to first obtain parental consent rather than requiring parents to be notified when staff members use the transgender student’s self-designated name and pronouns. Transgender kids would be able to use showers, locker rooms, dorms, and apartments on overnight trips instead of being denied access to multi-occupancy restrooms that fit their gender identity.
Samuel Kahrs, a 17-year-old trans student, told the committee that he wasn’t able to be accepted at home until his teachers “lovingly accepted” him.
According to Kahrs, “School is the only safe place where students can go by the name and pronouns that fit them,” and “I personally know people who feel uncomfortable at home identifying as themselves.” “The best day of my life, in my memory, was the first time my faculty addressed me as Samuel. Please vote ‘no’ on this, I beg you. I beg you, just leave trans kids alone.
Marsh expressed her concern about the effect a ballot measure might have on transgender children before voting against the proposal.
She said, “When it comes to a Senate bill, I hope that there aren’t really all that many of these young people across the state who even understand what’s going on down here.” “I hope they are comfortably living in their own homes.”
A concurrent resolution, however, is different, she claimed.
She claimed that this would turn into a state-wide debate, harming who knows how many children and putting them in more isolation, harassment, and bullying. “I believe that the impact of that will be unfathomable.”
The committee approved all three legislative proposals 4–3.
Why didn’t 4 hours and 10 rounds of voting at the Capitol suffice to elect Democrats to the two House jobs?
While he has “huge respect” for parental rights, the committee head, Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, expressed personal reservations in support of SB 1166, saying that “offending a child” is one of the worst things you can do.
Bennett stated that unless there were significant changes, he would never support either that bill or SB 1182 as they were being considered by the legislature, but that voting in favor of them would allow them to be removed from committee.
Madeleine Parrish covers K–12 education. She can be reached at [email protected].
