Storytelling, Leadership, and the Law: Using Amicus Briefs to Understand the Impact of School District Policies and Practices Related to Transgender Student Inclusion

Abstract

Purpose: In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a highly publicized case brought by a transgender student, G.G., who was denied access to the bathroom that corresponds with his gender identity. Ultimately, the Court never heard this case, but the documents submitted to the Court remain a part of the historical record, worthy of examination beyond their legal value. In this study, we analyze the first person accounts presented in the “friend of the court” (amicus) briefs to better understand the human impact of policies and practices related to transgender student inclusion. Method: This research utilizes legal research methods to bound the study design. We draw from legal storytelling, which originates in law, and narrative inquiry, which can be found in educational research. In doing so, we provide a synthesis of all amicus briefs submitted in the G.G. case that include personal, firsthand accounts, stories, and experiences. Findings: Overall, the personal stories highlight the implications of inclusive and noninclusive policies and practices. Where noninclusive policies were in place, individuals shared experiences of bullying, academic harm, medical concerns, and inconsistencies in implementation. On the other hand, inclusive policies were associated with confidence building and academic engagement, and a benefit to all students. Stories also reveal that common fears such as safety or privacy did not materialize in the experiences of individuals represented in the briefs. Implications: Informed by these stories, we present implications for research, policy, and practice. Stories reveal the importance of leadership, communication, and professional development.

Beyond Bathroom Bills and the Gender Identity Debate: Complicating the Policy Conversation About Supporting Trans Students in Schools

“…Ullman (2018) similarly noted that while it is “heartening” to see departments at local, state, and federal levels recognize the subjectivities of gender diverse students, questions remain about the actual impact of these policies on school environments and youth experiences (p. 496). Studies also suggest that even when policies are in place, there is insufficient clarity or guidance to ensure trans student acceptance (Leonardi & Staley, 2018; Lewis & Eckes, 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018) or alter the underlying norms that serve to harm trans students (Roberts & Marx, 2018).…”

“…Scholars identified this troublesome trend in two different ways: (a) anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies meant to protect victims and punish perpetrators and (b) policies that are meant to address the needs of trans students in particular. First, scholars note that policies that aim to address bad behavior (e.g., bullying or harassment) distract from the need to address structural changes (Bartholomaeus & Riggs, 2017; Lewis & Eckes, 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018; Ullman, 2018;) necessary to “disrupt heteronormalizing logics and practices” (Roberts & Marx, 2018, p. 282). For example, antidiscrimination policies punish individuals “without correcting the system that teaches hate speech as a means of enforcing norms and controlling aberrant behavior” (Roberts & Marx, 2018, p. 286).…”

“…The final theme within the literature takes up the ways that policies tend to flatten, or essentialize, the identities of trans students. Lewis and Eckes (2020) begin by noting that LGBTQ students are often “lumped together for the purpose of research, policy, and practice” (p. 49). but make the case that trans students have unique experiences that warrant distinct focus.…”

“…The first question we take up in this allegory is what bathrooms reveal about the politicization of trans youth and problem definition in policymaking regarding trans rights. While trans scholars are developing deep and rich understandings of trans people’s lives, much of the dominant discourse around trans rights appears stuck in a discussion of how to accommodate trans individuals in public bathrooms or whether to grant trans students in K-12 access to existing gender segregated facilities (i.e., one for “boys” and the other for “girls”) (Barnett et al, 2018; Lewis & Eckes, 2020; Miller, 2018). Like the vast majority of existing physical bathrooms in schools, bathroom policies tend to be narrowly constructed.…”

“…As one of the last “crumbling edifice[s] of gender in the twentieth century” (Halberstam, 1998, p. 23), bathrooms represent a significant battleground for wars over the notion that gender is complex, fluid, and multidimensional (Butler, 1990; Halberstam, 2018; Herriott et al, 2018). Second and relatedly, the bathroom serves as an assimilative sorting mechanism—for trans individuals and for all people (Lewis & Eckes, 2020). Gersen (2016) notes what trans theorists have long known: “Public restrooms are not just toilets; for more than a hundred years, they have implicated questions of who really belongs in public, civic, and professional life.” 6 Thus, society uses bathrooms to set and reinforce boundaries about what is expected and acceptable, and to assimilate individuals into those expectations.…”