Graeme Reed said that in order to fight against “hate speech” and “gender persecution” countries must censor opponents of the homosexual/transgender agenda. He even argued for “international election observers on LGBT rights issues.”

In apparent electioneering, the report was “welcomed” by the Biden administration. “Your report is very timely, as it comes during the so-called global ‘year of elections’ including in my own country tomorrow,” said Dylan Lang, a U.S. delegate to the General Assembly. This may have been a veiled attack against the Trump campaign’s strong positions in favor of banning transgender treatment and surgeries for minors and transgender participation in women sports.

The Trump campaign and its supporters spent over $215 million jointly on political advertisements against transgender policies, highlighting specifically Vice President Kamala Harris’ support for transgender issues, including in the context of minors and sports. The ads have been credited with boosting support for Trump and contributing to low Democratic turnout.

According to the report, such ads may be considered a form of “gender persecution”, which is an international crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The report lists “online animosity” against the homosexual/transgender political agenda as a “threat” alongside such things as “killings, physical attacks, threats, sexual violence.”

The report specifically defines the threat of hate speech as a broad threat, not requiring any specific level of imminent danger or specific threat. It states that “LGBT persons may be targeted specifically in campaign rhetoric, or hostility may be expressed in more general xenophobic terms.” In all such cases, the rhetoric must be rebuked and punished.

It laments the impact of political rhetoric from “unscrupulous politicians” who appeal to “prejudice and provoking further animosity” to cause a “moral panic” against homosexual/transgender issues.

As a result, Reed’s report argues that countries must adopt a slew of homosexual/transgender-specific legislation, including political quotas and “differentiated treatment” to encourage individuals who identify as gay or trans to participate in elections as voters and politicians “with recognition of the non-binarity of gender.”

It replies negatively to objections from women that “gender” policies should be about women and not about transgender issues. “Legal frameworks increasingly address the issue of gender-based political violence, but often do so with a specific focus on women,” he lamented, “without attending to or differentiating between their experience and that of trans women or lesbians.”

Reed’s report also calls for censorship and regulation of civil society organizations, traditional and social media in highly intrusive ways. It calls for aggressive content moderation and “responsibility for third party content” for social media companies and objects to exemptions from hate speech laws for media outlets when “reproducing or broadcasting direct speech of individual politicians, especially if transmitted live on air”

Reed presented his report to the General Assembly on Monday and drew warm congratulations from the U.S. government as well as the European Union and European countries more broadly.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Biden Admin Praised UN Report Calling for Election Observers on LGBT Issues appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – The Daily Signal / USA, 11.06.2024).- As recently as two years ago, only three states banned surgeries on children to address gender dysphoria, up from just one a year earlier.

Today, exactly half the states have such bans, and more are considering them. The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in a Tennessee case challenging those bans on Dec. 4.

These procedures, advocates insist, almost never happen and are largely a myth concocted by the Right to scare people.

As the LGBTQ+ magazine Them put it, “Contrary to modern conservative propaganda, gender-affirming surgeries for minors are exceptionally rare.”

Similarly, the Human Rights Campaign rebuts what it alleges is a “concerted disinformation campaign” by declaring that with “rare exceptions,” “transgender and nonbinary people typically do not have gender-affirming surgeries before the age of 18.”

The Association of American Medical Colleges echoes that theme, asserting that this type of “surgery among youth is rare.”

But just how rare are these surgeries on children?

According to a new study by the medical advocacy group Do No Harm, 5,747 sex-change surgeries were performed on children in the U.S. between 2019 and 2023.

Given that there are about 12.5 million children between the ages of 15 and 17—the ages of minors who receive these surgeries—the annual rate of surgeries to remove and modify sex traits and organs on children works out to be 9.2 per 100,000.

That rate might sound very rare until you compare it to other rates involving children. For example, drowning kills about 0.8 per 100,000 young people between the ages of 14 and 17 each year. That means such deaths are about 1/11^th as common as gender surgeries among children of roughly the same ages.

But we don’t act as if drowning deaths among children are so rare as to be inconsequential. Instead, we devote significant resources to ensuring that lifeguards are present at beaches and pools. We push families to enroll their children in swimming lessons.

Indeed, the AAMC is so concerned about drowning deaths that it joined other organizations in crafting a letter earlier this year urging Congress to avoid cuts in funding to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control that would “eliminate several key programs,” including “drowning prevention.”

The AAMC even cited increased drowning deaths as a reason to fight climate change, listing drowning as one of “the particular health risks that climate change poses to people in coastal areas.”

Yet that same organization wants you to believe that major surgeries that often destroy the sexual functions of children—a procedure 11 times more common among teenagers than drowning deaths—are “rare.”

The Do No Harm study identifies a “Dirty Dozen” set of hospitals that it considers the biggest promoters of sex-change procedures for children.

You might expect that most of the Dirty Dozen would be located in deep-blue liberal states, where there was the most interest from potential patients and the strongest support from state politicians. But both the No. 1 and No. 11 hospitals on Do No Harm’s Dirty Dozen list are located in the decidedly purple state of Pennsylvania.

The Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania—ironically known by the acronym CHOP—is identified as the dirtiest of the Dirty Dozen and UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh comes in 11^th. Pennsylvania policymakers considered legislation to restrict insurance payment for these procedures, but officials at these two hospitals successfully opposed those efforts.

You can’t fool people forever. Eventually people realize that sex trait-modifying surgeries are happening on children in alarming numbers. And eventually people in purple states realize that their leading medical institutions are promoting procedures that run counter to their state’s values.

Pennsylvania may be among the dirtiest of the Dirty Dozen performing these ghoulish procedures on children, but that cannot last.

Eventually, policymakers there and in the rest of the states will end these barbaric practices, and it can go from allegedly “rare” to truly nonexistent.

Jay Greene is a senior research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post How ‘Rare’ Are Sex-Trait Modification Surgeries on Children? appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Alsaleem’s report, which received immediate responses from various member states, focused on the issue of fairness in sports. She called on countries and sports authorities to “uphold women’s rights in competitive sports” by limiting participation in women’s categories to biological females. Her central concern was the heightened risk of injuries and the potential for eroded equality in women’s sports if biological differences are disregarded. In particular, she pointed to the ineffectiveness of hormone suppression, noting that reduced testosterone alone does not neutralize male physical advantages, leaving female athletes more vulnerable to injury when competing against biologically male competitors.

Responses were swift and polarized, with strong objections from representatives of the U.S., U.K., Netherlands, France, Mexico, and Colombia. Some diplomats condemned Alsaleem’s language, calling it disrespectful to transgender athletes and claiming her stance promoted harmful narratives. A visibly upset American delegate, wearing a rainbow heart pin, suggested Alsaleem’s position could fuel online harassment against transgender individuals. In stark contrast, advocates for Alsaleem’s stance argue that inclusivity should not come at the cost of women’s safety and fairness in sports, an arena they say has played a key role in female empowerment.

Alsaleem’s critics argued that fairness principles should adapt to respect gender identity, a sentiment echoed by the 2024 Olympic Committee, which recently stated that it “welcomes diversity as part of the future of global sports.” However, Alsaleem contends that gender identity cannot substitute for biological sex, especially where physical competition is concerned. She suggested implementing non-invasive sex testing—such as a cheek swab—as a means to determine biological sex, as she believes that identity-based policies fail to protect the rights and safety of women.

Women’s Rights, Human Rights, and the Core of the Gender Debate

At a time when gender equality is championed worldwide, Alsaleem’s report exposes the tension between gender identity politics and biological realities. The Special Rapporteur highlighted cases where female athletes reported heightened risks of physical harm and exclusion, urging decision-makers to remember the importance of a safe and equitable environment for women. She pointed to troubling legislative developments, including policies in California allowing biologically male inmates who identify as female to be housed in women’s facilities, as examples of how poorly conceived gender-based policies can endanger women’s safety.

Alsaleem concluded with a strong appeal: “Human rights discourse must remain grounded in scientific and biological facts to avoid compromising the rights of the very individuals it seeks to protect.” She cautioned against policies that may paradoxically undermine women’s progress in sports, which she argues have been instrumental in advancing genuine gender equality.

This debate over gender identity and biological sex highlights a larger issue regarding policy coherence. While gender identity has grown as a concept within social sciences, it lacks the international legal framework that recognizes biological sex. Alsaleem’s report underscores a critical question: can inclusivity be achieved without eroding the rights and safety of women in physical competition?

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post UN rapporteur opens debate by questioning inclusion policies affecting real women in sports appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The event took place on May 18. Annaleigh Wilson, 14, explained her participation in Youth Olympics held in Cashmere, Washington State, and came in second in the mile race, behind a man who perceives himself a woman. 

Annaleigh explained that her race in the State’s Youth Olympics enabled her to compete with the rest of the runners classified in different high schools. She protested, with her family, against the unjust competition: “Not because I didn’t win, but because, at this level of competition, it’s not right that boys compete against girls. The effort and talent of all these biological girls, who were with me, and had struggled so much as I did during the shole season, didn’t count.”

The transgender runner’s trainer heard Annaleigh’s complaints and those of her family members and threatened them with lawsuits. It was devastating for the young girl. ”It was like saying to us ‘Shut up, stop complaining and put up with it.’” She added, very emotional, “that’s why I’m speaking here. Our voice, as women athletes, must be heard, because we are the only ones personally affected.”

During the preparation, she noted that the body of the nearby runner was not the same as the rest. She didn’t think about it anymore until, on the podium, she heard that the winner was biologically a boy who beat her by seven seconds. “I had heard that this was happening in other places of the country, but it never happened to me first hand.”

After the race, Annaleigh experienced more problems. “Adults attacked my family and me for saying what we think about justice and the protection that biological girls deserve in sports. Adults accused my family and me of being ‘transphobes,’ of my being a ‘poor loser’ and that I value victory more than a human life. We were told that it would be our fault and our sole responsibility if this trans athlete took his life. I’ve been told  that I’m simply not good enough and that’s why I am second.”

In her intervention on September 22, in front of some 500 people, she said: “I’ve never spoken in front of so many people. I sank and I felt extremely discouraged, because I felt that all the hard work I had done during the whole year was worth nothing and would be forgotten.” 

Holding back tears, she added: “I’ve learned a lot from this experience. To allow boys to compete against girls isn’t working and it’s not right. It’s not working and isn’t right for women athletes; it doesn’t work and isn’t right for transgender athletes. Whatever you think, it’s wrong not to protect women’s sports. How many hatreds and arguments on both sides! The things I’ve heard about this trans athlete and about me are terrible and harmful I’m only 14 and I shouldn’t be concerned about this sort of adults’ affairs. But here I am, saying what I think, and trusting that the adults will take a step and do the right thing to protect and maintain women’s sports as something right and safe for biological girls.  

I trust we will be able to find a solution so that all athletes compete with justice and security because, even at 14, I can see that the current rules aren’t working either with biological girls or with transgender athletes. Thank you.”

The post Male Self-Perceived Female Beats 14-Year-Old Girl in Sport: The Story of One Who Could Be Your Daughter appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In a survey, published by Die Tagespost on October 11, young people wished that they had had another option and noted that the return to their own gender “is often associated with a lack of social and professional support.” They complained about the lack of information and resources, as well as interpersonal difficulties, identity problems and stigmatization through de-transphobia, as the return to one’s original sex is called.

The study consulted 2,689 people, who admitted being subjected to “complex emotions such as grief and guilt” or “discrimination and rejection,” struggling “with discrimination and rejection.”

The conclusion is striking that 26.7% of those interviewed had hoped for different support to the hormonal and surgical processes. 33% said they had been misinterpreted by the doctors and 46% subjected themselves to transgender treatment due to external pressures. Only 20% of those surveyed were satisfied with their physical change. 

Specialists said that young people need help in their search for meaning and identity, and suggested that medical professionals and psychologists should focus on recognizing complex experiences and emotions and emphasize attention to internal wounds caused by prejudices and social exclusion.

The researchers say that “instead of administering precipitously potentially damaging hormones, which generally lead to irreversible surgical interventions, an integral focus is necessary to do justice to the needs of those affected.” 

The research detected another problem reported long ago, in the relation of dysphoria with previous psychological problems, frequently eluded by the majority of professionals. Gender affirmation is neglected, as 53% of those polled expressed. 

The pharmaceutical publication Ârzteblatt reported in 2022 that 67% of boys and 76% of girls in Germany received at least a different mental health diagnosis, such as depression or borderline disorders, related to their sexual identity. 

The recent study shows that the diagnosis of “gender identity disorder” occurs eight times more often among young people of 5 to 24 years of age in Germany than ten years ago, whereas only one third of diagnoses are carried out between young people from 15 to 24 years old. Adolescent girls are particularly affected. 

The post Study Shows That Trans Young People Increasingly Want to Return to Their Original Biological Sex appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ changes to rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act add unprecedented restrictions on doctors’ ability to report abuse and states’ ability to protect children from abortion and gender transition drugs and surgeries. Without authority from the HIPAA statute, the new rule redefines “person” and “public health” to exclude unborn children, and limits how doctors and law enforcement can protect patients from abuse when it involves so-called reproductive care, meaning abortion, that the Biden-Harris administration favors.

“Doctors and states should be able to protect patients from abuse,” said ADF Senior Counsel Julie Marie Blake. “The Biden-Harris administration’s unlawful rule weaponizes laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity. The rule undermines state laws that protect mothers and unborn children from the harms of abortion, and vulnerable children from dangerous and sterilizing procedures like puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and life-altering surgeries. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs resoundingly affirmed that states—not unelected bureaucrats—should set abortion policy and be free to protect unborn life.”

In the lawsuit Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Carmen Purl, M.D., a family physician and owner of Dr. Purl’s Fast Care Walk In Clinic in Dumas, Texas, wants to protect her patients by reporting suspected abuse, and to safeguard the health and safety of mothers and children.

The recent HIPAA rule purports to limit the circumstances when HIPAA-covered entities—like Purl and her clinic—can share information with law enforcement and child-welfare agencies in cases of suspected abuse or to protect public health. As ADF attorneys explain in the lawsuit, this is unlawful because the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves state investigative authority and has no language allowing federal bureaucrats to use privacy rules to promote radical policies on abortion or gender ideology.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Texas doctor sues Biden-Harris admin over unlawful changes to federal health privacy laws appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In the case State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent students and female athletes affected by the new rule. They joined with Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach; the attorneys general from Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming; and Southeastern Legal Foundation, representing Moms for Liberty and Young America’s Foundation, to file the lawsuit in May.

“The Biden-Harris administration is attempting to rewrite Title IX through regulation. They seek to force young girls to share hotel rooms with boys who identify as females on overnight field trips and to change in front of men in locker rooms, threatening loss of federal funding if school districts put children’s best interests first. These actions are unlawful and unconstitutional, which is why the district court blocked the administration’s efforts. We are now asking the 10th Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision, protect Title IX, and ensure young women and girls continue to enjoy fairness and privacy in education,” Kobach said.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy,” said ADF Vice President of Litigation Strategy and Center for Conscience Initiatives Jonathan Scruggs. “It also means girls will be forced to undress in locker rooms and share hotel rooms with boys on overnight school trips, teachers and students will have to refrain from speaking truthfully about biological sex, and girls will lose their right to fair competition in sports. Female athletes, students, and advocates across the country are right to stand against the administration’s adoption of extreme gender ideology, which would have devastating consequences for so many.”

In July, a federal district court in Kansas issued an injunction that halts the administration’s illegal attempt to rewrite Title IX while the lawsuit continues. The injunction covers not only the states of Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming but also every school across the country attended by plaintiff student Katie Rowland, the members of Female Athletes United, the members of Young America’s Foundation, and the minor children of the members of Moms for Liberty.

“Title IX does not provide ‘clear notice’ that it extends to sexual-orientation or gender-identity discrimination. The statute’s text, structure, and aims show that it bars discrimination based on biological sex,” the brief led by the state of Mississippi and joined by 22 other states explains. “Nearly 30 years after Title IX’s enactment, the Department of Education declared: ‘Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.’ Just a few years ago, the Department reaffirmed that ‘Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination does not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.’”

“Pursuant to this novel rewriting of Title IX, the Department demands that schools allow males to use women’s locker rooms and (seemingly) requires that men ‘identifying’ as women be permitted to compete in women’s sports. It promulgated these demands through a Final Rule that is both arbitrary and contrary to law,” the brief filed by the Independent Women’s Law Center, Women’s Declaration International USA, and Concerned Women for America states. “As University of Pennsylvania swimmer Paula Scanlan experienced, stripping nude and showering before a male eighteen times per week caused her—as a woman—tangible, sex-based harm. Title IX cannot plausibly be interpreted to require that.”

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA: Female athletes, 23 states unite to defend fairness, privacy, safety in schools across country appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have been defending Phillips since 2012, when he was first sued for declining to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding because it violated his religious beliefs. Around that same time, the attorney who filed the most recent lawsuit against Phillips first contacted him, calling him a hypocrite and bigot. For more than 12 years now, Phillips has been relentlessly pursued and mocked by government officials and activists who disagree with his views.

“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner. “Free speech is for everyone. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 303 Creative, the government cannot force artists to express messages they don’t believe. In this case, an attorney demanded that Jack create a custom cake that would celebrate and symbolize a transition from male to female. Because that cake admittedly expresses a message, and because Jack cannot express that message for anyone, the government cannot punish Jack for declining to express it. The First Amendment protects that decision.”

Phillips won his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, when the court found that Colorado officials who punished Phillips acted with hostility toward his faith. That ruling did not address Phillips’s free-speech rights to decline to create custom cakes expressing messages that violate his faith. Now, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling has ended the most recent lawsuit against Phillips, dismissing the case because the attorney who filed it did not follow the right process. Like the prior win, this ruling does not address Phillips’ free-speech rights.

Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, which upheld free speech for creative professionals like Phillips. ADF attorneys asked the Colorado high court to apply that ruling and similarly affirm Phillips’ free-speech rights in this case. Though the Colorado Supreme Court did not decide that issue in this case, 303 Creative provides enduring free-speech protection for Phillips.

“We granted review to determine, among other issues, whether [the attorney] properly filed [this] case,” the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina. “We conclude that [the attorney] did not.”

On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ first case—in which he prevailed in 2018 after Colorado tried to force him to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—an attorney called Masterpiece Cakeshop requesting that Phillips create a custom cake that would symbolize and celebrate a gender transition. The attorney then called again to request another custom cake, one depicting Satan smoking marijuana, to “correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking.”

Phillips politely declined both requests because the cakes express messages that violate his core beliefs. The attorney then filed the most recent lawsuit, threatening to continue harassing Phillips until he is punished. Phillips serves people from all backgrounds. Like many artists, he decides to create custom cakes based on what they will express, not who requests them.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA: Colorado Supreme Court dismisses LGBT+ lawsuit harassing pastry chef Jack Phillips appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In the case State of Louisiana v. U.S. Department of Education, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys represent a Louisiana school board serving more than 20,000 students. The Department of Education’s fundamental and unconstitutional rewriting of federal law would force schools to embrace a controversial gender ideology that harms children—including the very children it claims to help. Schools will be required to allow males who identify as female to enter girls’ private spaces like restrooms, locker rooms, and showers; to participate in girls’ physical education classes; and—despite logically inconsistent disclaimers saying otherwise—to play on girls’ sports teams.

“The Biden-Harris administration’s radical redefinition of sex turns back the clock on equal opportunity for women, undermines fairness, and threatens student safety and privacy,” said ADF Senior Counsel Natalie Thompson. “The Rapides Parish School Board and schools and teachers across the country are right to stand against the administration’s adoption of extreme gender ideology, which would have devastating consequences for students, teachers, administrators, and families. We commend the many athletes, teachers, and women’s advocates who have joined us in urging the 5th Circuit to continue restraining the administration’s illegal efforts to rewrite Title IX.”

“All told, the Department cannot point to any statutory authority supporting its dramatic rewrite of Title IX, let alone the clear authority required to weigh in on the major questions the Final Rule attempts to answer,” the amicus brief led by the state of Arkansas and joined by 21 other states explains. “The Final Rule’s redefinition of ‘sex’ discrimination is illegal on its face and should remain enjoined. Such a ruling would merely maintain the status quo that has existed since Title IX’s enactment in 1972 based on the universal understanding that ‘sex’ means biological sex, not gender identity.”

Women and girls deserve personal privacy, and that is “[not] because of bigotry; it is a natural instinct rooted in biological realities,” the brief filed by Independent Women’s Law Center, Women’s Declaration International USA, and Concerned Women for America states. “The first of those realities is that males alone have the biological capability to impregnate women. Combine that with other objective facts—men are, on average, larger, stronger, and more violent than women—and it is not hard to see why women are naturally nervous when made to expose their bodies around males.”

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the administration’s request to partially reinstate its illegal rewrite of Title IX. The Supreme Court agreed with the 5th Circuit’s decision to continue blocking the unlawful rule in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, and Idaho.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post USA: Women’s groups, athletes rally at 5th Circuit for privacy, safety in schools appeared first on ZENIT - English.

“Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say. The school board violated his First Amendment rights under the Virginia Constitution and commonwealth law,” said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “As a teacher, Peter was passionate about the subject he taught, was well-liked by his students, and did his best to accommodate their needs and requests. But he couldn’t in good conscience speak messages that he knew were untrue, and no school board or government official can punish someone for that reason. We’re pleased to favorably settle this case on behalf of Peter and hope other government and school officials will take note of the high cost involved in failing to respect an American’s constitutionally protected freedoms.”

“I was wrongfully fired from my teaching job because my religious beliefs put me on a collision course with school administrators who mandated that teachers ascribe to only one perspective on gender identity—their preferred view,” Vlaming said. “I loved teaching French and gracefully tried to accommodate every student in my class, but I couldn’t say something that directly violated my conscience. I’m very grateful for the work of my attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom to bring my case to victory, and hope it helps protect every other teacher and professor’s fundamental First Amendment rights.”

ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit against the school board in September 2019. Vlaming taught French in the district for nearly seven years. The West Point School Board fired him after he stated he couldn’t in good conscience comply with the superintendent’s demand that he refer to one of his students using pronouns inconsistent with the student’s sex. Vlaming tried to accommodate the student by consistently using the student’s new preferred name and by avoiding the use of pronouns altogether. But school officials ordered him to stop avoiding the use of pronouns to refer to the student, even when the student wasn’t present, and to start using pronouns inconsistent with the student’s sex.

In December, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that it would reinstate Vlaming’s lawsuit after a lower court dismissed his case. In its opinion, the commonwealth’s high court wrote that the Virginia Constitution “seeks to protect diversity of thought, diversity of speech, diversity of religion, and diversity of opinion.”

Shawn Voyles, one of more than 4,800 attorneys in the ADF Attorney Network, served as co-counsel on Vlaming’s behalf.

In light of the settlement agreement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case, Vlaming v. West Point School Board.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post VA school board to pay $575K, change policies to end ADF lawsuit on behalf of wrongly fired teacher appeared first on ZENIT - English.