On March 6, the Wisconsin Legislature Committee on Education held public hearings, again, because Republican lawmakers, again, have re-introduced two bills aimed at trans students. After a very brief introduction and a few clarification questions on Assembly Bill 101, which aims to require Wisconsin schools to track American Indian students and their tribal affiliations. Republican Representative Barbara Dittrich explained the bill she co-wrote with Senator Jacque and others would require parental permission for students to use a different name and pronouns than the ones assigned to them at birth. According to FastDemocracy.com, a website that tracks legislative activity in Wisconsin, “The name and pronoun usage policy stipulates that a minor pupil’s parent or guardian determines the names and pronouns that school staff may use. School staff are prohibited from using names or pronouns that do not align with the pupil’s biological sex without written authorization from the parent or guardian, although they can use shortened versions of the pupil’s legal name without such authorization.”

Dittrich described the copycat bill as a “common sense parents’ rights bill” that mimics policies set by many school boards around the state. She and other proponents of the bill referenced field trips, photos, and Tylenol as other things in school that require parental permission and consent, in an effort to align this new policy with other innocuous requirements. “It really is that simple,” she stated contemptuously. Senator Jaques, who co-wrote and sponsored the bill, later derided teachers and administrators who allow minor children to use different names and pronouns in school, accusing them of “intentionally deceiving parents,” and in some cases even indoctrinating children with “liberal ideas of sexuality and gender.”

Francesca Hong, a liberal Assemblywoman from Madison, questioned the bill several times, noting that buried in it is a stipulation that even if a child legally changes their name and gender markers, school boards have the power to override that legal change and decide whether the school has to honor it. Dittrich’s response was that kids who were denied using their changed legal name by their school board could just choose to go to another school district, one that is different from their peers in their neighborhood, and which might require parents driving their kids some ways and isn’t accessible to many students as an option.

Luke Berg, a lawyer from the conservative Law and Liberty Group, spoke in defense of the bill. The Group has tried to bring suits against the school districts of Eau Claire and Madison for their gender and privacy policies but were not successful in either case because the parents were not directly affected by these policies, or had moved out of the district. However, the vast majority of the speakers were against the bill. A full gallery, along with three overflow rooms, was a clear indicator of the outpouring of support for trans kids in the state, with many speakers citing the continued introduction of these bills as disruptive, harmful, and pointless. The bills are pointless because Governor Evers has already vowed that he will not sign any anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, and Republicans do not have a veto-proof majority.

Most opposition speakers noted that many queer youth do not have supportive families, and that policies like these are not only unnecessary, but are at times dangerous. Studies have shown that only 1/3rd of LGBTQ youth find their home to be affirming, while 52% found that their school environment was. Speakers of all ages spoke of their own experiences with their families, children, and neighborhood kids, citing that for many, school is a place to “try on” new identities before going through the big step of coming out to families, who again, might be hostile. Doing so gave confidence and clarity in a time that can be scary and isolating. Many parents who spoke noted that if they found out that their kid came out to their teacher first, that their reaction would not be to “sue the safe adult” that they’d told, but to have a conversation with their kids about what they could do to make it easier for their kids to talk to them. Trans adults spoke to their own experiences, both with unsupportive families and with supportive teachers, saying that if they had not had the refuge that school gave them, and if the teachers had reported them to their parents, it’s possible that they would not be alive right now.

The overwhelming majority of speakers cited mental health and suicide rates among LGBTQ youth, particularly trans youth, as a major reason why the mere introduction of these policies, as well as any possible implementation of them, is so harmful. As the country as a whole targets trans people, school needs to be a safe place for kids to be themselves, their whole selves, safely and without fear.

Such was the response to AB 103, that AB 100 was not even brought up until several hours into the hearing, with few people remaining to speak against it. AB 100 is yet another bill to limit trans children’s access to team sports, written to “protect girls.” The bill would allow “A pupil of the female sex who is deprived of the opportunity to participate in an athletic sport or on an athletic team or who suffers any direct or indirect harm as the result of a violation of sub. (2) (b) or (c) may bring a cause of action against an educational institution for injunctive relief, damages, and any other relief available under law.” This would set a dangerous precedent that would effectively ban especially trans girls from participating in school sports. It designates sex as assigned at birth AND what is on the birth certificate as the student’s gender identifier with regard to sports, and it seeks to “prohibit pupils of the male sex from participating on an athletic team or in an athletic sport that is designated for females under par. (a). and (c) Prohibit pupils of the male sex from using locker rooms designated for females.”