this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
105 points (97.3% liked)

News

36270 readers
2575 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
105
Supreme Court blocks California restrictions on schools notifying parents about students' transgender status (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Parents and teachers who oppose the state policies sued, claiming their parental, free speech and religious rights were violated.

The Supreme Court on Monday barred California from enforcing state rules that restrict when schools can notify parents about students who come out as transgender and requires teachers to use children's preferred pronouns.

The court, on a 6-3 vote on ideological lines, allowed a federal judge’s ruling in favor of parents who oppose the policy on religious grounds to go into effect. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put the judge’s decision on hold pending further litigation.

The court's ruling focused on the parents' claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution's First Amendment were violated. The court also said they have valid parental rights claims under the Constitution's 14th Amendment.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cutemarshmallow@europe.pub 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I've never had to face what it's like to be transgender. But I am what most would classify as "bisexual."

I didn't tell my mother about my sexual orientation until I was pressured to by my extended family at the age of 17. My mum is a religious Conservative who believes the LGBTQI+ community is a bunch of brainwashed kids having sexuality forced upon them from TV shows and drag queens. I didn't feel comfortable then, and it was scary, and the more I get to know my mum, the more I regret telling her. Now I know that every time she spews bigotry, she's doing so with the knowledge that I'm in the group she's targeting. Her knowing that her daughter, whom she raised and thought of as "normal" didn't stop her from spreading misinformation and fear-mongering. She treats me well, but she doesn't accept my whole self no matter how much she says she does. She still disregards my identity as nothing more than a trend for the mentally ill. She once told me, "Yeah, yeah, I know you think you're bi," meaning she doesn't actually believe I am but that I have been brainwashed to think I am.

So even though it's not the same experience, I understand what it's like having an extremely personal piece of information about your identity -- that you're still getting used to yourself -- being shared, with scary potential outcomes. I can imagine how even scarier it would be for someone in this situation to be transgender. While the general public has made some progress with the LGBTQI+ community, transgender people are still not safe.

Knowing about cases like Brianna Ghey (she was murdered by "friends," not her parents) breaks my heart. I can only imagine how terrifying it is to just exist as a transgender person in this world. Just because someone is your parent, doesn't mean that they will protect you any more than strangers or friends. Sometimes parents don't have your best interests at heart and can be your biggest bully.

Having such danger forced upon a CHILD is absurd. If it were up to me, I would leave it up to the student involved whether or not to share this information with their parents. It's not a medical condition, and children aren't properties of their parents. While I understand that some would want to be there for their children, some don't love their children unconditionally and would choose religion over their children any day. I think a student would know more about their parents' likely response than the school staff (who only see the parents for brief moments) and the government. I don't feel comfortable with this decision excluding the students' autonomy. They're not pets; they have a voice and personhood that should be respected.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 43 minutes ago

So uh… in your shoes, I’d for damn sure be very tempted to go full NC with your mom over that behavior. That is unacceptably toxic and hateful.

[–] Cherry@piefed.social -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Wow you can clearly see the brigading starting to appear here, undermining constructive discussion.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

Explain.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago

Vagueposting is a scourge on the internet.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 17 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

The court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated. The court also said they have valid parental rights claims under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

That is very troubling. I could have understood a First Amendment justification for the school and the staff, although they have to live with restrictions on what they say all the time.

Basing this on the parents' free exercise clause means that the parents have a religious right to know the details of their children's lives, which implies they have a right to force their religion on their children.

That is a monstrous claim, as children have a right to their own religion and exercise thereof under the First Amendment, too.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

which implies they have a right to force their religion on their children.

Alito has pretty consistently implied that he believes religious freedom gives christians the right to impose their religion on others. Or that other people don't things that christians disagree with is somehow infringing on their religious freedom.

And Thomas is just a piece of shit who has explicitly said he just wants to make liberals miserable. I don't even think all the bribes actually influence his decisions, he would've been this terrible for free.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 1 points 22 minutes ago

I agree, and they have more or less always been that way. If you wanted to shrink the reach of religion, you brought a case about the rights of Muslims or Native Americans. If you wanted to expand it, you brought a case about Catholicism.

I think what changed is that they were more roundabout about it and they tried to find some reasoning that got them where they wanted but not for the reasons they wanted. Sort of like the decision to let the baker discriminate, which was formally decided on the grounds that the State of Colorado discriminated against his religiosity.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 1 points 2 hours ago

Rights are essentially the mirror image of duties: the right not to be killed corresponds to the duty not to murder; the right to privacy corresponds to the duty not to intrude on people's privacy; the right to free expression corresponds to the duty not to prevent that expression.

If parents have a right to know about the child's transgender identity, who has the corresponding duty? The implication of this line of argument is that, at the very least, schools ought to snitch on anything a child does that the parent might want to know for religious reasons, whatever they may be.

If we take the duty as primary, we can flip it and ask what right corresponds to the duty of schools to tell parents about their child's transgender identity, in case it's something narrower. Sometimes a duty merely creates the right to expect that a public body behaves in an appropriate way. But that is then not in the least bit a religious matter but a civil one.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

Conservatives view children as property. It shouldn't be that surprising of a ruling; its why they love pedophilia.

[–] firelight@startrek.website -3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That is a monstrous claim, as children have a right to their own religion and exercise thereof under the First Amendment, too.

How does blocking a law that forbids schools from telling parents information about their children violate the child's first amendment rights?

[–] manxu@piefed.social 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

See, that's what makes SCOTUS's argument so insidious. If the right to be notified is religious in nature, then the conflict with the child that doesn't want to tell the parents also is religious in nature. In particular, the child asserts the freedom to be free from the parents' religion.

If the decision were based on the free speech rights of the school, or on concern for the well-being of the child, I could have understood. But basing it on the religious rights of the parents is in direct contradiction with the fact that the child clearly doesn't want their parents to know, which means the child is aware the parents would disapprove for religious reasons, which means the child does not share that particular religious belief.

[–] firelight@startrek.website -1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Did they say the right to be notified was religious in nature? Is this even about a "right to be notified"?

It looks like this simply allows faculty to inform parents of their child's transgender status, not requiring them to do it.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 1 points 15 minutes ago

From the post body:

The court’s ruling focused on the parents’ claim that their rights under the free exercise clause of the Constitution’s First Amendment were violated. The court also said they have valid parental rights claims under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

So, yes, it is a religious issue. And I would have totally bought a framing that says the law infringes on the teachers' rights or those of staff to notify the parents. I don't know why they would frame it as the parents' right. I suppose it's because they couldn't find school personnel willing to go to court over this.

I totally get your point, and you are right. But the court went out of its way to frame is as the parents' right based on exercise of religion, which seems bonkers to me.

I suppose the post body might be wrong, too.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 56 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

...Parental, free speech and religious rights to do what?

to ignore the privacy rights, free speech rights and religious rights of their child.

[–] nwtreeoctopus@sh.itjust.works 47 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Conservatives think of childen as property, so it's not surprising.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 25 points 11 hours ago

unsurprising, when you realize they get their ideology from an iron age reboot of bronze age legal codes written by... grumpy old pervert men.

[–] tonytins@pawb.social 32 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

parents’ claim that their rights [...] were violated.

Their rights? What about their children's!?

[–] Zedstrian@sopuli.xyz 30 points 12 hours ago

The Supreme Court has been packed with religious nutjobs who don't give a damn about the mental health of transgender students.

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 6 points 8 hours ago

Awkward title.

[–] firelight@startrek.website -4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What's the problem here?

Schools shouldn't be allowed to keep important information about students from their parents or legal guardians.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 3 points 2 hours ago

Honor killings and similar behavior such a conversion camps put the child at risk. Which means the school actively endangered the child.

[–] Famko@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Unless the kids come from an abusive household where being gay or trans would be considered 'sinful' behavior so the kids don't want to come out to their parents in any way.

And then the schools will narc on them.

[–] solrize@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 hours ago

What do you have to do to come out as trans in school? Medical treatment or just ask for new pronouns? If it's just pronouns, maybe everyone can switch a few times per semester and it won't really tell the parents anything since almost all the notifications will be meaningless.