Around 100 parents gathered outside a New Jersey courthouse Tuesday as a judge considered whether to block new policies in three school districts that require teachers to inform parents if their children express a desire to change gender identities.

The policies were approved but were met with “emergency” lawsuits from the New Jersey Attorney General opposing them. The debate centers on whether notifying parents about such changes constitutes harm or protection.

Key Takeaways:

Full Story:
Approximately 100 concerned parents assembled outside a New Jersey courthouse Tuesday, where a judge deliberated on whether to halt the implementation of new policies across three school districts. These policies mandate teachers to inform parents if their children express a desire to alter their gender identities.

The policies, initially approved on June 20, sparked immediate legal action as New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin filed “emergency” lawsuits on behalf of Gov. Phil Murphy’s administration to contest them.

The crux of the matter revolves around the perceived implications of notifying parents about gender identity changes. The state contended in court that there would be “irreparable harm” if the policy were enacted, asserting that disclosing such information could lead to irreversible damage to students.

New Jersey Deputy Attorney General James Michael argued, “Once a school outs a student to their parent, the harm is done. It’s irreversible.”

On the opposing side, Marlboro school district’s lawyer, Marc Zitomer, countered that parental notification is not discriminatory. He emphasized the constitutional right of parents to oversee their children’s upbringing.

Judge David Bauman, presiding over the proceedings, echoed this sentiment, asserting that a parent’s role in a child’s upbringing is constitutionally protected.

Outside the courthouse, ten transgender activists gathered to express their views on the proceedings. Inside the school districts, the policies outline that teachers and administrators must inform parents if their child adopts a different name, pronouns, or uses a bathroom inconsistent with their assigned sex.

RELATED: Federal Court Rules Parents Cannot Challenge Maryland School’s Gender Identity Policy

In response to the state’s legal action, Attorney General Platkin stated that disclosing transgender, gender-nonconforming, and non-binary students’ identities poses serious mental health risks, physical harm, and contradicts the duty of creating a safe and supportive learning environment.

Platkin emphasized, “In New Jersey, we will not tolerate any action by schools that threatens the health and safety of our young people. Without question, the discriminatory policies passed by these Boards of Education, if allowed to go into effect, will harm our kids and pose severe risk to their safety.”

Middletown Board Counsel Bruce Padula rejected the notion that the policy was discriminatory or treated transgender students differently. He stated, “Middletown’s policy treats all students the same,” highlighting that parental notification applies to various aspects of a child’s school activities.

Similar provisions are present in Marlboro and Manalapan-Englishtown districts for kindergarten through eighth-grade students. These policies have drawn legal challenges due to their perceived infringement on the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination and the state Department of Education’s policy on transgender students, which suggests parents should not be informed about their child’s school activities.

These battles are going on across the country. It is incredible that America has devolved into a nation that ignores the truth of only two genders as opposed to sexual orientation.

It is even more disturbing that woke leadership believes that government supersedes the right’s of parents over their minor children in the name of “anti-discrimination” or “child protection” when it comes to a minor child determining their gender. Good for these parents standing up to protect their rights and their children.

RELATED: Another California School District Considers Policy to Uphold Parents’ Rights