I’m lucky that I’d never been judged to my face about being a lesbian before last year. But the first time it did happen to me, it really caught me off-guard.
My story begins with a red short-sleeved T-shirt. I was told to cover my T-shirt over a symbol on the front that only the teacher thought was offensive. She called it a classroom distraction, but no one in the class was distracted or offended by it at all. The front of this red T-shirt happened to be an overlapping of two scientific female gender symbols. The teacher thought it was simply uncalled for and sent me to the administration office over it. The assistant principal, straight off the bat, sided with the teacher. They pulled out the student code of conduct and tried to say that my shirt was showing improper material and it was against the dress code. I decided to give in and to cover my shirt with my jacket so I could just go back to class. While in class, trying to collect my tears, all of my fellow students asked if I was okay and wondered what happened. I told them that they threatened to suspend me if I didn’t cover my shirt. Having someone with authority, other then my parents, order me around about what to wear was very hard to handle for me.
That afternoon, I arrived home and on my kitchen counter was a print out of a web page and a note from my father saying to call the number on the print out about what happened at school. I read over the print out about the ACLU and how they helped people and teens in cases like mine. After making the phone call and talking to the amazing Chris Hampton, she explained that the teacher and administrator had both been in the wrong by telling me to cover my shirt. My rights had been violated and we decided to do something about it. Chris and I discussed the process of handling this type of situation since she had dealt with it before. After we talked I decided I wanted to go public with my story to help other students learn about their free speech rights, so we also talked about the press and how we were going to try to get people to understand why what the school did was wrong, and then we talked with my parents and got their okay to go forward. After getting off the phone that evening, I didn’t expect any of what happened next. The ACLU sent a letter to the school demanding an apology and a press release had been sent to the local newspaper along with every LGBT website and magazine that Chris could possibly get her hands on. I ended up being all over Google within 24 hours. Chris took all the calls to schedule interviews so I could talk about my T-shirt. I met with a man from my local TV station at the school for a video interview to capture my story. Time went by and I had not heard anything from the school. Finally, the newspaper had contacted the head principal asking what she thought about it. She told the paper that she apologized for the inconvenience and she’d make sure it wouldn’t happen again. It would have been nice if someone had apologized to my face, but I no longer had to worry about being suspended over a T-shirt.
The entire experience was life changing. It showed me to not be scared to fight for my beliefs and to stand up for myself when my rights are violated. I can honestly say I am proud of what I did with the help of the ACLU and Chris Hampton as my guide. Now a graduate as of June 11, I hope I made an impact on other LGBT people throughout the world who managed to hear my story. And I dearly appreciate those who supported me through it all. Thank you.
Bethany Laccone just graduated from high school on June 11. You can read more about her case here. If you’re a student who thinks your school may have violated your rights, please check out , a guide for figuring out whether your school is illegally discriminating against you, and if you have any questions or need assistance.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.