Massachusetts parents of 11-year-old 'genderqueer' student who changed name at school lose federal appeals lawsuit

Rick Sobey, Boston Herald on Feb 23, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

The parents of an 11-year-old “genderqueer” student who went by a different name in school, while staff members concealed the new name and pronouns from their parents, have lost a federal appeals lawsuit.

The Western Massachusetts parents of the middle schooler sued Ludlow school officials in U.S. District Court, arguing that the school district’s policies violated their parental rights.

The case goes back to the 2020-2021 school year when 6th-grade students at Baird Middle School — including the parents’ 11-year-old — worked on a project to create biographic videos about themselves. The school’s librarian assigning the project reportedly urged the students to include their pronouns in the videos.

In the months that followed the project, the 11-year-old’s Google account started receiving “unsolicited LGBTQ-themed video suggestions” on their school-issued computer, according to the parents’ lawsuit.

And after watching these clips, the student who was designated the female sex at birth reportedly began questioning whether they “might be attracted to girls” and whether they “had ‘gender identity’ issues.”

A few months later, the student announced in an email to school officials, “I am genderqueer.” According to the student’s email, that meant the student would “use any pronouns (other than it/its),” and the student also said they wanted to change their name: They asked to go by the name “R***” instead of “B***."

The student still hadn’t told their parents about these identity changes, so school officials used the student’s given name and she/her pronouns when talking with their parents. But during school, teachers addressed the student by their new name.

The school counselor also told the student that they could choose which bathroom to use — boys’, girls’, or the gender-neutral facilities.

In the Ludlow school district, teachers are instructed to not tell parents about their child’s expressions of gender without that student’s consent.

As a result, the parents sued the school system and officials. A lower federal district court ruled in favor of the school system, and now the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has affirmed the district court’s ruling to dismiss.

“Courts nationwide have faced all manner of important litigation involving matters of gender identity and gender expression, including use of folks’ preferred pronouns,” the appeals court justices wrote. “Today’s case falls under that broad header.

“More specifically, it presents for our review challenging issues arising from the Ludlow School Committee’s protocol requiring its staff to use a student’s requested name and gender pronouns within the school without notifying the parents of those requests unless that student consents,” the justices added.

The parents claimed that the school district’s practice of accommodating and concealing their child’s requested name and pronouns while at school “interferes with their parental rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.”

Meanwhile, the school system countered that its protocol is “appropriate and necessary to ensure a safe and inclusive school learning environment for students.”

The case raises questions about the scope of parental rights protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The parents argued that the school district’s conduct restricted their parental right to control the upbringing, custody, education, and medical treatment of their child.

“But when all is said and done, we, like the district court, conclude that the Parents have failed to state a plausible claim that Ludlow’s implementation of the Protocol as applied to their family violated their fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their child,” the appeals court wrote.

“… parental rights are not unlimited,” the justices added. “Parents may not invoke the Due Process Clause to create a preferred educational experience for their child in public school. As per our understanding of Supreme Court precedent, our pluralistic society assigns those curricular and administrative decisions to the expertise of school officials, charged with the responsibility of educating children.”

_____