DOCSLIB.ORG

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Questioning Youth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Questioning Youth THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION ON LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, QUEER & QUESTIONING YOUTH REPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022 July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Recommended citation: Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Youth. (2021). Massachusetts Commission on LGBTQ Youth: Report and Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2022. Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/annual- recommendations Contributors: Jo Trigilio, Executive Director and lead editor; Sasha Goodfriend, Commission Chair and co-author of Introduction Letter; Mary Morrissey, lead researcher and author of “Special Report on Covid-19 and LGBTQ Youth,” “Advancing Justice,” and “Sexual Victimization”; Jordan Meehan, Legislative and Policy Manager, and lead author of core recommendations and agency recommendations; Amanda Weber, lead researcher and author of “Ending Homelessness”; Damian Lima, lead researcher and author of “Improving Health”; Kimm Topping, Safe Schools Program Director, and lead author of “Increasing Inclusion” and “Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students Annual Report”; Rayna Danis, proofreader, editor, data presentation; Val Leiter, data consultant; Anastasia Owen, proofreader; Molly Wexler-Romig, proofreader Acknowledgements: The authors thank the Commission members (listed in Appendix C), youth, consultants, agency liaisons, community partners, and others who offered their feedback and opinions that contributed to this report. About Us: The Massachusetts Commission on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth is established by law as an independent agency of the Commonwealth to recommend to all branches of state government effective policies, programs, and resources for LGBTQ youth to thrive. Per its legislative authority, the Commission works closely with the agencies to which it issues non-binding recommendations to receive their input and assist them in achieving the goals that the Commission has set. The Commission was originally founded as the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth in 1992 in response to high suicide rates among gay and lesbian young people, and was reestablished by the legislature as an independent commission in 2006 (Act of Jul. 1, 2006, Ch. 139 §4, codified in Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 3 §67). Twenty-eight years after the creation of the original Governor’s Commission, it remains the first and only such statewide commission in the country. Contact Us: For print copies, permissions, and other inquiries, contact us at (617) 624-5495 or [email protected]. Facebook.com/masslgbtqyouth Twitter @masslgbtqyouth Instagram @masslgbtqyouth http://mass.gov/cgly TABLE OF CONTENTS A. SUMMARY & SPECIAL REPORTS Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….1 Fact Sheet……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………8 Special Report on COVID-19 and LGBTQ Youth………………………………………………………………………….10 New Data on Transgender Youth in Massachusetts…………………………………………………………..………33 Safe Schools Program for LGBTQ Students………………………………………………………………………..………40 ___________________________________________________________________ B. CORE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUPPORTING RESEARCH: INCLUSION, HOMELESSNESS, JUVENILE JUSTICE, HEALTH, AND SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION I. Increasing Inclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57 A. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………57 B. Recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on Increasing Inclusion…………………57 C. Latest Research on Inclusion in Schools…………………………………………………………………………59 II. Ending Homelessness……………………………………………………………………………………………………..74 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….74 B. Recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on Ending Homelessness………………74 C. Understanding Youth Homelessness…………………………………………………………………………….78 D. Progress in Massachusetts Towards Ending Homelessness…………………………………………..85 III. Advancing Justice…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..92 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….92 B. Recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on Advancing Justice.…………………..92 C. Latest Research on Advancing Justice…………………………………………………………………………..95 IV. Improving Health…………………………………………………………………………………………………………105 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 105 B. Recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on Improving Health…………………..105 C. Latest research on Improving Health………………………………………………………………………….108 V. Sexual Victimization………………………………………………………………………………………….………….126 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..126 B. Recommendations to the Governor and Legislature on Sexual Victimization………………..127 C. Latest Research on Sexual Victimization……………………………………………………………………….127 ______________________________________________________________________________ C. AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS Executive Office of Education Recommendations………………................................................135 Department of Early Education and Care………………………………………………………….………………135 Department of Elementary and Secondary Education……………………………………………….……..138 Department of Higher Education……………………………………………………………………………..………144 Executive Office of Health and Human Services Recommendations…………………………….……..147 Department of Children and Families………………………………………………………………………………148 Massachusetts Commission for the Blind…………………………………………………………………………155 Massachusetts Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing…………………………………………157 Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission………………………………………………………………………159 Department of Mental Health………………………………………………………………………………………….162 Department of Public Health……………………………………………………………………………………………165 MassHealth………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………171 Office for Refugees and Immigrants………………………………………………………………………………...175 Department of Transitional Assistance…………………………………………………………………………….178 Department of Youth Services………………………………………………………………………………………….180 Additional State Entities…………………………………………………………………………………………………….184 Executive Office of Public Safety and Security………………………………………………………………….184 Registry of Motor Vehicles……………………………………………………………………………………………….187 Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners………………………………………………………………191 Department of Housing and Community Development……………………………………………………194 MassHire Department of Career Services…………………………………………………………………………197 ___________________________________________________________________ D. APPENDICES Appendix A: Glossary of Terms……………………………………………………………………………………………..204 Appendix B: Commission Membership…………………………….……………………………………………………209 LETTER FROM COMMISSION LEADERSHIP June 15, 2021 Between the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the events leading up to the January 6, 2021 U.S. Capitol Insurrection by Trump supporters, the past year has tested our spirits, governing bodies, and communities. The pandemic and its associated “shutdown” transformed daily life for almost everyone, but disproportionately for those at the intersections of multiple oppressions; LBGTQ youth, youth of color and trans youth. In the face of test after test, the members of the MA Commission on LGBTQ Youth and our partners have stayed strong in our mission to build a Commonwealth where all youth thrive. The last year has also been unprecedented in terms of attacks on LGBTQ people and their rights. In 2020, 44 trans and gender nonconforming people were killed, making it the worst year for transphobic violence since the Human Rights Campaign began recording transphobic hate crimes. As of June 1, 2021, the number has already reached 28, potentially making 2021 more deadly than 2020 for trans and gender nonconforming people. On May 2, 2021, this hit close to home as the Boston LGBTQ community experienced the loss of Jahaira DeAlto, one of the founding members of Trans Resistance, an organization created to support and uplift the lives of trans people of color. In the first six months of 2021, seventeen anti-LGBTQ bills have been enacted into law across the US. This breaks the 2015 record when fifteen anti-LGBTQ bills were enacted into law. An additional eleven anti-LGBTQ bills have made it to governors’ desks, awaiting signature or veto. Eight states have passed legislation prohibiting transgender girls and women from competing on women’s school and college sports teams. And we are only half way through 2021. As our special report on COVID reveals, this year has been particularly challenging for LGBTQ youth. LGBTQ youth, especially LGBTQ youth of color, experience disproportionate disparities on almost every factor. The COVID pandemic has only served to exacerbate these disparities, resulting in significant challenges to the welfare of LGBTQ youth. According to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health COVID-19 Community Impact Survey, LGBTQ people were among those who reported the highest rates of poor mental health and job loss. The COVID crisis has had significant compounding impacts on youth, particularly on youth mental health. 83% of Nonbinary and 78% of Transgender youth reported feeling sad or hopeless every day for more than two weeks compared to 46% of cisgender youth. 84% of Queer, 68% of Bisexual/Pansexual, and 66% of Gay or Lesbian youth reported feeling sad or hopeless every day for more than two weeks compared to 39 % of Heterosexual youth. In addition to experiencing mental challenges, a disproportionate number of LGBTQ youth, particularly LGBTQ youth of color, faced housing instability, unsupportive home environments, and economic instability. The Commission
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Here's Why the Lavender Scare Still Matters | the Creators Project 7/9/16, 3:07 PM
    Here's Why the Lavender Scare Still Matters | The Creators Project 7/9/16, 3:07 PM print United States Here's Why the Lavender Scare Still Matters Tanja M. Laden — Jun 26 2016 Cincinnati Opera, Fellow Travelers (http://www.cincinnatiopera.org/performances/fellow- travelers), Photograph courtesy Philip Groshong The Cold War, McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism), and the Hollywood blacklist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist) have all been continuously examined and critiqued by writers and artists. One particular aspect of the fear-mongering witch hunt that swept the U.S. after World War II, however, is just as important to our understanding of the country’s social and political history as the Red Scare http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/blog/lavender-scare-art-history-ugly-legacy Page 1 of 15 Here's Why the Lavender Scare Still Matters | The Creators Project 7/9/16, 3:07 PM (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare): it is known as the Lavender Scare. Over the course of the past 60 years, the dark stain that is the Lavender Scare has been a subtly recurring theme in popular culture, and in light of the still prevalent, highly problematic attitudes towards transgender and homosexual rights today, it's both reassuring and saddening to know that the cultural blight it provides is still being addressed. Today, the event is examined across several mediums, including a documentary, an opera, and a new art exhibition. Images via WikiCommons Similar to the anti-communist moral panic that swept the 1950s, the Lavender Scare led government officials to believe that homosexuals posed threats to national security.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws Clifford J
    SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah Utah Law Digital Commons Utah Law Faculty Scholarship Utah Law Scholarship 2017 Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws Clifford J. Rosky S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Recommended Citation Rosky, Clifford J., "Anti-Gay Curriculum Laws" (2017). Utah Law Faculty Scholarship. 13. http://dc.law.utah.edu/scholarship/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Utah Law Scholarship at Utah Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Utah Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT: 117 COLUM. L. REV. ___ (forthcoming 2017) ANTI-GAY CURRICULUM LAWS Clifford Rosky Since the Supreme Court’s invalidation of anti-gay marriage laws, scholars and advocates have begun discussing what issues the LGBT movement should prioritize next. This article joins that dialogue by developing the framework for a national campaign to invalidate anti-gay curriculum laws—statutes that prohibit or restrict the discussion of homosexuality in public schools. These laws are artifacts of a bygone era in which official discrimination against LGBT people was both lawful and rampant. But they are far more prevalent than others have recognized. In the existing literature, scholars and advocates have referred to these provisions as “no promo homo” laws and claimed that they exist in only a handful of states.
    [Show full text]
  • Heteronormativity, Penalization, and Explicitness: a Representation of Homosexuality in American Drama and Its Adaptations
    Heteronormativity, Penalization, and Explicitness: A Representation of Homosexuality in American Drama and its Adaptations by Laura Bos s4380770 A thesis submitted to the faculty of Radboud University Nijmegen in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Radboud University 12 January, 2018 Supervisor: Dr. U. Wilbers Bos s4380770/1 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Introduction 3 1. Homosexuality in Twentieth-Century America 5 1.1. Homosexuality in the United States: from 1900 to 1960s 5 1.1.1. A Brief History of Sodomy Laws 5 1.1.2. The Beginning of the LGBT Movement 6 1.1.3. Homosexuality in American Drama 7 1.2. Homosexuality in the United States: from 1960s to 2000 9 1.2.1 Gay Liberation Movement (1969-1974) 9 1.2.2. Homosexuality in American Culture: Post-Stonewall 10 2. The Children’s Hour 13 2.1. The Playwright, the Plot, and the Reception 13 2.2. Heteronormativity, Penalization, and Explicitness 15 2.3. Adaptations 30 3. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof 35 3.1. The Playwright, the Plot, and the Reception 35 3.2. Heteronormativity, Penalization, and Explicitness 37 3.3. Adaptations 49 4. The Boys in the Band 55 4.1. The Playwright, the Plot, and the Reception 55 4.2. Heteronormativity, Penalization, and Explicitness 57 4.3. Adaptations 66 Conclusion 73 Works Cited 75 Bos s4380770/2 Abstract This thesis analyzes the presence of homosexuality in American drama written in the 1930s- 1960s by using twentieth-century sexology theories and ideas of heteronormativity, penalization, and explicitness. The following works and their adaptations will be discussed: The Children’s Hour (1934) by Lillian Hellman, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1955) by Tennessee Williams, and The Boys in the Band (1968) by Mart Crowley.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 40 Issue 3 The Legislative Backlash to Advances in Rights for Same-Sex Couples Spring 2005 The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State John G. Culhane Stacey L. Sobel Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John G. Culhane, & Stacey L. Sobel, The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from a (Slightly) Blue State, 40 Tulsa L. Rev. 443 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol40/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Culhane and Sobel: The Gay Marriage Backlash and Its Spillover Effects: Lessons from THE GAY MARRIAGE BACKLASH AND ITS SPILLOVER EFFECTS: LESSONS FROM A (SLIGHTLY) "BLUE STATE" John G. Culhane* and Stacey L. Sobel** I. INTRODUCTION Backlash, indeed! The stories streaming in from across the country can scarcely be believed. In Alabama, a legislator introduced a bill that would have banished any mention of homosexuality from all public libraries-even at the university level.' In Virginia, the legislature's enthusiasm for joining the chorus of states that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage was eclipsed by a legislator's suggestion that the state's license plates be pressed into service as political slogans, and made to read: "Traditional Marriage.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctioned Cheer Teams
    Sanctioned Cheer Teams - 2010-2011 Activity SCHOOL MailCITY Coed Cheer Abby Kelley Foster Reg Charter School Worcester Abington High School Abington Academy of Notre Dame Tyngsboro Acton-Boxborough Reg H.S. Acton Agawam High School Agawam Algonquin Reg. High School Northborough Amesbury High School Amesbury Andover High School Andover Apponequet Regional H.S. Lakeville Archbishop Williams High School Braintree Arlington Catholic High School Arlington Arlington High School Arlington Ashland High School Ashland Assabet Valley Reg Voc HS Marlboro Attleboro High School Attleboro Auburn High School Auburn Auburn Middle School Auburn Austin Preparatory School Reading Avon Mid/High School Avon Ayer Middle-High School Ayer Barnstable High School Hyannis Bartlett Jr./Sr. H.S. Webster Bay Path RVT High School Charlton Bedford High School Bedford Belchertown High School Belchertown Bellingham High School Bellingham Beverly High School Beverly Billerica Memorial High School Billerica Bishop Feehan High School Attleboro Bishop Fenwick High School Peabody Bishop Stang High School North Dartmouth Blackstone Valley Reg Voc/Tech HS Upton Blackstone-Millville Reg HS Blackstone Boston Latin School Boston Bourne High School Bourne Braintree High School Braintree Bridgewater-Raynham Reg High School Bridgewater Bristol-Plymouth Reg Voc Tech Taunton Thursday, February 03, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Sanctioned Cheer Teams - 2010-2011 Activity SCHOOL MailCITY Coed Cheer Brockton High School Brockton Brookline High School Brookline Burlington High School Burlington Cambridge
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Orientation and the Federal Workplace
    SEXUAL ORIENTATION and the FEDERAL WORKPLACE Policy and Perception A Report to the President and Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board MAY 2014 THE CHAIRMAN U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 1615 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20419-0001 The President President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives Dear Sirs: In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Sexual Orientation and the Federal Workplace: Policy and Perception. The purpose of our study was to examine Federal employee perceptions of workplace treatment based on sexual orientation, review how Federal workplace protections from sexual orientation discrimination evolved, and determine if further action is warranted to communicate or clarify those protections. Since 1980, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management has interpreted the tenth Prohibited Personnel Practice (5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(10)), which bars discrimination in Federal personnel actions based on conduct that does not adversely affect job performance, to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. As this prohibition has neither been specifically expressed in statute nor affirmed in judicial decision, it has been subject to alternate interpretations. Executive Order 13087 prohibited sexual orientation discrimination in Federal employment but provided no enforceable rights or remedies for Federal employees who allege they are the victims of sexual orientation discrimination. Any ambiguity in the longstanding policy prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the Federal workplace would be resolved by legislation making that prohibition explicit. Such legislation could grant Federal employees who allege they are victims of sexual orientation discrimination access to the same remedies as those who allege discrimination on other bases.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutionalized Oppression and American Gay Life
    Trinity University Digital Commons @ Trinity The Expositor: A Journal of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities English Department 2020 Red-Lavender Colorblindness: Institutionalized Oppression and American Gay Life Brooke Yung Trinity University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.trinity.edu/eng_expositor Repository Citation Yung, B. (2020). Red-Lavender colorblindness: Institutionalized oppression and American gay life. The Expositor: A Journal of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities, 15, 65-74. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the English Department at Digital Commons @ Trinity. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Expositor: A Journal of Undergraduate Research in the Humanities by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Trinity. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Red-Lavender Colorblindness: Institutionalized Oppression and American Gay Life Brooke Yung n December 15, 1950, a Senate Investigations Subcommittee printed their interim report on an unprecedented and vaguely Osalacious task: “to determine the extent of the employment of homosexuals and other sex perverts in Government.”1 Adopting various legal, moral, and med- ical approaches to conceptualizing homosexuality, this subcommittee sought to identify and terminate employees engaging in same-sex relations. Not only did their report present the government’s belief in the undesirability of ho- mosexuality—depicting it as a “problem” to be “deal[t] with”—it captured
    [Show full text]
  • Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash
    MWP – 2016/04 Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict AuthorReva B. Author Siegel and Author Author European University Institute Max Weber Programme Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Constitutionalism through the Lens of Consensus and Conflict Reva B. Siegel Max Weber Lecture No. 2016/04 This text may be downloaded for personal research purposes only. Any additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copy or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper or other series, the year, and the publisher. ISSN 1830-7736 © Reva B. Siegel, 2016 Printed in Italy European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50014 San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) Italy www.eui.eu cadmus.eui.eu Abstract In the decades before the United States Supreme Court recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges, Americans disdained, denounced, and debated same-sex marriage. When state courts recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, opponents passed laws and state constitutional amendments that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. This fierce conflict provoked argument about the capacity of courts to defend minority rights. Critics argued that judicial judgments shutting down politics were counterproductive and provoked a backlash that exacerbated political polarization. Conversation about the backlash ranged widely from academics and advocates to judges. These “realist” accounts of judicial review depicted courts as majoritarian institutions whose authority is tied to public consensus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Invention of Bad Gay Sex: Texas and the Creation of a Criminal Underclass of Gay People
    The Invention of Bad Gay Sex: Texas and the Creation of a Criminal Underclass of Gay People Scott De Orio Journal of the History of Sexuality, Volume 26, Number 1, January 2017, pp. 53-87 (Article) Published by University of Texas Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/645006 Access provided by University of Michigan @ Ann Arbor (3 Sep 2018 18:29 GMT) The Invention of Bad Gay Sex: Texas and the Creation of a Criminal Underclass of Gay People SCOTT DE ORIO University of Michigan T HE RECEN T PROGRESS IN T HE area of lesbian and gay rights in the United States has occasioned a good deal of triumphalism.1 Many ac- counts, both scholarly and popular, have not only celebrated the rise of lesbian and gay rights under the Obama administration but also described what appears—at least in retrospect—to have been their steady, surprising, and inexorable expansion since the 1970s. According to that conventional narrative, lesbians and gay men have slowly but surely gained ever-greater access to full citizenship in many spheres of life.2 I would like to thank Tiffany Ball, Roger Grant, David Halperin, Courtney Jacobs, Matt Lassiter, Stephen Molldrem, Gayle Rubin, Doug White, the participants in the American History Workshop at the University of Michigan, Lauren Berlant and the participants in the 2015 Engendering Change conference at the University of Chicago, and Annette Timm and the two anonymous reviewers from the Journal of the History of Sexuality for their feedback on drafts of this essay. The Rackham Graduate School and the Eisenberg Institute for His- torical Studies, both at the University of Michigan, provided financial support for the project.
    [Show full text]
  • Senior Team List
    DEPARTMENT SENIOR TEAMS BY DISTRICT WITH BASE SCHOOLS/RECRUITING ZONES Team Name Post No. Base School Recruiting Plan District 1 - No Program District 2 - No Program District 3 - 11 Teams Agawam 185 Agawam High School B Belchertown 239 Plan A - Belchertown, Amherst, Leverett, A Shutesbury, Sunderland, Pelham, Hadley, South Hadley, Granby Chicopee (Aldenville) 337 Chicopee Comprehensive H.S. B East Springfield 420 Pope Francis High School B Greenfield 81 Greenfield High School B Ludlow 52 Ludlow High School B Monson 241 Monson, Palmer, Ware A Northampton 28 Northampton High School B Sheffield 340 Lenox Memorial High School B Westfield 124 Westfield High School B Wilbraham Green 286 Minnechaug Regional High School B District 4 -11 Teams Framingham 74 Framingham High School B Gardner 129 Gardner High School B Leicester (Cherry Valley) 443 Leicester High School B Leominster 151 Leominster High School B Milford 59 Milford High School B Northboro 234 Algonquin Regional High School B Northbridge 343 Northbridge High School B Shrewsbury 397 Shrewsbury High School B Sturbridge 109 Tantasqua Regional High School B Worcester (East Side) 201 Worcester Academy B Worcester (Main South) 341 Doherty Memorial High School B District 5 - 7 Teams Ashland 77 Ashland High School B Hudson 100 Hudson High School B Lowell 87 Lowell High School B Natick 107 Natick High School B Newton 440 Newton North High School B Stoneham 115 Stoneham High School B North Chelmsford 313 Chelmsford High School B District 6 - 14 Teams Braintree 86 Braintree High School B Canton
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Issues Facing Transgender Americans
    UNDERSTANDING ISSUES FACING TRANSGENDER AMERICANS National Center for TRANSGENDER EQUALITY Authors Partner This report was authored by: Contact Information 2 Movement Advancement Project Movement Advancement Project (MAP) The Movement Advancement Project (MAP) is an 2215 Market Street independent think tank that provides rigorous Denver, CO 80205 research, insight and analysis that help speed equality [email protected] for LGBT people. MAP works collaboratively with www.lgbtmap.org LGBT organizations, advocates and funders, providing information, analysis and resources that help coordinate GLAAD and strengthen their efforts for maximum impact. MAP 5455 Wilshire Blvd, #1500 also conducts policy research to inform the public and Los Angeles, CA 90036 policymakers about the legal and policy needs of LGBT 323-933-2240 people and their families. www.glaad.org National Center for Transgender Equality National Center for Transgender Equality The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) is 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 700 the nation’s leading social justice advocacy organization Washington, DC 20005 winning life saving change for transgender people. 202-903-0112 NCTE was founded in 2003 by transgender activists www.transequality.org who recognized the urgent need for policy change to advance transgender equality. Transgender Law Center: 1629 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 400 Transgender Law Center Oakland, CA 94612 Founded in 2002, Transgender Law Center (TLC) is now 415-865-0176 the largest transgender-led organization in the United www.transgenderlawcenter.org States dedicated to advancing transgender rights. TLC changes law, policy and attitudes so that all people can live safely, authentically, and free from discrimination regardless of their gender identity or expression.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 21-2270 in the UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for THE
    No. 21-2270 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT The School of the Ozarks, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., in his official capacity as President of the United States; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Marcia L. Fudge, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Jeanine M. Worden, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing & Equal Opportunity of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Defendants-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri—Springfield, Case No. 6:21-cv-03089-RK Judge Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge BRIEF FOR INSTITUTE FOR FAITH AND FAMILY AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL Tami Fitzgerald Deborah J. Dewart Institute for Faith & Family Deborah J. Dewart, Attorney at Law 9650 Strickland Road, Ste. 103-226 111 Magnolia Lane Raleigh, NC 27615 Hubert, NC 28539 (980) 404-2880 (910) 326-4554 [email protected] [email protected] August 4, 2021 Appellate Case: 21-2270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/04/2021 Entry ID: 5062338 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, amicus curiae Institute for Faith and Family makes the following disclosures: (1) For non-government corporate parties please list all parent corporations: NONE. (2) For non-government corporate parties please list all publicly held companies that hold 10% or more of the party's stock: NONE. DATED: August 4, 2021 /s/ Deborah J.
    [Show full text]