Transgender and gender-expansive students are disproportionately at risk for a host of negative academic and health outcomes; yet, few educators receive training on gender-inclusive school practices. This descriptive study used evaluation survey data from employees (N = 1,425) across 80 schools participating in gender-inclusivity professional development sessions. Using a mixed-methods approach, we assessed educators’ beliefs about the need and relevance of the training, capacity to improve learning environments, intended implementation of strategies, and suggestions for future trainings. We examined outcomes using descriptive statistics and assessed the educators’ roles using regression analyses with- and without school fixed-effects. Our results showed educators wanted even more training on gender diversity and believed the professional development provided was useful and relevant. They reported having increased capacity to create a safe educational environment and discuss gender issues with others in their school environment. We found differences by educators’ roles in schools and across schools in how capable educators felt in engaging parents, relevance to self, and usefulness. Future trainings and research should address these differences. The findings from this study provide a description of educators’ responses to gender-diversity trainings from 80 schools, highlighting the broad relevance of and need for educator gender-diversity professional development.

Purpose: Transgender and gender-nonconforming (TGNC) youth often report higher rates of chronic social stressors such as victimization, discrimination, and rejection. Some of these gender-based stressors may have long-range physical health consequences through inflammation pathways. This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of adding biological measures of inflammation to an ongoing prospective clinical study of TGNC youth (ages 9–20 years), initiating affirming medical therapy at a large, urban children's hospital (N=56). We also examine the relationship between gender-based sources of stress and support with inflammation. This is the first study to explore how gender identity, social stressors, and social supports may contribute to poorer health in TGNC youth through inflammation and immune dysregulation pathways. Methods: Between October 2016 and August 2018, the study team collected dried blood spot (DBS) samples and health measures during clinical visits. Participants also completed computer-assisted surveys assessing gender minority stress and support during these visits. We used regression analysis to evaluate differences in C-reactive protein (CRP) controlling for demographics, health, gender-based stress, and supports. Results: The results from this study indicate that adding DBS samples to assess inflammation was feasible and acceptable in a clinical sample of TGNC youth seeking affirming-medical interventions. We found an association between greater inflammation and the composite score for greater gender-based stressors and lower gender-based supports using the Gender Minority Stress and Resilience Tool (GMSR); however, we did not find statistically significant differences in CRP associated with any of the individual GMSR subscales assessing various types of gender-based supports or stressors. Conclusion: More research is necessary to evaluate how different sources of gender-based support and stress relate to inflammation with larger sample sizes.

Since 2017, hostile anti-LGBTQ+ educational bills rapidly expanded. Using traditional and critical policy analysis across three Midwestern states, we examine (1) whether state and local policymakers ( n = 60) adopted trans-inclusive protections aligned with the 2017 federal Whitaker ruling, (2) the spread and scope of state and local educational policies concerning LGBTQ+ people, and (3) relationships between LGBTQ and critical race theory (CRT) curricular bills. We find policy erasure in states without pre- Whitaker gender-inclusive nondiscrimination laws and expanded efforts to ban LGBTQ+ students from educational opportunities, spaces, and curriculum. LGBTQ+ and CRT curricular bans overlapped. We discuss the implications of policymakers leaning into exclusion over gender reforms.

Given the well-established health disparities between lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender-expansive (LGBTQ+) and cisgender, straight youth, scholars predicted the COVID-19 pandemic would disproportionately impact LGBTQ+ students. Yet, few studies have described changes in LGBTQ+ students’ school experiences and well-being during the pandemic. Using survey data from 40,904 middle and high school students, we examined changes from before (2018) to during (2021) the pandemic in peer victimization, anxiety, and suicide attempts. We conducted bivariate and multivariate regression analyses to assess changes between the two time points among LGBTQ+ and cisgender, straight students. We found LGBTQ+ students experienced more peer victimization, anxiety, and suicide attempts at both points, before and during the pandemic, than cisgender, straight youth. However, LGBTQ+ students reported increased anxiety, decreased peer victimization, and decreased suicide attempts in 2021, during the pandemic, compared to pre-pandemic 2018 reports. These findings suggest pandemic-related school disruptions may have provided LGBTQ+ students some relief from the harmful effects of poor, in-person school climates.