Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Transgender rights activists protested near the White House against President Trump's decision

Donald Trump's government has revoked guidance to US public schools that allowed transgender students to use toilets matching their gender identity.

The guidance, issued by his predecessor Barack Obama, had been hailed by as a victory for transgender rights.

But critics said it threatened other students' privacy and safety, and should be decided at state level.

Mr Obama's directive had sparked a backlash across the country, with legal challenges from 13 states.

The latest change will have no immediate impact, because Mr Obama's directive has already been temporarily blocked by a judge in Texas since August.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration sent a letter to US schools outlining the change, saying the previous measure had caused confusion.

It had also sparked lawsuits and debate over how it should work in practice, the letter from the Justice and Education departments said.

Last May, Mr Obama's justice and education departments instructed public schools to allow transgender students to use whichever bathroom corresponded to their gender identity.

Though not legally binding, Mr Obama's order warned schools they could lose funding if they did not follow the new guidance.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Why the N Carolina bill is so controversial

The Obama administration's guidance was based on its interpretation of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Mr Obama argued that protection extended to gender identity.

Image copyright AFP Image caption Some US schools have already introduced gender neutral bathrooms or allowed students to choose

During his presidential campaign, Mr Trump said transgender students should be allowed to use whichever bathroom "they feel is appropriate".

But he reversed his stance after facing Republican criticism.

On Wednesday, conservative activists praised Mr Trump's order, saying it protected student rights to privacy.

"Our daughters should never be forced to share private, intimate spaces with male classmates, even if those young men are struggling with these issues," said Vicki Wilson, a member of Students and Parents for Privacy.

"It violates their right to privacy and harms their dignity."

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption "My heart is a girl heart" - Zoey's story

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, also praised the move.

"Our fight over the bathroom directive has always been about former President Obama's attempt to bypass Congress and rewrite the laws to fit his political agenda for radical social change," he said.

However, transgender activists have argued that gender identity is a civil rights issue that should be enforced at a federal level, not left to individual states.

Image copyright Twitter Image caption Writer Janet Mock

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called the move a major setback for trans rights.

"By rescinding these protections, the Trump administration is compromising the safety and security of some of our most vulnerable children," she said.

"Reversing this guidance tells trans kids that it's OK with the Trump administration and the Department of Education for them to be abused and harassed at school for being trans."

Some celebrities also criticised the decision on social media, with TV presenter Ellen DeGeneres tweeting: "This isn't about politics. It's about human rights."

Image copyright Twitter Image caption Singer Jackie Evancho, whose sister is transgender, had performed the national anthem at Mr Trump's inauguration

Image copyright Twitter Image caption Singer Katy Perry</s>The Trump administration Wednesday revoked federal guidelines issued by former President Barack Obama that allowed public school students to use restrooms and other facilities corresponding to their gender identity.</s>The Trump administration was working to possibly undo an Obama-era directive which allows students to use school restrooms that match their gender identity, the White House said Tuesday.</s>Over eighty people turned out in Concord Tuesday to testify on a bill that would prohibit discrimination based on gender identity.

More than once, Representative Don LaBrun had to call for decorum in a room packed with supporters and opposition alike. Members of transgender, medical and religious communities turned out to testify on a bill that would prohibit discrimination based upon “gender identity,” adding the term to the long list of factors such as age, race and disability.

Some, like Dave Juvet of the New Hampshire Business and Industry Association, consider the bill crucial to New Hampshire’s economy – and reputation.

"This was brought to us by several members of the BIA who have transgender individuals in their employment base," said Juvet, "These are very valuable citizens, they’re valuable employees, they’re valuable to the companies they work for and they’re valuable to our state."

Some opponents argued that the bill could allow sexual predators to hide behind transgender protections.

If passed, New Hampshire will join twenty states and Washington, D.C. in enacting protections for both sexual orientation and gender identity.</s>Does Science Support Bans on ‘Conversion Therapy’ for Gender-Identity Issues?

TOLEDO, Ohio — When the city of Toledo approved a ban on “conversion therapy” this month, the law explicitly prohibited treatment designed to help patients align their gender identity with their biological sex.

“[N]o mental health provider shall engage in sexual orientation or gender-identity change efforts with any person,” read the law, which states that it would be a misdemeanor of the fourth degree for a therapist to provide such treatment, with a fine of $250 imposed on the perpetrator.

Media reports on the ban presented “conversion therapy,” also known as reparative therapy, as a widely discredited practice, though the actual treatment was unspecified.

“I think the science is clear that conversion therapy is harmful to individuals,” said Councilwoman Theresa Gabriel in a statement before the ban was approved.

Bans on “conversion therapy” — a term that until recently primarily described attempts to reverse unwanted same-sex attraction — are not new. California, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and New York have barred or penalized the practice through legislative or regulatory action, as has Washington, D.C., and a handful of U.S. cities.

Opponents of reparative therapy claim the practice has harmed patients, who suffer from higher levels of depression and suicidal feelings. Its defenders say practitioners adhere to professional protocols and many people have benefited.

Now, homosexual-rights activists are adopting similar claims of the therapy’s harm as they seek to ban therapies designed to help patients realign their gender identity with their biological sex. Their arguments have received relatively little public scrutiny, though the medical debate over treating gender-identity disorder, also known as “gender dysphoria” — an intense experience of conflict between one’s biological sex and the gender with which one identifies — in the young is far from resolved.

“Currently there is a vigorous, albeit suppressed, debate among physicians, therapists and academics regarding what is fast becoming the new treatment standard for [gender dysphoria] in children,” read a statement on gender-identity disorder issued by American College of Pediatricians in August 2016.

“This new paradigm is rooted in the assumption that GD is innate,” the statement continued, noting protocols for medical intervention that suppresses puberty and then introduces cross-sex hormones that match the preferred gender identity.

Specialists on one side of this debate also support what clinicians call the “affirmative” treatment model, which encourages boys identifying as girls and girls identifying as boys to adopt the pronouns, clothing and school bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity. This model is designed to support, rather than discourage, the patient’s identification with the opposite sex.

In contrast, other clinicians note that most young people will outgrow this condition, and so they recommend either a neutral response to the patient’s identification with the opposite sex or a more explicitly corrective approach designed to help the patient embrace the gender expression that aligns with their biological sex.

Dr. Paul Hruz, a pediatric endocrinologist at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, challenges the claim that science supports a ban on corrective or neutral responses to this condition. Likewise, he questioned whether research endorses an “affirmative model,” which has led to guidelines that direct students to use the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity.

“The vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will realign their gender identity to match their sex,” Hruz told the Register.

“The transgender identity will persist in a small percentage, 5%-20%, and usually the dividing line is adolescence,” he added.

He noted that those who identify as their opposite sex after their teenage years are less likely to change. He also emphasized that specialists still cannot predict “who will continue in that transgender identity and who will not.”

Given these established facts about the small percentage of young people diagnosed with gender-identity disorder — about 0.05% of the population — Hruz worried that the “affirming model” could lead more young people to retain their identification with the opposite sex into adulthood and may play a role in the reported increase in adolescents receiving puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone therapy, often in preparation for surgery that alters their bodies to correspond more with their sexual identity.

Hruz is equally concerned about the long-term impact of puberty suppressants, which are introduced around age 12, and cross-sex hormones, introduced after age 14.

The Endocrine Society supports these medical interventions for children diagnosed with gender dysphoria. But the guidelines published by the professional society acknowledge that they are based on low-quality scientific evidence, and in many areas solely on expert opinion and not scientific studies, Hruz said.

“Puberty suppression — the first stage during which endocrinologists are asked to intervene — is presented as ‘safe and reversible,’” he said. “But there is no scientific evidence to support the view that this is safe.”

“You are disrupting the normal process of physical and psychological development that takes place during this period, and that could have serious long-term consequences,” Hruz stated.

The American College of Pediatricians’ statement raised similar concerns. Treatment protocols that combine puberty suppressants and cross-sex hormones result “in the sterility of minors,” the professional group stated, while disputing the scientific basis for arguments that present gender-identity disorder as “innate,” and thus fixed.

At one time, more medical specialists expressed similar reservations about the value of an affirmative model linked to medical intervention because the condition was understood to be fluid for most patients, who ultimately aligned their gender with their sex. But over the past decade, influential clinicians, like Dr. Norman Spack, the groundbreaking leader of the gender-management program at Boston Children’s Hospital, have established new guidelines for treatment.

In a 2015 interview posted on the website of Boston Children’s Hospital, Spack acknowledged that his methods remained controversial, given the fact that gender-identity disorder is resolved over time in most patients.

“There are still those who feel that because 60% to 80% of kids who act in a cross-gender way aren’t in fact transgender, we shouldn’t be encouraging this. This is one of the big debates,” said Spack.

“And why do you believe we should be encouraging transgender people to seek treatment?” he was asked.

“Forty-five percent of transgender 16- to 25-year-olds who don’t have any support attempt suicide,” he said.

He added that suicidal thoughts can persist in some children who begin treatment, but that changes when medical interventions begin.

“The minute these kids even know they’re going to get the puberty suppressants, their suicidal thoughts melt away,” he said.

Further, Spack questioned guidelines that restrict procedures, like the surgical removal of female breasts, to late adolescence.

“All you have to do is see a girl in a binder with clips all the way from her armpits to her hips,” he said. “Why should I make her wait until she’s 18 when I can relieve her suffering at 14?”

However, while Spack defended surgical intervention as a valuable treatment option for patients who contemplate suicide, some studies report a higher than average rate of suicide attempts in this demographic even after surgery has taken place.

“The scientific evidence summarized suggests we take a skeptical view toward the claim that sex-reassignment procedures provide the hoped-for benefits or resolve the underlying issues that contribute to elevated mental-health risks among the transgender population,” stated “Sexuality and Gender,” a summary of almost 200 peer-reviewed studies on gender identity and related topics.

Released in August 2016, the report was written by Dr. Lawrence Mayer, scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, and Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine who served for 25 years as psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The authors expressed grave concern about the high rate of suicide associated with individuals who identified as “transgender,” but they also said the science did not support recourse to medical intervention and surgery, and more research was needed.

In the years before bans on reparative therapy emerged as a mainstream political issue, gender-management programs like the one established at Boston Children’s Hospital drew little scrutiny outside of the medical profession and the small number of parents struggling to help children who were profoundly uncomfortable with their bodies.

Now, such clinicians may find themselves under attack if they seek to cure, rather than affirm, gender-identity disorder.

The story of Kenneth Zucker, a leading Canadian researcher and clinician who adopted a nuanced two-step approach for treating children with gender dysphoria, is instructive.

For decades, Zucker operated without much public controversy as he encouraged his patients to realign their gender with their biological sex and only approved medical interventions when the initial therapy proved unsuccessful.

“Just because kids are saying something doesn’t necessarily mean you accept it, or that it’s true, or that it could be in the best interests of the child,” said Zucker, explaining his approach in a BBC documentary, Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?

Then, a few years ago, Zucker began to face mounting criticism from homosexual-rights activists. And in late 2015, he was fired from his post.

“For more than 30 years Dr. Kenneth Zucker ran Canada’s biggest child gender clinic and was considered a recognized authority on childhood gender dysphoria, until he lost his job,” read a statement released by the BBC, defending the film. “He believes he was fired for challenging the gender affirmative approach.”

Hershel Russell, a critic of Zucker’s methods, argues in the documentary that people struggling with their sexual identity don’t need psychiatric evaluations. “It’s not about mental health, so why does it belong in a mental-health institution?” he asked.

Activists launched a petition campaign to prevent the airing of the BBC documentary. That effort failed, but it marked their strong desire to control the debate over treatment options and force skeptics in the medical community to fall in line.

The perplexing refusal to tolerate therapies designed to foster an alignment between gender identity and sex has already made it tough for psychologists, doctors and families who want to help patients resolve problems that are associated with serious mental-health problems.

“If a family is dealing with this issue, they should seek guidance from a trustworthy source,” said John Di Camillo, a staff ethicist at the Philadelphia-based National Catholic Bioethics Center.

Di Camilllo said that it was important to establish whether a child actually suffered from gender-identity disorder, as opposed to a bodily condition arising from underdeveloped genitalia where the biological sex is ambiguous.

Common symptoms of gender dysphoria include a marked incongruity between gender expression and biological sex that lasts six months or longer, and such conditions are accompanied by “some kind of experience of detrimental or harmful social impacts,” he said.

The child or adolescent “can’t function because of the anxiety that comes from functioning in the wrong body.”

In such cases, professional help is recommended. Therapy in accord with Catholic anthropology will help these persons “learn to understand and accept their actual bodily sex and see their body as good,” Di Camillo noted, and it will likely foster a process of gender clarification that allows the patients to accept their bodies and be at peace.

But Di Camillo warned that most specialists will adopt a treatment model that affirms the patient's gender identity and is not designed to realign their gender with their biological sex.

“We have lost sight of the deeper underlying sense of who the human person is, and that is causing us to focus on short-term happiness or satisfaction, as opposed to an authentic fulfillment and a genuine florishing of that human person,” he said, and suggested that concerned parents obtain a referral for a trustworthy therapist from their Catholic school or church.

As he turned from issues in clinical practice to the public-policy debate, Di Camillo predicted that the campaign to extend antidiscrimination protections to gender identity will increasingly shape the response of the medical community and insurance carriers.

Already, Catholic hospitals have faced mounting pressure to accommodate the new protocols designed to help teenagers transition to their preferred sexual identity.

Meanwhile, the furious reaction of activists to the nuanced methods of experts like Kenneth Zucker highlights the political stakes for the homosexual-rights movement, which increasingly opposes any suggestion that gender may not be a fixed condition. That resistance deserves more scrutiny from policymakers than it has received, say critics who argue that gender ideology, not science, is behind this trend.

“For decades, gay activists have claimed that people who have same-sex attraction are born that way,” said Katherine Kersten, a policy fellow at the Minneapolis-based Center of the American Experiment, who published an article on gender ideology in the February issue of First Things.

“The claim of an inborn trait is their link [to similar claims of discrimination based on] race and sex. It allows activists to bring their claims under the civil-rights rubric.”

“They are hostile to anything that suggests that might not be the case,” said Kerstin, noting the angry pushback against patients who resolved their condition with therapy.

Indeed, as the debate over the therapeutic response to gender-identity disorder becomes more toxic, specialists like Hruz fear that much-needed research to evaluate the outcomes of various treatment models, including alternative approaches that help the patients accept their bodies, will never be approved.

“The controlled studies that are needed, but likely will never be done,” said Hruz, “can include efforts to support and affirm the inherent dignity of people with gender dysphoria while acknowledging biological reality.”</s>There was mixed reaction nationwide to a Wednesday order by the new administration, ending an Obama-era policy that allowed transgender students to use the bathroom that corresponded to their gender identity.</s>Feb. 22, the Department of Justice and the Department of Education issued a notice withdrawing the statements of policy and guidance issued last year by the Obama administration that affected public schools.

 

 In May 2016, the Obama administration sent a letter to all public schools in America notifying teachers and administrators of a new regulation for treating “gender identity.” The letter stated that, to comply with federal law, policies concerning students would be based on their “gender identity” and not on their biological sex.

 

 The Trump administration disagreed that “sex” and “gender identity” should be interpreted as synonymous and believed that the issue should be handled by states and local school districts.

 

 Although the regulation has been rescinded, it’s important to understand how radically the directive would have changed public education in America. Here are some points you should know about the issue:



By what authority did the Obama administration issue the directive?

Although Congress is responsible for creating laws, they have ceded much of their authority to define what laws mean to the other two branches of government.

 

 We often think the judiciary is the branch of government responsible for interpreting the law, but in reality the executive branch, whose departments act as regulatory agencies, generally determines how a statutes will be interpreted. Regulatory agencies handle administrative law, primarily by codifying and enforcing rules and regulations. When Congress passes a new law it usually goes to a regulatory agency to determine how the law will be put in place.

 

 This specific letter was a “significant guidance” document, a policy instrument that provides “initial interpretations of statutory and regulatory requirements and changes in interpretation or policy.” These type of directives are often used to “Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles …”



Why was the policy changed implemented by both the Education Department and the Justice Department?

The policy change had to be accepted by both departments since the letter issued by the Obama administration provided guidance on how both the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) would “evaluate a school’s compliance” with interpretation of laws regarding transgender students.



What law was changed or interpreted by the Obama administration letter?

The letter provided guidance on the Obama administration’s interpretation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, a law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs receiving Federal financial assistance. The administration had reinterpreted Title IX to make “gender identity” synonymous with “sex.”

 

 The key sentence in the letter stated, “The Departments [ED and DOJ] treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations.” In other words, if a biologically male or biologically female student “identified” as the opposite sex, then for almost all purposes public schools and colleges were required to treat them as such.



What were the penalties for refusing to follow this directive?

Because of pending lawsuits, the Obama administration was unable to fully implement the change. But school districts who did not comply would have been considered to be in violation of Title IX, and could have lost Federal funds for their school(s).



What exactly does “transgender” mean?

The letter states that, “Transgender describes those individuals whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth.”

 

 More broadly, transgenderism is an umbrella term for the state or condition of identifying or expressing a gender identity that does not match a person’s physical/genetic sex. A person can be transgender and “identify” as male, female, “third sex,” “genderfluid” (flexible about their gender identity and fluctuating between genders), “genderqueer” (not exclusively masculine or feminine‍), or dozens of variations.

 

 Transgender is independent of sexual orientation, and those who self-identify as transgender may consider themselves to be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual or asexual.



As the letter defined the term, “Gender identity refers to an individual’s internal sense of gender. A person’s gender identity may be different from or the same as the person’s sex assigned at birth.”

 

 The LGBTQ community and their allies consider gender to be a trait that exists along a continuum and is not inherently rooted in biology or physical expressions.



How would a student prove they are transgender?

They didn’t have to prove anything; all that was required was for the student or student’s parent to notify the school of the child’s chosen gender identity. As the letter states, “Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity.”

 

 But couldn’t a “genderqueer” or “genderfluid” student claim to be both male and female at the same time?

 

 Yes. If a child claimed to be both male and female they would have been allowed to use either male or female facilities or switch back and for the whenever they choose.



What if students or parents objected to sharing a locker room with someone of the opposite biological sex?

The letter makes it clear such concerns did not matter, and that schools would be required to provide “equal access to educational programs and activities even in circumstances in which other students, parents or community members raise objections or concerns.” Under the Obama administration, choosing one’s gender identity was considered a protected civil right. As the letter noted, that means, “As is consistently recognized in civil rights cases, the desire to accommodate others’ discomfort cannot justify a policy that singles out and disadvantages a particular class of students.”



Would schools have been required to call male students “she” and female students “he”?

Yes. School staff and contractors would have been required to use pronouns and names consistent with a transgender student’s chosen gender identity.



How did the Obama administration directive affect restrooms and locker rooms?

Schools would have been forced to allow students to use the facilities that align with their gender identity. They would not be able to require children to use facilities based on their biological sex or use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so.



How did the Obama administration directive affect athletics?

The regulation was surprisingly vague on this point. In general, if a biologically male transgender student wanted to play the girl’s team they must be allowed to do so. However, the letter also claims, “Title IX does not prohibit age-appropriate, tailored requirements based on sound, current and research-based medical knowledge about the impact of the students’ participation on the competitive fairness or physical safety of the sport.”



How would the Obama administration directive have affected single-sex classes?

When offering single-sex classes and activities, a school would have been required to allow transgender students to participate consistent with their gender identity.



How would the Obama administration directive affect single-sex schools?

Title IX does not apply to the admissions policies of certain educational institutions, including non-vocational elementary and secondary schools, and private undergraduate colleges. Those schools are therefore permitted under Title IX to set their own sex-based admissions policies.



How would the Obama administration directive affect fraternities and sororities?

Title IX does not apply to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities. Those organizations are therefore permitted under Title IX to set their own policies regarding the sex, including gender identity, of their members.



How would the Obama administration directive have affected housing and overnight accommodations?

Schools must allow students to stay in accommodations that align with their gender identity. For example, if on an overnight field trip, a biologically male transgender student could sleep in the same room with female students.



What if a biological male wanted to wear a dress to prom?

According to the letter, a school “may not discipline students or exclude them from participating in activities for appearing or behaving in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity or that does not conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity (e.g., in yearbook photographs, at school dances or at graduation ceremonies).”



Does the change allow schools to discriminate against transgender students?

No. According to the new directive, the withdrawal of the Obama administration letter “does not leave students without protections from discrimination, bullying, or harassment. All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment. The Department of Education Office for Civil Rights will continue its duty under law to hear all claims of discrimination and will explore every appropriate opportunity to protect all students and to encourage civility in our classrooms. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice are committed to the application of Title IX and other federal laws to ensure such protection.”

 

 (EDITOR’S NOTE – Joe Carter serves as a communications specialist for the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. This article first appeared at erlc.com. Used by permission.)</s>Trump Rolls Back Federal Legal Protection For Gender Confused To Violate Privacy Of Little Girls

There had been rumblings that this was going to occur, and it has sent many in the media into a higher level of apoplexy

The Trump administration on Wednesday revoked federal guidelines specifying that transgender students have the right to use public school restrooms that match their gender identity, taking a stand on a contentious issue that has become the central battle over LGBT rights. Officials with the federal Education and Justice departments notified the U.S. Supreme Court late Wednesday that the administration is ordering the nation’s schools to disregard memos the Obama administration issued during the past two years regarding transgender student rights. Those memos said that prohibiting transgender students from using facilities that align with their gender identity violates federal anti-discrimination laws. The two-page “Dear colleague” letter from the Trump administration, which is set to go to the nation’s public schools, does not offer any new guidance, instead saying that the earlier directive needed to be withdrawn because it lacked extensive legal analysis, did not go through a public vetting process, sowed confusion and drew legal challenges. The departments wrote that the Trump administration wants to “further and more completely consider the legal issues involved,” and said that there must be “due regard for the primary role of the States and local school districts in establishing educational policy.” Although it offered no clarity or direction to schools that have transgender students, the letter added that “schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment.”

In other words, the issue has been returned to the states and cities, which can determine how they themselves will consider the idea of allowing biological males who are confused about their actual sex into bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms with biological girls, violating the latter’s privacy, at the least. It will be up to the states and municipalities as to whether they will let the gender confused, many of whom are gender confused because their parents are wackos and should have gotten visits from Child Protection Services, compete in sports and other areas that were for the opposite biological sex.

Of course, Liberals are having conniption fits. But, wait, I thought they were super enthused by the notion of states’ rights in the Era Of Trump? No?

The federal government has no place in forcing people to accept the opposite biological sex in their bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms, especially at schools full of underage kids.

That said, the order does not change one thing

The Obama era guidance was already blocked, at least for the time being, as 13 states sued Obama and a judge slapped a hold on the order.

Of course, that’s a male perspective, one which most of us would have shared when we were in school. And, from most examples, and lawsuits, women girls in school are not particularly please with having to share their real safe spaces with biological males.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.</s>In today’s episode Chanel, a Frederick Douglass High School student, produced and narrated a radio diary about her identity as a gender non-conformist. Chanel, who also goes by Cory, is committed to dispelling stereotypes about gender identity and expression.

Audio for this story will be posted by 3 PM.

"More Than Words" is supported by a generous grant from the Philip and Beryl Sachs Family Foundation.</s>The Trump administration Wednesday revoked federal guidelines issued by former President Barack Obama that allowed public school students to use restrooms and other facilities corresponding to their gender identity.

A document submitted to the Supreme Court by the Solicitor General's office said that the Obama-era directive issued this past May did not "undergo any formal public process" or explain how the directive was "consistent with the express language of Title IX," the federal law outlawing sex discrimination in education and activities.

"This is an issue best solved at the state and local level," Education Secretary Betsy DeVos said. "Schools, communities, and families can find -- and in many cases have found -- solutions that protect all students."

"Congress, state legislatures, and local governments are in a position to adopt appropriate policies or laws addressing this issue," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. "The Department of Justice remains committed to the proper interpretation and enforcement of Title IX and to its protections for all students, including LGBTQ students, from discrimination, bullying, and harassment.”



In a letter to the nation's schools, the Justice and Education departments said the earlier guidance "has given rise to significant litigation regarding school restrooms and locker rooms."



The agencies withdrew the guidance to "in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved."

Anti-bullying safeguards would not be affected by the change, according to the letter. "All schools must ensure that all students, including LGBT students, are able to learn and thrive in a safe environment," it said.



It was not clear what immediate impact the change would have on schools, as a federal judge in Texas put a temporary hold on the Obama guidance soon after it was issued -- after 13 states sued.

Even without that hold, the guidance carried no force of law. But transgender rights advocates say it was useful and necessary to protect students from discrimination. Opponents argued it was federal overreach and violated the safety and privacy of other students.



White House spokesman Sean Spicer said President Donald Trump "has made it clear throughout the campaign that he is a firm believer in states' rights and that certain issues like this are not best dealt with at the federal level."



Conservative activists hailed the change, saying the Obama directives were illegal and violated the rights of fixed-gender students, especially girls who did not feel safe changing clothes or using restrooms next to anatomical males.



"Our daughters should never be forced to share private, intimate spaces with male classmates, even if those young men are struggling with these issues," said Vicki Wilson, a member of Students and Parents for Privacy. "It violates their right to privacy and harms their dignity."



However, the reversal is a setback for transgender rights groups, which had been urging Trump to keep the guidelines in place. Advocates say federal law will still prohibit discrimination against students based on their gender or sexual orientation.



Still, they say lifting the Obama directive puts children in harm's way.



"Reversing this guidance tells trans kids that it's OK with the Trump administration and the Department of Education for them to be abused and harassed at school for being trans," said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.



Activists protested the move Wednesday outside the White House. "Respect existence or expect resistance," read one placard.



Spicer denied media reports that DeVos, who has been criticized for her stance on LGBT issues, had opposed the change but was overruled by Sessions. Spicer said any disagreement was merely over wording and timing.



"There is no daylight between anybody," Spicer said, adding that DeVos was "100 percent" on board with the decision.



The Obama administration's guidance was based on its determination that Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education, also applies to gender identity.



While not legally binding, the guidance sent a warning that schools could lose funding if they did not comply.



Republicans pushed back, arguing that the federal effort was an example of Obama administration meddling in state and local matters. Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick equated it to blackmail and said his state was ready to forfeit federal education money rather than comply.



Legal experts said the change in position could impact pending court cases involving the federal sex discrimination law, including a case to be heard by the Supreme Court in March involving Gavin Grimm, a transgender teen who was denied bathroom access in Virginia.



The justices could decide not to hear the case and direct lower courts to decide that issue.



In a phone interview with the Associated Press, Grimm said of the Trump action: "It's not positive. It has the possibility of hurting transgender students and transgender people. We're going to keep fighting like we have been and keep fighting for the right thing."



A patchwork of state laws could continue to emerge as a result of the change. Fifteen states have explicit protections for transgender students in their state laws, and many individual school districts in other states have adopted policies that cover such students on the basis of their gender identity, said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign. Just one state, North Carolina, has enacted a law restricting access to bathrooms in government-owned buildings to the sex that appears on a person's birth certificate. Lawmakers in more than 10 states are considering similar legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.



Fox News' Shannon Bream and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
The Trump administration revokes Obama-era orders on protection of gender identity under Title IX.