Latest news with #L.M.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Not everyone wants kids. 5 women open up about the decision to be child-free.
As a labor and delivery nurse, Bari M. is used to answering questions about having babies. As a happily child-free woman, she's also used to answering questions about not having them — and is readily equipped to answer them. 'I have so many reasons that I find it's always a different one that flies out of my mouth,' the 36-year-old tells Yahoo Life. "If it's someone I'm very close with, I'll give them a deep, multi-level answer. If it's someone like a patient, I usually give a brief, kind of silly answer like, 'Well, I just went to Paris for three nights for my birthday, and I'm going to South Africa next month. I have no interest in giving that up.'' There are myriad reasons why a person might not have children (all of which are, quite frankly, no one's business). In a recent Yahoo News/YouGov poll of 1,597 U.S. adults conducted last month, 43% of respondents said they don't have children. Of that number, 19% cited concerns for the future of the planet, and 32% attributed the decision to cost. And then there are those who, like Bari, are choosing to be child-free ... well, because they just don't want to. More than a quarter (26%) of the poll respondents who didn't have kids said it's because they 'prefer life as it is,' and 25% answered, 'I'd rather just not' have children. 'Even when I was little, when we would play school or house or whatever, I was always the 'professional,'' L.M., a Brooklyn-based hair stylist, tells Yahoo Life. 'Being pregnant was very weird to me. My friend would put a pillow up her shirt, and it really freaked me out.' She says there was a fleeting period — a 'blip,' she calls it — where she thought she might want to have kids but ultimately found that it was not something she needed to find fulfillment. 'I sat down with myself on a serious level and thought, Would raising a functional member of society fulfill me? and [realized] that no, it's not something that brings me joy,' L.M. says. She recalls 'having that clear thought of like, This is not something that drives me when there are all these other things in life that do.' For Bari, the decision to be child-free came later. 'I actually used to really want kids in my late teens and early 20s,' she shares. Seeing the people closest to her become parents is what ultimately sealed the deal. 'I watched the day-to-day of their lives and their anxieties grow,' she says. 'A co-worker told me that on her first Mother's Day, she sat in her car alone and drank coffee for an hour, and it was all she could have wanted. I knew that wasn't for me.' The choice not to have kids is a personal one, but that doesn't stop some people in these women's lives from forming (and sharing) their unsolicited opinions. 'I got a lot of pushback, especially during the two years after my wedding,' Bari says. 'A (no longer) friend said to me, 'But you have to give your mom a grandbaby. You can't disappoint her.' I find that generally the people with the strongest opinions are the ones that know me the least.' That judgment is not only reserved for those who have made a definitive decision ruling out kids but also for those whose perspectives on parenthood have evolved over the years. That was the case for 37-year-old Gryte V. 'I froze my eggs a few years ago to have the insurance in case I changed my mind,' Gryte tells Yahoo Life. 'I definitely had a friend question me. Like, 'If you froze your eggs, it means you do want kids.' It's weird to have people tell you what they think you want.' Andrea C. was similarly questioned, in her case by her mother, after sharing that she no longer wanted to have kids. She had experienced two miscarriages in her first marriage, and her mom assumed that she would continue trying. 'She was stunned,' Andrea says. 'In her mind, she was like, 'But you tried to get pregnant before!' I think at the time I was just trying to fit in with society, and I didn't realize that not everyone fits in with those stereotypes.' The women we spoke to have some theories about why there's still so much pushback about opting out of the mommy track. 'I think for so many years we've been taught this very narrow life path you're supposed to follow,' Gryte says. 'Getting married, buying a house, having a child ... it's one type of way of living, and it's really hard for people to challenge themselves and think about why they actually want kids. I think people can't have the imagination of not having kids and still having a fulfilling life.' Bari echoes that sentiment. 'I think so many people just consider [parenthood] 'the next step' and don't even wonder what their lives could be like by staying child-free,' she says. 'I think people want other people to have similar experiences to them,' L. adds. 'To be able to relate. I think a lot of people can't step out of themselves and see someone else's perspective.' And while unsolicited opinions can feel intrusive, Melissa M. says talking through the inner conflict of whether or not to have kids actually helped her find clarity. When she was in her early 30s, a good friend who was wrestling with those same doubts connected her to a therapist specializing in fertility mental health issues. Was this a fear-based decision, or do I really not want to do it? Melissa, now 44, remembers her and her friend wondering at the time. 'I went to see [the therapist], and she was incredible. I ultimately realized that for me, it wasn't fear, it wasn't anger. It was just that I really didn't want to [be a mom], in the same way that I don't want a cat, or I don't want to go camping. It was a huge aha moment for me, coming to that conclusion.' Melissa jokes that she now has 'a home that looks HGTV-ready at all times' and that 'no one has peed on me recently.' Indeed, a feeling of freedom is a sentiment expressed across the board for these child-free women. Silence. Using the bathroom alone. The freedom to travel, to sleep! Not to mention, the space, time, energy and commitment that being child-free allows them to offer the other children in their lives. 'I have beautiful nieces and nephews,' Melissa says. 'We adore them. We get to be the bougie auntie and uncle and do all the ridiculous things, we get to be ... the cool friends for our friend's kids. You get to fill all those roles, do all those things. It's just a different life.' 'I love kids,' L. agrees. 'I will snuggle the s*** out of a baby, but I want to be able to give them back.' She's also uneasy about the current state of the world. 'If I had children, the anxiety I would feel about what we're leaving is terrifying, and I have that thought for my friends' kids, for my nephews. But I don't have it for myself.'
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from a minor whose Massachusetts middle school refused to let him wear a shirt that said "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS," reinvigorating the debate about how much latitude public schools have to restrict students' speech in the classroom. The plaintiff—a 12-year-old 7th grader at the time of the incident, identified as L.M. in the lawsuit—was booted from class in 2023 and sent home from Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, after he refused to change clothes. When he came back wearing a shirt that said "THERE ARE CENSORED GENDERS"—the same shirt but with "CENSORED" written across a piece of tape—he was sent to meet with the principal, who said he could keep the shirt in his backpack or in the assistant principal's office. He obliged and returned to class. When L.M. first sued, alleging a First Amendment violation, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the school likely acted within its rights and thus denied his request for a preliminary injunction. "School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement 'THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS' may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent," she wrote, "and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities." At the core of the case, and those like it, is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the 1969 Supreme Court precedent in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption," a test that courts have struggled with for decades. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard L.M.'s case next, this tension was at the center of the opinion. The shirt here was analogous to the Tinker armbands in that its message was expressed "passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students," the judges wrote. But it diverged, the court said, in that it "assertedly demean[ed] characteristics of personal identity, such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation." (Jason Carroll, the assistant principal, said there was concern that L.M.'s shirt "would be disruptive and would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.") The court responded with a two-prong test it said was in line with Tinker. A school may censor passive expression if it "is reasonably interpreted to demean one of those characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted" and "the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to poison the educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact on students." It's ironic that the court would rely on the notion of a "common understanding" to buttress its decision when considering that a hefty majority—65 percent as of 2023—of American adults believe there are only two gender identities. It is not a particularly contentious point, despite it often being portrayed that way. That such a basic statement could be seen as too offensive—regardless of whether someone identifies as gender-nonconforming—is not an encouraging stance for any institution to take, much less one devoted to education. That is especially relevant here, however, as Nichols Middle School allowed students to challenge the idea that there are only two genders. You don't need to agree with the student's shirt to support his right to contribute to that conversation. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, after all—something school administrators should understand, given that their position is, in reality, the unpopular one in society today. It's for that reason that, in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the school had violated the First Amendment's shield against viewpoint discrimination. "If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues," he wrote. "If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination." The post Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case appeared first on
The Independent
6 days ago
- General
- The Independent
US Supreme Court refuses student's case over ‘There are only two genders' T-shirt
The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case regarding a Massachusetts public school's decision to prevent a student from wearing a T-shirt that read "There are only two genders." The student, referred to as L.M. in court documents, was 12 years old when the incident occurred in 2023. He argued that the school's ban violated his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. He sought monetary damages from officials at John T. Nichols Middle School and the town of Middleborough. However, both a trial judge and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston ruled against him, upholding the school's decision as a reasonable restriction. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves the lower court's ruling in place. The 1st Circuit decision stated that "it was reasonable for Middleborough to forecast that a message displayed throughout the school day denying the existence of the gender identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students would have a serious negative impact on those students' ability to concentrate on their classroom work." The legal dispute implicates a 1969 Supreme Court precedent in a case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that lets public schools restrict student speech when it would "substantially disrupt" a school community. The issue of transgender rights is front and center in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance on transgender rights, targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government would recognise two sexes: male and female. The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military, allowing the armed forces to discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. L.M., who was a seventh grade student at the time, wore the T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" to school in March 2023. His lawyers said in court papers he did so in order to "share his view that gender and sex are identical, and there are only two sexes - male and female." "L.M. hoped to start a meaningful conversation on gender ideology, a matter of public concern; protect other students against ideas that L.M. considers false and harmful; and show them compassionate people can believe that sex is binary," his lawyers wrote in a Supreme Court filing. A teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT+ students were present at school that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes. The principal asked the boy if he would be willing to change his shirt and return to class, but he declined. The principal then called the boy's father, Chris Morrison, who opted to pick up his son from school rather than have him remove his shirt. Morrison, after complaining to school officials about the incident, was referred to the dress code in the school's student handbook. It states: "Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target(s) groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation or any other classification." In May 2023, L.M. again wore the T-shirt to school, but covered the words "only two" with a piece of tape that read "censored," thus bearing the message: "There are (censored) genders." L.M. removed that shirt after being asked by school officials. During the proceedings, the school system's superintendent said that some students at John T. Nichols Middle School "have attempted suicide or have had suicidal ideations in the past few years, including members of the LGBTQ+ community," and that some of those students' struggles were "related to their treatment based on their gender identities by other students." The boy, who brought the lawsuit along with his father and stepmother, are represented in the lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has represented clients in various high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought a court order prohibiting school officials from barring his wearing of the T-shirt and declaring the disputed portions of the dress code unconstitutional. They also sought unspecified monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of the school officials. Her decision was upheld last year by the 1st Circuit, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule by the end of June in a major transgender rights case. During arguments in the case in December, the conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal over Middleborough student's ‘two genders' shirt
The student, identified in court papers only as L.M., said Middleborough Public Schools was taking sides on a hotly debated issue while barring students from voicing different views. He and his parents said the school district posts signs backing LGBTQ rights and encourages students to don rainbow colors to celebrate Pride Month. Liam Morrison. Alliance Defending Freedom Advertisement The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals 'takes the remarkable position that a school may flood its halls with its views on a matter of public concern — here, gender identity — and encourage students to join in, then bar students from responding with different views,' the family argued. The school district urged the court not to hear the case, saying the principal, Heather Tucker, reasonably took into account the mental health struggles of transgender and gender-nonconforming youths and her experience working with students who were bullied because of their gender identity. Advertisement Under past Supreme Court decisions, 'a public school must be able to restrict some student speech to protect its students and ensure a learning environment in which all students can flourish,' Middleborough argued. The dispute took place in 2023, when L.M. was a seventh grader at Nichols Middle School. After he arrived at school wearing the shirt, Tucker pulled him from class and told him he couldn't return unless he took it off. When L.M. declined, the principal called his father, who took L.M. home. L.M. later tried to wear the same shirt with a piece of tape over the words 'only two' and 'censored' written on top. L.M. removed that shirt after he was confronted by school officials. He wasn't disciplined for either incident. The case is L.M. v. Middleborough, 24-410.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court rejects case about student's 'There are only two genders' T-shirt
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a student's challenge on free speech grounds to a Massachusetts public school's decision to bar him from wearing a T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" due to concern about the message's effect on transgender and other pupils. The justices turned away an appeal by the student, who was 12 at the time of the 2023 incident, of a lower court's ruling upholding the ban as a reasonable restriction and rejecting his claim that the school's action violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgment of speech. The student, identified in court papers as "L.M." because he is a minor, sued officials at John T. Nichols Middle School and the town of Middleborough, seeking monetary damages. A trial judge and then the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him. The 1st Circuit decision stated that "it was reasonable for Middleborough to forecast that a message displayed throughout the school day denying the existence of the gender identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students would have a serious negative impact on those students' ability to concentrate on their classroom work." The legal dispute implicates a 1969 Supreme Court precedent in a case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that lets public schools restrict student speech when it would "substantially disrupt" a school community. The issue of transgender rights is front and center in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance on transgender rights, targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government would recognize two sexes: male and female. The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military, allowing the armed forces to discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. L.M., who was a seventh grade student at the time, wore the T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" to school in March 2023. His lawyers said in court papers he did so in order to "share his view that gender and sex are identical, and there are only two sexes - male and female." "L.M. hoped to start a meaningful conversation on gender ideology, a matter of public concern; protect other students against ideas that L.M. considers false and harmful; and show them compassionate people can believe that sex is binary," his lawyers wrote in a Supreme Court filing. A teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT students were present at school that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes. The principal asked the boy if he would be willing to change his shirt and return to class, but he declined. The principal then called the boy's father, Chris Morrison, who opted to pick up his son from school rather than have him remove his shirt. Morrison, after complaining to school officials about the incident, was referred to the dress code in the school's student handbook. It states: "Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target(s) groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation or any other classification." In May 2023, L.M. again wore the T-shirt to school, but covered the words "only two" with a piece of tape that read "censored," thus bearing the message: "There are (censored) genders." L.M. removed that shirt after being asked by school officials. During the proceedings, the school system's superintendent said that some students at John T. Nichols Middle School "have attempted to commit suicide or have had suicidal ideations in the past few years, including members of the LGBTQ+ community," and that some of those students' struggles were "related to their treatment based on their gender identities by other students." The boy, who brought the lawsuit along with his father and stepmother, are represented in the lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has represented clients in various high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought a court order prohibiting school officials from barring his wearing of the T-shirt and declaring the disputed portions of the dress code unconstitutional. They also sought unspecified monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of the school officials. Her decision was upheld last year by the 1st Circuit, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule by the end of June in a major transgender rights case. During arguments in the case in December, the conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.
