Texas Schools Instruct Teachers to Deadname Trans Students Amid Confusion Over New Law

In June 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law, introducing sweeping changes to public education policy in the state. Among several controversial provisions, SB 12 includes what is commonly referred to as a “social transition ban, ” which instructs school districts to adopt policies prohibiting employees from assisting students with “social transitioning”—defined broadly as any support for students seeking to use names or pronouns different from those on their official records .

Since the law’s enactment, school districts across Texas have struggled to interpret its requirements. Some districts, including Plano ISD and North East ISD in San Antonio, have issued guidance to teachers stating they must use the name and pronouns listed on a student’s birth certificate, even when parents have requested otherwise . This practice, known as “deadnaming, ” refers to using a transgender person’s former name—often associated with their assigned sex at birth—contrary to their affirmed gender identity .

Civil rights advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, argue that these district-level interpretations go beyond the text of SB 12. According to legal analysis by the ACLU, the law itself does not explicitly require deadnaming or misgendering students, and such actions may be inconsistent with federal protections under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause of the U. S. Constitution .

The ACLU and other advocacy organizations have filed lawsuits challenging SB 12 on multiple grounds, including the vagueness of its language and its chilling effect on school environments. Attorney Brian Klosterboer of the ACLU of Texas emphasized that “unfortunately, we've seen some school districts even going beyond the text itself, saying things like trans students cannot be called by their affirming names and pronouns even with parental permission. That is nowhere to be seen in the law itself” .

Legal experts warn that refusing to use the affirming names and pronouns of transgender students may constitute gender-based harassment, violating federal law and established school district policies . The ACLU further notes that “under Section 25. 0021 of the Texas Education Code, students must only be identified ‘by the student’s legal surname’ in official records. This means that school districts are free to use students‘ affirming first names and pronouns in class and at all school events, in yearbooks and clubs, and in all non-official documents or records” .

Additionally, the Texas Educators Code of Ethics instructs educators not to “reveal confidential information concerning students, ” which includes outing transgender students by refusing to use their chosen name and pronouns . Advocacy groups highlight that deadnaming can “severely exacerbate” gender dysphoria, increasing risks to students’ mental health and safety .

Multiple reports indicate that transgender students in some Texas school districts have already been subjected to deadnaming as a direct result of district-issued guidance in the wake of SB 12 . In these cases, teachers are instructed to disregard both the student’s and their parents’ requests for the use of affirming names and pronouns, leading to concerns about increased vulnerability to bullying, mental health crises, and violations of family rights .

Research cited in legal correspondence from the ACLU underscores the tangible harm: “When transgender students are able to use their affirming name at school, they are 29% less likely to experience suicidal ideation and 56% less likely to attempt suicide” . Deadnaming and misgendering, by contrast, can be considered forms of harassment and discrimination, with serious psychological consequences for affected students .

Some districts have attempted to clarify their positions in light of the pending lawsuits. However, uncertainty persists as the law’s broad and vaguely defined language leaves room for disparate interpretations. The ACLU and allied organizations maintain that SB 12 should not be implemented in ways that violate constitutional, federal, or other state legal protections for students .

The ongoing legal challenge, GSA Network v. Morath, seeks to block enforcement of the law’s “social transition ban” and other provisions that advocates say target LGBTQ+ students and faculty . Plaintiffs argue that the law’s vague prohibitions create a hostile environment for transgender and nonbinary students, infringing on their rights to privacy, safety, and equal access to education.

Legal experts and advocacy groups stress that, regardless of SB 12, federal laws such as Title IX prohibit discrimination based on sex, which courts have interpreted to include discrimination based on gender identity . The U. S. Department of Education and multiple federal courts have held that misgendering and deadnaming may constitute actionable harassment . Furthermore, disclosing a student’s transgender status without consent can violate federal privacy laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act .

The ACLU’s guidance to Texas school districts is clear: “School districts are free to use students‘ affirming first names and pronouns in class and at all school events, in yearbooks and clubs, and in all non-official documents or records” . Districts that refuse to do so, particularly in defiance of parental requests, may expose themselves to significant legal liability.

LGBTQ+ organizations across Texas have condemned the implementation of SB 12 provisions that result in deadnaming or misgendering transgender students. The Transgender Education Network of Texas and other advocacy groups continue to provide resources for students and families navigating these challenges, and to support ongoing legal action .

Community leaders emphasize the importance of affirming environments for all students and warn that policies forcing teachers to deadname transgender students undermine not only the well-being of transgender youth but also the broader climate of respect and inclusivity in Texas schools.

As the litigation process unfolds, school districts, policymakers, and educators await further clarification from the courts. In the meantime, legal experts urge districts to comply with both the letter and spirit of federal protections, prioritizing student safety, privacy, and dignity above restrictive interpretations not explicitly required by SB 12 .

Advocates maintain that upholding the rights of transgender students is not only a legal obligation but also a moral imperative for educational institutions committed to fostering safe and supportive learning environments for all.