How a conservative senator seeks to hamper the LGBTQ+ movement

John Kavanagh, a conservative state senator, continues his ambitions to restrict rights of genderqueer people. We spoke to him about his latest bills.

Last week, we reported on the religious exemptions outlined in one of the state’s newest proposed bill, SB1001, which aims to reduce the ability for genderqueer students to express themselves.

The sponsor of that bill, John Kavanagh from Fountain Hills, is also taking the bill a step further, by also trying to eliminate nicknames of people, unless they are derivatives of their name assigned at birth.

Kavanagh has a long history of proposing bills that erode — and in some cases altogether eliminate — the civil rights of queer people across Arizona.

That history goes back well over a decade, to when he proposed (and failed) to change how trans and gender nonbinary people use the bathrooms in the state.

Aside from SB1001, Kavanagh has also proposed a new bill — under the guise of protecting children — that would limit drag queen performances in front of children, despite almost all drag queen performances being in bars or other opt-in venues, such as Phoenix Pride, The Rainbows Festival, and other public events.

Still, Kavanagh has continued his push to eliminate drag from the public sphere. LOOKOUT spoke with the senior Senator, to try and understand why he continues to push these bills, specifically SB1001. Below is a transcript of the phone call that has been edited for brevity, and clarity.

LOOKOUT: Sen. Kavanagh, thanks for speaking with us today.

KAVANAGH: Not a problem.

LOOKOUT: So, let’s just dive right in and talk about the religious exemptions to SB1001 that are mentioned in the bill. You’ve told other news outlets that this bill does not limit anybody’s use use of pronouns, it's simply giving parental choice to people. But the religious exemption would give carte blanche to individuals who have a sincerely held belief. That seems to be kind of separate from parental choice, am I correct?

KAVANAGH: Yeah, that's a totally different part of the bill, that just simply had to do with respecting people's religious or moral beliefs that they just don't can't support that type of a pronoun or name usage.

LOOKOUT: So, obviously, there is a lot of talk about religious exemptions, and making sure to give protections for people who have religious beliefs. But I'm curious about the other side of the coin. When we're talking about religious exemptions, we're often kind of missing the other half of the equation when it comes to, you know, freedom from religion. If someone has a religious belief — or even a sincerely held belief — that their gender is aligned with their religious or spiritual beliefs, how are you protecting those people from religious discrimination?

KAVANAGH: I would say that a person who has sincerely held religious or moral beliefs against doing something like referring to somebody by a different gender pronoun, I think that's a more serious concern than the right of a person to be called that pronoun. Particularly, because most decent people—and I think most teachers and school personnel would be decent—will simply refer to the person by their name. I don't always use pronouns, you know. I mean, instead of saying, ‘That's her book,’ I can say, you know, ‘Give Bill or give Nancy the book.’

LOOKOUT: But aren’t you also trying to make it that people can’t even use the names they prefer to use? Such as a nickname that wouldn’t comport with their gender at birth?

KAVANAGH: Yeah, they have to stick with the given name or a nickname derivative.

LOOKOUT: So, actually, it wouldn't be a situation of just sticking by somebody’s preferred name, because if their preferred name is actually opposite of what their gender is, it still kind of goes back to the question I posed earlier, and you haven’t answered. Which is, if I have a sincerely held religious belief that my gender is correct, despite what it says on my birth certificate, wouldn't that be an infringement on my own religious beliefs?

KAVANAGH: The religious belief does not disparage being transgender or being non binary. I don't think most religious beliefs disparage the person. It's just the individual saying, ‘I have a moral problem with recognizing this.’ That's not saying the person's bad, that the transgendered person is bad or evil. It's just saying I opt out.

LOOKOUT: Correct. But the question — the question is, when does your religious belief infringe on my beliefs?

KAVANAGH: I guess when my religious belief, you know, basically says, you know, you can't do things that you have a right to do. Or if I do discriminate against you illegally.

LOOKOUT: Well, most people within the LGBTQ community would say that you are simply authorizing religious discrimination.

KAVANAGH: I don't think it's religious discrimination. I think it's just respecting somebody has a different opinion of you and not forcing them to do something which they have a moral or religious problem with. I think we have to be a little bit more tolerant of each other.

LOOKOUT: So that's, that's a good point. And I think the question then goes back to you, though, on who — in this scenario — is being intolerant? For example, who is being forced to be tolerant of these children?

KAVANAGH: Well, so the business with the people with the cake and everything. They were probably.

LOOKOUT: But we're talking about schools right now. So focusing on schools. You know, we've talked to educators who say this is a bill without an issue. So—

KAVANAGH: Well, there are several school districts in North Carolina, Durham, Chicago. Some teenagers in Baltimore — and the National Association of National Association of School Counselors adopted a policy that parents should be kept in the dark. Now, I'm not sure where they stand on employees doing names, but this is spreading.

LOOKOUT: So, again, we’re not in Durham, or Chicago, or North Carolina. Your bill is for Arizona. Are there considerable anecdotes that you’ve heard where educators are being forced to use pronouns or nicknames of children that makes them uncomfortable?

KAVANAGH: I think we need to be ready for it. I don't wait for a problem to happen when I see it happening all over the country.

LOOKOUT: So this is a proactive approach to something that you're seeing as a trend across the nation.

KAVANAGH: Yeah, although, for all I know it could be happening in Arizona.

LOOKOUT: But you don’t know.

KAVANAGH: No.

LOOKOUT: I’m wondering if we could look at it from the children’s perspectives, those who might be trans or nonbinary.

KAVANAGH: Sure.

LOOKOUT: How does this protect them?

KAVANAGH: All the bill does is get permission from parents to use the pronouns their children are preferring. Obviously if a parent gives their permission and the teacher is using the name against their will and their doctor’s protocol, then that would be something that would protect these kids.

LOOKOUT: That’s assuming, though, that the parents are accepting of the child. There is a very real reality that many students don’t have parents who are accepting, or are not comfortable with their parents knowing. How do you account for those kids, when we know that depression, and suicidal ideation, and drug use are common among these groups of people because of a lack of support at home?

KAVANAGH: Well, then we have these third-parties — instructors, school counselors — who can intervene, and if they feel the child is unsafe, then they can make a report to Child Protective Services.

LOOKOUT: Possibly removing them from their home.

KAVANAGH: Sure. Or something like getting counseling. I’d also say that the biggest pushback I’ve received on this has been that a permission slip is onerous for parents. But, I have to sign these slips for my kids all the time. I don’t think that’s a problem.

LOOKOUT: Alright. Well, thank you Senator.

KAVANAGH: Thank you.