Anti-Gay Attack on California Transgender Law Not Likely To Qualify for Referendum

Bulgebull.com

Earlier this month, Prop. 8 mastermind Frank Schubert, who is leading the charge against California’s law protecting transgender students in the form of a ballot measure referendum, announced that he turned in 620,000 signatures to qualify the measure and predicted victory for the initiative.

SchubertNow, it looks like he may fail, the Washington Blade reports:

A total of 504,760 signatures were due last Thursday, which are required to place the law, known as the School Success & Opportunity Act, on the ballot for the 2014 election. Opponents of the measure, led by the Privacy for All Students Coalition, submitted 613,120 signatures from a majority of state counties in favor of overturning the law.

But they’re averaging just 75 percent authenticity in the random sample as of Friday, which is significantly below the average ultimately needed to qualify. If the number of valid signatures is less than 95 percent…

View original post 88 more words

2 thoughts on “Anti-Gay Attack on California Transgender Law Not Likely To Qualify for Referendum

  1. THEY DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO READ AB1266. PERHAPS THEIR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, BUT THIS IS POORLY CRAFTED LEGISLATION.

    IF A REFERNDUM FAILS, THERE IS ALWAYS THE STATE INITIATIVE PROCESS. AS MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ AB1266, AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND COUNTIES ARE SWAMPED BY ANGRY PARENTS AND/OR LAWSUITES ONE OF TWO THINGS WILL HAPPEN. A STATE INITIATIVE WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE IT TO THE BALLOT, OR POLITICIANS IN SACRAMENTO WILL REVISE OR DUMP AB1266 ENTIRELY.

    PROP 8 AND AB1266 ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES. I VOTED AGAINST PROP 8 BECAUSE IT WAS WRONG. PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT AB1266 HAVEN’T EVEN READ IT.

    AB1266 DESERVES TO BE DEFEATED. IT’S NOT ABOUT LIBERALS VERSUS CONSERVATIVES OR GAY VERSUS STRAIGHT. IT’S ABOUT TRAMPLING ON THE PRIVACY RIGHTS OF FEMALES. THIS WAS SHOVED THROUGH WITH NO PROTECTIONS FOR FEMALE STUDENTS. I’M SO LIBERAL THAT I VOTED FOR RALPH NADER IN 2000. I’VE ALWAYS BEEN A DEMOCRAT/GREEN. I VOTED FOR OBAMA TWICE AND GOVERNOR BROWN.

    Current law in California already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. AB1266 doesn’t even address bullying or discrimination per se. It deals specifically with access to sex segregated facilities based on “gender identity” which isn’t clearly defined.

    THIS IS AB1266. IT AMENDS THE EDUCATION CODE THAT WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNED TO ADRESS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX.

    “(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

    No proof is required that gender identity is a persistent and genuinely held belief. AB1266 requires no documentation. Nada. Zero. Nothing.

    An act to amend Section 221.5 of the Education Code, relating to pupil rights.

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1.

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
    221.5.

    (a) It is the policy of the state that elementary and secondary school classes and courses, including nonacademic and elective classes and courses, be conducted, without regard to the sex of the pupil enrolled in these classes and courses.
    (b) A school district may not prohibit a pupil from enrolling in any class or course on the basis of the sex of the pupil, except a class subject to Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 51930) of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2.
    (c) A school district may not require a pupil of one sex to enroll in a particular class or course, unless the same class or course is also required of a pupil of the opposite sex.
    (d) A school counselor, teacher, instructor, administrator, or aide may not, on the basis of the sex of a pupil, offer vocational or school program guidance to a pupil of one sex that is different from that offered to a pupil of the opposite sex or, in counseling a pupil, differentiate career, vocational, or higher education opportunities on the basis of the sex of the pupil counseled. Any school personnel acting in a career counseling or course selection capacity to a pupil shall affirmatively explore with the pupil the possibility of careers, or courses leading to careers, that are nontraditional for that pupil’s sex. The parents or legal guardian of the pupil shall be notified in a general manner at least once in the manner prescribed by Section 48980, in advance of career counseling and course selection commencing with course selection for grade 7 so that they may participate in the counseling sessions and decisions.
    (e) Participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, shall be available to pupils of each sex.
    (f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

    I have no idea why they have the audacity to state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities” when SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION already addresses sex based discrimination (classes, vocational training, access to higher education, etc.).

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code was historically designed to address sex based discrimination. From a historical and practical perspective, conflating sex with gender identity seems clumsy, is unworkable, and flies in the face of common sense. Intuitively, we sense that something is terribly amiss. Are we to believe that a female student taking a carpentry or automotive class is the same thing, or on par with a male using the girl’s locker room or shower? This is what the State of California would have its citizens believe. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she isn’t allowed to take a shop class, and under Section 221.5, a biological male student is being discriminated against if he can’t use the girl’s restroom, shower, or locker room. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she can’t take a drafting class, and under 221.5, a 6’10” 200 lb. biological male is discriminated against if he can’t play on the girls’ basketball team. This only make sense if we believe that biological sex is irrelevant, and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

    Please note that 221.5 (a) through (e) uses the word “sex” as in biological sex. Then, 221.5 (f) only refers to “gender” and “gender identity”.

    Is the State of California stating that “gender identity” is the same thing as biological sex? If so, when did this occur?

    This is rather confusing in that the State of California acknowledges that discrimination based on sex exists, or has existed. Then, with one sentence, the biological reality of sex, the entire history of women’s oppression, and thousands of years of systemic and widespread discrimination based on sex are completely erased from existence as if female as a class never existed. Gender identity is clearly given preference over sex. Indeed, for all practical purposes, gender identity overrides sex.

    Perhaps the most odious form of sex discrimination is the process whereby the female sex is treated as an invisible non-person, lacking in meaningful substance or history. If “gender identity” is the exact same thing as biological sex, then sex is essentially rendered meaningless, irrelevant, devoid of significance, merit, history, or acknowledgement. What does it say to female students when their thoughts, feelings, opinions, and life experiences are erased from existence in such a caviler fashion? Who cares about female students who might feel extremely awkward, embarrassed, and fearful sharing a restroom or locker room with a fifteen or sixteen year old boy? Rational citizens of the state aren’t allowed to ask such questions.

    DOES THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAVE A PRECISE DEFINITION OF “GENDER IDENTITY”? IF SO, HOW DO RATIONAL PEOPLE QUANTIFY A FELLING, PERCEPTION, OR BELIEF?

    It’s rather difficult to enact clear and precise law when the state itself is not dealing with a precise definition. Does the State of California have a precise definition for “gender identity” other than how one states that he or she feels? Please note that no proof is required that a student’s “gender identity” is a persistent, deeply felt belief. All we can do is to take the student’s word that that the feeling or experience is authentic and long standing. Moreover, how can anyone truly quantify “gender identity”, or a feeling that one is “trapped in the wrong body”? Is this something that we can measure? If so, how do reasonable people go about measuring a feeling or belief?

    EXPERTS CAN’T PREDICT WHICH CHILDREN WILL EVENTUALLY OUTGROW GENDER DYSPHORIA FROM THOSE WHO HAVE PERSISTENT FEELINGS OF GENDER DYSPHORIA. BOTH CHILDREN AND ADULTS CAN CHANGE THEIR GENDER IDENTITY.

    A biological female cannot change her DNA or the fact that she has a female reproductive system, menstruates, and can get pregnant. A person of African American ancestry cannot change his or her genetic inheritance. Also, a physically disabled student with a genetic disorder cannot change his or her DNA and medical condition. However, “gender identity” is changeable, and often open for interpretation depending on how one chooses to define him or herself.

    “Currently experts can’t tell apart kids who outgrow gender dysphoria (desisters) from those who don’t (persisters), and how to treat them is controversial.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/opinion/sunday/sunday-dialogue-our-notions-of-gender.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    “Treatment of extremely gender variant children will continue to remain controversial since some underlying assumptions of the clinicians are a matter of opinion rather than of empirical data and empirical studies (e.g., clinical trials with random treatment assignment) are neither feasible nor ethical. I wish to conclude by raising some points for the clinicians treating these children to consider:

    1. There is no empirical evidence (i.e., controlled study) demonstrating that discouraging childhood cross-gender interests reduces the frequency of persistence into adolescence and adulthood.

    2. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to discourage cross-gender identifications may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do persist into adolescence and adulthood.

    3. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that a prepubescent child who is permitted to transition gender role but then desists can simply and harmlessly transition back to the natal gender.”

    4. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do not persist into adolescence and adulthood.”

    http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/lgbt.2013.1500

    Does this sound confusing? Who can we make heads or tails of it? Persisters, or children who don’t outgrow gender dysphoria, might experience hurtful feelings and trauma if people try to change cross-gender behaviors. On the other hand, desisters, or children who outgrow their gender dysphoria, might be traumatized by efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles. That is, a male child who was referred to as “she” for years is now confused and hurt once he goes back to identifying as a boy. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence that says that transitioning back to the sex one is born into is easy and doesn’t come with its own challenges. How will the ten year old boy who identifies as a girl feel when he is eighteen? No one knows for sure, but there has to be a law that says he, rather she, can join the girls in the locker room while he works on his gender identity issues.

    According to, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18981931

    “Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.”

    A simple online google search turns up several examples of children who struggled with gender dysphoria, and later changed their minds as they matured.

    ‘I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again’: Britain’s youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment

    October 29, 2012
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2224753/Ria-Cooper-Britains-youngest-sex-change-patient-reverse-treatment.html#ixzz2AjFa43a9

    Below is a link to a MTV video of a young man who identified as a girl and now wants to return to being a man. Also, in the MTV video, a young woman who once identified as a boy changed her mind and returned to being a girl. The young man who appears to be in his early twenties discusses having his breast implants removed. In the same MTV video, the young woman who looks like she could be in her mid-twenties is shown undergoing laser treatments to remove the facial hair that was caused by earlier testosterone use.

    http://www.mtv.com/videos/true-life-im-questioning-my-gender-again/1704884/playlist.jhtml

    Detransitioning stories are easy to run across on the internet. Transitioning essentially means the process whereby one changes his or her outward appearance to match or coincide with how one identifies or feels internally. Transitioning usually involves cross-gender hormones and surgery. Detransitioning is the opposite of transitioning, and there are numerous examples of people stopping cross-gender hormones. Testosterone is commonly referred to as “T” and FTM means female to male.

  2. “(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”

    WHAT SEX-SEGREGATED SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? SECTION 221.5 (a.) THROUGH (e.) COVERS EVERYTHING (COUNSELING, VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS, CLASSES, INFORMATION ON HIGHER EDUCATION, ETC. ETC. ) Female students, male students, and transgender identified students can take any class, vocational training program, etc. they want. The only thing Section 221.5 leaves out are restrooms and locker rooms because it’s assumed that these are sex segregated. FOR THE PURPOSES OF AB1266, WHAT ARE “FACILITIES”? Wouldn’t “facilities” include restrooms and locker rooms. What they are basically doing is eviscerating the privacy rights of female students by amending education code that was historically designed to address discrimination based on sex. For all practical purposes, AB1266 appears to erase sex as a distinct class of persons. Although they don’t have a precise definition of “gender identity”, and “gender identity” can change, everyone is a gender identity now.

Comments are closed.