Neil Parrott @neilparrott (USA)

220px-Neil_Parrott

Neil Parrott is a Republican delegate from Maryland. He is challenging the Fairness for All Marylanders Act by attempting to petition the bill to referendum through the use of his online signature gathering portal, mdpetitions.com.

Gender Identity Watch opposes efforts to petition this law (and other civil rights laws) to referendum.  Although we view the law as over broad and harmful to women, the idea that rights should be voted on by the majority is anathema to our core beliefs. Additionally, if he successfully petitions the bill to referendum, Marylanders can look forward to months of homophobic advertisements in media, as right-wing critics of gender identity laws rely on homophobia to justify their opposition.

Gay rights activists defeated a similar effort to overturn the Anti-Discrimination Act, which banned discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing and public accommodations, in 2002.

Maryland lawmaker seeks referendum on trans rights bill.

2 thoughts on “Neil Parrott @neilparrott (USA)

  1. “Gender Identity Watch opposes efforts to petition this law (and other civil rights laws) to referendum”

    I don’t oppose all efforts to petition certain laws to referendum because it depends on the particular law. It’s the civic duty of every individual to read laws and carefully examine the pros and cons of each issue. I proudly signed the referendum to repeal California’s horrendous AB1266 because it should be repealed.

    California law already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. There are legal remedies and mechanisms in place to address teasing and bullying of transgender students. AB1266 doesn’t even address bullying, teasing, harassment, or discrimination per se. It only deals with access to sex-segregated facilities based on “gender identity” which, by the way, isn’t clearly defined other than how a student identifies at any particular point in time. Female students have a constitutional right to privacy, and AB1266 all but eviscerates protections for female students.

    THIS IS THE REAL AB1266 – ONLY THIRTY-SEVEN WORDS OF POORLY CRAFTED LEGISLATION

    * AB1266 is only thirty-seven words of poorly crafted legislation. There are no guidelines, rules, or standards put in place. It’s a poorly written one size fits all approach to a complex and deeply divisive issue.
    * Under AB1266, no documentation is required. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No letter from a therapist saying gender identity is a persistent and deeply held belief is needed.
    * A student doesn’t even have to tell his or her parents.
    * Apparently, students can self-identity at any time. Also, nothing would prevent a student from switching gender identification, or going back to identifying with the sex they were born into. This does occur, and it’s always a possibility.

    FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN’T READ AB1266, THIS IS AB1266. IT AMENDS SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION CODE THAT WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS DISCIMINATION 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.”

    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.

    Why does AB1266 state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities”? SECTION 221.5 (a) through (e) thoroughly covers sex based discrimination (vocational courses, classes, career guidance, higher education opportunities ect.). Girls can take any class they want (carpentry for example) and boys can take classes they want (cooking, or whatever). Transgender identified students can take any class they want. Section 221.5 (a) through (e) is very clear in its intent. What does (f.) mean when it says “sex-segregated school programs and activities? For the purpose of AB1266, what does “facilities” mean? Section 221. 5 (a.) through (e.) covers everything from classes to vocational training and career counseling. What sex-segregated school programs and activities are they talking about? The only sex-segregated things left that (a.) through (e.) doesn’t cover are restrooms and locker rooms because these are assumed to be segregated based on sex. Wouldn’t “facilities” include all facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms? The way that they cleverly dance around this subject is amazing to me. Biological male students (penis, testicles, testosterone, and XY chromosome) will have access to the girl’s restrooms and locker rooms. AB1266 is K-12 (kindergarten through high school). Sixteen year old boys do not belong in the girls’ restroom or locker room, and parents have every reason to be concerned.

    Not only have California state legislators shredded the privacy rights of female students, they did it by crapping all over Section 221.5 of the Education Code that was historically designed to address discimination based on sex. They tacked the thirty-seven words of AB1266 at the end of Section 221.5 which feminists fought so hard to achieve. Now, it appears as if every student is a “gender identity”. The State of California doesn’t even have a precise definition of “gender identity” nor does it require any documentation.

    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.

  2. I haven’t had to to thoroughly research the Fairness for All Marylanders Act. I’m in the process of trying to get as much information as possible.

    Since I’m not a registered voter in Maryland, I couldn’t vote to repeal it anyway.

Comments are closed.