John J. Burzichelli @njassemblydems (USA)

downloadNew Jersey Democratic Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli has introduced legislation to undermine decades of work to create parity for girls in sports. A.B. 2224 allows a boy who identifies as a girl to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with the pupil’s gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records. The bill is similar to a California effort that decimated that state’s version of Title Nine.

In 2014, it is a Democratic priority to undo efforts to create parity in opportunity for girls.


10 thoughts on “John J. Burzichelli @njassemblydems (USA)”

  1. The Democratic Party wouldn’t be anywhere without the women’s vote, and this is how they repay us. Please keep in mind that the majority of state senators and assembly persons are still male. In California, it was a male governor and male legislators who shredded the privacy rights of female students. I don’t believe males should get to decide whether or not other biological males have a “right” to access women’s restrooms, locker rooms, etc.

    I despise Republicans, and have never voted for a Republican in my life, but I’m basically done with Democrats. Women need to form our own political party because as it stands right now the whole country is being screwed by both Republicans and Democrats.

  2. AB1266,

    “(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.”

    Burzichelli just stole what the spineless Democrats in Sacramento did, and boy did this piss parents off. School teachers don’t like it either. There were attempts to split California into six different states because the rural counties don’t want ANYTHING to do with Sacramento. What district does this moron represent?

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

    NO DOCUMENTATION OF ANY KIND IS REQUIRED. No letter from a therapist saying “gender identity” is long standing and genuinely felt, zilch, nada…


    In other words, biological males will have access to the girl’s restroom and locker room. Males will also compete against females.

    THESE MEN HAVE TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. The Democratic Party gets hella money from teacher’s unions. This is just another reason for parents to take their children out of public education.

  3. The Democratic Party doesn’t even believe that the female sex exists because everyone is a “gender identity” now. They don’t even have a precise definition for “gender identity”, and people can change their gender identity whenever they choose. Pre-op males, penis and all have access to women’s restrooms and locker rooms because the “feel like women”. Where would Colleen Francis get the idea that walking around nude in the women’s locker room was some kind of civil right? “Her legs open and her male genitalia showing”.. . The Republicans, on the other hand, oppose abortion and access to reproductive health care. Women are being screwed from both extreme ends of the political spectrum, and it needs to stop now. We have to vote all the clowns out, whether they are on the far right or the extreme left.

  4. Female students have a Constitutional right to privacy, and this all but eviscerates any right to privacy. School districts and states need to be sued. When a female student is harmed, school districts and states need to be sued.

  5. Parents are probably making the assumption that they really do make some sort of effort to see that the “gender identity” is authentic and long standing. Read AB1266 and it’s almost exact clone from Burzichelli. All a male student has to do is self-identify. When parents understand that there are NO SAFEGUARDS, STANDARDS ,OR DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED, they are usually stunned.


    Stereotypes based on any inherited or genetic trait such as skin color, physical disability, or biological sexes are offensive.

    When an eleven or twelve year old boy says that he is a “girl”, or identifies as a “girl” what does this mean? He could say that he likes to draw, hates sports, likes wearing the color pink, and enjoys playing with his sister. Does this make him a “girl’, or is he just a boy who enjoys non-traditional play and dress? Isn’t it possible that this male child is really just a boy who prefers activities traditionally associated with girls? He might associate traditional “feminine” behavior with being a “girl”. As we all know, sex based stereotypes also apply to females. For example, girls are supposed to like dolls, dresses, and makeup. Girls who have short hair and prefer building blocks to dolls really can’t be girls. Is the State of California applying the following logic and thought processes to its schools? Society says that girls like X, and I like X, therefore I’m a girl. Our culture says that boys like Y, and I like Y, therefore I’m a boy. Isn’t this sexist on its face? This strikes at the heart of who really is a “girl” and who really is a “boy”, and how society constructs the meaning of “girl” or “boy” and “man” and “woman”. Sex is a biological reality whereas “gender identity” is largely culturally defined.

    There is no logical and consistent way to completely ferret out the “gender identity” from cultural stereotypes of what constitutes socially acceptable masculine and feminine behavior. Try this experiment. Try explaining “gender identity” to someone without resorting to sex based stereotypes of what society says is appropriate “femininity” and “masculinity”. It can’t be done. No matter what states with “gender identity” laws do, they cannot prove that each and every child who identifies as being of the opposite sex isn’t doing so wholly or partly because of culturally based sex stereotypes.


    “Gender identity” is for all practical purposes a psychological condition, perception, or strongly held belief in that it resides in the mind. If we rule out disorders of sexual development, how do we prove “gender identity”? For all practical purposes, it’s a psychological diagnosis, or an internal feeling.

    PTSD because of sexual assault, rape, or childhood trauma is certainly experienced by millions of women world-wide. Under AB1266, it’s not even acknowledged. One would think that it doesn’t exist.

    Why is “gender identity”, a mental condition, perception, or deeply held belief more important than PTSD from rape, sexual assault, or childhood molestation? Imagine a psychiatrist stating that depression is more important than schizophrenia, and that we will only recognize the personal experiences, emotions, and thought processes of depressed people. This sounds outrageous. However, the State of California has decided to ignore the emotions, feelings, and thoughts of females, particularly females with a history of sexual abuse who might experience extreme discomfort and trauma by having to share a locker room or restroom with a male. Even the thought of being forced to share a restroom or locker room with a male could be traumatizing for a female student.

    Several years ago, there was a brutal gang rape at a California high school. This happened at a homecoming dance. One would imagine that the girl who was brutally gang raped in a Richmond, California school would have some degree of PTSD. Indeed, most people would say that this girl is psychologically scarred for life. What happens if this girl is triggered emotionally by the presence of males while she is using the toilet, showering, or undressing? There are hundreds, if not thousands, perhaps millions of girls in California who have experienced unimaginable childhood sexual assault, trauma, exploitation, and abuse.

    If PTSD in a female due to rape, sexual assault, or childhood molestation is well documented, strong, and persistent, PTSD could be considered a disability under ADA (American with Disability Act). PTSD has been recognized as a disability under ADA. Therefore, couldn’t a female student with documented PTSD request a Reasonable Accommodation under ADA stating that using the same restroom, locker room, or shower with biological males triggers her PTSD? Therefore, she requires female only restrooms, locker rooms, and showers that exclude males. The school would be put in a rather uncomfortable position of deciding whether or not “gender identity” is more important than a documented case of PTSD. I’m sure some people would say that males who identify as girls are “girls”. Perhaps they are, or perhaps they aren’t, but one thing is for certain. A “gender identity” didn’t brutally gang rape the girl who was savagely raped and assaulted in a Richmond, California school. Who did? It was humans with a penis, and these humans are called male. We all know that not all males are rapists or out to harm anyone, but to deny the possibility that a female with PTSD might be emotionally triggered by a biological male in a women’s toilet or locker room is, frankly, an insult to the entire female sex. Most girls and women would naturally feel extremely awkward and embarrassed sharing a restroom or locker room with a male. Imagine how this feels to a girl who has been sexually abused, molested, or raped. Magnify this startled response and fear a hundred times, and say that it’s justice for females. It’s a travesty of justice whereby the life experiences of females are completely ignored.

  8. Sex is a characteristic afforded protection under the 14th Amendment.

    “What the lawyers do not assert, however, is that the enactment of these laws in and of themselves constitute a 14th Amendment violation. That is, Sex is a characteristic afforded protection under the 14th Amendment, and in order to pass a constitutionally valid law that impacts this characteristic, the State must prove (1) the existence of specific important governmental objectives and (2) the law substantially relates to the achievement of those objectives. This level of scrutiny is called the Intermediate Level of Scrutiny.

    If courts applied the Intermediate Level of Scrutiny to a challenge by Transgender Advocates against sex-segregated facilities, Government would probably assert that it has an interest in protecting Women and Girls from documented Male Violence, and that the law allowing sex-segregated facilities substantially relates to the achievement of that objective. It’s telling that Transgender Advocates don’t assert this claim – because, I suspect, they would lose.

    The U.S. Supreme Court first came up with the Intermediate Level of Scrutiny in the case of Craig v. Boren, in which the court examined an Oklahoma law that established a drinking age of 21 years old for Men and 18 years old for Women. The court concluded that “Oklahoma’s 3.2% beer statute invidiously discriminates against Men 18 to 20 years of age.” Hooray for beer!

    So, what if Women and Girls asserted that Gender Identity Laws themselves violate their rights under the 14th Amendment? The Women and Girls would assert that these laws jeopardize their right to sex-segregated accommodations, thus depriving them of protection under the law. Those seeking to uphold Gender Identity Laws would have to show that the enactment of Gender Identity Laws helps achieve specific governmental objectives and that the law substantially relates to the achievement of those objectives.

    What does this mean?

    Transgender Advocates might say that government enacts Gender Identity Laws for the purpose of combatting discrimination against Transgender people and that Gender Identity laws substantially relate to the achievement of the elimination of discrimination.

    Is this provable? Currently, Transgender Advocates seek redress under several theories – they push for Gender Identity laws while at the same time asserting claims for Sex discrimination. Which is it, Transgender advocates? Is it Sex or Gender Identity? And if it is provable, what of the counter argument – that Gender Identity Laws harm Women and our rights. It seems Sex is more meaningful a characteristic in courts than Gender Identity would be – my odds are on Sex winning.

    That is because of the level of scrutiny would courts apply to Transgender people. When Gays and Lesbians assert that a law violates our constitutional rights, courts apply rational basis scrutiny to the claim. That is, the governmental action must “rationally relate” to a “legitimate” government interest. Trans would likely fall into the rational basis bucket – because, again, if Transgender Advocates could successfully assert that there’s no rational basis for sex segregated facilities, one wonders why they haven’t done so.”


    When a male gets his growth spurt in adolescence, he can start to tower over a female.

    Growth increases:

    *Females (between 13 to 18 years)

    Weight: 68 to 110 pounds

    Height: 8.5 to 9.5 inches

    *Males: (between 13 to 18 years)

    Weight: 76 to 118 pounds

    Height: 10.5 to 20 inches

    The way that this legislation is worded, biological males don’t have to be on cross gender hormones or anything to reduce the level of testosterone that biological males naturally produce. Biological males will now be allowed to compete in athletic competition against females. He can identify as a girl, but when he starts puberty, he is going to have an obvious and glaring advantage over female athletes.

  10. “A pupil in a public school shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, ”

    The way that they phrase this is so disingenuous that it’s frightening. As far as classes, vocational training, access to information about higher education, etc. there are no sex-segregated anything. Male students, female students, and transgender identified students can take ANY class they want. This is not the issue. The only thing left that is sex-segregated are restrooms and locker rooms because they are assumed to be segregated based on sex. What exactly are “facilities”? By “facilities”, don’t they mean restrooms and locker rooms?

    I’m assuming it’s K-12. Adolescent males do NOT belong in the same restroom or locker room with female students.

Comments are closed.