CA Candidate Uses Fear of School TG Rights Bill to Get Votes

[Carolyn Marie]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/transgender-631208-students-law.html

With all the issues facing California and Orange County, this is the big issue??

Carolyn Marie

[Guest LizMarie]

You know how I feel, Carolyn. This is the Republican party speaking again and this doesn't surprise me one little bit.

[Guest Mia J]

This is politics as normal. Make a big deal about an issue that is sure to get a emotional response and votes and ignore the real issues. Just shows how some politicians are willing to hurt innocent children to gain office.

Mia

[VickySGV]

transgender students tend to more modest and less likely to misbehave than the average student.

The basic element that is being overlooked or ignored!!

“persistency and consistency” are key to identifying a student as transgender, and that accommodations are usually made in consultation with parents. “We have never had a student change gender on a whim,”

The other major element that is ignored or overlooked. The underlying law that AB1266 amended already made student class curriculum a joint issue of student, parent and school administration / counselors. The law makes it mandatory that all three are part of a program to provide the educational content to the student. A student who does not have parent support (or court guardian) is not going to be allowed to take advantage of this law. We see how parents accept their TG children all too often here.

GRRRR!!

[Drea]

The law says what it says. The law and other proposed laws like it say what the advocates want it to say.

The advocates say something like "oh but nobody would ever exploit it, but then not only refuse to acknowledge that it could be exploited, but strenuously argue any modifications that would avoid that.

So we been told that things are working well, its proven that there is no problem (despite the period in effect is trivially small at this time).

Then it is revealed here:

That issue has been dealt with at the Los Angeles and San Francisco unified school districts – which have had a policy similar to AB 1266 for more than 10 years – by using partitions or having transgender students change before or after others. Los Angeles also uses that strategy for showers. San Francisco has no showers.

If what the article states is accurate, that sort of policy would be in violation of the laws, it is treating the transgender student as different.

So instead of a good law that would protect interests of all, address the exploiting concerns up front, an environment is created which hands opposition a winning argument. One that independents legitimately may have qualms about who aren't going to accept the empty claim that "oh it will never be exploited". Sure the opposition will try and make an issue, that is what politicians do, but the amount of traction they are liable to get from this is more than one that doesn't lend itself so easily to exploitation.

[Carolyn Marie]

.Then it is revealed here:

That issue has been dealt with at the Los Angeles and San Francisco unified school districts – which have had a policy similar to AB 1266 for more than 10 years – by using partitions or having transgender students change before or after others. Los Angeles also uses that strategy for showers. San Francisco has no showers.

If what the article states is accurate, that sort of policy would be in violation of the laws, it is treating the transgender student as different.

.

That is not factually correct, Drea. The law does not specify how the schools should administer the policy it puts in place. It does not prohibit in any way the addition of privacy measures in locker rooms. In fact, I wish it had been more specific about requiring such privacy measures, but the authors felt it wasn't necessary to spell it out, but deliberately left it to school districts to determine what is the best practice.

I think you missed the point here; it isn't what schools should or shouldn't do, it is what this particular politician feels will best serve her campaign, and that is making a big deal of a non-issue, and using the fear of transgender kids to garner votes. Fear mongering is the issue at hand, not the details of a law that hasn't been shown to be a problem.

Carolyn Marie

[VickySGV]

San Francisco and Los Angeles used the rather lengthy code section that was permissive of TG student rights but not mandatory of those rights until AB 1266 amended it with 6 words that made those rights mandatory. There is pre-existing language in the code section even as to facilities at the schools for any and all that can be applied and are applied where the school districts have dealt with the issue. Gender issues have been in California law for years, Girls can take wood shop or auto shop. Boys can take home economics classes. Girls are NOT confined to business math classes, and boys can take basic bookkeeping or shorthand. Girls who want to take advanced Algebra or Chemistry classes can do so if the meet the preparatory class standards, and a boy who does not meet that standard will be refused access to those classes instead of being place in it because boys get engineering jobs. ETC. That is the law that was amended. My daughter who took auto shop could use the shower in the shop if she locked the door, the same as any male. It turned out it was a thing of honor NOT to shower after the shop class, no matter how coated in engine oil you were!! (This was 20 years ago).

[Drea]

That is not factually correct, Drea. The law does not specify how the schools should administer the policy it puts in place. It does not prohibit in any way the addition of privacy measures in locker rooms. In fact, I wish it had been more specific about requiring such privacy measures, but the authors felt it wasn't necessary to spell it out, but deliberately left it to school districts to determine what is the best practice.

I saw that the law didn't specifically state how but there is a huge body of law out there which would identify measures such has having the student at a different time away from other students to allow the student to use that gender specific facility as patently discriminatory.

Sure putting partitions for everyone will solve that and may function as a stop gap measure till serious construction, or new school designs come out that create separate secure rooms for everyone.

I think you missed the point here; it isn't what schools should or shouldn't do, it is what this particular politician feels will best serve her campaign, and that is making a big deal of a non-issue, and using the fear of transgender kids to garner votes. Fear mongering is the issue at hand, not the details of a law that hasn't been shown to be a problem.

I believe I did address why a politician will pick it. You may feel it is a non-issue cause in the short time the law been in effect it hasn't been a problem (some would argue that), but some people, particularly independents aren't gonna want to wait until a problem occurs.