California | News | Transgender

BigGayDeal.com

CA Schools Begin Preparing for Transgender Student Rights Law

California flag

With California's new law protecting transgender students set to take effect at the start of the new year, school districts have begun reviewing policies and expanding sensitivity training for faculty, the AP reports:

The [California School Boards Association] has advised schools to handle requests on a case-by-case basis and with parental input, if possible, but to be prepared to make private changing arrangements both for transgender students and for classmates who might object to dressing with them.

 "We did strike a balance between the sensitivities associated with gender identity, not only for those students who experience a change in their gender status but the students who would be in the same facilities, in the same classrooms and on the same teams," General Counsel Keith Bray said.

Administrators are also closely watching the ongoing repeal efforts led by a coalition of conservative and anti-LGBT organizations. The coalition says that it has already collected enough signatures to suspend the law and initiate a ballot measure next November for repeal. Recent spot counts by the secretary of state, however, show that the number of valid signatures is significantly less that what is needed to qualify.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Woo! Go California!

    Posted by: Fenrox | Dec 27, 2013 10:13:15 AM


  2. What a waste of limited school resources. All to placate selfish trans activists.

    The repeal effort may yet qualify for the ballot. And if it fails, it will be because they fell short of the required number of signatures by just a few thousand. So they will certainly try again. And on the second try, they will have double the time. Can't wait to vote for repeal as payback to the disgusting anti-gay trans activists who have gone all out to kill marriage equality.

    Posted by: Mike | Dec 27, 2013 12:40:00 PM


  3. ive never heard of any trans people being anti- marriage equality...

    Posted by: caileigh | Dec 27, 2013 12:49:59 PM


  4. @Mike, again: do you have any evidence of a broad effort by trans advocates to work against marriage equality? Or are you lying to (poorly) hide your (badly concealed) animus towards trans folks? Also, why would you take pleasure in voting to screw over kids, regardless of how you feel toward the trans activist bogeymen you're so worried about?

    Posted by: Thedrdonna | Dec 27, 2013 12:58:36 PM


  5. Mike, your dosages need adjusting.

    The law doesn't include provisions for the "sensitive" kids who are uncomfortable changing with a trans* individual to get a slap upside the head? Cuz, that's what I would have gone with.

    Posted by: FFS | Dec 27, 2013 3:27:12 PM


  6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a person believing himself to be something other than his biological sex. There is something wrong with expecting the rest of the world to play along with it.

    The reason for sex segregation is to protect females from heterosexual males. I don't think trannies of either sex pose a threat to members of either sex. However, our culture views sex segregation as a form of privacy, and the intrusion of members of the opposite sex to be an invasion of privacy. As such, this law is not good nor does it accomplish anything.

    Posted by: Enchantra | Dec 28, 2013 12:51:18 AM


  7. Right. And all the unisex restrooms in the world are simply traps, lying in wait to violate people's privacy and scar them for life.

    Thank god we have Enchantra to tell people who they are and aren't and what they are and are not allowed to be. That must be such a heavy burden! How will the world survive without you when you're gone?

    Posted by: FFS | Dec 28, 2013 10:38:43 AM


  8. Enchantra, you outed yourself as a fool the moment you said "trannies". Also, privacy is a red herring used by the bigots fighting this law. Privacy is not more important than someone's safety.

    Posted by: Thedrdonna | Dec 28, 2013 1:13:27 PM


  9. FFS, I have taken a screen shot of your comment about assaulting non-trans children and I am forwarding it on to Privacy for All Students. They can decide whether or not it constitutes a matter for law enforcement.

    Thank you for reminding us that trans activists have no respect for others and have no hesitation to resort to bullying and violence, even against children.

    Posted by: Helene | Dec 28, 2013 1:32:11 PM


  10. TheDrDonna:

    "Privacy is not more important than someone's safety."

    AB1266 does not link facility usage to safety at all. A student could declare that he identifies as the opposite sex and demand to use the facilities of the opposite sex even if he or she had no safety concerns whatsoever and even if 99.9% of the other students would feel that their privacy would be violated. If AB1266 had said something like "Schools shall allocate sex-based facilities in a manner that best assures student safety." there would be little controversy. But AB1266 is not about balancing needs and interests, it is about making everyone bend to trans political power.

    BTW, do you agree with FFS that AB1266 should have had a provison that sensitive non-trans students should be assaulted? Why are you silent?

    Posted by: Helene | Dec 28, 2013 1:43:28 PM


  11. Helene, you've posted plenty on here before, so I know you haven't a sincere bone in your body. However: obviously assault is wrong. Nobody should be assaulted. You haven't actually made a statement to that effect, which by your own logic must mean silent support. Why are you remaining silent?

    And this law is all about safety. Claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Trans kids are disproportionately attacked and bullied based on their gender identity, and this law safeguards that a person presenting as a gender is able to use the facilities and programs associated with that gender, rather than being forced into opposite-gender facilities and programs. I know you know this, and that you're pretending otherwise based on your hatred for trans people, but can't you let kids be exempt from your bigotry?

    Posted by: TheDrDonna | Dec 28, 2013 2:41:00 PM


  12. TheDrDonna,

    You are a liar. That is what you do.

    The law does not link facility selection to safety in any way. It doesn't establish any criteria by which that decision should be made. It puts the decision entirely in the hands of minor students. The law does not give any teacher, school administrator, or parent the right to override the student's selection, even when it will put the student at risk. Under AB1266, the decision of 12-year old 6th grader or even a 6-year old first grader would have to be implemented even if the kid's parents and every teacher and administrator thought that it would put the kid in danger.

    In some cases, the student's decision will be tied to safety and the decision will be the right choice. In others, it may have the opposite effect, for example, if a "trans" student wants to make a statement about being a boy even if using the boys' locker room will increase the risk of bullying.

    If some 12 year old "transboy" gets pummeled in the boys locker room because no teacher or parent had the right to craft a better locker room usage arrangement, then that is on your head. But you don't care about any of that. You just want your trans activism to prevail, even if it means dead trans kids.

    Posted by: Helene | Dec 28, 2013 7:38:45 PM


  13. Conduct your lunacy however you please, my dear. I'm not even trans, you waste of space.

    Posted by: FFS | Dec 29, 2013 12:57:54 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «All Utah Counties Now Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses« «