Liberal nuttery goes on unabated in California

Posted by: ST on January 2, 2008 at 8:43 pm

Are you young and “confused” about your sexual identity? Well then California is just the place for you (h/t: Van Helsing):

Forget everything you learned in kindergarten about the difference between boys and girls. According to Gov. Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, schoolchildren can now choose their own sex. I’m not talking about choosing “sexual behavior or sexual preferences.” Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being “male” or “female.”

Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California’s kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven’t they? In October, California Senate Bill 777 was signed into law. Senate Bill 777 eliminates Education Code 212, which currently defines “sex” as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.” And worse yet, SB 777 redefines the term “gender” for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which will read: “‘Gender’ means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up.

SB 777 also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual’s unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.

Advocates for Faith and Freedom, a nonprofit law firm dedicated to pro-family issues, filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court, San Diego, on behalf of the California Education Committee LLC, a project of California Family Council. Members of the California Education Committee include school board trustees, educators, parents and students.

The lawsuit argues that the redefinition of gender should be declared unconstitutionally vague as no school administrator or teacher would ever know whether they are unlawfully discriminating against a person based on their chosen sex. For example, how is it possible for an educator to segregate the boys from the girls if each individual has the ability to randomly self-define their sex regardless of their anatomy? Should educators really have to face the possibility of being sued for discrimination every time they segregate boys and girls or should they just be responsible for asking every child what sex they choose to be that day?

One school district in CA is already operating by this code:

The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms —- and vice versa! You can read LAUSD’s Reference Guide 1557 on the district’s Web site.

It even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student’s preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student’s chosen gender to the student’s parents. Since LAUSD has such a strong academic record, don’t you think all school districts should duplicate this program?

Indeed – but you can’t find this information on Reference Guide 1557 on the LAUSD Reference Guide page (surprise surprise), but I did find it on a page for transgender law. You might want to sit down before reading what it says:


The following definitions apply:

“Transgender students” refers to students whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth, and whose gender expression is different from the way males or females are expected to look or behave.

“Gender identity” refers to one’s understanding, interests, outlook, and feelings about whether one is female or male, or both, or neither, regardless of one’s biological sex.

“Gender expression” refers to the way a person expresses her or his gender, through gestures, movement, dress and grooming.

“Gender Nonconforming Students” refers to students that have a gender expression that does not conform with stereotypical expectations, for example, “feminine boys” “masculine girls” and students who are androgynous. Another example might be the boy who comes to school in clothing that some might perceive as “girls’ clothing” or the girl who plays games on the playground that might be perceived as “boys’ games.”

Sound outrageous? Read on:

Issues of Privacy: All persons, including students, have a right to privacy; this includes keeping a student’s transgender status private. Therefore, school personnel should not disclose a student’s transgender status to others, including parents, and/or other school personnel, unless there is a specific “need to know.”

Umm, that would be kinda hard to keep “private” for a variety of reasons, and especially considering the LAUSD’s policy on the use of student restrooms:

Restroom Accessibility

Schools may maintain separate restroom facilities for male and female students. At the discretion of the school administrator, a student may be provided access to a restroom facility that corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school. If the student and administrator feel that there is a reason or desire for increased privacy and safety, regardless of the underlying purpose or cause, any student may be provided access to a reasonable alternative restroom such as a single stall “unisex” restroom or the health office restroom. In all instances, decisions about alternative restroom use should be governed by the school administrator’s judgment concerning the safety and best interests of the student in question.

And what about those locker rooms?

Locker Room Accessibility

Schools may maintain separate locker room facilities for male and femalestudents. Schools may, however, provide a student access to a locker room facility that corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school. If there is a reason or desire for increased privacy and safety, regardless of the underlying reason, any student may be provided access to a reasonable alternative locker room such as:

1. Use of a private area (i.e., a nearby restroom stall with a door, an area separated by a curtain, a P.E. instructor’s office in the locker room, or a nearby health office restroom).

2. A separate changing schedule (either utilizing the locker room before or after the other students).

Mike Pechar at The Jawa Report writes in response:

Levity aside, the legislation is a serious attempt to blur the lines between male and female and thereby attack the cultural institutions of America through redefinition. The delineation of sex on a birth certificate becomes meaningless as society waits until children grow old enough to voice a pronoun of preference.

Yep. I’ve talked about the dangers of redefining traditional definitions before in posts about gay marriage, like this one:

So here we are now, trying to change the definition of it. Let me ask this: in marriage, can there be no absolutes in how it is defined? Seeing as that marriage has traditionally been defined throughout history the union between a man and a woman, who’s to say that once gay marriage is legal in this country everywhere that the definition won’t change soon there after for couples who want more than one wife or husband? That’s one of the problems with the idea of changing the definition of anything, especially something like marriage. Once you start changing the definition, there’s no way for you to stop it and on down the road the term “marriage” as we know it is essentially diluted to where it has no traditional meaning outside of “two people together in a committed partnership” or “multiple people who care for each other in a loving relationship” both of which could encompass many things.

Words have meanings. Why even define something if you’re going to keep changing the definition of it? Once you start, you really can’t stop.

Same same with respect to whether or not someone is born a boy or a girl. Number one, unless you are born a hermaphrodite, you are clearly a boy or girl at birth. It’s not even a question. Even worse than redefining marriage is “allowing” children to “choose” which sex they are. Not only is this dangerous from a social stand point, and not only will it lead to bunches of confused kids, but it also brings about a whole new set of problems, as inevitably some boy or girl who is not “gender challenged” (or whatever they call it) is going to assert they identify more closely opposite sex, and act like it for a while, solely to be able to join the opposite sex in the locker room and/or restroom. This will create even more problems, and sets up the opportunities for various types of inappropriate behavior/contact that shouldn’t be tolerated within the school system.

This is what SB77 is bringing to California public schools statewide. Not only that, but check out what they’re ok with teaching as “normal” in the classrom:

SEC. 29. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

SEC. 30. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:

51501. No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

SEC. 32. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:

60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains:

(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

Just what are those characteristics listed in Section 220?

220. No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.

Section 422.55 of the Penal Code reads as follows (emphasis added):

422.55. For purposes of this title, and for purposes of all other state law unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, the following shall apply:

(a) “Hate crime” means a criminal act committed, in whole or in part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim:

(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics.

(b) “Hate crime” includes, but is not limited to, a violation of Section 422.6.

422.56. For purposes of this title, the following definitions shall apply:


(c) “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.


(h) “Sexual orientation” means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

422.57. For purposes this code, unless an explicit provision of law or the context clearly requires a different meaning, “gender” has the same meaning as in Section 422.56.

Once you’ve sorted through all the various sections and codes, you’ll see that California schools have been given the green light to teach that it is “normal” to have a sex change, cross dress, love both sexes, or the same sex.

I hear all the time about how one day California is going to fall into the Pacific Ocean due to all the earthquakes and fault lines. If California does indeed fall into the ocean, it won’t be due to earthquakes – it’ll be because the state has shifted so far to the left that it has nowhere else to go but the ocean.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

18 Responses to “Liberal nuttery goes on unabated in California”


  1. Ryan says:

    What the h-e-double hockey sticks is wrong with this state?

  2. You tell us – you live there ;)

  3. Kareling says:

    I always wanted to be a cat. Can I choose to be a cat?

  4. Baklava says:

    Bunch of girlie men out here ! :d

  5. Lorica says:

    My Grand Pappy Ray always said: “Just cuz Momma Cat had her kittens in the oven, doesn’t make ’em biscuits” =))

    This is just one of many reasons you don’t hear the “Arnold for President” noise anymore. – Lorica

  6. Sister, here’s the next big trend that will probably come from California … a new book says humans and robots will begin having sex sometime in the next 50 years … undoubtedly followed quickly by e-infidelity, insulting your motherboard, the occasional unexpected virus, and threats that you won’t be able to use your joy stick until you are networked.

    Sooo many questions arise! Could you order one who looked like Salma Hayek? If you had sex with another robot, is that really cheating? Do you take a hottie robot out to dinner or just call the Geek Squad for takeout? Will we see signs in stores that say, “Fleshies Only”? If your robot widow gets all your stuff when you die … who gets it when she crashes? Will she get jealous if you spend too much time on your computer? Do robots go Wii-Wii?

    I won’t waste any more of your bandwidth. I blogged on this provocative topic at The Bayou.

  7. and this is exactly why my two girls go to private school! Gosh, it is really difficult being a conservative in California. Does anyone feel my pain?:((

  8. PaulSS says:

    Sodom and Gomorrah come to mind.

    When immoral people rush to the extreme of immorality, they are accelerating their demise.

  9. benning says:

    This isn’t terribly surprising considering that Californians thought Jerry Brown (and Grey Davis!) were worth electing to state-wide office. What’s shocking, scary, and a head-scratcher, is that the adults have allowed this insanity.

    There are a few adults remaining in California, surely?

    The agenda-driven Loons of the Left are in complete control, yet the real adults are unwilling to speak up (The Emperor’s New Clothes), or afraid. I keep waiting to see some sort of commomn-sense backlash, but it never happens. Even the Governator seems to have fallen under the power of the Loonies.


  10. PCD says:

    Call me Lex Luthor. I’m looking for a couple of nuclear weapons to detonate in the San Andreas Fault.

  11. Stacy says:

    I was born and raised in California…lived there 26 years before I moved to Texas…and I swear, it was nothing like this when I lived there.

  12. Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg says:

    Crack. It’s not just for breakfast anymore.

  13. Jim says:

    That place can’t have that BIG earthquake fast enough. What worries me is that we are seeing just what can become of the rest of the country in the not too distant future if people don’t wake up fast. The uber left will destroy everything that we hold dear.

  14. Leslie says:

    And the looniness just keeps on coming!

    Once again, California, the state that forces people in the East to fall asleep before the bowl games are over, finds yet another way to annoy the rest of the country.

    No satirist could have improved on those “regulations.”

    Lorica: I wish I’d met your Grand Pappy Ray.

    Ron: Human-Robot sex was spoofed years ago by Tanith Lee in “The Silver Metal Lover,” which might be in print, still.

    Benning: the thing is, in the real world nobody wants to hear from the guy who shouts out that the emperor’s not wearing any clothes.

  15. Steve Skubinna says:

    California, the Granola State: Fruits, nuts, and flakes.

  16. Diecast Dude says:

    As a native Californian, I bitterly resent these insinuations and accusations being hurled against the Golden State about it being a land of the freaks and home of the blithering moonbats.

    It says in James 1:2, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds.”

    You’re just jealous because we who live out here have so many more rich sources of joy beyond words than you’ll ever know! =))

  17. Wry Mouth says:

    I me teacher in California private school. Me lucky. Me teached 5 years in publick school. Students nice. Parents nice pretty much. Administration double-plus nice.

    CA state regulations? insa-a-ane.

    Now me teach private school. Me double-plus unhappy because new laws also can be enforced in some private schools.



    I have to track these things; I’ve read portions of the bill, and I think (if we’re lucky) that such a landslide of lawsuits will fall on the school system that it will collapse in a confused heap of people wondering, “weren’t we doing the right thing?”


    Cartoon idea I’m considering:

    SCENE: CA hospital delivery room

    DR: Congratulations!
    DAD: Is it a boy or a girl?
    DR: [points to baby] Ask it!

  18. gary fouse says:

    “Lasst sie nach Kalifornien kommen!” (Let them come to California)

    Since it’s the political season, and one of the biggest debates is how much government we want in our lives, I thought it would be instructive to all of you in the other 49 states to know what our government is doing to us in California. I won’t even bother with San Francisco because everyone knows what a joke that place is, with full encouragement and participation of their tribal council or city government. I would like to concentrate here on the Los Angeles Unified School District and the State Government in Sacramento. If anyone thinks that more government is needed to fix what’s wrong with our nation, I say, in the immortal words of John F Kennedy in his 1963 speech in Berlin- let them come to California.

    First, the LA Unified School District (LAUSD), one the worst in the country. I myself graduated from University High School in West LA in 1963. At that time, it was rated number 2 in the nation, only behind New Trier High School in Northbrook, Illinois. Not any more. In my days there, Uni had probably the most beautiful setting of any school in the country, set on a pine tree studded hill with an Indian spring running through the campus. As a result, many movies and TV shows have been filmed on the campus. Today, however, many of the trees are gone and the campus is full of weeds and pavement cracks.

    What has happened in the intervening decades? For decades now, bussing has accomplished nothing but force students to get up before dawn and spend half of their day sitting on school busses. Yet, it still continues. Illegal immigration, basically supported by LA City Government, has filled the classrooms with non-English-speaking students. In addition, gangs and drugs rule over many campuses.
    Under conditions like those, education does not occur. The drop-out rate is somewhere between 25-50%. That, however, has not stopped the city from pouring huge amounts of money into the schools with no real results. Up until a year ago, the LAUSD was run by former Colorado Governor and Democratic political hack (DNC Chairman), Roy Romer, who continued throwing away taxpayers’ money and demanding more and more. Now there is some guy named David Brewer in charge. He can’t even pronounce the name of the Mayor he works for (Tony Villaraigosa-“Villagarosa”!)

    Recently, the LAUSD sank millions of dollars into a new computer pay system for its teachers. The system was so good that it overpaid teachers something like 53 million dollars. When LAUSD found the error, they started trying to collect back pay from their teachers, many of whom are disputing the amount of overpay. So now, LAUSD will spend upwards of 130 million more to correct the system plus 5 million to a PR firm to explain to the public how the school district is “on the job taking care of business”. Now Brewer has brought in two consultants, at annual salaries of $178,000 and $90,000 respectively to “help fix the problem” and deal with the negative publicity. But wait, the guy who will make $178,000 doesn’t even have a college degree. He doesn’t have the requisite qualifications for the position. Well, that’s OK. He’s going to take classes to get his degree from the UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX!!

    Then there is the State Government in Sacramento under the “reign” of Arnold Schwarzenegger who was elected during the recall of Grey Davis, promising to come to Sacramento and clean up the mess, cut spending and cut taxes. Problem was, he is virtually the only Republican there. Sacramento is firmly in the hands of not only the Democratic Party, but the far-left (and corrupt wing) of the Democratic Party. If you are not in California, you probably don’t know the names of Fabian Nunez, Don Perata, Cruz Bustamante et al. The spending and high life these people enjoy is a scandal unto itself. Interestingly enough, many of these figures were members of Mecha, a Mexican-American university student group that has advocated the return of the SW United States to Mexico. Today, as state leaders, these characters pushed the far-left political agenda and spend, spend, spend. Not enough money for a new program? Easy solution-raise taxes. As a result, many productive people are packing up and leaving California-in many cases, taking their businesses with them due to the taxes and regulation. As for the reformer, Schwarzenegger, he quickly learned in office that, if you can’t lick ’em, join ’em. That is what he has done. His reign as governor has become pretty much like Queen Elizabeth’s reign in England. (Just sit there and wear the crown while the country falls to pieces around you.)

    Today, it has been announced in Sacramento that the state is short 14 billion dollars. In other words, they have 14 billion more in expenses than money on hand. Nunez and Perata are already stating that taxes must be raised. If the Republicans (what few there are in Sacramento) get in the way, they will have to go to the voters (in the form of a bond or voter initiative).

    Tom McClintock,a Republican, and one of the few sane politicians in the state (he has run for Governor and Lt Governor unsuccessfully), has, for years, laid out the problem in Sacramento. In the last decade, while inflation has risen, state income has risen even more. Unfortunately, spending has risen the most of all. The math is easy. California doesn’t have an income problem; it has a spending problem.

    Then there is a recent episode in Glendale, outside Los Angeles where a local family was ordered by the Fire Department to trim some of their trees. When they complied, they were hit with a $347,000 fine by the City for “damaging indigenous trees”, whatever that means. It was only a public outcry against the city and Mayor Ara Najarian, fueled by KFI radio talk jocks, John and Ken, that finally caused the city to rescind the fine after being deluged with calls and e-mails and being held up to ridicule by the aforementioned talk jocks.

    So what is the lesson for all this? It is obvious that Democrats like Hillary Clinton want to create more government involvement in areas like education and health care, just to name two. That means more taxes and more power to the government. Do you really believe that government will use that power and money wisely? I don’t for two basic reasons; First, I spent my career in government. Second, Ich bin ein Kaliforniener. (Is that right?- I’d better check the dictionary.)

    gary fouse