Media Watch: The Sharyl Attkisson approach
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:
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:
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(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.