Herman Rowland Sr. and Privacy for All Students (USA)



The National Center for Transgender Equality, the Transgender Law Center, the National Center for Lesbian rights and Equality California sent a letter to Herman Rowland Sr., chair of the Jelly Belly company, upon learning that he donated $5,000 to Privacy for All Students, a political action committee that formed to repeal AB 1266 in California.  AB 1266 permits “(a) pupil … 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.”  The legislation, which goes into effect January 1, 2014, completely guts the Sex Equity in Education Act, which guaranteed equal participation in sex-segregated activities for girls. With this legislation, a boy can participate in any and all activities – and use any and all facilities designated for girls – by simply declaring that he “identifies as a girl.”

Donations to political campaigns are public, and anyone can look them up here.

Herman Rowland Sr.

Herman Rowland Sr.

LGBT Groups Take On Jelly Belly Chairman For Anti-Transgender Referendum Donation.

Trans Advocates Want to Meet With Jelly Belly Chairman _ Advocate.

California Secretary of State – CalAccess – Campaign Finance.


6 thoughts on “Herman Rowland Sr. and Privacy for All Students (USA)

  1. People who support this poorly crafted piece of legislation haven’t even read it. They have no idea that it’s only 37 words that are wide open for interpretation. There are no guidelines or rules put in place. Perhaps their intentions are good, but this is seriously flawed on multiple levels. This is AB1266, and it’s so flawed that I don’t know where to start.

    (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.

    I have no idea why they have the audacity to state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities” when SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION already addresses sex based discrimination. Females can take classes stereotypically associated with males (shop classes for example), and males can take any class they want. As to transgender, current law prohibits discrimination against transgender identified students.

    “It is important to note that Education Code section 220 currently prohibits discrimination in the schools based on actual or perceived disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or one’s association with individuals with those characteristics. Therefore, transgender students are currently protected against discrimination in the schools, and complaint procedures are in place at the school district, state and federal levels to address allegations of bullying or other discrimination against transgender students.”



    An act to amend Section 221.5 of the Education Code, relating to pupil rights.


    SECTION 1.

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:

    (a) It is the policy of the state that elementary and secondary school classes and courses, including nonacademic and elective classes and courses, be conducted, without regard to the sex of the pupil enrolled in these classes and courses.
    (b) A school district may not prohibit a pupil from enrolling in any class or course on the basis of the sex of the pupil, except a class subject to Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 51930) of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2.
    (c) A school district may not require a pupil of one sex to enroll in a particular class or course, unless the same class or course is also required of a pupil of the opposite sex.
    (d) A school counselor, teacher, instructor, administrator, or aide may not, on the basis of the sex of a pupil, offer vocational or school program guidance to a pupil of one sex that is different from that offered to a pupil of the opposite sex or, in counseling a pupil, differentiate career, vocational, or higher education opportunities on the basis of the sex of the pupil counseled. Any school personnel acting in a career counseling or course selection capacity to a pupil shall affirmatively explore with the pupil the possibility of careers, or courses leading to careers, that are nontraditional for that pupil’s sex. The parents or legal guardian of the pupil shall be notified in a general manner at least once in the manner prescribed by Section 48980, in advance of career counseling and course selection commencing with course selection for grade 7 so that they may participate in the counseling sessions and decisions.
    (e) Participation in a particular physical education activity or sport, if required of pupils of one sex, shall be available to pupils of each sex.
    (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.

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code was historically designed to address sex based discrimination. From a historical and practical perspective, conflating sex with gender identity seems clumsy, is unworkable, and flies in the face of common sense. Intuitively, we sense that something is terribly amiss. Are we to believe that a female student taking a carpentry or automotive class is the same thing, or on par with a male using the girl’s locker room or shower? This is what the State of California would have its citizens believe. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she isn’t allowed to take a shop class, and under Section 221.5, a biological male student is being discriminated against if he can’t use the girl’s restroom, shower, or locker room. Under Section 221.5, a female student is discriminated against if she can’t take a drafting class, and under 221.5, a 6’10” 200 lb. biological male is discriminated against if he can’t play on the girls’ basketball team. This only make sense if we believe that biological sex is irrelevant, and for all practical purposes, non-existent.

    Please note that 221.5 (a) through (e) uses the word “sex” as in biological sex. Then, 221.5 (f) only refers to “gender” and “gender identity”.

    Is the State of California stating that “gender identity” is the same thing as biological sex? If so, when did this occur?

    This is rather confusing in that the State of California acknowledges that discrimination based on sex exists, or has existed. Then, with one sentence, the biological reality of sex, the entire history of women’s oppression, and thousands of years of systemic and widespread discrimination based on sex are completely erased from existence as if female as a class never existed. Gender identity is clearly given preference over sex. Indeed, for all practical purposes, gender identity overrides sex.

    Perhaps the most odious form of sex discrimination is the process whereby the female sex is treated as an invisible non-person, lacking in meaningful substance or history. If “gender identity” is the exact same thing as biological sex, then sex is essentially rendered meaningless, irrelevant, devoid of significance, merit, history, or acknowledgement. What does it say to female students when their thoughts, feelings, opinions, and life experiences are erased from existence in such a caviler fashion? Who cares about female students who might feel extremely awkward, embarrassed, and fearful sharing a restroom or locker room with a fifteen or sixteen year old boy? Rational citizens of the state aren’t allowed to ask such questions.


    It’s rather difficult to enact clear and precise law when the state itself is not dealing with a precise definition. Does the State of California have a precise definition for “gender identity” other than how one states that he or she feels? Please note that no proof is required that a student’s “gender identity” is a persistent, deeply felt belief. All we can do is to take the student’s word that that the feeling or experience is authentic and long standing. Moreover, how can anyone truly quantify “gender identity”, or a feeling that one is “trapped in the wrong body”? Is this something that we can measure? If so, how do reasonable people go about measuring a feeling or belief?



    A biological female cannot change her DNA or the fact that she has a female reproductive system, menstruates, and can get pregnant. A person of African American ancestry cannot change his or her genetic inheritance. Also, a physically disabled student with a genetic disorder cannot change his or her DNA and medical condition. However, “gender identity” is changeable, and often open for interpretation depending on how one chooses to define him or herself.

    “Currently experts can’t tell apart kids who outgrow gender dysphoria (desisters) from those who don’t (persisters), and how to treat them is controversial.”


    “Treatment of extremely gender variant children will continue to remain controversial since some underlying assumptions of the clinicians are a matter of opinion rather than of empirical data and empirical studies (e.g., clinical trials with random treatment assignment) are neither feasible nor ethical. I wish to conclude by raising some points for the clinicians treating these children to consider:

    1. There is no empirical evidence (i.e., controlled study) demonstrating that discouraging childhood cross-gender interests reduces the frequency of persistence into adolescence and adulthood.

    2. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to discourage cross-gender identifications may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do persist into adolescence and adulthood.

    3. There is no empirical evidence demonstrating that a prepubescent child who is permitted to transition gender role but then desists can simply and harmlessly transition back to the natal gender.”

    4. Since no clinician can accurately predict the future gender identity of any particular child, efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles may be experienced as hurtful and possibly even traumatic by children who do not persist into adolescence and adulthood.”


    Does this sound confusing? Who can we make heads or tails of it? Persisters, or children who don’t outgrow gender dysphoria, might experience hurtful feelings and trauma if people try to change cross-gender behaviors. On the other hand, desisters, or children who outgrow their gender dysphoria, might be traumatized by efforts to encourage public early childhood cross-gender roles. That is, a male child who was referred to as “she” for years is now confused and hurt once he goes back to identifying as a boy. Moreover, there is no empirical evidence that says that transitioning back to the sex one is born into is easy and doesn’t come with its own challenges. How will the ten year old boy who identifies as a girl feel when he is eighteen? No one knows for sure, but there has to be a law that says he, rather she, can join the girls in the locker room while he works on his gender identity issues.

    According to, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18981931

    “Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.”

    A simple online google search turns up several examples of children who struggled with gender dysphoria, and later changed their minds as they matured.

    ‘I was born a boy, became a girl, and now I want to be a boy again’: Britain’s youngest sex swap patient to reverse her sex change treatment

    October 29, 2012

    Below is a link to a MTV video of a young man who identified as a girl and now wants to return to being a man. Also, in the MTV video, a young woman who once identified as a boy changed her mind and returned to being a girl. The young man who appears to be in his early twenties discusses having his breast implants removed. In the same MTV video, the young woman who looks like she could be in her mid-twenties is shown undergoing laser treatments to remove the facial hair that was caused by earlier testosterone use.
    Detransitioning stories are easy to run across on the internet. Transitioning essentially means the process whereby one changes his or her outward appearance to match or coincide with how one identifies or feels internally. Transitioning usually involves cross-gender hormones and surgery. Detransitioning is the opposite of transitioning, and there are numerous examples of people stopping cross-gender hormones. Testosterone is commonly referred to as “T” and FTM means female to male.


    “I am a 22 year old woman who lived as male for 3 years and took testosterone for a year and a half. I am currently 8 months into detransition.”
    “Anonymous asked: I’ve been off T for 5 months now. My hormones are still balancing themselves out, and as that happens I find myself discovering more and more of my inner world that I didn’t even realize I lost while on T. It’s a beautiful thing. I feel like my mental self is re-awakening and growing again. I’m so happy to re-discover the real Me that I love.”
    “My name is -name redacted-, im 25 and i am a former FTM, also detransitioning and having a rough time through the post traumatic stress after being on testosterone, my body, my face, my feelings went all wrong on T and know im fighting to come back..”

    Adults who identify as transgender, or say they “feel trapped in the wrong body” also change their minds and revert back to the sex they were born into.

    I’m a guy again! ABC newsman who switched genders wants to switch back
    August 6, 2013

    “He thought he was a woman trapped in a man’s body — but it turns out he’s “just another boring straight guy.”
    ABC News editor Don Ennis strolled into the newsroom in May wearing a little black dress and an auburn wig and announced he was transgender and splitting from his wife. He wanted to be called Dawn.
    But now he says he suffered from a two-day bout of amnesia that has made him realize he wants to live his life again as Don”.

    In 2012, there was an incident in the UK in which a physician was investigated for not following established guidelines in prescribing cross gender hormones and referring unsuitable patients for sex reassignment surgery. One woman regretted undergoing a double mastectomy.
    Doctor under fire for alleged errors prescribing sex-change hormones

    “Dr. Richard Curtis is under investigation following complaints over treatment of patients seeking gender reassignment. A woman who alleges that she was inappropriately prescribed sex-changing hormones and then wrongly underwent a double mastectomy is one of several complaints being investigated by the General Medical Council about the doctor who oversaw her aborted gender reassignment, the Guardian has learned.
    The GMC, the doctors’ professional regulator, has received at least three separate complaints against Dr. Richard Curtis, a London GP who specialises in the treatment of gender dysphoria, particularly transsexualism. The complaints concern the alleged inappropriate administering of sex-changing hormones to patients and at least one allegedly unsuitable referral for gender reassignment surgery.”




    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. No matter what the State of California does and doesn’t do, it 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.


    Below is an interesting article that deals with 14th Amendment issues.

    “Specifically, the proliferation of legislation designed to protect “gender identity” and “gender expression” (Gender Identity Laws) undermines legal protections for Women vis-à-vis sex segregated spaces, such as Woman-only clubs, public restrooms, public showers, and other spaces designated as “Woman only.” Women require sex-segregated facilities for a number of reasons, chief among them the documented frequency of Male sexual violence against Women and the uniquely Female consequence of unwanted impregnation resulting from this relatively common form of violence. Public policy, therefore, rationally permits sex segregation in certain settings where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists

    Every state in the United States plus the District of Columbia has adopted a law that bans discrimination based on sex in employment, housing, and public accommodations, among other areas of public life. These “Anti-Discrimination Laws” stand as evidence of a public policy statement against irrational discrimination, which has no place in a free and open society. However, each of these Anti-Discrimination Laws also preserves an exception to the general policy against discrimination with regard to sex-segregated facilities. These exceptions operate as an admission by that state that Women have an interest in sex-segregated facilities. That is, the government recognizes that Women and Girls have an interest in having space away from Males where Women and Girls might expect privacy.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    If schools allow athletes take any kind of performance enhancing drugs, this would be viewed as unethical and fundamentally unfair. Students should be taught fair play and any type of cheating dishonors not only the individual student, but the school and sport itself. Steroid use wouldn’t be allowed because this creates an unfair advantage. After puberty, males naturally produce testosterone which increases muscle mass and strength. It’s ludicrous on its face and grossly unfair for adolescent boys to compete against females.



    According to the APA,

    “Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings, and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person’s biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity.

    Gender identity refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf. Gainor, 2000).”


    “The term “gender identity,” distinct from the term “sexual orientation,” refers to a person’s innate, deeply felt psychological identification as male or female, which may or may not correspond to the person’s body or designated sex at birth (meaning what sex was originally listed on a person’s birth certificate).”


    “Gender identity” is for all practical purposes a psychological condition, perception, or strongly held belief in that it resides in the mind. Under AB1266, it is recognized by the State of California. 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.

    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.

    Below is a very interesting post at http://www.sexnotgender.com

    Impact litigation? The ADA vs. “gender identity” laws


    “I have a question that I hope someone could help me with. I’m on Social Security Disability because of major depression, anxiety disorder, and PTSD. I live in a state with “gender identity” anti-discrimination laws.

    Because of a history of PTSD caused in part by sexual molestation and abuse as a child, I know that having to share a restroom with a biological male would be traumatic for me. Indeed, even the thought of having to share a restroom with a male causes me distress. When I was a child, I was sexually assaulted in a bathroom by a male relative.”

    These are my questions:

    (1.) Why is “gender identity” which essentially amounts to a psychological diagnosis more important than PTSD from sexual abuse which definitely is a psychological disorder? When one in six women have been victims of rape or sexual assault, common sense tells us that many of these women would have some degree of PTSD. Isn’t it true that mental illnesses including PTSD can fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act? How can any state prove that one mental condition is more important than another?
    (2.) Other than a letter from a therapist or psychiatrist, how does one go about proving “gender dysphoria”? People with a clear history of panic disorder and PTSD also have a documented psychiatric disorder.
    (3.) Since I’m on Social Security Disability because of major depression, panic disorder, and PTSD, why couldn’t I type up an ADA Request for a Reasonable Accommodation stating that it would be traumatic for me to share a restroom with a male? I do have a disability and I’m seeing a psychiatrist.

    I would very much appreciate advice on how to proceed with an ADA Request for Reasonable Accommodation. This is uncharted territory, and I want to handle this correctly.”

    August 2, 2013 by Elizabeth Hungerford


    “I received the following comment from a reader and decided that the best course of action– BECAUSE WE DO NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE AT SEXNOTGENDER.COM– was to edit it slightly for clarity and open it up for a larger discussion.

    * See 42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(1) (1997); 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(F)(i) (1997).
    (a) Homosexuality and bisexuality
    For purposes of the definition of “disability” in section 12102 (2) of this title, homosexuality and bisexuality are not impairments and as such are not disabilities under this chapter.
    (b) Certain conditions
    Under this chapter, the term “disability” shall not include—
    (1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
    (2) compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or
    (3) psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.


    I’m assuming that “gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments” relates to disorders of sexual development which are NOT the same as transgender. I know that trans activists are rather fond of throwing in intersex even though they know full well that intersex isn’t the same as transgender. Please note that every major intersex (disorders of sexual development) organization makes a distinction between DSD and transgender. The vast majority of transgender identified persons have no actual medical DSD diagnosis. They are biological male or biological female. DSD are diagnosed with genetic testing and other medical tests whereas transgender is essentially all in one’s mind, and thus at least partially culturally based.



    Based on rape and sexual assault statistics alone, females have a clear historical reason to be naturally suspicious of any male invading their personal space, and girls and women are most vulnerable when they are using a toilet, showering, or undressing. Stating that the vast majority of sex offenders are male is a fact.

    Center for Sex Offender Management
    A Project of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice
    March 2007

    National criminal justice statistics reveal that of all adults and juveniles who come to the attention of the authorities for sex crimes, females account for less than 10% of these cases (FBI, 2006). Specifically, arrests of women represent only 1% of all adult arrests for forcible rape and 6% of all adult arrests for other sex offenses.

    In contrast to the approximately 140,000 men incarcerated in prisons nationwide for sex crimes, only 1,500 women are estimated to be imprisoned for these offenses (Harrison & Beck, 2005). They represent only 1% of all adults incarcerated for sex offenses, and 2% of all females in prison. Similarly, adolescent girls represent only 2% of the roughly 7,500 sex offenders placed in juvenile residential facilities nationwide, and they account for only 1% of all girls in residential placements (Snyder & Sickmund, 2006).


    We know that males are more likely to be registered sex offenders, and we also know that nearly one in five women have been victims of rape or sexual assault at some time in their lives.

    • Nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives.
    • A 2011 survey of high school students found that 11.8% of girls and 4.5% of boys from grades 9-12 reported that they were forced to have sexual intercourse at some time in their lives.
    • 42.2% of female rape victims were first raped before age 18.
    • 29.9% of female rape victims were first raped between the ages of 11-17.
    Study: Many sex offenders are kids themselves

    Updated 1/5/2010

    “More than a third of sex crimes against juveniles are committed by juveniles, according to new research commissioned by the Justice Department.

    Juveniles are 36% of all sex offenders who victimize children. Seven out of eight are at least 12 years old, and 93% are boys, says the study by the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. ”


    “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities …and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity.”

    Does this include juvenile sex offenders? AB1266 states “a pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex segregated school programs and activities.”

    “A pupil” would include any pupil whether or not the pupil is a juvenile sex offender. There are juvenile males who have raped, sexually assaulted, or sexually harassed girls. There are even examples of this occurring in California schools. So, if any of the boys who brutally gang raped the girl at a school in Richmond, California say they are “girls”, does this mean they can use a girl’s restroom? I don’t think anyone will know exactly how many boys were involved in sexually assaulting this young woman.

    The horrific gang rape of a Richmond, California student shocked and sickened people.



    In the old 1980s movie “Porky’s Revenge”, boys laugh and joke as they peep through a hole in the wall to view girls in the locker room and shower. It’s no secret that boys and men have always had a fascination with women’s restrooms. Is this going to magically change because of politically correct “gender identity” laws? It has been going on for hundreds of years, and it’s not likely to change any time soon. If they both dress and look alike, how are girls supposed to tell the difference between the run of the mill voyeur in a dress and a male who identifies as a “girl”. Besides, why do people automatically assume that a biological male who identifies as a “girl” or “woman” isn’t a voyeur himself? No one is saying he is, but how can anyone rule out the possibility of this happening? Studies going back decades clearly show paraphilia such as voyeurism are found almost exclusively in males.

    (http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/overview.htm) (http://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias)

    It’s his civil right to identify as a “girl” or “woman” and to enter a girl’s restroom or locker room. Does that male in the girl’s restroom have a cell phone? Almost all teenagers have a cell phone, and some cell phones can record short videos. All it takes is a couple of clicks.


    Man dressed as woman tried to take pictures in dorm, police say
    June 24, 2013

    Authorities allege Petersen went to Loma Linda University on June 4 and tried to enter several “students only” areas at a female dormitory. After staff members confronted him, officials say Peterson left the building and headed toward a parking lot, where he was met by security.
    Petersen managed to get inside his vehicle, authorities said, and allegedly struck a security guard while driving away.
    Sheriff’s officials said their investigation revealed Petersen dressed as a woman and went to other “female-only facilities” in Rancho Cucamonga and Yucaipa, where he allegedly tried to take pictures with a cellphone hidden in his purse.

    “Man Disguised as Woman Recorded “Hours” of Mall Restroom Video”

    The suspect was wearing a wig, women’s clothing and bra when he was found in a mall storage area, according to deputies.

    Los Angeles area
    May 16, 2013

    “Charges were filed Tuesday against a man who wore a wig and women’s clothing to disguise himself as he allegedly used a concealed camera to record “hours” of video of women in a Los Angeles-area department store restroom.
    Jason Pomare, 33, of Palmdale, was arrested Saturday after customers contacted security officers at a Macy’s store to report a man in the women’s restroom. The security officers contacted a deputy, who was on patrol at the Antelope Valley Mall when he saw a man matching the subject’s description leave the store.
    When the deputy found the man hiding in a mall storage area, the subject was wearing a wig, women’s clothing and bra, according to a statement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
    “The deputy noticed he was wearing a wig and appeared to have breasts,” said Sgt. Brian Hudson, of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
    Pomare was charged Tuesday with six counts of unlawful use of a concealed camera for purposes of sexual gratification. After his arrest, investigators said a video camera found in his purse had “hours” of video of women using the restroom inside the store.”

    SOURCE: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Secret-Recording-Store-Mall-antelope-Valley-Palmdale-Restroom-207541101.html

    A man dressed as a woman has been spotted peeping at females and photographing them in a UC Berkeley locker room.

    According to an email just received from the UC Police Department:

    “On Monday, October 4, 2010 at 9:20 p.m. and again on Wednesday,

    October 6, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. a male disguised as a female was discovered in the Recreational Sports Facility women’s locker room. ”


    WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. -” Purdue University police are investigating a reported incident in which a man dressed as a woman was seen taking photographs under the wall of a women’s bathroom stall in Yue-Kong Pao Hall of Visual and Performing Arts. The incident was reported to police about 3:30 p.m. Monday (March 31).

    According to a police report, a woman was in a bathroom stall on the third floor of the building and saw a hand holding a blue flip-phone camera beneath the door. She left the restroom and then returned to confront the person. At that point, she realized the person was a man dressed as a woman.”

    Police: Man in bra and wig found in women’s bathroom
    by KOMO 4 Staff
    Updated 08:27 p.m., Friday, March 16, 2012

    EVERETT, Wash. – A man wearing a bra and wig was arrested Friday after he was spotted in a women’s bathroom at Everett Community College, police said.

    Officers responded to the scene at about 1:30 p.m. after a college staff member said she saw the man go into the women’s rest room and alerted security personnel.
    An investigation found that the suspect had gone into the rest room while two women were inside, according to a police report. The women were later interviewed and said they had no idea that the man was there.
    When police interviewed the man, he claimed that he had gone into the bathroom to use the facilities.
    But the investigating officer noted that the man was wearing a wig and bra. A search also turned up a pair of woman’s panties in his front pocket, according to the police report.
    The man, later identified as Taylor J. Buehler, 18, of Lake Stevens, was placed under arrest.
    He admitted to officers that he was the suspect in an earlier voyeurism incident at Everett Community College on Monday, police said.
    In the earlier incident, he said he took a shower in the girls’ locker room for sexual gratification, acccording to the police report.”


    Males definitely must have a fascination with women’s restrooms. If males didn’t have a fascination with this voyeuristic pornography, why is there such a demand for it? If parents think teenage boys don’t go to some of the following websites, they are rather naïve.
    28 million 600 thousand hits for the Goolge search ‘bathroom and voyeur’. Go to google and type bathroom and voyeur.

    About 28,600,000 results (0.15 seconds)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s