Privacy for All Students (USA)

Opponents of a new California law that eviscerates sex-based facilities for girls said Sunday that they had collected enough signatures for an initiative that would repeal the law.

A coalition of conservative groups called Privacy for all Students submitted 620,000 signatures to get the initiative on the November 2014 ballot, said Frank Schubert, the political strategist handling the signature gathering effort.

To qualify, at least 505,000 valid signatures must be submitted. To verify the signatures, each of California’s 58 counties will first check that the overall count is correct, then conduct a random sampling to make sure they are legitimate. After that, it is likely the state would order a full review.

If, after all of the reviews, the group has the requisite number of valid signatures, the initiative would qualify for the ballot.

Group Says California Transgender Law Repeal Will Qualify.

Advertisements

One thought on “Privacy for All Students (USA)

  1. I’m a life time Democrat/Green who voted for Obama twice and Jerry Brown. I had some misgivings about signing the petition to put AB1266 on the ballot. It had to do with the political views of some of the organizers. Schubert was one of the political consultants behind Prop 8. He is savvy, but I don’t care for some of his conservative views. Prop 8 was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG AND I VOTED AGAINST IT.

    After taking the time to ACTUALLY READ AB1266, I was stunned at how this poorly written 37 word piece of legislation ever made it through the state assembly and state senate. California law already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. No one wants transgender identified students bullied. There are legal remedies and mechanisms in place to address teasing and bullying of transgender students. Female students have a right to privacy, and AB1266 all but eviscerates protections for female students.

    Besides trampling on the privacy rights of female students, there is another disturbing aspect of AB1266 that I find rather offensive. AB1266 appears to erase sex as a distinct class of persons. It amends educational code that was historically designed to address discrimination based on sex. We are to believe that sex does not exist and everyone is a “gender identity”. Although they don’t have a precise definition of “gender identity”, gender identity overrides biological sex.

    It’s wrong to tar everyone who signed the petition to put this on the ballot as conservative. I’m so liberal that I voted for Nader in 2000 and I was once a card carrying member of the ACLU. I get emails from the Sierra Club. Mothers have a right to be concerned about their daughters and girls have a right to privacy.

    About two years ago, there was a brutal gang rape of a girl at Richmond high school. Telling girls who have experienced this level of emotional trauma to just ignore the penis in the girl’s locker room is, frankly, and insult to the female sex.

    AB1266: ONLY 37 WORDS..

    (1.) There are no guidelines, rules, or standards put in place. It’s a poorly written one size fits all approach to a complex issue.
    (2.) No documentation is required. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No letter from a therapist saying gender identity is a persistent and deeply held belief is needed.
    (3.) A student doesn’t even have to tell his or her parents.
    (4.) Apparently, students can self-identity at any time. Also, nothing would prevent a student from switching gender identification, or going back to identifying with the sex they were born into. This does occur, and it’s always a possibility.

    This is AB1266: IT AMENDS SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION CODE WHICH WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS DISCIMINATION BASED ON 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.

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

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1.

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
    221.5.

    (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.

    Why does AB1266 state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities” when SECTION 221.5 (a) through (e) thoroughly covers sex based discrimination (vocational courses, classes, career guidance, higher education opportunities ect.)? Girls can take any class they want (carpentry for example) and boys can take classes they want (cooking, or whatever). Section 221.5 (a) through (e) is very clear in its intent. What does (f.) mean when it says “sex-segregated school programs and activities and facilities”? Wouldn’t facilities include all facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms? We know what they are talking about, but the people who pushed this through hope that we won’t take the time to read it.

    The state of California has not proven that it doesn’t have an interest in protecting the privacy rights of female students. How can the state strip female students of their right to privacy without due process?

    AB1266 is fundamentally unfair to female students. After a boy goes through puberty, he is going to have an enormous size and strength advantage over a female athlete.

    The legislators in Sacramento have decided to dump this on the individual counties and school districts. Many school districts are broke, and now they have angry parents to deal with. It’s a huge headache for financially struggling school districts.

    If a female student is ever injured in any way, there will be lawsuits because conservatives are already circling like hawks. I detest conservatives, but this is what they will do.

    AB1266 DESERVES TO BE DEFEATED. GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    I’m a life time Democrat/Green who voted for Obama twice and Jerry Brown. I had some misgivings about signing the petition to put AB1266 on the ballot. It had to do with the political views of some of the organizers. Schubert was one of the political consultants behind Prop 8. He is savvy, but I don’t care for some of his conservative views. Prop 8 was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG AND I VOTED AGAINST IT.

    After taking the time to ACTUALLY READ AB1266, I was stunned at how this poorly written 37 word piece of legislation ever made it through the state assembly and state senate. California law already prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. No one wants transgender identified students bullied. There are legal remedies and mechanisms in place to address teasing and bullying of transgender students. Female students have a right to privacy, and AB1266 all but eviscerates protections for female students.

    Besides trampling on the privacy rights of female students, there is another disturbing aspect of AB1266 that I find rather offensive. AB1266 appears to erase sex as a distinct class of persons. It amends educational code that was historically designed to address discrimination based on sex. We are to believe that sex does not exist and everyone is a “gender identity”. Although they don’t have a precise definition of “gender identity”, gender identity overrides biological sex.

    It’s wrong to tar everyone who signed the petition to put this on the ballot as conservative. I’m so liberal that I voted for Nader in 2000 and I was once a card carrying member of the ACLU. I get emails from the Sierra Club. Mothers have a right to be concerned about their daughters and girls have a right to privacy.

    About two years ago, there was a brutal gang rape of a girl at Richmond high school. Telling girls who have experienced this level of emotional trauma to just ignore the penis in the girl’s locker room is, frankly, and insult to the female sex.

    AB1266: ONLY 37 WORDS..

    (1.) There are no guidelines, rules, or standards put in place. It’s a poorly written one size fits all approach to a complex issue.
    (2.) No documentation is required. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. No letter from a therapist saying gender identity is a persistent and deeply held belief is needed.
    (3.) A student doesn’t even have to tell his or her parents.
    (4.) Apparently, students can self-identity at any time. Also, nothing would prevent a student from switching gender identification, or going back to identifying with the sex they were born into. This does occur, and it’s always a possibility.

    This is AB1266: IT AMENDS SECTION 221.5 OF THE EDUCATION CODE WHICH WAS HISTORICALLY DESIGNED TO ADDRESS DISCIMINATION BASED ON 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.

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

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1.

    Section 221.5 of the Education Code is amended to read:
    221.5.

    (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.

    Why does AB1266 state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities” when SECTION 221.5 (a) through (e) thoroughly covers sex based discrimination (vocational courses, classes, career guidance, higher education opportunities ect.)? Girls can take any class they want (carpentry for example) and boys can take classes they want (cooking, or whatever). Section 221.5 (a) through (e) is very clear in its intent. What does (f.) mean when it says “sex-segregated school programs and activities and facilities”? Wouldn’t facilities include all facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms? We know what they are talking about, but the people who pushed this through hope that we won’t take the time to read it.

    The state of California has not proven that it doesn’t have an interest in protecting the privacy rights of female students. How can the state strip female students of their right to privacy without due process?

    AB1266 is fundamentally unfair to female students. After a boy goes through puberty, he is going to have an enormous size and strength advantage over a female athlete.

    The legislators in Sacramento have decided to dump this on the individual counties and school districts. Many school districts are broke, and now they have angry parents to deal with. It’s a huge headache for financially struggling school districts.

    If a female student is ever injured in any way, there will be lawsuits because conservatives are already circling like hawks. I detest conservatives, but this is what they will do.

    AB1266 DESERVES TO BE DEFEATED. GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING BETTER THAN THIS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

    Like

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