Beth Sherouse @ACLS1919 & @HRC (USA)

Beth Sherouse

Beth Sherouse is an  American Council of Learned Societies (“ACLS) Public Fellow. She currently is staffed as “Senior Content Manager” at the Human Rights Campaign.  She started her position this month and will be there for two years. She recently penned a blog post for the HRC website – because this is her job as “Senior Content Manager” –  stating that although she never has been to the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival, she opposes it because Men cannot come.

It is blatantly obvious that the Human Rights Campaign is pandering to the Transgender community with this blog post. This blog post does not represent HRC policy, as the organization would not delegate such a policy declaration to a fellow who has been with the organization for two weeks.

The Human Rights Campaign should be ashamed of itself for this meaningless political stunt that will do nothing except inflame tensions between lesbians and Men who identify as Women.



One thought on “Beth Sherouse @ACLS1919 & @HRC (USA)

  1. HRC is not about “human rights”. The HRC is a men’s right organization, and there have always been women who act as handmaidens to men’s political agendas. Virtually EVERY major GLBT organization is run by either men or transgender (MTFs not FTMs). All we have to do is look at who runs these organizations. I’m talking about the higher level positions. HRC’s president and vice president are male. The local GLBT where I live is the same. The only “women” in positions of power are biological males who “identify as women”. It’s basically the same old same old misogyny, but with a faux progressive twist that is repackaged as being “progressive”.

    HRC supported AB1266 which not only eviscerated the privacy rights of female students, it also crapped all over Section 221.5 of the Education Code. AB1266 requires NO DOCUMENTATION of any kind.

    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. AB1266 doesn’t even address bullying, teasing, harassment, or discrimination per se. It only deals with access to sex-segregated facilities based on “gender identity” which, by the way, isn’t clearly defined other than how a student identifies at any particular point in time. Female students have a constitutional right to privacy, and AB1266 all but eviscerates protections for female students.


    * AB1266 is only thirty-seven words of poorly crafted legislation. There are no guidelines, rules, or standards put in place. It’s a poorly written one size fits all approach to a complex and deeply divisive issue.
    * Under AB1266, 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.
    * A student doesn’t even have to tell his or her parents.
    * 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.

    “(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.


    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.

    Again, please note that (a) through (e) is what feminists fought for, and thirty-seven word (f.) requiring no documentation, not even a letter from a therapist stating that “gender dyshphoria” is long standing and genuinely felt, is required. Not only did they shred the privacy rights of female students, they did this by crapping all over Section 221.5.

    Why does AB1266 state, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities”? 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). Transgender identified students can take any class they want. 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? For the purpose of AB1266, what does “facilities” mean? Section 221. 5 (a.) through (e.) covers everything from classes to vocational training and career counseling. What sex-segregated school programs and activities are they talking about? The only sex-segregated things left that (a.) through (e.) doesn’t cover are restrooms and locker rooms because these are assumed to be segregated based on sex. Wouldn’t “facilities” include all facilities such as restrooms and locker rooms? The way that they cleverly dance around this subject is amazing to me. Biological male students (penis, testicles, testosterone, and XY chromosome) will have access to the girl’s restrooms and locker rooms. AB1266 is K-12 (kindergarten through high school). Sixteen year old boys do not belong in the girls’ restroom or locker room, and parents have every reason to be concerned.

    I will NEVER forgive HRC for supporting AB1266 nor will I ever forget what they did. I can certainly see why there have been efforts to split California into six different states. No one likes what is coming out of Sacramento.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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