News,  Politics

The transgender revolution marches forward

A new law goes into effect in California today that allows new “privileges” for transgender children. The Washington Times reports:

[The law] is intended to permit transgender students to choose by themselves which bathrooms and locker rooms they will use, and which sports teams they will join.

California schools are already required not to discriminate against transgender students, and they currently work with students and their families to address pertinent issues. However, gay-rights groups and some transgender students said the old policy was not sensitive enough.

If you are unfamiliar with transgender, it is the “T” in LGBT. A transgender person is someone whose perception of their gender does not match their biological sex. So this new law means that if a 17-year old biological male decides he feels like a female, he will be allowed to use the girls’ restrooms and locker rooms at school.

It’s no surprise that Christian parents and other cultural conservatives would be against this new law. But I am curious to know if parents who identify as liberals are okay with this. Isn’t there a limit to how far they will push the envelope when it comes to their own children? Do they really trust the school system to sort out which boys have a female gender? Are these parents okay with biological males being permitted into the same bathrooms and locker rooms as their daughters?

Maybe those parents will be fine with this. But I do think that anyone with a modicum of wisdom can see how this law might be abused. You don’t have to agree with a biblical view of sexuality/gender to see that a whole spate of teenage boys may have ulterior motives for identifying as transgender. Are liberal parents really okay with biological males being allowed into the same rooms where their daughters are undressing?

The moral insanity of the sexual revolutionaries is on full display in this law. The opportunities for abuse are rife. This simply defies common sense.

UPDATE: The Pacific Justice Institute reports that the 600,000 signatures needed to halt the implementation of the law has been reached. They also say that the matter must be put to a direct vote by the people of California in November 2014. I have not yet seen any other reporting to verify this claim yet. Stay tuned.

See also:

Aaron Schrank, “Religious Groups Challenge Calif. Transgender Law Over Privacy,” NPR (December 18, 2013).

Lisa Leff and Julie Watson, “Calif. Schools Prepare for Transgender Rights Law,” Associated Press (December 26, 2013).


  • sheiladrobinson

    A referendum has been successfully filed regarding this law AB 1266. Over 600,000 petitions were submitted. They are currently being verified. As such, the law is not legally in effect as it is put on hold during this process. Most likely this law will be put on the next election ballot this year and Californians will be able to decide for themselves.

    • Shaun DuFault

      Sadly, the courts of California continue to ignore the people. Propostion 8 seems to come to mind. For this, the referendum is just a minor speed bump awaiting the courts to find another reason to rule against common sense and the people of California.

  • godandneighbor

    To the further potential for abuse, how does a school or parents handle an objection to any teen that claims they are transgender? Is there any investigation or verification process true transgenderism, or is an ambitious teen’s word good enough? CA schools are prepared to accommodate transgender claims, but I doubt they are prepared to risk litigation if they dare question the claim.

    Mike Johnson

  • Eddie Shore

    I would have a few question for the school. Do they have the legal authority to try and acertain from students what their gender is? Do they have the legal right to question someone, and, is the student legally required to provide the school with an answer? What is to prevent anyone from lying just to get their jollies (considering the only way to determine if someone is “transgender” is self-determination)? Not going to lie, in my pre-Christ adolescnece, I totally would have lied to do this.

    My other question would be if the school considered the welfare of the other studnets inoved. What abotu the potential psychological effects this could have on non-transgendered studnts in those locker rooms. What if it makes those students feel uncomfortable or unsafe? What would the school do for them?

    I try to stay out of all the culture war garbage that is out there, as it does impede our witness, but this is absurd. Pagans are going to be pagans and do pagan things, but talk about blinding oneself to reality.

  • Chris Ryan

    To answer your question I think you have to be very liberal to approve of this law. Of my liberal friends only 1 does. That being said I don’t think we’re going to see a rash of hetero boys proclaiming themselves Transgender in order to get into the girl’s locker room.

    Remember there are lots of gay boys who don’t come out until they’re adults, how many hetero boys are going to subject themselves to the ridicule, ostracization, and discrimination that comes along w/ being Transgender? I also imagine that schools will put in place sensible regulations to prevent boys from doing this *just* for their PE class. If you wanna ‘wear a dress’ during PE the schools will prolly make them wear a dress outside of PE as well. And, oh by the way, would any of these guys using the locker room in this opportunistic way really be able to date any girl? They wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Houston.

    So while I strongly oppose the law I greatly doubt it will be a parade of horribles. Give it a couple of years & if it works in Cali & Colorado we’ll prolly have it elsewhere.

    • godandneighbor

      I would not count on schools to screen or challenge kids claiming to identify as the opposite sex; I would expect them to be afraid to do little but accommodate. Even if we don’t see a “rash of hetero boys” taking advantage of this law, there are well over ten thousand public schools in California. If only a handful of horny boys were willing to endure ridicule and lie to gain unlimited access to naked girls for couple years, it would be a ludicrous invasion of privacy and potentially very dangerous. I imagine there are some apathetic boys willing to forego normal “dating” if they could have such an uninhibited voyeuristic opportunity. No boy claiming to identify as a girl would need to go as far as wearing a dress or makeup to play the part—many actual girls don’t really dress that way in school. What you’ve said probably will restrain most kids from pretending to identify, but the concern over the few who do would ignite my rage if my daughter were in a California school.

  • Eddie Shore

    Chris, I think that is the point. The entire California legistlature must be pretty liberal is they drafted this bill and then voted it into law….the question becomes: Are these elected legislators really representing the voices/wants of their districts?

    • James Stanton

      The cultural trend today is all about “inclusivity”. I think the electorate in California will be more favorable, or perhaps ambivalent rather, towards this than the electorate in Texas or Lousiana. What outrages social conservatives in states where social conservatives are influential does not move the needle in other parts of the country. Perhaps we’ll see some preemptive laws in some states that will leave no uncertainty as to who is allowed to use which bathroom.

  • Eddie Shore


    The electorate may not be as “inclusive” as you say, considering what happened with Prop 8. The electorate voted that into law. It was smaller group of individuals who pushed the issue to higher courts to get it overturned.

    • Lauren Bertrand

      The electorate that passed Proposition 8 did so with by a small margin. I’m not trying to discount its decision–I disagree with the Supreme Court approach endorsed by “smaller group[s] of individuals” that you reference. But slim margins often shift from year to year.

      An excellent and often completely overlooked example is Arizona, where a similar constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was REJECTED by the electorate…again by a small margin. This happened the same year as Prop 8 I believe (or very close to it). So Arizonans were technically the first to reject an anti-gay marriage amendment to their constitution. However, the next year, a small group of individuals pushed a heavy campaign to again place it on the ballot with much greater advocacy; this time, the constitutional amendment banning gay marriages passed (again by a small margin).

      This tactic seems a bit more intellectually honest, though it does suggest the referendum approach to a fickle electorate is the best way for opposing identities to exert their will against one another, even if it becomes a sort of sociopolitcal game theory.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.