The state’s lawmakers earlier this week rejected two proposals by Republicans to ban biological males, who identify as female, from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams.
One, if passed, the bill would have required the California Interscholastic Federation to ban biological males from participating on girls’ sports teams.
The second would have reversed a 2013 law allowing students to participate in sex-segregated school programs, including sports teams.
The same 2013 law allowed biological males in girls’ restrooms and other facilities. The law remains intact.
Predictably, Democrat Assemblyman Rick Zbur compared Republican efforts to Nazi tactics of the 1930s.
“This is what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. We are moving towards autocracy in this country. In Nazi Germany, transgender people were persecuted, and the way that it started was the same kinds of things that are happening in this country by the Trump administration.”
California’s rejection of God’s design for gender comes as the state schools face a federal investigation for hiding the gender confusion of students from parents.
The U.S. Department of Education announced the investigation last week.
Hundreds of opponents and supporters packed the hearing room on Assembly Bill 89.
Conservative political commentator Matt Walsh, who spoke at the hearing, appealed to the public’s common sense.
“The man who identifies as a woman is either diluted and confused, or he is a cross-dressing fetishist looking to play out his fantasies in public. In either case, the claim that he's making to womanhood is not true, and compelling young women to take part in this untruth is evil, perverse and predatory.”
The state policy of not allowing teachers and staff to alert when their child expressed a desire to “transition” at school or began showing confusion through questions or other behavior was the subject of a lawsuit by the Thomas More Society in 2023.
Paul Jonna is Special Counsel for the Thomas More Society and partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP.
“We challenged these policies in California that were requiring gender secrecy in schools. Essentially the way these policies operate is that if a minor child chooses to change their gender presentation at school, the school staff is required to accept that child's assertion of his or her gender identity and to immediately begin referring to that child with the preferred names and pronouns,” he told AFN.
At the same time staff are “not to disclose that information to the child's parents, unless the little child consents to disclosure. So, a 5-year-old at school could dictate their new gender, their new name and not have their own parents learn of that."
Jonna said his team filed this case on behalf of two teachers. Eventually, they added parents, and they filed it as a class action.
“We got a groundbreaking preliminary injunction in 2023 against these policies, which by the way, are being implemented at the direction of the California Department of Education, and are essentially required by the California Department of Education. The injunction found that the policies likely violate the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment rights of parents."
Jonna explained that throughout litigation, the California Department of Ed, in an effort to get the case dismissed, has said no, these policies are not really required, that they're optional guidance.
“We have a pending motion where we've been arguing to the court that no, their position has not changed. They're essentially still required."
Jonna said hopefully, with the federal Department of Education now looking into this, it strengthens his team's position. He said it will hopefully bring about a quicker resolution.
Very dangerous policies
“It kind of adds credence to our view that this is still a problem, that the California Department of Education cannot wash its hands of these very dangerous policies."
“Keeping parents in the dark about their own children is never a good idea, and what the state of California and many states actually have done, is they just assume the worst. They assume that parents won't react well, and that the government is going to be there for these kids, and not their own parents, which is a ridiculous assumption.”
It creates anxiety for parents and children alike.
“It flips the general presumption upside down. The general presumption is parents act in their children's best interests, and so the state has no business keeping information like this from parents. We’re confident that our case will result in final statewide class-wide relief enjoining these policies."
