Gagging on Gnats and Swallowing Camels

Those who have been following the strange tale of AB 1266 might remember that I pointed out, back in October, that places like San Francisco and Oakland had actually addressed some of the more extreme problems that might occur with AB 1266.  In fact, over at LGBT Weekly I confronted Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen about these issues, and strongly suggested that the transgender extremists might want to urge the state legislature to amend AB 1266 to include such provisions in an effort to head off the possibility of that law being overturned.

Well, it is now January, the petition to overturn AB 1266 is still very much alive, in spite of overly optimistic predictions by transgender extremists (and some clearly underhanded efforts by the Secretary of State to stop it) and, well, things have taken a slightly surprising turn.

The extremists from Pacific Justice Institute have embraced the approach taken by San Francisco.  

Think about that for a minute.  We were told, over and over, by kooks like Mr. Sandeen, and his fearless leader, Mr. "Cristan" Williams, that there was nothing wrong with AB 1266, that is only implemented the polices already in place like San Francisco, and that there had been no problems.  Of course, both of them were, as usual, lying through their teeth.  AB 1266 was intended to do exactly what was feared, such as allow students to arbitrarily choose what gender they feel like on a given day, and force female students to put up with males parading around nude in girl's locker rooms.

It seems that Mr. Sandeen is now eating his words, and is actually upset that PJI is taking the reasonable approach to dealing with this issue….

Mr Sandeen is straining out a gnat over the fact that not everyone on the right is willing to embrace "San Francisco" values, and swallowing the camel that, well, transgender males have superior rights to females.

And he is, as has become his practice, badly twisting Scripture to do it.

The article at Transadvocate is laughable, at best.

The whole thing started because PJI has suggest that Florence High School, which is at the center of the controversy over the "Jane Doe" case, adopt the San Francisco Unified School District's approach to dealing with transgender students.

How could Mr. Sandeen possibly find fault with this?  Well, simple…Mr. Sandeen latches on to the fact that another, separate, group that is part of the Privacy For All Students coalition that opposes AB 1266 does not share exactly the same view as PJI.  That group, Capital Resource Institute, apparently takes a bit more of a hard line on the issue.

Hmmm, so, rather than show a shred of common sense, Mr. Sandeen digs his heels in and has a hissy fit because someone actually is willing to compromise, and well, take a position that Mr. Sandeen should fully accept.

Mr. Sandeen tosses out a bit of Scripture…

The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity. Proverbs 11:3 

I think he might want to think long and hard about that one.  He is the one being duplicitous here.  But then, who would expect anything different?

When Extremists Collide

Well, it seems that the kooks at "Transadvocate," well Mr. "Cristan" Williams and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen decided to put on a performance by having a protest at the offices of the Pacific Justice Institute.  Clearly, Mr. Williams was anticipating a massive protest judging from his rather optimistic bit of artwork that accompanied the announcement of the event...

Instead...well, instead there was a total of 10 protestors, including Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen....

Quite a contrast...

So, we have an extremist religious right group, that has no real understanding of transsexualism being picketed by an extremist transgender group (somehow, I am not sure 10 people would exactly qualify as much of a group) who, well, have no real understanding of transsexualism.

I did get a real laugh out of Mr. Williams' enthusiastic prose....

Those who chose to call out PJI’s obdurate behavior were trans allies, parents, youth, war veterans, clergy and attorneys as well as 100s of virtual protesters who used the #JD4PJI tag to draw attention to PJI’s bullying.

Well, let's see....  The, uh, "trans allies" part sort of goes without saying...Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams would both qualify as parents....Mr. Sandeen could sort of, kind of, be called a "war veteran" if you stretch the meaning and I suppose at least one other might have served in the military, though that is not certain....there are a couple kids there, no doubt when they should have been in school....one of the people was a theology professor who decided she is really a "dude" so I guess that would qualify as "clergy" singular...If more than one of these is actually an attorney, I would be surprised (actually, none of them look likely to be) so that whole spiel is a bit of obvious spin.  I wonder if PJI even knew they were out there?  I seriously doubt they cared.

I can imagine both Mr. Sandeen and Mr. Williams eagerly anticipating the massive crowd that would show up.  I also would suspect they were quite disappointed that it turned out to be a total bust.  I wonder how many news organizations they contacted, only to have, quite obviously, no one show up to cover this momentous event.  I wonder if they contacted the LAPD to warn them that there would be a huge rally that day?  Seriously, this is more than a little hilarious.

Oh, and I checked, and apparently Pacific Justice Institute did not care enough to even mention this event....I guess even they thought it beneath notice.

Now This IS Interesting

After reading yet another bit of drivel from Mr. "Cristan" Williams, in which he goes on about allegations of rapes in Oakland Schools, I got curious and did a bit of checking.  I had noticed that Mr. Williams mentioned an email from the Oakland California School District, and in that email it mentioned that they have attached a copy of their school policy, which it was stated was "largely similar" to the new state law.  Now, that struck me as rather curious.  Largely similar is not quite the same as the claims made by Mr. Williams and other activists about the nature of these school policies and how they relate to AB 1266.  So, I looked online, and I found the Oakland School District policy that covers transgender students. 

Yes, it could certainly be called "largely similar," or it could be called significantly different....

Here is what it says:

• Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun conesponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

• Official Records
The District shall change a student's official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements.

• Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that conesponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently at school.

• Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender stud ents shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.

• Sports and Gym Class
Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in sports and gym

• Dress Codes
Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site.

• Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities, students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school.

Notice anything that is clearly missing from the state law?  Like the words "exclusively and consistently asserted at school."  Notice that it does not say that students would be allowed to use locker rooms with members of the opposite sex?  This is a reasonable approach.

Now, what about San Francisco?  Long thought of as the home of the extremes of such policies...you would expect they would have a policy more in keeping with the desires of kooks like Mr. Williams and company....:  

Names/Pronouns
Students shall have the right to be addressed by a name and pronoun corresponding to their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Students are not required to obtain a court ordered name and/or gender change or to change their official records as a prerequisite to being addressed by the name and pronoun that corresponds to their gender identity. This directive does not prohibit inadvertent slips or honest mistakes, but it does apply to an intentional and persistent refusal to respect a student’s gender identity. The requested name shall be included in the SIS system in addition to the student’s legal name, in order to inform teachers of the name and pronoun to use when addressing the student. 

Official Records
The District is required to maintain a mandatory permanent pupil record which includes the legal name of the pupil, as well as the pupil’s gender. 5 Cal. Code Reg. 432(b)(1)(A), (D). The District shall change a student’s official records to reflect a change in legal name or gender upon receipt of documentation that such legal name and/or gender have been changed pursuant to California legal requirements. 

Restroom Accessibility
Students shall have access to the restroom that corresponds to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Where available, a single stall bathroom may be used by any student who desires increased privacy, regardless of the underlying reason. The use of such a single stall bathroom shall be a matter of choice for a student, and no student shall be compelled to use such bathroom. 

Locker Room Accessibility
Transgender students shall not be forced to use the locker room corresponding to their gender assigned at birth. In locker rooms that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students who want to use the locker room corresponding to their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school will be provided with the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved. Based on availability and appropriateness to address privacy concerns, such accommodations could include, but are not limited to: 

Use of a private area in the public area (i.e., a bathroom stall with a door, an area separated by a curtain, a PE instructor’s office in the locker room);A separate changing schedule (either utilizing the locker room before or after the other students); or 

Use of a nearby private area (i.e., a nearby restroom, a nurse’s office).
Sports and Gym Class 

Transgender students shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in physical education, nor shall they be forced to have physical education outside of the assigned class time. Generally, students should be permitted to participate in gender-segregated recreational gym class activities and sports in accordance with the student’s gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Participation in competitive athletic activities and contact sports will be resolved on a case by case basis. 

Dress Codes
School sites can enforce dress codes that are adopted pursuant to Education Code 35291. Students shall have the right to dress in accordance with their gender identity that is exclusively and consistently asserted at school, within the constraints of the dress codes adopted at their school site. This regulation does not limit a student’s right to dress in accordance with the Dress/Appearance standards articulated in the Student and Parent/Guardian Handbook, page 23. 

Gender Segregation in Other Areas
As a general rule, in any other circumstances where students are separated by gender in school activities (i.e., class discussions, field trips), students shall be permitted to participate in accordance with their gender identity exclusively and consistently asserted at school. Activities that may involve the need for accommodations to address student privacy concerns will be addressed on a case by case basis. In such circumstances, staff shall make a reasonable effort to provide an available accommodation that can address any such concerns.

Well, what do you know...San Francisco's policy is not only more detailed, it is actually quite well written.  It even makes provision for students who might object to using the bathroom with someone who is transgender, though it does this in somewhat subtle manner.  Notice the detailed policy concerning locker rooms.

Notice that phrase "the available accommodation that best meets the needs and privacy concerns of all students involved."  Now, keep in mind...the state law was pretty much written with the guidance of the Transgender Law Center.  This is a San Francisco based organization that undoubtedly is well aware of the San Francisco Unified School District transgender policy, which is above.  

They basically wrote a policy that avoids addressing real issues, the ones I have raised and been attacked by people for raising.  They wrote a policy that removes protections for students who are uncomfortable with the provisions of the new law.  They wrote a policy that would, in effect, actually prohibit protections for students who are not transgender, but who might be forced to share a locker room with those that are.  And, sadly, which also fails to provide real protections for students who are actually transsexual.

Oh, and in case someone wants to make some silly claim, notice that there are links to the San Francisco and Oakland policies above.  Unlike Mr. Williams, I back up what I say with actual facts, instead of spinning stuff in an attempt to make it say something it doesn't.

Again, while I have no doubt that the Pacific Justice Institute would still oppose the law if it was modified to include provisions like those above, such an improved law would far less likely to be overturned by the voters of California.  One that that is clear, though...Mr. Williams and company have lied when they claim the new state law matches school district policies.  It doesn't, and I suspect they know quite well that it doesn't.

And I bet you good money that Mr. Williams and company will have a fit if there is an attempt to modify the law to include the above provisions.

A Bit of Clarification

Early on in the now endless stream of silliness over a single student in Colorado, I made an assumption I should not have made, and asserted that the person in question was not making an effort to assimilate as female.  I now realize that I simply do not have enough information to say that.  Simply put, I don't know what the situation is.

What I do know is that most of the information in this case has either come through Pacific Justice Institute, or Mr. "Cristan" Williams.  They represent two opposite extremes, and I consider both to be about equally reliable.  Which is to say, I would not take what either of them says as absolute truth without some serious verification from a more reliable source, and in this case, there have been none.

Some people, who I respect, or at least did respect, have viciously attacked me for not following them in lockstep.  I'm sorry, but first off, I refuse to suspend thinking just because someone tells me to.  If that leads to the person attacking me, insulting me, trying to shame me, and thus trying to bully me into accepting their view that tends to make me wonder why they can't accept that someone might not see things their way.

I am saying, for the record, I don't know what the situation is.  If someone wants to blindly follow a proven liar in this matter, that is their choice.  I made that sort of mistake early on, when I was not aware of the source, and I regret it.  But I won't be bullied by people, even people I considered to be friends, into rushing to the opposite extreme either.

If I make a mistake, I own up to up.  If someone points that out to me, and offers legitimate arguments, I reconsider.  If someone tries to shove bad information down my throat, and then insults me because I don't swallow it, well...that doesn't work so well.  It says a lot more about them, than it does about me.  

And just so people know where I am coming from...I identify as a woman, not a "trans woman" or a "transsexual woman" or any other such term.  I try to consider the feelings of others who are also women a lot more than I consider the feelings of just those who might share a similar history to mine.  Yes, our situation is different.  I recognize that.  But, it is not the only thing that defines me.  And quite frankly, I get really sick of "identity politics" no matter who is trying to push it.

Oh, and I notice Suzan Cooke has again attacked me for speaking up.  I really do pity her.  She clearly has some serious insecurities.  I don't demand that people agree with me, and contrary to repeated claims, I don't use male pronouns just because someone disagrees with me.  I use male pronouns when I honestly feel that they are justified.  People like Mr. Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen are so clearly men, it almost hurts.  Cooke, as bad as she acts...as much as she has become, to go with the analogy she was so smitten with, Locutus of Borg, is a woman.  A deeply disturbed, nut case but still a woman.  So no, I don't call people men because I disagree.  I call them men because they show no sign of remotely being women.