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?

The REAL Transgender Agenda

Well, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is at it again...  

This time, he has gone so far as to defend "Colleen" Francis, who exposed himself to a group of teenage girls at Evergreen College in Washington State.  Perhaps defend is not the proper term.  As is typical with Mr. Williams, he has confabulated a rather fanciful tale in a desperate attempt to deny what actually happened.

Mr. Williams is trying to claim that the whole affair is really all an "urban legend," by, well, trying to cook up an urban legend.  I find it kind of interesting that Mr. Williams has waited over a year to come up with the bit of drivel.  Apparently he thinks it has been long enough that people might actually believe his lies.

But the real question is why?  Is it because, well, the "Colleen" Francis affair is so far-fetched that we should all believe that such a thing could never happen?  Or is it because, well, if the transgender extremists like Mr. Williams have their way, things like this will become routine?

If you guessed the former, sorry, but you are wrong.  If you guessed the latter, congratulations!

You see, very central to the REAL transgender agenda is an effort to force women to accept, shall we say, nude intact males in areas where there is an expectation of privacy.  Put a bit less delicately, these, uh, "women" are supposed to be free to wave their, uh, neo-clits around.  And if you don't like it?  TOUGH!  Just ask Transadvocate contributor Mr. "Zinnia" Jones:

"Cis people’s bathroom fears do not matter"

And then there is this outright lie from Mr. "Mara" Kiesling, in which he actually admits to the fact that part of the agenda is forcing women to accept nude men in the showers and dressing rooms:

The most significant change for transgender people is that we fought for and won removal of language that clarified use of showers and locker rooms "where being seen unclothed would be unavoidable." None of the states that have passed and successfully implemented a gender identity anti-discrimination law includes such a provision, and neither should ENDA.

This is not true, as 11 of the 17 states with such laws have separate provisions that protect privacy in such areas.  And as I showed in my previous post, this is a part of those schools policies that Mr. Williams has been lying and saying were "identical" to the new transgender school law that is currently being challenged in California.  That law specifically leaves out any provision that would allow for such protections.  It is important to remember that an omission can be as significant as an inclusion.

No, bottom line, this is the real transgender agenda.  Mr. Williams wants you to believe that what happened at Evergreen College is a myth.  He wants you to not demand protections until it is too late...

And I do appreciate Elizabeth at Notes From the T Side having the decency to acknowledge that I was right when I predicted that this would happen.  As I said, I was not interested in attacking a young transsexual.  I'm simply opposed to Mr. Williams and his ilk using a child to push their agenda. 

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.

Going Off the Deep End

Sometimes, sadly, you just can't reason with some people.  You try to present your point of view, calmly, and rationally.  Perhaps you even admit you made an error.  But they are not going to be happy unless you totally give in to their position, and when you don't, they go off with insults.  Sad, but it happens.  I admit, I've done it myself, but I try to learn from that mistake.

It usually happens with deeply held beliefs are challenged, and the person has no real answer, and they don't want to consider that they might be wrong.  Even if you try to calmly respond, they simply get angrier, and angrier.  Usually, you see this sort of response in religious discussions, but it can also happen when the topic is politics, or just something deeply personal to the person.

Recently, I made some remarks about the student in a Colorado high school that I regret.  I did not have all the facts, and I jumped to some conclusions I should not have.  Elizabeth, at Notes From the T Side took me to task for that, and I admitted my mistake, but that turned out to not be good enough.  Apparently I was expected to blindly agree that the "rights" of a transsexual or even a transgender student completely trump those of others.  I won't do that, because that is, well, absurd.  

Legal rights generally have to be balanced.  I have stated, I believe that the controversial law that is intended to assist "transgender" students in California is poorly written.  It is very likely that a challenge to this law will be on the ballot next year, and it may well pass.  I have made suggestions as to how that law can be modified to deal with issues, that may or may not be legitimate, that will be raised, and which, if not answered, will almost certainly lead to the law being tossed.

Okay, I realize that some might not agree with this.  Some want those issues in place, because they really do think that "trans women" have an absolute right to expose themselves in women's spaces.  Some seem incapable of seeing that this is part of a bigger effort.  Some have naive ideas about "transkids."  

I would love to see laws in place to protect transsexual children.  I don't want to see transsexual children used to push through the transgender agenda, which includes the idea that simply saying one feels female, even if only temporary, validly establishes one as female.  Some apparently can't accept, in their blind rush to help kids, that this is the real agenda of some.

Some apparently cannot accept that some people have SRS who should not have.  I guess they are so insecure in their own identity that any suggestion that someone completely the process is no 100% a woman is terrifying.  

For whatever reason, and in spite of attempts to make peace, Elizabeth went off the deep end.  Unfortunately, the debate attracted the attention of the notorious troll "Diane" Lask.  Lask, who it turns out is non-op like her late partner in terror, Cheryl Mullins, develops obsessions over people.  As I pointed out, in the past, it was a Canadian transgender activist that Lask harassed for years.  When that person withdrew from the net, and apparently returned to living as a male, Lask had to find a new target.  Sadly, I became that target.

Now, anyone with a shred of sense, who bothered to look at some of Lask's more absurd posts harassing me, would realize that Lask is nuts.  But, as I say, people can choose to be blind.

I finally reached my limit.  It basically came to the point of either lowering myself to the level that Elizabeth had chosen, or simply walking away.  I have chosen the latter.  I am sure Lask, who has no real grasp on reality, will think he drove me off.  Not even close.  I simply realized that further discussion was futile, and decided not to waste more time on someone who cannot accept disagreement.

It's sad.  I respected Elizabeth, though I admit, as with others, the constant reminder of how she was a "transkid" gets a bit old.  Not all of us had the good fortune to have that choice.  The air of superiority that some who did, adopt, gets really old, really fast.  Elizabeth kept telling me I could not understand what it is like for someone like that.  The truth is, Elizabeth can't understand what it was like for someone who did not have the opportunity to get help that early.  I'm honestly happy for her that she had the good fortune that she did.  But I am saddened that she cannot comprehend what like was like for someone who did not have that chance.

In any case, I have removed "Notes From the T Side" from my blog list and she can rant all she wants, but it's not worth commenting any further.

Has the Backlash Against the Transgender Extremists Begun?

A while back, I wrote about what is now referred to as the School Success and Opportunity Act, which is a very innocuous sounding name for what is a potentially bad law.  I know some disagree, and I admit, after reading Elizabeth's two excellent articles, (here and here)  on the law at Notes From the T Side, I am not quite as opposed as I originally was, but I still think the law needs, at the very least, to be rewritten.

I have no problem with there being a law to protect and assist students who are transsexual. Such a law might well have made my life a lot better when I was in school, though that is a hard concept to wrap my mind around because at that time, there were some many other things that would have been issues that the ones addressed by this law would have been relatively minor.  

I do know that I had learned to hide my feelings, and I have a very clear memory of answering a question asked by a psychiatrist in a way that was not truthful.  I was asked, "If you had three wishes, what would they be?"  I knew what the first would be, "To be able to change into a girl." and I also knew that it would not be a wise thing to admit.  Instead, I gave what I thought were "safe" answers.  Given how badly those were twisted, I still shudder to think how that woman would have reacted to the truth.

But this law is, as I pointed out, poorly written.  It is the sort of law that only a transgender extremists could truly love.  It is so vague, it pretty much amounts to "anything goes" with regards to students claiming to be "transgender."  There are no standards for what constitutes a valid claim.  It is strictly "name it, and claim it."  There is no requirement that the student have even spoken to a therapist.  

In theory, at least, a jock could walk into the principals office with a grin on his face, announce that he feels like a girl, and insist on being allowed to enter the girls locker rooms and bathrooms, and there is nothing that could be done to stop him.  Now, maybe this will never happen, but it could.  A more likely scenario is that some student who  has a fetish will take advantage of the law to, and gain access to such spaces even though his gender, and gender identity are still quite male.

And all of this brings us to the present.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen latest diatribe is about how the Capitol Resource Institute is leading a coalition that has begun gathering signatures to overturn the law.  I imagine they will have no problem getting the law on the ballot.  And chances are very good that it will pass.

The problem is rather obvious.  As Mr. Sandeen points out in the article:

The California School Boards Association (CSBA) describes the School Success and Opportunity Act as requiring “districts to permit transgender students to participate in gender-segregated school programs and activities – including athletic teams, sports competitions and field trips – consistent with their gender identity and to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

The only problem is, the term should be sex-segregated.  What the law does is require schools, with no qualifications or limits, to allow male-bodied students in girl's locker rooms, showers, and bathrooms with no real restrictions as regards issues like "inevitable nudity."  As I said, the law is very poorly written.

A real irony is, Mr. Sandeen quotes a press release from the leader of, which states :

“AB 1266 mandates San Francisco values on all California schools.”

That's the problem...  It actually doesn't.  Here in San Francisco, the rules concerning access to showers and locker rooms require that access only be given as long as "inevitable nudity" is not a problem, and that a facility must, if feasible, take steps to prevent such from happening, or provided separate but equal facilities.  In another words, you have provide separate, enclosed stalls for showers and changing if that can be reasonably done.  This law, does not seem to allow for such restrictions.

Now, maybe schools have such facilities.  When I was in high school, the only showers were for the athletes (my senior year, it was decided that they would be available to others during PE, though it was optional and most did not take advantage) and they was zero privacy.  I don't know if the girls locker room was the same or not.  I also recall from my college days that the showers in the dorms originally built for male students also had open showers.  I only spent one semester in such a dorm, and the rest of the time I was in a dorm originally built for female students but "converted" to half of what was rather jokingly referred to as the co-ed dorm.  We shared a common building, but it consisted of two wings separated by the cafeteria with a gate separating the two sides that was locked at night.  The showers in that building had separate stalls.  No really "co-ed." but it was provided as a response for demand for such a co-ed dorm.

No, the simple solution would be to quickly amend the law to add a few simple provisions:

Require students wishing to make such a claim to be seeing a qualified therapist and have a written statement that provides a diagnosis.  

Further, students wishing to make such claims would have to present completely as the gender they claim to identify as.  In another words, the would have, as they walk, the walk, and not just talk the talk.  

There should also be provisions allowing schools to make accommodations when facilities do not provide adequate privacy in situations that involve inevitable nudity.  We don't need any teenage "Colleen" Francis types exposing themselves.

And a provision should be made to prevent students from repeatedly switching back and forth.  

Changes like that would likely short-circuit a proposition that will likely end all protections, even those for students who actually need them.

But I doubt the transgender extremists will have the good sense to compromise, preferring a glorious defeat instead.