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?

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 Dose of Reality

Well, the City of San Francisco has announced that it will now offer SRS (though they are apparently, and quite ignorantly, calling it "gender reassignment surgery") to those covered by the City's "Health San Francisco (HSF)" health care plan.  HSF basically replaced what used to be called "Community Health Network," which provided medical for those who are uninsured and unable to pay for their own care.  It is a bit more formalized, and instead of the usual "sliding scale" used in most locations, it is more like an HMO.

The reaction to the article in the San Francisco Chronicle should act as a wake up call for the transgender extremists, but, of course, they will probably continue as cluelessly as usual.  At the time of writing this, there are 333 comments, almost all of which are negative, and many of which, including some from gay males, are downright hateful.  Granted, the comments also show an overwhelming degree of complete ignorance of the subject.

The facts are simple.  Very few people, relatively speaking, actually seek sex reassignment surgery.  Even when it is offered to them on the proverbial silver platter.  Most will find an excuse why they will "wait," even if they try to avoid coming right out and admitting that they have absolutely no desire to give up their penis.  I worked with a number of "transgender" people when I received my surgery, which was covered by insurance.  Most of the people I worked with failed to have the surgery, even though they all, initially, claimed they would rush to have it.  One other co-worker actually had the surgery, and one FTM co-worker had chest surgery.  The rest did not even seriously make an effort to check it out.  Similar results occurred when San Francisco became the first municipality to offer the surgery to its employees.  There were actually very few takers.

Some of the comments on the Chronicle's website predicted that the rush to have the surgery would bankrupt the City.  It was even suggested by a few idiots that San Francisco will fall victim to "medical tourists" who will drop in, have a sex change, and return home.  Never mind the fact that the process will probably take months, if not years, to complete.  When I had my surgery, I had already been seeing a therapist for over a year, and even then, my case had to be presented to a committee for consideration.  I was quickly approved, but it was not automatic.  I imagine a similar approach will be used by Healthy San Francisco.  In any case, I would also assume that anyone seeking coverage will be required to meet the full Standards of Care.

The comments also included the usual comments about how the surgery is "elective," "cosmetic," and "unnecessary,"  Amazingly, there were few objections raised.  I had no desire to get involved in the fight, but I doubt the vast majority of "transgender" activists even care, and many are probably, at least secretly, hoping that the naysayers will actually succeed and spare them all having to explain why they are not rushing to have the surgery now that it is suddenly "affordable.

I seriously doubt there will be any flood of transgender people to San Francisco in search of free SRS.  A few may come here, but there simply are not that many who want the surgery to begin with.  

But it will be an embarrassment for the "people would have the surgery, but they can't afford it" crowd.  And the transgender extremists who think there is widespread acceptance should read some of the comments.  They are not nearly as "accepted" as they think.  And yes, they really are doing harm to true transsexuals.  What should be a "no-brainer" is being treated as an outrage by people who have no real idea of what is going on.

Fake ID

San Francisco, where I live, has decided that it will join some other cities in issuing ID cards, mainly to aid illegal immigrants. I am not completely happy with that idea. I mean, I favor the idea of helping people who wish to come here to work, but there do need to be some controls. This is the sort of thing that could be exploited by those whose purpose is not benign.

Because of pressure from the "transgender" they have decided to leave "gender" off of the cards . Just another reason I am really getting tired of their politics. Now, when I got my California ID (I don't currently have a driver's license, since I don't currently need one) it had my legal name, and listed my sex as female. This is in accordance with state rules that allow one to get a license with the sex changed if one is in transition towards surgery. Of course, that rule gets bent a lot, but that is another issue.

What I found extremely interesting is that someone from the Family Research Council objected to the new policy because it perpetuates the idea that "gender is a social construct." I bet he would be very surprised to discover that I, a person with HBS, who he would probably reject if he knew that, totally agrees with him on that particular issue.

I don't believe that at all. I believe that gender is inherent, intrinsic, and immutable. One is born with a brain that is wired either male, or female, and nothing can change that. If the brain does not match the body, then the proper term is Harry Benjamin Syndrome. Otherwise, while one might choose to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with both one's birth sex, and gender, that does not change one's gender.

Of course, I believe people have the right to live their life as they please, as long as they don't do anything that harms, or has the potential to harm, another. But I also believe in being honest.