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?

We Don't Want Special Rights….Except When We Want Special Rights

I've been wondering when one of the extremist transgender bloggers would take on the case of the transgender boy at a Bay Area high school who got himself in trouble for attacking a group of girls he claims were bullying him.  Of course, Mr. "Cristan" Williams decided to weigh in, and as might be expected, he is demanding "special rights" for this fellow….

The case is really a simple one.  A student, who claims to be a "girl" but who is male, and who is well known in his high school, claims he was bullied by female students for years.  (And here we have been led to believe that female students have no problems with boys invading the girl's room in school…whoops.)  The boy, who calls himself "Jewlyes" Gutierrez, physically assaulted the girls, leading to a rather nasty altercation that was caught on someone's cell phone.  And because Gutierrez decided to use violence in response to verbal harassment, he was charged with battery.

Those are the simple facts.  A male student, who claims to be transgender, is verbally harassed, and uses physical violence against the female students who object to his presence in their bathroom.  Pretty simple.  Now, of course, in the eyes of the extremist transgender crowd, the girls have no rights, and Gutierrez has all the rights.  He gets to force himself on them, and when they react, he gets to use violence to "correct" them.

But, he cry will go up, "No, we don't want special rights!  We just want to be treated like everyone else…."  But when push comes to shove, no, they want special rights.  When they are treated like everyone else, they cry foul.

No one should be bullied, but being bullied does not justify violence.  That is the real issue here.  A male (sorry, but he is) physically attacks females who are calling him names.  Sorry, but no, that is not excusable.  If he was defending himself from a physical assault, it would be different.  But they were not hitting him.  He is the one who resorted to violence.  And he was a male, hitting a female.  Reality may not suit the transgender extremists, but it is past time for them to be brought face to face with it.

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.

Separating Facts From Total and Complete Fabrication

As I said yesterday, the "trans panic" continues, and to be honest, it is getting pretty deep.  Mr. "Cristan" Williams is in overdrive pumping out the lies, straw man arguments, and such, and the sad thing is, he is just making the whole mess at the worse.

His latest bit of drivel would be hilarious if it were not so serious.  He has posted another straw man argument that seems to raise some serious questions about what really is going on in Florence, CO.  In his latest opinion piece masquerading as "news" he seems to claim that the police are investigating Pacific Justice Institute for "bullying."  What is actually said is very disturbing, if true.  Of course, like pretty much everything in this case, this bit of information comes from a biased source... Apparently Pacific Justice Institute has alleged that Superintendent Rhonda Vendetti has warned that "that the complaining families were now subject to having their social media monitored by police." Okay, there are basically three possibilities here...PJI has fabricated this claim, the superintendent is lying, or the police actually are engaged in outrageous, and illegal acts intended to repress free speech.  The one thing that is very clear is, well, as usual, Mr. Williams is lying again.  The parents are not Pacific Justice Institute, and the Florence Police would have no jurisdiction to investigate them for bullying (PJI Is located in California).  

Now, let's look at several facts, some of which have nothing to do with the Colorado case anyway:

First, in spite of what some want to believe, none of this is really about transsexuals.  Mr. Williams pretty much has shown outright disdain for transsexuals.  He is very focused on "transgender rights" which is an entirely different subject.  He is simply desiring to use a teenage student in Colorado to further a far more extreme political agenda, and apparently will use any sleazy trick he can dream up, including now attempting to buy the support of the parents.  Mr. Williams has started a fund raising drive to provide them with money.  I guess they have to be rewarded for allowing him to use their child.

The real issue is also not a high school student in Colorado.  It is about preserving a rather poorly written law in California.  Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen posted a rather telling comment.  He quotes the AB 1266's author who speaks of how various school districts have instituted "common sense" policies.  That is true.  For example, I did a little research, and found a news article from a local paper, The Canon County Daily Record, in Colorado about the case.  It provided a bit of information about Colorado's law concerning transgender rights:

The Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Commission states under Rule 81.11 - Gender-Segregated Facilities (http://bit.ly/18jzRRz) that nothing in the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act prohibits segregation of facilities on the basis of gender; all covered entities shall allow individuals the use of gender-segregated facilities that are consistent with their gender identity, including but not limited to restrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms and dormitories; and in gender-segregated facilities where undressing in the presence of others occurs, covered entities shall make reasonable accommodations to allow access consistent with an individual's gender identity. (emphasis mine)

BTW, while Mr. Williams has written an increasing number of articles on this case, that was the ONLY story in the local paper.  

Okay, that is not terribly different from the regulations here in San Francisco.  Here they use the term "inevitable nudity" but otherwise the policy is pretty much the same.  They have to make modifications, if reasonable, otherwise they have to provide access to equivalent facilities.  For example, if there are showers, they have to provide separate stalls, and curtains.  That sort of thing.  They do NOT have to allow a "Colleen" Francis situation, like Mr. Williams wants.  

And that brings us to "Colleen" Francis and what that pervert tells us about what is really going on.  Some years ago, when the push for transgender rights really took off...when it was decided that the status quo, which was that transsexuals, perhaps with what were called "carry letters" were pretty much allowed access to restrooms, and other facilities, was not enough, and that crossdressers and such should be allowed access as well, some raised the concern that it would not stop there.  That these men would want to force their way into more private spaces.  We were told that this was absurd, that it would never happen....

Yeah, "Colleen" Francis...  BTW, Mr. Williams's response to that case was laughable.  He actually tried, in an absurd post, to claim that women were a greater threat than men.  Of course, this is a man who has pushed the "cotton ceiling" meme, and who has pretty much show clear disdain for women who, uh, well....don't have penises.  Suddenly, it is not only okay for men (sorry, but if you are willing to wave your penis around in a women's locker room or shower, you are a MAN, BABY!) to invade women's spaces, but to do so nude.

AB 1266 does not contain a provision that addresses "inevitable nudity."  It does not allow for provisions that address "inevitable nudity."  It does not contain clauses that allow schools to set "common sense" policies.  I imagine that the extremists at Transgender Law Center argued against such provisions.  The law, and that is part of the problem, it is a law, not a school policy, is going to be enforced by judges, who will be constrained by what the law actually says.  And by what it does not say.

What the law says on the matter is a bit too simple:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

It can, and no doubt will, be argued that the law does not allow a school to make provisions for dealing with inevitable nudity.  That would be a "restriction."  The law does not provide any provision for determining a student's gender identity.  What if a student claims that it "fluctuates."  

I sincerely believe that some "common sense" is needed...

The law should be modified to address "inevitable nudity."

The law should be modified to include a provision requiring some form of medical documentation that the student has been diagnosed as transsexual by a qualified, licensed therapist with experience in the treatment of that condition.  And presentation would have to be consistent, not periodic.

Rules that would address issues of fairness in athletics.  Even if the claims of "gender identity" are true, imagine, for example, girl's basketball teams fielding male students with height and strength advantages that would otherwise be illegal.  It would, in effect, be the equivalent of allowing students to take steroids.  Not to mention, track and field, volleyball, and other sports. 

Those provisions would go a long way towards addressing legitimate concerns.  Yes, groups like PJI would still object...but so, probably, would kooks like Mr. Williams and Mr. Sandeen, who suddenly would be losing their extremist agenda.

Bottom line, it is really sad that a student in Colorado is being used by either side to further political gain.  It is especially sad that this student is reported to be on "suicide watch."  You know, I almost predicted in my article that would be the next development.  I decided that would have been in poor taste, and didn't add it.  I honestly hope it is not true.  But, given that the child might actually believe what Mr. Williams, and Mr. Sandeen have lied about having been said, I don't know if it is true or not.  

Would I put it past Mr. Williams to make such a claim if it were not true?  Not at all.  He has already shown he lies as easily as he breathes.  He has already shown that he is more than willing to pay for the use of this child.  He has already shown little actual regard for the child's  privacy.  

And no, I don't hate Mr. Williams.  I find his behavior to be reprehensible but no, I do not wish him harm.  I wish he would show some decency and stop using a child for his political goals. But, I don't hate him.  And I don't appreciate people making such claims in an attempt to use "club words" to beat me into submission.

The "Trans Panic" Continues...

No, I don't mean "trans panic" in the sense of the rather nasty defense used when someone is murdered because they are discovered to be transsexual, or more likely, transgender.  I mean the frantic attempts to gain attention by writing about the case of the Colorado high school student.  The transgender extremists can't seem to get enough of it.

Mr. "Cristan" Williams has repeatedly written on the subject, and now Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen has taken up the cause, having produced at least three four articles(they come so fast it is hard to keep up), two three on Transadvocate, and another on LGBT Weekly.  Well, technically, the latest article on Transadvocate is more about AB 1266, which is at the heart  of the panic.

I suspect, AB 1266, a law that takes an extremist approach to protecting "transgender" students in California public schools will be overturned next year.  I have said, repeatedly, that the smart move would be to have it amended to take out the excessive features (in particular sharing locker rooms) or at least include provisions concerning privacy (i.e. something similar to rules in San Francisco that address "inevitable nudity").  Now, I don't even know what the situation is in school locker rooms.  It has been a very long time since I was in one, and that may not even be an issue.  But, whether it is, or not, addressing it would defuse the objections to the law.

But, given that this has not once been addressed in anything I have seen, I suspect that it may well be a issue.  And I also strongly suspect that transgender extremists have no problem with the issue, even though I have no doubt it would cause even more upset for students who are legitimately transsexual (who are really not a concern for the kooks like Sandeen and Williams).

I do find it amusing that, while the Pacific Justice Institute has made the claim that the Colorado student was harassing female students, the only ones who has applied terms like "attacking," "predator," and "monster," have been trans extremists attempting, desperately, to create straw man arguments.

Now, honest people can disagree on whether or not what has occurred in that Colorado high school amounts to harassment.  Arguments can be made both ways.  But the simple truth is, no one, not even the Pacific Justice Institute has actually referred to that child using words like "predator" or "monster" except the trans extremists.  The really bad thing is, I can imagine this child reading some of the articles in support, and actually believing that people have used those terms...when they haven't.

I have been attacked by people I would normally support because I have declined to accept extremists positions on this case.  I am saddened that this child is being used by either side to further a political agenda.  I am saddened that this child's privacy has been invaded by having photos posted online.  It seems odd...much has been made about people making death threats, and yet, something that might lead to someone spotting the child and attacking has been posted.  Without the photos being posted, the chances of someone identifying the child are much less.  But, anyone who is obsessive enough to actually carry out such an attack now has more information to use.

In spite of what some, in fits of irrational rage, have suggested, I don't want this child harmed.  Sadly, if it does happen, it may well be more the fault of the trans extremists than those they try to smear while pushing their agenda.

Hey! Who's the Naked Dude?

[Updated to correct an error in which I misattributed a position to Cathy Brennan.  For that, I apologize.]

I am sure most are familiar with the "Emperor's New Clothes."  It is the story of a very vain but gullible emperor of an imaginary land who is sold a set of "special" garments.  The thing is, he is told that they are made from a fabric invisible to anyone who is unfit for his position or "hopelessly stupid".    Of course, the garments  are not real, and he is being tricked into paying for nothing.  

So, when his new "clothes" are delivered, he is shocked to discover that he, the emperor, is apparently "unfit," but not willing to admit this, he makes a great fuss over how fine they are and after being assisted in dressing by the con artists who have tricked him, and having his ministers also discover they they too are not "unfit" (and of course no one admits this) he goes out in public where the crowds, again wishing to avoid embarrassment, make a great fuss over how fine the garments are.  Until, finally, a young child says, "Why does the emperor have no clothes?"

Well, many, like the emperor, are being sold an illusion.  And some are beginning to ask questions, and that is causing panic among transgender extremists.  Over the past several days, a number of them, led by Mr. "Cristan'  Williams, have tried to counter an article that first appeared on Christian Broadcasting Networks website about a transgender male in Colorado, who has invaded the girls bathroom, and the fact that this has caused distress for female students.

Mr. Williams has posted at least five (now up to six) stories on Transadvocate, plus one on his personal web page, and has further made efforts to hound any news site that has dared repeat the story.  All of his posts have included outright lies, in an attempt to stem what is clearly the beginning of a coming backlash.

The latest post on Transadvocate is just absurd.  Headlined, "Anti-gay activist group admits trans school “harassment” is fake," it is basically just one big lie. The group in question, Pacific Justice Institute did not make an admission, and the whole thing is Mr. Williams putting words in their mouth in an attempt to create another of his trademark straw man arguments.

Mr. Williams starts off:

Okay. Maybe the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) doesn’t think that they’re admitted their charge of “harassment” is fake, but I’ll let you be the judge.

Okay, there is so much wrong here, it is laughable.  First off, it is kind of hard to make an admission without intending to actually do so.  Second, well, let's be honest, Mr. Williams is not going let anyone be the judge.  He is going to tell you what to think, and demand that you accept it.

What is really going on becomes a bit more obvious later in the post.  He attacks one of his favorite targets, attorney Cathy Brennan, because, well she simply quoted a statement from Pacific Justice Institute.  This is not even a position taken by her/  That post points out their view that "a trans person in the restroom is 'inherently intimidating and harassing.'"  Now, to be specific, what is referenced, is having someone who is male, who makes it clear that he is male, but who i claiming to be "a girl," insisting on using the women's restroom.  We are not talking about someone who has a medical condition, who is seeking to assimilate as a female.  We are talking about someone who wants to be "out, loud, and proud," as a transgender.

Williams goes on to attack Brennan for "outing" an FTM transgender teenager, while glossing over the fact that what Brennan actually did was notify school authorities about this person posting harassing messages on Tumblr, including some about women and rape.  The student was making the posts from a school account.  Of course, in the fantasy world of the transgender activist, such behavior as that committed by the student is protected and Brennan should have simply accepted it without complaint.  I guess "ordinary women" don't count...only trans women.

All of this serves to further expose what terrifies kooks like Mr. Williams.  If people actually stop and consider what is really going on, the entire transgender house of cards will come crashing down.  They are not interested in helping the rare person who actually is transsexual, who simply wants to get on with their life, avoiding publicity.  In fact, if you do wish this, they are very likely to show what hypocrites they really are, and attempt to out you, especially if you don't wish to follow them in lockstep.

No, the truth must remain hidden.  The focus must be kept off of the fact that they are trying to force people to accept that women have penises, and that simply claiming womanhood magically grants it in total.

And people are finding that increasingly hard to swallow....  And noticing that not only is the emperor quite naked, but that he is trying to be such in women's locker room....

More Lies From Mr. Williams....

Well, as is his style, Mr. "Cristan" Williams is strutting about and crowing about how he has "forced" several news organizations to pull the story about the transgender student who harassed girls at his Colorado high school.  Part of this stems from the vagueness of the term "harass."  I would not be at all surprised if the claim was made on the basis of the unquestionable fact that a male student, now claiming to be transgender, and therefore "female" insisted on his right to enter the girls restroom.  Is this harassment?  Well, if you are a female, and you have someone you know to be a male, who is not even trying to make a secret of that, quite publicly insisting on sharing the restroom with you, and this makes you uncomfortable...then yes, I would call that harassment.

This is the problem with the whole transgender extremist approach.  These people are not trying to actually be women.  Men like Mr. "Cristan" Williams, and Mr. "Autumn" Sandeen, and Mr. "Dana" Taylor are not remotely attempting to be women.  The very idea is foreign, and even repulsive to them.  They are trying to be "transgender."  They cannot imagine not being, as they would say, "out, loud, and proud."  The idea that someone might simply mistake them for an actual female would be terribly upsetting.

No, what they are all about is forcing people to suspend reality, suppress their clear knowledge, and basically accept a lie...namely that they are "women," and even "female" even though they have penises, and would rather die than give then up.

So yes, Fox News is right...this male student is harassing the girls at his high school.  He is not some poor innocent just trying to deal with a medical condition...he is actively forcing his chosen behavior on girls who, I have no doubt, are not at all happy.  And yes, that is pretty much  textbook case of harassment.

And I am not even going to bother ripping apart his rather obvious abuse of statistics to bolster absurd claims, like how "half of the transgender population" are victims of rape.  That is totally bogus.  Well, okay...that one is too good to pass up.  It is based on some surveys conducted in places like here in San Francisco.  I am familiar with these kinds of studies, and the population is not "all transgender people" or even a representative portion of "all transgender people."  The participants are largely transgender sex workers, who have a very high rate of things like sexual assault...as do sex workers in general.  So, while a study might show that half of the participants were sexually assaulted, that does not remotely translate into the outrageous claims made by Mr. Williams.

But hey, Mr. Williams wouldn't know the truth if it slapped him in the face (which, quite frankly, it does regularly).

Mr. "Cristan" Williams Lies, Again....and Again....and Again...

In an article of the type that Mr. "Cristan" Williams is notorious for, he shows, once more, that he is a pathological liar.  The article, entitled Trans Student Attacking Girls in School Restroom! Or, you know… not, is classic Mr. Williams. The title is the first lie. No one has actually said that a trans student is attacking girls. This is a classic "Cristan" Williams straw argument. What has been alleged is that the male student is harassing girls, which would include forcing himself into the girls rooms when it is well known that he is a male-bodied student. Mr. Williams, being a male-brained man has no concept of the idea that female students might no want a man in their bathroom. Mr. Williams is the sort of pervert who thinks they should just "get over it."

He then goes on to crank out even more of his typical straw arguments... He asserts that the right wing is claiming:

Florence High School is supposedly part of a trans conspiracy to assault school girls in the restroom.

ROTFL!  No one has made such a claim, but that doesn't stop Mr. Williams...  He is on a roll, and has no sense of ethics.

He then goes on to attack the journalist who has written about this.  What David McCain of "the examiner" (funny how Mr. Williams doesn't provide links to the stories he quotes..., using images instead, which allows him to control what people do, and do not, see).  The story can be found here.  Clearly, this story has Mr.  Williams in a full-blown panic.  He has brought in back-ups to try to dominate the comments...

No, he misrepresents what was reported.  No one suggested that anyone was "assaulted," or "attacked."  The word used was "harassed, which would describe how girls might feel about having a boy in their presence.

Mr. Williams also lies when he claims:

I challenged David about his facts and he admitted that he abdicated his responsibility to conduct due diligence for a story concerning a trans kid. Let’s be honest here, this is a case where ADULTS are targeting a trans KID, asserting that the kid is preditor. Apparently, for people like David, what he’s knowingly doing to this kid is acceptable as long as he has his juicy headline that plays well for his audience.

Actually, Mr. Williams has harrassed David McCain, and McCain most certainly made no such admission.  So, Mr. Williams lies again.  Further, no one has used the term "predator" or even "predator" to describe the student.

And finally, Mr. Williams posts a comment from what he claims is a female student at the high school in question, without citing the source.  It is not as it would appear, a comment on the article in question...

So, again, Mr. Williams, who has an established record for lying, has done it again.

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.

Up To His Usual Tricks

There is an old cliche about, "How can you tell is lying?  His lips are moving...."  Sometimes, I feel like updating that to, "How can you tell Mr. "Cristan" Williams is lying?  He's posting on the Internet again..."  Granted, Williams, not unlike some he loves to attack, does not lie so much as he stretches the truth to a ridiculous extreme so that it is effectively a lie.  Well, that or sometimes he just outright lies.

In the latest such example, Mr. Williams greatly exaggerates the reaction of some to the recent law passed in California that I think is poorly written.  The law is intended to extend protections to students who are transsexual, though of course, political correctness insists that the term must be "transgender."

The article is classic Mr. Williams.  He exaggerates the reaction of some, linking together several diverse groups in an attempt to give a false impression.  And then he attempts to use images from popular culture to sway, so he can avoid making an actual, rational argument.

The only problem I have with the law, is the same problem many have with other, similar laws.  It is too vague.  Of course, this is how the extremists want it.  Kooks like Mr. "Cristan" William seem to have an obsession with protecting the rights of perverts like "Colleen" Francis and "Paula" Witherspoon, the registered sex offender and child molester who was cited for being in the women's room at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.  Now, personally, I think it rather reasonable to question whether a person such as Witherspoon actually has a legitimate "female gender identity."  The evidence seems pretty strong that he doesn't.

The problematic part of the law does not require that a student seeking protection under the law have any evidence other than, apparently, a vague claim of identity:

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Now, consider how this is written.  Let's take a hypothetical situation that is actually not really all that hypothetical.  Now, granted, the situation I am describing happened at a local community college, not a K-12 school, and the person involved was possibly not a student, but bear with me.  A male was lurking in the women's locker room in the school's athletic facility, and attempted to attack a woman.  Now, suppose a law similar to this were in effect and he were spotted and reported before actually attempting an assault.  The police arrive, and confront the perp.  He is not dressed as a female, but, thinking quickly, states "I believe myself to be a female, so I am in the appropriate facility for my gender identity."  The police officers' hands would be tied.  They would probably not even be able to check the person's ID and see if he had any priors or warrants.  As long as he had not actually committed an act, he would be "protected," simply by telling a lie.

Now, Mr. Williams would have you believe that such things never happen.  He actually repeats a previous attempt to claim that "cisgender women" are actually more of a threat to women in restrooms than men, transgender or otherwise.  Poorly written laws put women in danger.  As in the example above, had the suspect been confronted, a poorly written law would bind the police from doing their jobs.  Now, Mr. Williams tries to imply that NO transgender person would ever engage in improper behavior, but this is simply not the case.

Now, what is likely to happen is that this law will be challenged in court.  Also, there is already a move underway to have it rescinded by a ballot initiative.  If the reaction indicated by comments on SFGate.com, the San Francisco Chronicle website, are any indication, such an initiative would very likely pass overwhelmingly.  Comments were overwhelmingly negative.  And that is in San Francisco.  There was no serious support for the law.  A few commenters tried to make the same sort of vague claims as Mr. Williams.  

If such a proposition passes, the good parts of the law will likely be thrown out with the one poorly written provision.  Personally, I would like to see the provision rewritten to require an actual diagnosis from a licensed therapist, and provisions to protect the privacy of students in situations where there is inevitable nudity.  Also, I think it would be reasonable to require that any student accessing sex-segregated areas actually be, as some say, living full time as the "gender" they claim to identify with.

Another false claim by Mr. Williams is this:

Here in TEXAS – yes, conservative TEXAS – we’ve had these California-style policies in effect for YEARS. And you know what’s happened? Nothing… Except trans kids got to go to school without having to face institutionalized bigotry.

Now, some might claim this is absolutely true.  Some might claim it is a bit of an overstatement.  But, because of a very specific phrase (" California-style policies") it is actually an outright lie.  

Here, in its entirety, is the Houston rule:

Employees of the District shall not discriminate on the basis of or engage in harassment motivated by age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex, handicap or disability, marital status, religion, veteran status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. A substantiated charge of harassment against a student or employee shall result in disciplinary action.

Compare that to the wording from the California law above, keeping in mind the fact that this wording is the only real change in California law, which already had, shall we say, "Houston-style policies" on the books for years.  Whoops!  I would say that what Mr. Williams claims is an outright lie, not just clever semantics.

The bottom line is this...  Mr. Williams claims to be a woman, but he seems to have no regard for the actual feelings of women confronted with an obvious man invading their space.  He has hounded Virginia Brownworth, accusing her of terrible acts, simply because she does not support the right of men like Mr. Williams to invade places like the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, or to force lesbians to accept them as sexual partners.

So, I suppose it is no surprise that Mr. Williams would lie about reactions to the California law.

A Very Bad Law

I'm normally a big supporter of both Tom Ammiano and Gov. Jerry Brown, but I am not happy with either of them at the moment.

Ammiano introduced, and Brown signed, AB1266, the law is meant to provide protections for "transgender" students.  Unfortunately, it contains one provision that makes it a very bad law.

A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.

Strictly interpreted, this would mean that a male student, upon declaring that his gender identity is female, would not only be able to play on a girl's athletic team (irregardless of his hormonal status), but would also be able to join the girls in the shower after the game.

I am sure the transgender extremists are just...well, doing what men who are sexually aroused do, over the prospect of this.

It is one thing to say that students should be treated fairly, or that students who identify as transgender should be allowed to dress and be treated as the gender they claim to identify with, but the idea that a male student should be able to be in a place where female students have a right to expect privacy, simply by making the assertion that "he feels like a girl," is absurd.

The irony is, no student who is actually transsexual would take advantage of this, so any student who actually does, and perhaps none actually will, is simply not a transsexual, but is instead a pervert.

Defending the Indefensible

Some people cannot seem to comprehend why those who have HBS or who are true or classic transsexuals might not wish to be included under the "transgender" umbrella. A perfect example of this can be found in "Autumn" Sandeen's posting on Pam's House Blend entitled "Georgia's North Cobb HS Sees Gender Conformity As More Important Than Educating Students."

This article concerns a Georgia high school student who "chooses to wear clothes that express himself." Jonathan Escobar wears, among other things, skinny jeans, wigs, "vintage" clothing and makeup. Escobar has an interesting take on how he dresses:

"I don't consider myself a cross-dresser. This is just who I am."

Now, according to remarks from a video linked to from Mr. Sandeen's article, Escobar sees himself as making some sort of artistic statement.Escobar, choose to leave school after being told by an assistant principal that he should dress more "manly" or consider being home-schooled. This came after a fight broke out when one student chose to defend Escobar after another student made derogatory remarks.

The school's dress code contains the following provision:

Administrators and teachers shall enforce the dress code Rule, and the principal or designee shall be the final judge as to the appropriateness, neatness and cleanliness of the wearing apparel, or whether or not apparel is disruptive, unsafe, or in violation of the dress code.

Now, obviously, Escobar's "artistic expressions" are intended to garner attention. I don't think anyone can seriously argue otherwise. And it would be impossible to argue that a student who presents as a male, dressed in such style, would not be disruptive.

The situation might be different if Escobar identified as a female. If he were transsexual, and was planning to complete transition, and wished to present as a girl, then then I would defend his right to do so. I would hope that such a student would work hard on being as presentable as possible, and would not be "out, loud, and, proud," and quite frankly would be far less inclined to be supportive if such was the situation, as that would raise questions as to actual motivation.

No, Escobar simply wants to force an issue...in this case, that students have a right to be different. Rhe problem is, like all rights, that one is limited. I certainly believe students have a right to be individuals. I support student's rights to free speech. I oppose overly restrictive dress codes, though I do see merit in some school's decision to impose a uniform policy. My daughter attended two public schools that had such policies, and the effect was generally positive. In her case, the rules were simple. white or oxford blue tops, and navy or khaki bottoms. There were also, as I recall, some restrictions on footwear to prevent students from expressing gang affiliation in that manner.

And, I would like to add, the issue would be the same if a student chose to attend school in any other sort of outlandish costume. For example, if a student decided to attend school dressed in some sort of costume, or period dress.

Of course, Mr. Sandeen is beside himself. How dare the school try to insist on some sort of gender conformity! What is lost in this discussion is the fact that schools are specialized institiutions. Some restrictions are necessary to ensure good order to facilitate the learning process. Escobar is not being denied an education. He is simply being denied the right to interrupt other students efforts to learn.