A mother sued teachers and staff at Buena Vista Middle School for secretly recruiting her daughter into the school’s LGBT club and socially transitioning her to a "boy" identity. The school settled for $100,000.
The Montgomery County Public School system “underestimates” how much its mandatory gender and sexuality curriculum interferes with parents’ religious exercise, an amicus brief filed today by the Ethics and Public Policy Center said.
“A common theme in the [district court’s opinion] is that the School Board’s sexuality and gender curriculum really isn’t all that bad. As the court sees it, the Board is merely ‘striv[ing] to “provide a culturally responsive . . . curriculum that promotes equity, respect, and civility” and prepare[] students to “[c]onfront and eliminate stereotypes related to individuals’ actual or perceived characteristics,’ including gender identity and sexual orientation,”” the brief reads. “But the storybooks themselves, the Board’s instructions to teachers, and Board members’ comments tell a different story.”
Religious parents represented by Becket Law filed a lawsuit against the district this summer, claiming that the no opt-out policy defies religious liberty: Muslim law forbids believers from publicly discussing intimate acts, and Catholic doctrine affirms the biological truth of two sexes — male and female. Although parents were initially allowed to opt their children out of the lessons, MCPS banned opt-out options earlier this year. ————- “Teaching that a biological male can ‘be’ a female and that subjective beliefs or wishes should take precedence over biological reality is not merely advancing ‘diversity’ and ‘inclusion’; it is teaching that ‘gender ideology’ is true and that refusing to acquiesce is hurtful and wrong,” the EPPC’s brief said.
The curriculum also teaches that identity is “self-determined based on feelings or self-perception, regardless of the person’s sex (male or female),” the brief states. Along with its gender lessons, MCPS promotes radical transgender resources that claim the “biologically-based definition of sex is not only incorrect but oppressive.”
Gender ideology is contrary to religious teaching, the brief adds.
Let me address a political issue in California that touches on parental rights, gender identity, and the democratic process.
California’s Stance on Gender Identity
Under the leadership of Governor Gavin Newsom, California has been at the forefront of policies that endorse transgender identity. Critics like myself argue that these policies infringe upon parental rights, compromise fairness in women’s sports, and harm the long-term health of children.
Direct Democracy in Action: Ballot Initiatives
In response to these policies, a coalition named “Protect Kids California” has taken a direct approach to challenge them. They’ve filed three ballot initiatives for the November 2024 ballot. These initiatives aim to:
Ensure schools notify parents if their children identify as transgender.
Prevent biological males from participating in women’s sports and accessing women’s spaces.
Prohibit medical professionals from administering experimental drugs or surgeries to minors to affirm a gender identity different from their biological sex.
‘The Advocates’ Perspective
Jonathan Zachreson, a spokesperson for Protect Kids California, emphasizes the importance of parental involvement in children’s lives. He argues that the current legislative approach does not adequately represent the people’s wishes.
Polls suggest that a significant majority of Californians support parental notification in schools and restrictions on medical interventions for minors.
We have legislators and institutions taking advantage of vulnerable children and busy parents.
Jonathan Zachreson
The Legal Landscape
Recent laws and bills in California have further ignited this debate. For instance:
In 2022, Newsom signed SB 107, declaring California a “trans refuge state.” This law allows California courts to reassign custody of children seeking gender-affirming care from other states.
The California Senate is considering AB 957, which could label parents as abusive if they don’t affirm their child’s preferred gender identity.
The state’s education code allows students to access facilities and programs consistent with their gender identity.
Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act: This initiative aims to protect children from experimental medical interventions related to gender transition. It cites concerns about the FDA’s stance and practices in other countries.
School Transparency and Partnership Act: This initiative emphasizes the importance of parental rights, arguing that parents should be informed about significant changes related to their child’s gender identity at school.
Protect Girls’ Sports and Spaces Act: This initiative seeks to ensure fairness in women’s sports and maintain the privacy and safety of students in sex-segregated spaces.
The Road Ahead
While these ballot initiatives offer a direct way for Californians to voice their opinions, they face challenges. They need over half a million certified signatures to even appear on the ballot. Additionally, the state’s Democratic attorney general, Rob Bonta, who will draft the title and summary for these initiatives, might oppose them.
This issue underscores the complexities of balancing individual rights, parental rights, and societal norms. Remember, the essence of democracy lies in informed discussions and the active participation of its citizens.
I encourage you all to think critically about these issues, engage in respectful discussions, and always stay informed.
California Senator Scott Wiener, a member of the LGBTQ Caucus, weighs in on Parent’s Rights.
Colin Wright responds.
If my child has a condition that makes it likely they will be put on a medical pathway that includes life-long sterility and body-altering hormones and surgeries, I have a right to know. https://t.co/kaXRQFfxIj
