To whom it may concern:
In reference to the column posted by Jurist here, by Dean Broyles concerning California bill AB 1266, I'd like to offer some points for your consideration.
The
writer is presented as one who brings some expertise to the subject
which he is addressing, however the assumption appears to be in
considerable error as he seems unaware of several very relevant points.
Among those are the following:
1.
The law he references (AB 1266) is new but the policy is not. Several
major metro school districts in California, as well as many others
nationwide including in such conservative leaning areas as Texas,
already have in place policies which are substantially the same as that
laid out in 1266. Indeed, the board policy of some entire states
(Massachusetts, and as has been shown in recent news stories, Colorado
to name just two) lay out a very similar policy. Some of these have been
in place for close to a decade.
How
is it that our writer is unaware of this? Or does it not support his
case for outrage that said policies have not, in fact, resulted in any
harm. How can he build a case that 1266 is "dangerous" if he has to
admit that after many thousands of occasions in which trans girls share a
restroom with cis-girls, nothing harmful has transpired.
2.
The writer quotes "facts are stubborn things" and then proceeds to make
a fact-claim that directly contradicts ACTUAL scientific evidence. It
is scientifically demonstrated that some persons apparently female from
birth were in fact born with XY chromosomes, and some persons apparently
male from birth were born with XX chromosomes. That's before we note
the existence of XXY individuals, and a host of other intersex
conditions which defy the writers wooden binary misconceptions. To be
clear, I do not speak here of the self perception of gender but of
actual biologically observable and verifiable physical facts. Intersex
individuals are rare, but then so are transsexuals.
3.
Existing policy would again be instructive on his next mistake. He
speaks of "transient" opinions, yet all existing policies lay out the
terms and conditions for transsexual accommodation and none of them give
space to a transient "mood." The one who professes trans status needs
to have a consistent and relatively long term cross-sex presentation and
professional consultation supporting. The oft propagated myth of "a kid
does not know what he wants" and "boys will claim to be girls for
voyeuristic purposes" fail in the face of the history of how these
policies are enacted and applied on a daily basis.
4.
He waxes at length about what he professes as the lack of scientific
evidence that people are born homosexual or trans (how is it that people
of his political stripe can never speak of a trans issue without
distracting themselves with the obsession with homosexuality, which is
not at all relevant to the subject he is ostensibly writing about?) and
in so doing ignores a multitude of solid scientific research
studieswhich demonstrates that transsexualism is a biological condition
present from before birth. See for reference the impressive data base of
links collected here:
5.
There is a clear, verifiable, documented track record of how these
policies work in practice. If the man has questions (dumb questions
thought they seem to be) it would seem logical that a trained lawyer
would be conversant with the concept of doing the research necessary to
find the answers, since it is easily available.
A. As stated above, the policies do not allow for "gender of the day" nonsense that Broyles and his peers imagine.
B.
All these policies lay out the stipulations under which an
accommodation is granted, involving the input of the parent, health care
professionals, and school staff.
C.
The "exposed to the genitals" argument is vapid, and silly, given that
students do not, one hopes, routinely compare their genitals in the rest
room and policies elsewhere make provisions for privacy in the one area
in which it might present an issue - the locker room/shower - and this,
wisely, both out of sensitivity to the cis child, as well as the trans
child (something the author is apparently unaware of - a male-to-female
transsexual does not LIKE her penis, WANT her penis, or want anyone to
KNOW about it. they are exactly the LAST people one should expect to
casually or proudly display their genitalia for viewing). Later in the
column the writer advocates for the wisdom of the local school, and here
it is in practice - witness the lack of news stories, law suits, or
outraged hyperbole citing actual cases of "exposed genitals" in the
public schools in which these policies are already in place.
D.
Again, he supposes "opportunism" and predicts a bright future for
litigators, yet in spite of the standing policy in place in all the
major metro school districts in California for years, resulting in tens
of thousands of these interactions, PJI still pleads fruitlessly for a
plaintiff willing to go to court to challenge AB 1266. One is forced to
wonder about the author's connection to reality, not the trans child's.
E.
the "religious freedom" argument is as irrelevant as it would have been
50 years ago had some teacher claimed a religious belief that blacks
and whites should not mingle. First, teachers et al are asked every day
to set aside their religious doctrines - consider the Pentecostal
teacher who spends every day teaching girls who cut their hair, wear
makeup, and wear pants. Religious liberty is a vapid smokescreen in this
context.
To say nothing of the fact that the supposed "doctrine" that a transsexual is sinning is based on a VERY thin Scriptural reed.
6.
The false-face pretense that such students should be treated with "love
dignity and respect" is contemptible. For the trans person, the ONLY
way to treat them with respect is to acknowledge their stated gender
identity as valid. you cannot "lovingly" "respect" a person by
asserting you know their mind and they do not.
7.
Given that transsexuals number something like .1% of the population,
and the majority of those still closeted (sometimes even from
themselves) the hyperbole that accommodating the one child in a few
thousand who needs it is going to tear down the whole structure of human
society is laughable.
In summation, let me offer a very specific conclusion. In reading your "about" page, I find the following passage:
I
argue that this column is the very definition of "mere punditry" -
Before even completing the second paragraph he's descended into
buzz-words and scare tactics. Some examples:
"This dangerous legislation"
"purportedly enlightened"
"what
it means to be a "girl" is becoming confused when genetic material is
dangerously dumped into the elite culture's gender-blender."
"postmodernism's notions of extreme personal autonomy and radical sexual liberty."
"appear to be heavily influenced by the desire of many radical secular-progressives to..."
"How would they know if the child is being sincere or cleverly perverted..."
"we must vigilantly resist the popular temptation to allow truth and
common sense to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness"
Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Tammy Rainey
