Parental Rights and Gender Identity Policies in California

Protect Kids California

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.

You can read more about AB 957 in this post.

The Ballot Initiatives in Detail

  • 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.

Most parents agree with Wright.


The California Legislature’s Gender Madness

I’ve had a few days to digest the proposed legislation in California known as the Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act.

I briefly blogged about this a few days ago. You’ll want to check out that video.

The bill, if passed, would make it an offense for parents to refuse to affirm a child’s transgender identity, potentially leading to the loss of custody. This represents a dangerous shift in the definition of parenthood, not to mention an unimagined encroachment of the State into private family matters.

Obviously, State agencies like Child Protective Services (CPS) are in place to protect children from physical harm in the home, but these developments in California are different.

If passed, the state of California would consider any parent who rejected their child’s gender identity an abuser. It would be one “abuse” factor for the courts to consider in custody disputes, like parental drug addiction, or abandonment.

The bill is just one manifestation of the anarchic culture of identity, a societal trend where personal identity is judged to be fluid and wholly self-determined, often detached from biological realities. This identity culture is leading to a redefinition of parenthood from a biological relationship to a functional one, where parents are judged by their acceptance of their child’s self-identified gender rather than their biological role in the child’s life.

The bill defines this acceptance as intrinsic to the “health, safety and welfare of the child.”

Physical harm need not be present, only an unwillingness to use a preferred pronoun. According to AB 957 a parental unwillingness to deny reality becomes part of any future custody battle. Should the need arise. Typically custody battles are between two parents. But the language of this bill, and the assumptions built into that language, could one day be used by the State to take custody of a child over the objections of unaffirming parents.

Here we have a redefinition of the very essence of parenthood. “Parent” is essentially something you do. Not who you are. And is defined ideologically by the State. With this redefinition parental authority is diminished.

We shouldn’t question the motives of everyone involved. But, it must be said, some of them are like these sexual revolutionaries who seek to ‘re-educate’ our children.

Is this the world we want to live in?

Contrast this California bill with recent developments in Europe, developments my readers know well, where countries like the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, France, Norway, and the U.K. are reconsidering their stance on gender-affirming treatments for children and adolescents, citing unproven science and unclear benefits. For instance, Spain, despite its recent approval of a transgender rights bill allowing anyone aged 16 or over to change their gender on their ID card, has sparked a debate within its feminist lobby, with critics warning it could erode women’s rights. These European nations, once leaders in gender-affirming treatments, are now cautioning that such interventions may do more harm than good, especially for young people.

It seems this American push for gender affirmation is driven not by genuine concern for children’s wellbeing, but by a combination of radical, highly implausible, academic theories (Gender Theory, Queer Theory) and, it must be said, by the profit motives of the pharmaceutical industry.

Not that I would ever advocate for this, but if the State was really interested in protecting children’s mental health they should limit their exposure to social media and prosecute parents who give them smartphones. Social media is a primary tool through which the trans movement influences young minds. High levels of anxiety and low self-esteem spiked with the arrival of smartphones. Combine that with online pornography and you can see why many anxious girls give up on girlhood.

Parents, buy your children a flip phone.  You'll still be able to text them short messages and they won't have the internet in their pocket!

The “trans madness” may end, but not without significant human cost. Those responsible for this “child abuse”—the doctors, clinics, and pharmaceutical companies—will hopefully face legal repercussions. Unfortunately this will only occur after the lives of many children have been irrevocably damaged.

The battle before us is a world-view battle. Many who do not share my particular world-view are recognizing, like the European nations I mentioned above, there are alternative approaches to these complex issues. We need to prioritize children’s mental health over political or commercial interests. The real problem resides in the mind, not the body.

Readers of this blog will know the work of Abigail Shrier. As a Californian and concerned parent she has a strong opinion about this bill and where it might take us.

Gender ideologues in California let the mask slip, or perhaps just tossed it away: A new bill, AB 957, directs family court judges to award custody based in part on “a parent’s affirmation of a child’s gender identity,” which the bill defines as intrinsic to the “health, safety and welfare of the child.”

It’s worth your time…..

Gender Cultists Make a Move for California’s Children

Companion Posts