How Should Lds Parents React?

[why me]

I would like this to stay on topic. I would like to know just how lds parents should react and prepare their children for such a possibility that that may encounter if this law passes in California.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/calif_lawmakers_pass_transgender_6TbIdFoaZSx8Jt6FUgEVmJ

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday that would require public K-12 schools to let transgender students choose which restrooms they use and which school teams they join based on their gender identity instead of their chromosomes.

Some school districts around the country have implemented similar policies, but the bill's author says AB1266 would mark the first time a state has mandated such treatment by statute.

Existing state law already prohibits California schools from discriminating against students based on their gender identity, but the legislation that passed the state Senate on Wednesday spells that out in more detail, said Carlos Alcala, a spokesman for the bill's author, Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

At least two others state, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have statewide policies granting the same protections, but neither policy is in statute, according to the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

The issue has become a battle in some local school districts around the country. For instance, a Colorado family filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office in March, claiming that their local school had violated the state's nondiscrimination laws. The family had been told that their first-grader, who was born a boy, could not use the girl's bathroom and would have to use the restroom in the nurse's office or the teachers' lounge.

California's bill would give students the right "to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities" based on their self-perception, regardless of their birth gender.

It sparked an impassioned debate on the Senate floor about when transgender students' right to expression might conflict with other students' discomfort and right to privacy.

Supporters said the bill is needed to protect students from bullying and other abuse. They also said it represents the next front in their effort to provide equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, just days after same-sex marriages resumed in California.

"There should be certainty that every kid has the chance to go to school and be treated equally and fairly," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who carried the bill in the Senate. "We know that these particular students suffer much abuse and bullying and denigration. We can't change that overnight, but what we can do is make sure that the rules are such that they get a fair shake."

Opponents said the state is going too far if it permits opposite-sex students to use restrooms and locker rooms.

"It is not all about discrimination. Elementary and secondary students of California — our most impressionable, our most vulnerable — now may be subjected to some very difficult situations," said Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen.

Parents, school administrators and school board members would have no say over students who identify themselves as transgender and enter shower rooms or bathrooms used by the opposite sex, Nielsen said, warning that the privilege could be abused by youthful sex offenders.

"Think about the millions of California parents and students who at the least would be extraordinarily uncomfortable with what this bill would impose upon them," Nielsen said.

Sen. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, and Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, each said that male athletes who are mediocre in competition against their own gender could game the system by competing against female athletes.

"There are kids out there that are struggling, that are having difficult times," Knight said. "But there are also kids that are going to take advantage of the system."

Nielsen and Knight voted against the bill, while Wright was among eight members of both parties who did not vote. Wright also worried that schools could eliminate football and other contact sports if they faced increased liability by letting girls play.

Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said several major California school districts have had similar policies for years covering thousands of students.

"To date there's been no single reported incident of any misconduct," Lara said. "Let's not confuse silly behavior issues with sensitive gender identity issues."

The Senate passed the bill on a vote of 21-9. It previously passed the Assembly and now goes to the governor.

A spokesman for the Democratic governor said the administration would not comment on pending legislation.

[Damien the Leper]

Gender is far from a black and white subject. A night club in Scottsdale, AZ got shut down for disallowing a transgendered woman to use the ladies room. This is definitely not an easy or open and shut kinda case.

[Calm]

"There should be certainty that every kid has the chance to go to school and be treated equally and fairly

Shouldn't this count just as much for the kids that don't feel comfortable in the presence of someone who in physical appearance at least is of the opposite gender. This seems like preferential treatment for a small group of children...whose needs should be met, but in a way that does not harm other children.

Supporters said the bill is needed to protect students from bullying and other abuse

I don't see how this does anything but open up more children to more bullying and abuse unless that school age has completely transformed since I or my kids were that age.

I don't have an issue with having coed teams as long as there is an accepted protocol for meeting everyone's needs for comfort and a sense of safety, however, I think the bathroom issue would be better solved by appointing a coed area in the locker room where students if they want can use it as well as designated coed bathrooms (none of which uses urinals but all stalls so as to avoid girls having to look where they really don't want to and if they do want to, probably shouldn't. Then there would be more traditional areas that would allow those boys or girls who feel too uncomfortable to use the coed ones to have a place where they feel safe.

I am someone who never felt that body conscious in the sense of exposure, doctors' exams don't make me nervous, having the world tramp in and out of the delivery room when I was in the last stages of having my second child and everyone wanting to take a look at the doings....it might sound strange for someone who was so shy, but biological stuff never bothered me. I would probably fit in just fine in a nudist community. OTOH I know of many who would refuse to use the restrooms at school even when they were not coed, but simply because others could hear them. And who used multiple towels to ensure they were completely covered....and it wasn't always the modest ones who acted that way. Some, once they got their clothes on, suddenly turned into vamps. It was likely feeling like they were in a situation where they were not in control, they were exposed while their regular clothes, no matter how skimpy gave them a sense of control and power.

"There are kids out there that are struggling, that are having difficult times,"

There are probably more in number straight kids that are having these kinds of struggles, feeling uncomfortable in such circumstances there there are transgendered kids. I think it would be a shame to completely ignore the needs of the silent majority in favour of trying to help the few unusual cases who have finally found a voice. Surely there must be a compromise that works for both, where all can feel safe and which will overtime lead to a decrease in bullying rather than just a shift to another set of victims and perpetrators. Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Damien the Leper]

Always a great voice of reason, Calmoriah. Like I said, this isn't a black and white situation. It needs to be dealt with sensitively for all parties involved.

[Calm]

They also said it represents the next front in their effort to provide equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals

What about those who feel most comfortable in nudity? If equal rights equates to allowing the individuals to act in ways most comfortable for him or her, then allowing someone who feels encumbered by clothing seems like a logical choice. Or to allow a transgendered woman who sees herself as male to wear a shirt that exposes her breasts if a straight guy is allowed to the same shirt. Or to allow a transgendered male to wear female clothing and underwear......

How are standards supposed to be defined save to have an androgenous uniform for all and individual bathrooms anyone can use and individual dressing rooms.

As far as sports, will they eliminate having to try out and meet certain standards or will the transgendered person get to go on the team no matter what level of talent they have to meet some sort of quota? Or will the teams be allowed to remain competitive by having a set standard that must be met, but anyone is eligible to try out?

[Storm Rider]

This seems like a walk down the absurd. For the last 30 years we have developed a concept of "comfort"; does an individual feel threatened, feel unwelcome, feel comfortable, feel hostility. Now we must throw that standard out because an extremely small subset of children may have a preference for the boys bathroom or the girls bathroom. The opportunity for abuse from this type of policy is wide enough through which to drive a truck. When do feelings count and when should they be overlooked? Who gets to decide when someone's feelings are superior to another person's or group's feelings? When does common sense parenting come into play? When do we teach the concept of adaptability? When does a community have the right not to look solely through the lens of sexuality or gender?

[Storm Rider]

If society demands equality there will be no boys teams or girls teams; they are equal and all can compete for a position. Of course, that won't really fly because the game is really not about equality, but something else entirely.

[Calm]

Always a great voice of reason, Calmoriah. Like I said, this isn't a black and white situation. It needs to be dealt with sensitively for all parties involved.

It could actually be quite easily handled as long as the argument isn't made that treatment not only has be to equal, but identical. I can just see the National Guard having to come in to escort a young lady (in physical appearance) into the male bathrooms and locker rooms or a young man (again in physical appearance...I don't know the technical terms for such things) into the girls' room.

I would be very concerned for an identified boy with a girl's body who went into the boys locker room...get the right group of brats in there, and I can see the brats insisting the boy prove his manliness by fighting 'man to man' and being drastically beaten. And I can see a young lady with a boy's body finding used pads and tampons and other personal hygenic products stuff into her locker to shock and traumatize her. This law actually provides a great deal more opportunity to bully because it places the target in the same time and place with those who are most likely going to bully them. If the school is going to pass this law, I hope they up the security levels to protect all the kids that are going to be placed in the crossfire, including those who express dissatisfaction with the situation if they are in the minority.

OTOH, just having individual restrooms (much more costly of course) and compartmented locker rooms with a shower in each cubicle so that no one has to be undressed in front of another (again quite costly) would eliminate much of the potential for problems within the private areas themselves and bullying in the public areas can be better control.

Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Always a great voice of reason, Calmoriah. Like I said, this isn't a black and white situation. It needs to be dealt with sensitively for all parties involved.

What I am really concerned about it how it appears to be turning into an 'us' and 'them' situation which is the opposite of what needs to be done, but is what so often happens when adults get involved and start making laws.

I think it would be best to have the kids sit down and have an ongoing discussion on how they feel and what they need and ask the kids themselves for their solutions.

[halconero]

A serious question here...but why is it that the majority of these types of stories that I hear come from the United States? Is it the greater population? Am I reading the wrong sources? What?

[Damien the Leper]

A serious question here...but why is it that the majority of these types of stories that I hear come from the United States? Is it the greater population? Am I reading the wrong sources? What?

Hey you crazy, Canadian! It's passed your bed time! It's four am where you're at.

[Bikeemikey]

If society demands equality there will be no boys teams or girls teams; they are equal and all can compete for a position. Of course, that won't really fly because the game is really not about equality, but something else entirely.

That's a great idea.

[Bikeemikey]

It could actually be quite easily handled as long as the argument isn't made that treatment not only has be to equal, but identical. I can just see the National Guard having to come in to escort a young lady (in physical appearance) into the male bathrooms and locker rooms or a young man (again in physical appearance...I don't know the technical terms for such things) into the girls' room.

I would be very concerned for an identified boy with a girl's body who went into the boys locker room...get the right group of brats in there, and I can see the brats insisting the boy prove his manliness by fighting 'man to man' and being drastically beaten. And I can see a young lady with a boy's body finding used pads and tampons and other personal hygenic products stuff into her locker to shock and traumatize her. This law actually provides a great deal more opportunity to bully because it places the target in the same time and place with those who are most likely going to bully them. If the school is going to pass this law, I hope they up the security levels to protect all the kids that are going to be placed in the crossfire, including those who express dissatisfaction with the situation if they are in the minority.

OTOH, just having individual restrooms (much more costly of course) and compartmented locker rooms with a shower in each cubicle so that no one has to be undressed in front of another (again quite costly) would eliminate much of the potential for problems within the private areas themselves and bullying in the public areas can be better control.

Not sure the idea that people will bully is justification against any kind if broad based integration that goes against present societal traditions.

We might have never had integrated schools as black Americans "would" be bullied.

That that I endorse the proposal, in still thinking about it. Your objection based on bullying just seems to short-sited.

[Jude2]

move to Utah.

[Calm]

That that I endorse the proposal, in still thinking about it. Your objection based on bullying just seems to short-sited.

If the rational is to decrease bullying, then they should come up with an option that includes a decrease in bullying rather than going with one that is likely to actually increase bullying. I think the idea that there is only one solution, one form of integration available and therefore it must be done even if bullying might be increased for another group is faulty; I believe there are a number of options available and they shouldn't just pick the first one that occurs to people or the most obvious or cheapest one. Whatever the solution it should maximize the safety of all children, not just a selected few who are current targets. Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[why me]

I think that this law will confuse children if they experience it in the school bathroom or in the team shower. It will also cause embarrassment and red faces and uncomfortableness. In the past, there was a clear distinction between the women's rest room and the men's rest room or the boy's rest room and the girl's restroom in schools. Now with 'equality' issues, such distinctions are not necessary.

But how shoud lds parents react and what do they tell their children if this situation would exist in their child's school?

Edited July 4, 2013 by why me

[LordUther]

But how shoud lds parents react and what do they tell their children if this situation would exist in their child's school?

How about using to teach them to be non-judgemental, about compassion, understanding, how to love thy neighbour & tolerance?

It's a bathroom, a closed stall, no-one will see anything intimate. Teach them that you don't have to agree with someones way of life to accept that they have the right to live their life their way.

[Calm]

It's a bathroom, a closed stall, no-one will see anything intimate.

Are the boys' bathrooms in elementary schools all with closed stalls? What about in jr. high and high school in the locker rooms? Unless things have changed dramatically, all of mine were quite open and in one school we were required to take showers. Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

I would like this to stay on topic. I would like to know just how lds parents should react and prepare their children for such a possibility that that may encounter if this law passes in California.

http://www.nypost.co...aZSx8Jt6FUgEVmJ

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California lawmakers approved a bill Wednesday that would require public K-12 schools to let transgender students choose which restrooms they use and which school teams they join based on their gender identity instead of their chromosomes.

Some school districts around the country have implemented similar policies, but the bill's author says AB1266 would mark the first time a state has mandated such treatment by statute.

Existing state law already prohibits California schools from discriminating against students based on their gender identity, but the legislation that passed the state Senate on Wednesday spells that out in more detail, said Carlos Alcala, a spokesman for the bill's author, Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano of San Francisco.

At least two others state, Massachusetts and Connecticut, have statewide policies granting the same protections, but neither policy is in statute, according to the Gay-Straight Alliance Network.

The issue has become a battle in some local school districts around the country. For instance, a Colorado family filed a complaint with the state's civil rights office in March, claiming that their local school had violated the state's nondiscrimination laws. The family had been told that their first-grader, who was born a boy, could not use the girl's bathroom and would have to use the restroom in the nurse's office or the teachers' lounge.

California's bill would give students the right "to participate in sex-segregated programs, activities and facilities" based on their self-perception, regardless of their birth gender.

It sparked an impassioned debate on the Senate floor about when transgender students' right to expression might conflict with other students' discomfort and right to privacy.

Supporters said the bill is needed to protect students from bullying and other abuse. They also said it represents the next front in their effort to provide equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, just days after same-sex marriages resumed in California.

"There should be certainty that every kid has the chance to go to school and be treated equally and fairly," said Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, who carried the bill in the Senate. "We know that these particular students suffer much abuse and bullying and denigration. We can't change that overnight, but what we can do is make sure that the rules are such that they get a fair shake."

Opponents said the state is going too far if it permits opposite-sex students to use restrooms and locker rooms.

"It is not all about discrimination. Elementary and secondary students of California — our most impressionable, our most vulnerable — now may be subjected to some very difficult situations," said Republican Sen. Jim Nielsen.

Parents, school administrators and school board members would have no say over students who identify themselves as transgender and enter shower rooms or bathrooms used by the opposite sex, Nielsen said, warning that the privilege could be abused by youthful sex offenders.

"Think about the millions of California parents and students who at the least would be extraordinarily uncomfortable with what this bill would impose upon them," Nielsen said.

Sen. Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, and Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, each said that male athletes who are mediocre in competition against their own gender could game the system by competing against female athletes.

"There are kids out there that are struggling, that are having difficult times," Knight said. "But there are also kids that are going to take advantage of the system."

Nielsen and Knight voted against the bill, while Wright was among eight members of both parties who did not vote. Wright also worried that schools could eliminate football and other contact sports if they faced increased liability by letting girls play.

Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, said several major California school districts have had similar policies for years covering thousands of students.

"To date there's been no single reported incident of any misconduct," Lara said. "Let's not confuse silly behavior issues with sensitive gender identity issues."

The Senate passed the bill on a vote of 21-9. It previously passed the Assembly and now goes to the governor.

A spokesman for the Democratic governor said the administration would not comment on pending legislation.

Really don't have too much to say except that people who deprive these students of a decent chance in life should be ashamed. Do you know that 40% of these individuals attempt suicide? Some people should just get their mind out of the gutter. I mean at home, both males and females use the same bathroom.

[LordUther]

Are the boys' bathrooms in elementary schools all with closed stalls? What about in jr. high and high school in the locker rooms? Unless things have changed dramatically, all of mine were quite open and in one school we were required to take showers.

I have no idea about US schools, me being from the UK, but in a lot of UK toilets there are either barriers between the urinals that you stand between or the urinals themselves are individual. But even if the urinal is of the trough variety the f2m TG would have no cause to use them anyway but be heading into the closed stalls, and unless the boys at the urinal are flashing their bits around wouldn't see anything. The only other scenario I can imagine is if the said child decides to go up & look over one of the boys shoulders to see what s/he is missing out on...and to be perfectly honest if that happens then the birth sex of the child becomes irrelevant. no child should be behaving like that.

[awyatt]

How about using to teach them to be non-judgemental, about compassion, understanding, how to love thy neighbour & tolerance?

It's a bathroom, a closed stall, no-one will see anything intimate. Teach them that you don't have to agree with someones way of life to accept that they have the right to live their life their way.

Right.

Except we'll now have to take all the urinals out of the boys' bathrooms. And, later, as the population ages, out of mens' restrooms in other venues.

Showering after PE? What if my son was forced to shower not only with a bunch of guys, but also with a girl or two who said they felt more "at ease" among boys? Hmmmm....

How does one determine if a boy/girl *really* feels more at ease in the opposite sex's restrooms? Counseling? Parent's permission slip? Just their say so?

How do you handle it if you hear from another school parent that your little Johnny (age 6) is now visiting the girls' bathroom on a regular basis? Do you encourage that behavior? What if Johnny says that he only does it because his friends do it?

Stupid, stupid, stupid -- stupidity in an effort to be "tolerant."

[LordUther]

Are the boys' bathrooms in elementary schools all with closed stalls? What about in jr. high and high school in the locker rooms? Unless things have changed dramatically, all of mine were quite open and in one school we were required to take showers.

Sorry I missed your point about lockers...I don't know about the US but in the UK P.E. becomes optional after 13/14 & as I can't see anyone below that age beginning the swap I see it as a non-issue here. There will possibly be exceptions to that but I foresee them being extremely rare and should be handled on an individual basis.

[LordUther]

Right.

Except we'll now have to take all the urinals out of the boys' bathrooms. And, later, as the population ages, out of mens' restrooms in other venues.

Showering after PE? What if my son was forced to shower not only with a bunch of guys, but also with a girl or two who said they felt more "at ease" among boys? Hmmmm....

How does one determine if a boy/girl *really* feels more at ease in the opposite sex's restrooms? Counseling? Parent's permission slip? Just their say so?

How do you handle it if you hear from another school parent that your little Johnny (age 6) is now visiting the girls' bathroom on a regular basis? Do you encourage that behavior? What if Johnny says that he only does it because his friends do it?

Stupid, stupid, stupid -- stupidity in an effort to be "tolerant."

Yea I really love knee-jerk reactions...I've have already commented on the points you raise...but TG's in the UK have been quite open & had legal recognition the UK for a number of years and no urinals have been harmed. You can put your mind at rest.

[jim_mason]

We should react with "teach correct principles, and let people govern themselves". Schools will have to drop their archaic notions of locker rooms to create privacy - which currently is devoid in many school bathrooms and lockerrooms.

[awyatt]

Yea I really love knee-jerk reactions...I've have already commented on the points you raise...but TG's in the UK have been quite open & had legal recognition the UK for a number of years and no urinals have been harmed. You can put your mind at rest.

Were you saying my reaction was knee-jerk? Perhaps, but I don't think it was.

If you go back and read the OP, it said that the law that was passed was for K-12, and that any child in that age range (generally 5 years old through 18) could "choose which restrooms they use." You say that in the UK "PE becomes optional after 13/14" and you "can't see anyone below that age beginning the swap."

This isn't about anyone "beginning a swap." It's about the law allowing a 6-year-old to say "I'm transgendered. I want to go to the bathroom with [the opposite sex]." According to the news article, it is the student that chooses, not the adults. That seems ludicrous, to me.

In many schools in the US, stall doors have been removed for a variety of reasons. (Just Google "stall doors removed schools", without the quotes, and you'll find plenty of examples.) The assertion that there will, somehow, be plenty of privacy if Samantha wants to go to the same bathroom as the boys doesn't seem to be true.

I guess that if Samantha (or Patrick) self-identify as transgendered and identify themselves as such to school officials, they (the officials) could clear a restroom so that he/she could use the facilities, but if that is the case, what is the point of the law? Wouldn't it, in that case, be more equitable to say "if a child doesn't feel comfortable going to the bathroom around other children, he/she has the right to go in an empty bathroom."

But, back to the OP: What would I do? I'd pull my kids out of school and either move or home school. That has absolutely nothing to do with being LDS. It has to do with the safety of my child and the values I want imparted to that child.

(Side note: I used to live in California, in Oakland. My kids went to public schools there, for a time. We pulled them out and home taught them after my oldest son's friend had his arm broken by another kid with a pipe for having the audacity to talk to the aggressor's girlfriend in the hall. It was the best school in the best part of Oakland, but there was more crowd control and warehousing done at the school than teaching. I'm not adverse to pulling kids out of school when I don't feel their long-term needs are being met.)