The ruling overturned a forced outing policy that explicitly targeted gender identity, but allowed a policy to stand that mandated disclosure of all "official or unofficial" records.
"Okay, so you can still Do the Thing, you just have to obfuscate the fact that you're Doing the Thing. If you Do the Thing and 𝘴𝘢𝘺 you're Doing the Thing, it's illegal; if you Do the Thing but say you're Doing a 𝘋𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 Thing that still accomplishes the 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 Thing, it's okay. Got it? Good."
Yeah, it's the American legal system. Where the stated intent is all that matters, and no one ever has nefarious motives even when they actively claim outside of court that they are going to violate student's rights. It's not a justice system, it's a legal system. Justice is not the intent, rules and laws which are arbitrarily enforced and generally weaponized against minorities is the whole point while making it seem neutral.
Some people really believe one's offspring are indentured to their parents until their 18th birthday, or something like that - they need to realize that that's called controlling behavior, it's abuse. If a teacher is required to out a student like that, the implication is that the parents have some innate right to know even though that could lead to domestic distress or violence. Shame on those who would encourage such outcomes. Fortunately, the courts have tended to do the right thing, but we're a long way from, once and for all, resolving this. But Erin's journalism is a big way to keep up the fight. Thank you, Erin, once again.
This is clearly not a "big win" for trans students, so shame on the California AG Rob Bonta for trying to spin it as if it were. Extremely disappointing for CA.
I think the only way this problem can truly be resolved is for a law to be passed that explicitly carves out privacy protections (for name, gender identity, etc.) for students who request it from the school based on an expectation of retribution / harm from hostile parents were they to be notified. It can literally be life or death for some children, so they should treat this as seriously as physical abuse or domestic violence in the home. It's a shame that so many trans children fear their parents so much that they can't be honest with them, but that is, unfortunately, the current climate we live in.
So basically the judge said you’re not allowed to discriminate against trans students, but you are allowed to enforce policies that achieve the same effect as discriminating against trans students…
Good old American legal system, always and forever screwing over minority communities.
Unfortunately this is very much a cultural issue. Archaic ways of thinking, even in the minds of many parents within the United States dictate that children are the property of their parents with no say in their destiny or treatment. In most places throughout the world this is the norm. Religious indoctrination, even in this country merely enforces this model. Much of the time an argument for protecting trans kids is seen as a revocation of parental rights. So when we speak about doing what's best for kids parents feel threatened that their parental authority is being undermined. Changing this mindset will mean changing the culture and that will take generations.
Further evidence that the institution of family has no 'sanctity' at all contrary to what Rightist pundits say as it is a hotbed of controlling behavior and abuse.
I remember in high school my best friend was gay and didn’t want his parents to know because he was afraid his step dad would actually kill him. School was a safer place for him than home was. I don’t know like to think about what would have happened to him if his stepdad was told by the school.
So what will a kid do ? it may vary with their individual home situation and perceived attitude of their parents which in the absence of parental support, only encourages kids to keep their gender issues a secret, not seek help and or even to run away from home. Kids are still left in the lurch as political footballs unless they know that their parents are supportive.
Not much was changed by this ruling and neither side is satisfied. This judge basically kicked the can down the road. An injunction is needed until this is completely sorted.
No, this was not a win. This was an instruction manual for transphobes and other bigots of how to evade human rights legislation. The trick is just as there have been examples of racially discriminatory "race neutral" policies, here you express your bigotry in "gender neutral" terms by leaving out the parts where you actually specify who the rule is intended to target.
In other words, it's all good and fine if you forcibly reveal to a potentially hostile home environment that a student known as Bill requests to be called Jill so long as you also must tell parents if that student says they'd rather be addressed as William. Judge Sachs knew exactly what his ruling meant; he admitted as much, meaning he not only ignored the impact of the law, he ignored its obvious intent. Which is shameful.
Indeed, I find the whole concept of forced reveal offensive not only because it openly declares students have no right to privacy even about very personal issues, but I'm old enough to recall a time when children were advised in the event of trouble at home to "Tell someone. Confide in a trusted teacher." Now, that second sentence has to be changed to "Not a teacher."
And by the way, what the hell is an "informal record?"
Footnote: I'm aware that "Michael" can be a female name, but in choosing the gender for a pronoun I went with the more frequent one.
Sounds like this mixed ruling, on balance, is more bad news than good. School policies and approaches should always reflect the dignity and privacy of trans students, and the fact that not all of them can come out to their parents or household safely. Maybe the disadvantageous parts of this ruling will get appealed.
"Okay, so you can still Do the Thing, you just have to obfuscate the fact that you're Doing the Thing. If you Do the Thing and 𝘴𝘢𝘺 you're Doing the Thing, it's illegal; if you Do the Thing but say you're Doing a 𝘋𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 Thing that still accomplishes the 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 Thing, it's okay. Got it? Good."
SMDH...
Yeah, it's the American legal system. Where the stated intent is all that matters, and no one ever has nefarious motives even when they actively claim outside of court that they are going to violate student's rights. It's not a justice system, it's a legal system. Justice is not the intent, rules and laws which are arbitrarily enforced and generally weaponized against minorities is the whole point while making it seem neutral.
As Joni Mitchell said, "Is justice just ice?/Driven by greed and lust?/Just the strong taking what they can/And the weak suffering what they must?"
Some people really believe one's offspring are indentured to their parents until their 18th birthday, or something like that - they need to realize that that's called controlling behavior, it's abuse. If a teacher is required to out a student like that, the implication is that the parents have some innate right to know even though that could lead to domestic distress or violence. Shame on those who would encourage such outcomes. Fortunately, the courts have tended to do the right thing, but we're a long way from, once and for all, resolving this. But Erin's journalism is a big way to keep up the fight. Thank you, Erin, once again.
Welp, looks like there needs to be a district-wide movement of all the students updating their nicknames every day.
This is clearly not a "big win" for trans students, so shame on the California AG Rob Bonta for trying to spin it as if it were. Extremely disappointing for CA.
I think the only way this problem can truly be resolved is for a law to be passed that explicitly carves out privacy protections (for name, gender identity, etc.) for students who request it from the school based on an expectation of retribution / harm from hostile parents were they to be notified. It can literally be life or death for some children, so they should treat this as seriously as physical abuse or domestic violence in the home. It's a shame that so many trans children fear their parents so much that they can't be honest with them, but that is, unfortunately, the current climate we live in.
So basically the judge said you’re not allowed to discriminate against trans students, but you are allowed to enforce policies that achieve the same effect as discriminating against trans students…
Good old American legal system, always and forever screwing over minority communities.
Unfortunately this is very much a cultural issue. Archaic ways of thinking, even in the minds of many parents within the United States dictate that children are the property of their parents with no say in their destiny or treatment. In most places throughout the world this is the norm. Religious indoctrination, even in this country merely enforces this model. Much of the time an argument for protecting trans kids is seen as a revocation of parental rights. So when we speak about doing what's best for kids parents feel threatened that their parental authority is being undermined. Changing this mindset will mean changing the culture and that will take generations.
Further evidence that the institution of family has no 'sanctity' at all contrary to what Rightist pundits say as it is a hotbed of controlling behavior and abuse.
I remember in high school my best friend was gay and didn’t want his parents to know because he was afraid his step dad would actually kill him. School was a safer place for him than home was. I don’t know like to think about what would have happened to him if his stepdad was told by the school.
So what will a kid do ? it may vary with their individual home situation and perceived attitude of their parents which in the absence of parental support, only encourages kids to keep their gender issues a secret, not seek help and or even to run away from home. Kids are still left in the lurch as political footballs unless they know that their parents are supportive.
Not much was changed by this ruling and neither side is satisfied. This judge basically kicked the can down the road. An injunction is needed until this is completely sorted.
No, this was not a win. This was an instruction manual for transphobes and other bigots of how to evade human rights legislation. The trick is just as there have been examples of racially discriminatory "race neutral" policies, here you express your bigotry in "gender neutral" terms by leaving out the parts where you actually specify who the rule is intended to target.
In other words, it's all good and fine if you forcibly reveal to a potentially hostile home environment that a student known as Bill requests to be called Jill so long as you also must tell parents if that student says they'd rather be addressed as William. Judge Sachs knew exactly what his ruling meant; he admitted as much, meaning he not only ignored the impact of the law, he ignored its obvious intent. Which is shameful.
Indeed, I find the whole concept of forced reveal offensive not only because it openly declares students have no right to privacy even about very personal issues, but I'm old enough to recall a time when children were advised in the event of trouble at home to "Tell someone. Confide in a trusted teacher." Now, that second sentence has to be changed to "Not a teacher."
And by the way, what the hell is an "informal record?"
Footnote: I'm aware that "Michael" can be a female name, but in choosing the gender for a pronoun I went with the more frequent one.
Sounds like this mixed ruling, on balance, is more bad news than good. School policies and approaches should always reflect the dignity and privacy of trans students, and the fact that not all of them can come out to their parents or household safely. Maybe the disadvantageous parts of this ruling will get appealed.