Pushing Boundaries

The Internet is abuzz with news of California Governor Jerry Brown’s signing into law AB1266.  

Before I get to that, let me mention how amazing it is that every single news story I looked at that referenced this bill did NOT give the bill number, title, or link to the text of the bill.  Every single article that I looked at from local to AP boilerplate announced this historic event with absolutely no way for the reader to examine the bill themselves.  I find that hugely disturbing in and of itself.  How is it that we are supposed to be an informed constituency yet we are not provided the most rudimentary information on the actual bills being passed and signed?  
I eventually went to the California governor’s web site and was able to quickly find the most recent legislation he had signed, then parsed it manually until I found a header that seemed to be the right bill.  
Unlike many bills, this one is relatively short and easy to make sense of.  Or rather, it is easy to see how this bill makes no sense.  Absolutely no provisions are made for how determinations are to be made as to when to grant students the right to enter the restrooms and locker rooms or gender-delineated courses of the opposite sex.  Any joker who wants to claim to be transgendered today gets to go into the girls locker room?  Sheesh.  They had to work harder than that in Porky’s or any other similar cinematic fare.  
All of which seems to open schools up immediately to slew of law suits from pretty much every conceivable angle – including the state government itself – as they seek to implement this policy.  Good luck with that.  In the mean time, a lot of lawyers will make names and money for themselves at taxpayer expense.  Wonderful.
There has been plenty of commentary on the physical ramifications of this bill.  Any child regardless of their physical gender (as listed in school documentation) must be allowed access to the gender-restricted areas of the opposite-sex if it is “consistent with his or her gender identity”, whatever that means.  How is this gender identity defined?  Who defines it?  On what basis?  What constitutes consistency?  Who defines it and on what basis?  
I found another aspect of the bill equally interesting though, perhaps the more so because of the attention it hasn’t received, and therefore the potential ramifications that might proceed from it.
Section 1(d) of the bill lays out rules for student counseling on issues such as course selection, vocational preparation, higher educational aims, etc.  The thrust is that counselors are not permitted to limit or craft their recommendations in these areas to students based on the student’s gender.  I can get on board with that, in a general sense, at least.  If my son decides to become a baker I wouldn’t think it appropriate for a school counselor to tell him that isn’t an option for him because he’s a boy.  Likewise, if my daughter wants to become an astronaut, it wouldn’t be the guidance counselor’s place to dissuade her.  
However the bill goes farther than that.  It requires school counselors to “affirmatively explore with the pupil the possibility of careers, or courses leading to careers, that are non-traditional for that pupil’s sex.”    In other words, the guidance counselor is now responsible for attempting to broaden a pupil’s horizons by extolling to them the many virtues of fields of study or vocation that are not traditional for that student based on their gender.  
This seems every bit as onerous and perhaps more so than the physical access portions of the bill.  I’d like to think (hope, pray) that the physical access issues will get figured out in time through a mind-numbing series of legal disputes.  But I’m not so sure the same will be true for the guidance counselors.  Parents will be notified of such counseling sessions “in a general manner” in advance of the sessions as of seventh grade, with the idea that the parents can be present at the counseling session.  That’s a nice bone to throw in there, but I doubt that the parents will be notified specifically that their daughter is going to be actively encouraged to consider male-dominated fields, or that their son is going to be encouraged to consider fields of study or vocation more traditionally handled by females.  
I am not specifically defending the idea of there being certain studies and vocations that are typically filled by one gender or the other.  But I don’t have a specific problem with this, either, depending on the reasons why such a marked preponderance of one gender or the other in a given field exists.  What I do have a problem with is the potential damage that can be done to impressionable young people in the name of “equality”, by encouraging them in directions that might prove challenging in any number of ways to them.  
Will the guidance counselors also warn of the difficulties of trying to enter a field of study or vocation traditionally dominated by the opposite sex?  How “affirmative” does the counselor get to be?  The area seems one destined to be quietly fraught with problems on any number of levels.
The cost of  “equality” as defined (and redefined) by a tiny percentage of people is going to be borne disproportionately by the young boys and girls who are victims of these cultural machinations.  Public schools, which ought to have been intended as places of nurturing, continue to mutate into experiments in cultural and sociological manipulation.  The best of the child is not truly in view, but rather the long range goals of a small minority intent on revamping our entire culture and society to suit their own personal whims.  This is to be expected, at one level.  Young people are very open to being groomed in their understandings and ways of thinking.  Whomever controls the schools will find it very difficult to resist grooming young people towards ways of thinking and acting that are reinforcing of the controller’s goals and ideals.  
What isn’t understandable is how quietly and meekly a constituency can receive this manipulations of their own flesh and blood when the manipulations clearly pose a variety of emotional and psychological dangers.  I find it bitterly ironic that the preface to the text of the bill begins formally with the line: “The people of the State of California do enact as follows:”.   I’d be curious to know just how many of the people of California actually want this law.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s