The law seems to be about making it possible for kids to lie without the school snitching on them. You should be in favor of this law, no?
1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to report that now and would likely not even know or care. If they do no make an official request to Teachers or staff etc then who's to know. This reminds of when fundamentalist claimed prayer was banned in schools. That has never been the case. School lead or Staff lead prayer was banned. Any child that wished to pray before eating lunch was totally free to do so.
2. It assumes that knee jerk reaction on the part of all fundamentalist parents. (feels weird for an atheist to defend fundamentalist but here we are)
3. Where's the data to back this decision up?
4. There are likely situations where it might be important for the parent to know what their child is doing. What if they are in a cult and want to change their name to unintelligible gibberish - wait Musk is probably ok with that. What if someone is convincing them to get illegal surgery?
LGBTQ kids report homelessness at much higher rates than their peers[1], are heavily over-represented in foster care[2], and report substantially higher rates of abuse[3].
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/gay-and-transgender...
https://youth.gov/youth-topics/lgbtq-youth/child-welfare
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8344346/
Side note but its kind of a funny question to ask when the literal text of the law includes citations to studies that back up the policy.
This law seems to be in reaction to laws that were passed in other states requiring the reporting. We don't have that in CA. Having looked at your sources I would agree there are problems but pronoun protection seems to be the least useful solution and likely posturing by certain politicians with Presidential ambitions. IMHO
There are laws preventing gross abuse, yes, but there’s still a great deal of harm which won’t get action or won’t get it in time. If you beat your gay/trans child, yes, the cops are in your future but you can ground them forever, surround them with people who tell them they’re going to burn in hell for expressing their identity, or ship them off to some kind of unregulated Bible camp/school and likely see no consequences.
Not LGBT but if you haven’t read Jesus Land, it’s brutal and a good reminder of what happens at these private “reform” schools – and I note that the decades of abuse finally being disclosed meant that a different church bought it and hired many of the staff:
https://archive.org/details/jesuslandmemoir0000sche
That’s a common problem with laws like this: they sound over the top - and will be the target for lazy jokes – because they’re focused on stopping the edge cases which most people aren’t really aware of.
Sure, but about what? To me it came across as "I acknowledge my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". Now it sounds more like "I deny my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously".
> 3. Where's the data to back this decision up?
As I understand it from other posters, individual schools had already ordered their teachers to snitch to parents. (How is that for government overreach?) The bill still allows teachers to snitch to parents, it just prevents the school from ordering them to snitch.
[1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parent....
So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA.
1. What data backs up the law? Answer a bunch of studies primarily on foster kids in some unidentified State. This could be a state like Louisiana for example. So it did not answer the quest whether CA had this problem and had nothing to do with districts policy.
2. What does the law accomplish? If it is intended to help foster kids it may do so tangentially but given we don't see studies on CA foster kids I guess we still don't know.
3. Is this a problem in CA? It was commented by several people that districts in CA were trying to make reporting mandatory. No references or data were supplied. I finally found my own reference and supplied it to the thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/17/gavi...
There is actually a district, Chino, was trying to to make it a policy. My mind has now changed about the law.
To paraphrase you - "So let me see if this is a rephrasing of your point: I am not going to put forth the mental effort necessary to take you points seriously so I will make a snide comment instead."
