jonriv wrote:Their approuch, as well as others, seems to make more sense and more acceptable-don't you think?
Do you think the California law was just poorly crafted? - too broad etc....
The issue is too complex to broadly grant a right in such a simplistic manner. Here is the text that was added by AB 1266.
(f) A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.Interestingly, they didn't touch a gender-based exception in the same section for Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS Prevention Education. It's possible they left that alone because of different anatomical topics, but those classes are generally segregated so the students are more at ease.
(b) A school district may not prohibit a pupil from enrolling in any class or course on the basis of the sex of the pupil, except a class subject to Chapter 5.6 (commencing with Section 51930) of Part 28 of Division 4 of Title 2.There are a few categories of transgenders from social (dress/appearance) to fully transformed and they should be handled differently. The law should have done 3 things:
1. Establish a means to validate the transgender and categorize them.
2. Establish how schools/districts should handle facilities for each category and provide funding for any mandated changes.
3. Make CIF responsible for handling the athletics portion while maintaining the integrity of each gender sport. CIF is much closer to the issues and they could tailor it by sport.