In a notable development from the Golden State, a proposed policy that would have necessitated schools to inform parents when a child requests to change their gender identification will not make it to this November’s ballot. The initiators of the measure declared on Tuesday that they were unable to garner the required number of signatures to introduce this statewide policy in the upcoming elections.
Proponents of the measure held the view that it would offer an essential degree of transparency for parents. Those opposing the policy, on the other hand, voiced concerns about potential threats to the safety of children who may not be part of supportive households.
Dubbed the “parental notification policies”, such measures sparked controversy in several California school districts this year, leading to head-on legal confrontations with the state authorities.
The proponents of the proposed ballot measure, feeling hard done by what they perceived as a biased title and summary issued by Attorney General Rob Bonta, even went as far as filing a lawsuit against him. According to the backers, the title “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth” initiative made it considerably difficult for them to collect the necessary signatures. Instead, they desired a less contentious name such as “Protect Kids of California Act” and sought an updated summary.
Jonathan Zachreson, campaign organizer, expressed disappointment over the failure to qualify for the ballot. Yet, he found solace in the wide-ranging support garnered from across the state. The proposed initiative, to add to the debate, also planned to prohibit transgender girls from grade 7 through college from taking part in girls’ and women’s sports and to limit gender-affirming surgeries among minors, barring a few exceptions.
Approximately 400,000 signatures were accumulated in the campaign – a tally that falls significantly short of the 546,651 signatures required. Many of the signatures hailed from Southern California counties, including Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside.
However, a Sacramento Superior Court judged deemed Bonta’s description of the proposal fitting, siding with him in last month’s hearing. The measure’s proponents now set their sights on appealing the decision, hoping, if successful, to rekindle the signature collection phase for another attempt at getting the measure to the ballot.
In the meantime, just last week, state legislators announced a bill that aims to prohibit school districts from adopting policies that mandate parental notification of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity, except in cases where the student’s safety might be at stake.
This development in California is but a part of a wider, national debate concerning local school districts, parents’ rights, and LGBTQ+ students’ rights. Many states throughout the country are witnessing calls for the prohibition of gender-affirming care, barring trans athletes from girls’ and women’s sports, and requiring schools to disclose the gender identities of trans and nonbinary students to their parents, alongside some lawmakers’ attempts in their respective states to require parental notification about any substantial shifts in their child’s emotional health or well-being.
