Under a canopy of California’s signature palm trees, a struggle has unfolded as residents grapple with a policy concerning transgender students in their state schools has now come to a stop. The proposed policy, which would have required that parents be notified if their child requests a gender identification change, will no longer be put to vote this November.
The advocates pushing for the establishment of such a policy statewide announced on Tuesday a rather unfortunate impediment; they had fallen short in garnering enough signatures for the measure to be included on the ballot for the fall elections. The supporters insisted that the proposed measure would have given parents the requisite transparency into their children’s lives. However, detractors vehemently argued that such a law could compromise the safety of children not fortunate enough to live in accepting households.
These parental notification policies, which have been colloquially referred to as “so-called,” have sparked considerable controversy in several California school districts over the course of the year, escalating to legal tussles with the state. The enthusiasts of the measure didn’t stop at mere advocacy but also took legal action against Attorney General Rob Bonta. They contested the title and summary he had issued for the proposed ballot measure, lambasting them as biased and detrimental to their signature gathering efforts. The measure, “Restrict Rights of Transgender Youth” in Bonta’s words, was recommended to be renamed to the “Protect Kids of California Act” by the advocates, who also called for an updated summary.
Despite not meeting the requisite threshold for the signature collection to qualify for the ballot, the campaign’s organizer, Jonathan Zachreson, remained hopeful. “We are encouraged by the amount of support from every sector of the state,” he stated. This proposed initiative carried more heft, as it aimed to not only prohibit transgender girls in grade 7 through college from participating in female sports, but also to impede gender-affirming surgeries for minors, barring a few exceptions.
The signature collecting drive amassed approximately 400,000 signatures, a significant figure yet sadly below the required count of 546,651 needed to place the policy on the ballot. Southern California was a significant source of support, with many signees from Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties, as shared by Zachreson.
Following a court hearing last month, a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Bonta, deeming his description of the proposal as accurate. However, the advocates haven’t backed down. Zachreson revealed plans to appeal the decision with the hopes that if successful, it may set the stage for a revival of the signature-gathering process to give the measure another shot at making the ballot.
At the state Legislature, lawmakers recently unveiled a bill opposing the mandate for parental notification of a child’s sexual orientation or gender identity change by school districts. However, there were a few exceptions, particularly if the student’s safety stood jeopardized.
This issue extends beyond the borders of the Golden State, as it is part of a nationwide debate intertwining local school districts, parents’ rights, and LGBTQ+ students. The contentious discussion has led some to push for a ban on gender-affirming care, forbid trans athletes from participating in female sports, and mandate school administrations to disclose gender identities of trans and non-binary students to their parents. In several states, lawmakers are introducing bills that broadly require parental notification of changes affecting a child’s emotional health or overall well-being.
