California Student Civil Rights Act

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...E1ZTFkYTNlODU=
National Review
Gender Jumble: California Student Civil Rights Act ends gendered
education.
By Jennifer Roback Morse

The hyper-active gay-rights establishment in California has finally
succeeded in getting the Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the
California Student Civil Rights Act. State Senator Sheila Kuehl's new
bill adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of groups
protected from educational discrimination. Teachers and school
districts have been prohibited from "giving instruction... [and]
sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because
of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or
ancestry" and more recently, sexual orientation and gender identity
have been added to the list.

Three things are troubling about this new law. First, we don't know
exactly what qualifies as instruction that "reflects adversely upon
persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity." Such
a law could feasibly prohibit lessons or stories that treat the terms
"mother" and "father" as normative; the terms "husband" and "wife"
could be forcibly abandoned in favor of the generic, gender neutral
"partner."

Additionally, the law prohibits school districts from "sponsoring any
activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of their gender
identity." A number of consequences could be entailed by this; it
could mean that having a homecoming queen is prohibited. It could also
mean that locker rooms and bathrooms have to be opened to students on
the basis of the gender they perceive themselves to be. In truth we
don't know for sure how this legislation will be interpreted, and not
knowing what a law will actually do is always a good reason not to
pass it.

Also troubling, is the underlying assumption that the state needs new
authority to protect gay children from teasing or harassment - an
assumption based on no evidence. Discrimination and bullying are
already illegal, and the state of California is one of the most gay-
friendly places on the planet. Why does the GLBT caucus claim to
require additional authority, unless it plans to use it in new areas?
The is already allowing students who claim to be transsexual to use
the locker rooms of their choice, and the court recently held that the
city of Oakland could lawfully prohibit the words "marriage is the
foundation of the natural family and sustains family values" on the
grounds that such words constitute hate speech. I'm somehow not
reassured by the gay lobby's promise that they won't ban the words,
"mother," "father," "husband," and "wife."

Most disturbing, however, is that such legislation will cause
struggles in the development of a healthy sense of gender in the vast
majority of young people. Due to the flexible language employed,
anything that looks remotely like gender stereotyping will run afoul
of this law In other words, anything that says, "boys should do X" or
"girls should do Y" will certainly be considered to "reflect
adversely" on children with any gender identity confusion.

Most young people have questions about how to express their gender.
What does it mean to be a man? What should a good woman do? These are
questions with which all young people must grapple, and they are
entitled to have some substantial guidance from adults. For far too
long, we've been avoiding these questions out of fear of offending
feminist sensibilities. With this new law, California school teachers
and school boards will have to fear the gay lobby, as well as the
feminist establishment.

Ample evidence exists to suggest that men and women react different to
everything from cohabitation, to infertility, to child-bearing. The
path on which we travail with such laws leaves children to discover
these critical differences in unfortunate, and often very painful,
ways. Such a law limits the fruitful discussion that would benefit the
majority of children in order to protect the feelings of the handful
of children who might have same sex attractions.

I seriously doubt that the psyches of California gays and lesbians are
so fragile that their well-being depends on protecting school children
from hearing the words "mother and father." I don't believe the vast
majority of sensible gay people in California think they need this
policy. Moreover, any children who are actually suffering can be
helped through the far less intrusive means that are already
available.

Sheila Kuehl has given the state of California the power to control
what it means to be male and female with this new bill, and Arnold
Schwarzenegger has signed this thinly-disguised thought-control bill
into law. This is clearly far too much power for any public agency to
bestow upon itself.

But there is hope that they may have overreached themselves.
California citizens, uncomfortable with the prospect of the government
controlling the thoughts of their children, are organizing a
referendum to repeal this law. Other states would be wise to keep
careful watch as well: If this power grab is established in
California, it may be coming to a school near you.

Beliavsky wrote in
ups.com:

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or
transsexualism is normal.

so if your son was born gay (which you might not know yet
with 4 & 2 year olds), you would want him to grow up thinking
there was something horribly wrong with himself instead?
perhaps something so horrible that committing suicide as a
young teen would be preferable to living with the horrible
wrongness of his true feelings? nice move, dad!
as for transsexuals, usually that can be confirmed with DNA
testing (assuming they aren't kids who were gender assigned at
birth due to ambiguous genetalia, in which case the parents
shouldn't be surprised they "guessed wrong"). most
transsexuals have extra chromosomes (XXYYY, XXXYY, etc). they
may appear one gender, but feel another. it's more common than
you'd think.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...DIxZDhmODdkODE
4ZjZmZDE1ZTFkYTNlODU= National Review
Gender Jumble: California Student Civil Rights Act ends
gendered education.
By Jennifer Roback Morse

The hyper-active gay-rights establishment in California has
finally succeeded in getting the Governor Schwarzenegger to
sign the California Student Civil Rights Act. State Senator
Sheila Kuehl's new bill adds sexual orientation and gender
identity to the list of groups protected from educational
discrimination. Teachers and school districts have been
prohibited from "giving instruction... [and] sponsoring any
activity that reflects adversely upon persons because of
their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or
ancestry" and more recently, sexual orientation and gender
identity have been added to the list.

ok...

Three things are troubling about this new law. First, we
don't know exactly what qualifies as instruction that
"reflects adversely upon persons because of their sexual
orientation or gender identity." Such a law could feasibly
prohibit lessons or stories that treat the terms "mother"
and "father" as normative; the terms "husband" and "wife"
could be forcibly abandoned in favor of the generic, gender
neutral "partner."

looks like the writer is reaching for points & carefully
choosing 'hot buttons'. my son has twin classmates with 2
moms. big effin' deal. it means nothing to the kids (lower
elementary grades). it's more like "J! there's your mom!" or
J! there's your other mom" (i suspect it's perceived the same
as step parents to the kids).
my kid's parents aren't married. i object to being referred
to as T's "wife". i *am* his partner, however.
let's see:
wife

Main Entry:
wife
Pronunciation:
\?wi-f\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural wives \?wi-vz\
Etymology:
Middle English wif, from Old English wi-f; akin to Old
High German wi-b wife and probably to Tocharian B kwi-pe
female pudenda

note: this is about as charming as being called the "C
word"! sheesh!
Date:
before 12th century

1 a dialect : woman b: a woman acting in a specified capacity
—used in combination fishwife
2: a female partner in a marriage

and husband:

Main Entry:
1hus·band
Pronunciation:
\?h?z-b?nd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English husbonde, from Old English hu-sbonda master
of a house, from Old Norse hu-sbo-ndi, from hu-s house + bo-
ndi householder; akin to Old Norse bu-a to inhabit; akin to
Old English bu-an to dwell — more at bower
Date:
13th century

1: a male partner in a marriage
2British : manager, steward
3: a frugal manager
or
2husband
Function:
transitive verb
Date:
15th century

1 a: to manage prudently and economically
b: to use sparingly : conserve
2 archaic : to find a husband for : mate

as usual, guys get a glowing definition & women are reduced to
reference to genetalia.

Additionally, the law prohibits school districts from
"sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon
persons because of their gender identity." A number of
consequences could be entailed by this; it could mean that
having a homecoming queen is prohibited. It could also mean
that locker rooms and bathrooms have to be opened to
students on the basis of the gender they perceive
themselves to be. In truth we don't know for sure how this
legislation will be interpreted, and not knowing what a law
will actually do is always a good reason not to pass it.

it could mean that the homecoming queen was, gasp!, a boy!
personally, i think the bathroom thing is a red herring. if
the US wasn't so uptight over sex, non-gendered bathrooms make
more sense & would make schools cheaper to build... but make
sex the big deal, off-limits, but desirable, thing it is in
advertising & you set yourself up for all kinds of nonsense.
my kid's school has non-gendered bathrooms too... you just
wait for it to be open to use it.

Also troubling, is the underlying assumption that the state
needs new authority to protect gay children from teasing or
harassment - an assumption based on no evidence.

oh really? that may be true, if they are actually enforcing
anti-bully laws, but it's strange how frequently they don't.

Discrimination and bullying are already illegal, and the
state of California is one of the most gay- friendly places
on the planet. Why does the GLBT caucus claim to require
additional authority, unless it plans to use it in new
areas? The is already allowing students who claim to be
transsexual to use the locker rooms of their choice, and
the court recently held that the city of Oakland could
lawfully prohibit the words "marriage is the foundation of
the natural family and sustains family values" on the
grounds that such words constitute hate speech. I'm somehow
not reassured by the gay lobby's promise that they won't
ban the words, "mother," "father," "husband," and "wife."

i *hope* they ban wife now that i looked it up... i think i
prefer husband
besides, with divorce being so easily obtained, i don't see
how "marriage is the foundation of the natural family &
sustains family values" is really true. is it better to stay
in a marriage where one partner is physically, verbally or
emotionally abusive? if not, are those the "family values" you
want the children of that family to learn? is it any *less* of
a family if a gay couple adopts (or has a kid by AI)? is it
less of a family if the parents are both present, committed to
each other, but absolutely refuse to get married? what about a
single mom or dad? are those not "families"?

Most disturbing, however, is that such legislation will
cause struggles in the development of a healthy sense of
gender in the vast majority of young people. Due to the
flexible language employed, anything that looks remotely
like gender stereotyping will run afoul of this law In
other words, anything that says, "boys should do X" or
"girls should do Y" will certainly be considered to
"reflect adversely" on children with any gender identity
confusion.

this has been disproven. teaching gender equality doesn't make
kids gay or transgendered, it doesn't make girls any more
tomboyish or boys any more effeminate than they are naturally
inclined to be. *i* don't "think like a girl" and i never
have. doesn't make me a boy, but it means that teaching me
more like teaching a boy works better (less writing/passive
watching, more math & science, hands on). it would be loads
better to teach to the childs individual temperment than to
cram everyone into the same learning style mold... but that
has little to do with other gender issues, just gender
stereotyping.

Most young people have questions about how to express their
gender. What does it mean to be a man? What should a good
woman do? These are questions with which all young people
must grapple, and they are entitled to have some
substantial guidance from adults. For far too long, we've
been avoiding these questions out of fear of offending
feminist sensibilities. With this new law, California
school teachers and school boards will have to fear the gay
lobby, as well as the feminist establishment.

golly gee, what's wrong with just teaching how good *people*
act, without the gender crap? boys can be whinging wimps.
girls can be strong. none of that matters if they can tell
right from wrong & have the strength to stand up to thier own
moral convictions.

Ample evidence exists to suggest that men and women react
different to everything from cohabitation, to infertility,
to child-bearing. The path on which we travail with such
laws leaves children to discover these critical differences
in unfortunate, and often very painful, ways. Such a law
limits the fruitful discussion that would benefit the
majority of children in order to protect the feelings of
the handful of children who might have same sex
attractions.

travail? i think she means travel... and i do not see how this
law has anything to do with how different people/genders view
things. if anything perhaps it might open more positive dialog
(yeah, i doubt it too) about how such things are perceived
differently and why? i can't see this law limiting such
discussion, but rather making such discussion more open &
transparent.

I seriously doubt that the psyches of California gays and
lesbians are so fragile that their well-being depends on
protecting school children from hearing the words "mother
and father." I don't believe the vast majority of sensible
gay people in California think they need this policy.
Moreover, any children who are actually suffering can be
helped through the far less intrusive means that are
already available.

this is probably true & in general i think these kinds of laws
are pretty stupid, but this writer is simply playing on fears
to make a point and i find that extremely annoying.
lee

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
ups.com...
I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.




Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

On Nov 7, 10:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message

ups.com...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

I'd like the family line to be continued. I also don't want my sons to
die young.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499
International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:1499
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
Letter to the Editor
Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

"life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21
years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality
continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday."

In article . com, Beliavsky
says...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...E1ZTFkYTNlODU=
National Review
Gender Jumble: California Student Civil Rights Act ends gendered
education.
By Jennifer Roback Morse

The hyper-active gay-rights establishment in California has finally
succeeded in getting the Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the
California Student Civil Rights Act. State Senator Sheila Kuehl's new
bill adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of groups
protected from educational discrimination. Teachers and school
districts have been prohibited from "giving instruction... [and]
sponsoring any activity that reflects adversely upon persons because
of their race, sex, color, creed, handicap, national origin or
ancestry" and more recently, sexual orientation and gender identity
have been added to the list.

Hee hee - typical National Review hyperstated article. They're the Mother Jones
of the right (I don't care for either mag as regular reading, but they're both
interesting and sometimes bring up good stuff).


Three things are troubling about this new law. First, we don't know
exactly what qualifies as instruction that "reflects adversely upon
persons because of their sexual orientation or gender identity." Such
a law could feasibly prohibit lessons or stories that treat the terms
"mother" and "father" as normative; the terms "husband" and "wife"
could be forcibly abandoned in favor of the generic, gender neutral
"partner."


This is an argument called "parade of horribles". This will happen; that will
happen; all is conjecture; all is awful awful awful. The veracity of whcih is
dependent on whether or not it's at all likely that it would happen, or even is
bad. But oh the right heartstrings are played, depending on the audience!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parade_of_horribles

For instance, why would "husband" or "wife" be disallowed as terminology as
being prejudicial? They're descriptive, with unique meaning. "Partner", in my
experience, could actually *stand* more use, as (as I stated in antoehr thread)
plain ol' heterosexual marriages along with any other kind of similar marriage
would do well to start with people who realize they're looking for life
*partners*.

What this is, is a plain old non-discrimination statute. It doesn't even
require that it is *taught* what is normal. It requires that kids aren't
*excluded* or treated badly. Or is this what you object to? I hope not.

It's up to you to transmit your values to your children. I surely see my son
encounter ideas that I don't agree with in school and elsewhere; I have the
confidence to discuss these things and put them in context.

Banty

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:14:38 -0800, Beliavsky
wrote:

On Nov 7, 10:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message

ups.com...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

I'd like the family line to be continued. I also don't want my sons to
die young.

snip

You mis-used your article. Here is part of what you snipped:

It is essential to note that the life expectancy of any population is
a descriptive and not a prescriptive mesaure.5 Death is a product of
the way a person lives and what physical and environmental hazards he
or she faces everyday. It cannot be attributed solely to their sexual
orientation or any other ethnic or social factor

If your son(s) were gay or bi-sexual you'd do much better in fostering
their longevity by being loving and understanding.

Nan

"Beliavsky" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 7, 10:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message

ups.com...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

I'd like the family line to be continued.



That is not really your choice. Even heterosexual people sometimes don't
have children.


I also don't want my sons to
die young.



Time to start teaching healthy and safe habits.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499
International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:1499
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
Letter to the Editor
Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

"life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21
years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality
continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday."

In article . com, Beliavsky
says...

On Nov 7, 10:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message

ups.com...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

I'd like the family line to be continued. I also don't want my sons to
die young.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499
International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:1499
=A9 International Epidemiological Association 2001
Letter to the Editor
Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

"life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21
years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality
continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday."


Well, duh, AIDs is still taking its toll, even if current new cases are largely
among *heterosexuals* in the US (as it has been for some time in other areas of
the world).

If I had my druthers, and could have gotten all those Life Wishes, I'd hope for
my son not to gay, too. Because life is easier if not. I'd hope for grandkids,
too.

But for some reason neither of got those Make People Be And Do What We Want
wands (manufacturing problem?) when we were put down here on this earth. One
consequence is that neither you nor your sons have a choice if they're gay or
not.

OK, anticipating that you may disagree with that, what force do you plan to
apply to make them parents should they not want to be parents, just to get
yourself grandkids?

Allowing bad treatment of homosexuals gets us nowhere.

Banty

On Nov 7, 12:03 pm, Banty wrote:
In article . com, Beliavsky
says...

On Nov 7, 10:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
"Beliavsky" wrote in message

roups.com...

I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

I'd like the family line to be continued. I also don't want my sons to
die young.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co...full/30/6/1499
International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:1499
=A9 International Epidemiological Association 2001
Letter to the Editor
Gay life expectancy revisited
Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V
O'shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

"life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21
years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality
continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men
currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday."

Well, duh, AIDs is still taking its toll, even if current new cases are largely
among *heterosexuals* in the US (as it has been for some time in other areas of
the world).

And, of course, you need to factor in the higher risk of being killed
or killing oneself because of the large number of people who *don't*
believe that homosexuality is *normal*

That's the other factor that people are leaving out. Since the vast
majority of people are heterosexual, and the vast majority are not
transsexual (there are heterosexual transsexuals, you know), chances
are that Beliavsky's kids are neither. Nonetheless, the incidence in
the population is sufficiently high that it is inevitable that they
will encounter gays amongst their friends, classmates, parents of
friends, neighbors, teachers and as they grow up, their colleagues.
These people are entitled to be treated no differently than anyone
else in society. THAT's all I read into the statute.

Really now, Beliavsky, if you don't want your kids taught that
homosexuality is normal, what do you want them taught? *Nothing at
all* would seem to mean *normal* So do you want to teach your kids
that being gay is abnormal, or an abomination? And how do you intend
to teach your children to treat gays?

If I had my druthers, and could have gotten all those Life Wishes, I'd hope for
my son not to gay, too. Because life is easier if not. I'd hope for grandkids,
too.

But for some reason neither of got those Make People Be And Do What We Want
wands (manufacturing problem?) when we were put down here on this earth. One
consequence is that neither you nor your sons have a choice if they're gay or
not.

I don't know why you reminded me of this, but I once read a really bad
drugstore novel chick lit thing. At one point, the son comes out of
the closet and tells his rather overbearing mother that he's gay.
*Why are you telling me this now? I figured it out years ago.* *But
you keep telling me to get married and have kids.* *Have I ever
suggested that you should marry a girl? I want you to settle down and
give me grandchildren already; meet a nice boy and adopt*

Like Banty, I hope my son is straight simply because it *is* easier in
today's society, particularly for a religious Jew. I also hope that
he'll be smart, decide to go to college, get a good job, have lots of
kids before I'm too old to enjoy them, and lots of other things.
Sadly, I don't get to choose for him.

Barbara

I am always amused when ultraliberals
propound that gay is "normal" when it
is statistically not so.

Propounding that your kids might be
"born gay" is even more amusing.

The numbers of people who have
"decided" to be gay late in life, and
the numbers of people who started
out "gay" and "became" straight are
a huge wrinkle in that self serving theory.

A huge portion of Lesbians were hetero
and raised kids before they ""realized""
they hated men and became gay.

One gay activist I talked to asserted
that everybody is more like BISEXUAL
with a bias, and acknowledged that
it IS more about choice than being
"born that way".

One dead giveaway amid all of this is
the intense interest gays have in breaking
down the societal "norm" of heterosexuality
and role modeling.

Why be so worried about the hetero "norms"
being imprinted if they're really "born that way"?

In the field of psychology they once had
some help for gay people who wanted to
be straight. Now because of political
pressure within the field, this help is not
available EVEN to gays who WANT
to become straight.

Will they really try to eliminate words like
Mother/Father/Husband/Wife and all
references to the traditional hetero nuclear family?

Why would I be amazed?


"Beliavsky" wrote in message
I don't want my kids taught that homosexuality or transsexualism is
normal.

On Nov 7, 9:27 am, "Stephanie" wrote:
Why not? Is truth something you fear? Even animals do it.

Mere existance of sexual confusion in animals
does not make it "NORMAL".