Let's get ready to RUMBLE!!!!
Are you ready for the fight of the year? Or, at least the newest political/religious/demographical mud-slinging melee? Senate Bill 777 is a wolf in sheep's clothing, to hear it from the right, and for the left it's all about equality and love and harmony in schools. Is it, as the Christian Right would have us believe, a Satanic attack on "Traditional Morals" and "Family Values", or as the Liberals claim, just another logical Civil Rights bill? Or maybe somewhere in the grey ether between all the polarity?
I encourage you to read the bill before making any reactionary decisions in either direction. I've read debates on this bill as well, and I understand both points of view. Discrimination in classrooms is something that should not be allowed. Previously, the typical "protected" classes of people afforded equal rights and opportunities were "regardless of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code." This bill changes one meager word that has resounding consequences. The bill eliminates the word "sex", which was usually defined as being born either male or female, and replaces it with "gender", which the bill defines as "sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." This is the main difficulty I see with the bill.
Now, let me be clear: I agree that all people, regardless of sexual identity, should be afforded equal rights and opportunities. I am in no way for discrimination of any kind anywhere. Let's all put aside our political and doctrinal beliefs, just for the moment, have a seat at the round table and actually look at the bill. I have to point out the obvious logistical problems that may arise after the bill is passed. By defining gender as identity and behavior, what happens when a transgendered boy feels discriminated against in the boys locker room (highly possible) and appeals to the school board citing this bill? It seems ludicrous that he could be allowed to use the girls locker room, because then all the boys (who truly feel like boys) will do the same thing just to get access to that nirvana of male adolescence. So then what? Do the schools add locker rooms for the gender-unsure? Should schools really have four locker rooms, boys, girls, boys-who-feel-like-girls, and girls-who feel-like-boys, wasting taxpayer money that should be spent on things like computer labs, textbooks, and libraries? Where this issue might have only been an issue before the bill, it now has a basis in law and feasibly could lead to possible litigation for the school districts.
I think that there is no right or wrong with this bill. There are good points and bad points. Maybe the question boils down to this: Is any possible fallout (i.e. litigation, argument, taxes) worth it to keep our children from discrimination? It seems that this bill puts the school in a tougher position than it was in before. While before, schools could resolve their issues on a case by case basis, this sets a precedent with a recourse in law. Maybe I'm being alarmist and the situation that I'm imagining is ludicrous and no sensible person would ever do it. But if people were sensible, would we really need any "discrimination" laws in the first place?
I encourage you to read the bill before making any reactionary decisions in either direction. I've read debates on this bill as well, and I understand both points of view. Discrimination in classrooms is something that should not be allowed. Previously, the typical "protected" classes of people afforded equal rights and opportunities were "regardless of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, mental or physical disability, or regardless of any actual or perceived characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code." This bill changes one meager word that has resounding consequences. The bill eliminates the word "sex", which was usually defined as being born either male or female, and replaces it with "gender", which the bill defines as "sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." This is the main difficulty I see with the bill.
Now, let me be clear: I agree that all people, regardless of sexual identity, should be afforded equal rights and opportunities. I am in no way for discrimination of any kind anywhere. Let's all put aside our political and doctrinal beliefs, just for the moment, have a seat at the round table and actually look at the bill. I have to point out the obvious logistical problems that may arise after the bill is passed. By defining gender as identity and behavior, what happens when a transgendered boy feels discriminated against in the boys locker room (highly possible) and appeals to the school board citing this bill? It seems ludicrous that he could be allowed to use the girls locker room, because then all the boys (who truly feel like boys) will do the same thing just to get access to that nirvana of male adolescence. So then what? Do the schools add locker rooms for the gender-unsure? Should schools really have four locker rooms, boys, girls, boys-who-feel-like-girls, and girls-who feel-like-boys, wasting taxpayer money that should be spent on things like computer labs, textbooks, and libraries? Where this issue might have only been an issue before the bill, it now has a basis in law and feasibly could lead to possible litigation for the school districts.
I think that there is no right or wrong with this bill. There are good points and bad points. Maybe the question boils down to this: Is any possible fallout (i.e. litigation, argument, taxes) worth it to keep our children from discrimination? It seems that this bill puts the school in a tougher position than it was in before. While before, schools could resolve their issues on a case by case basis, this sets a precedent with a recourse in law. Maybe I'm being alarmist and the situation that I'm imagining is ludicrous and no sensible person would ever do it. But if people were sensible, would we really need any "discrimination" laws in the first place?
posted by Laura Francabandera at
2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home