Lauren RabainoThis just in: The state of California is putting at risk . your public restrooms. This is no joke, folks. The public school system – the one crucial domain in every community that is supposed to help shape our current and future generations of citizens in this great state – may no longer be recognizing proper usage of men’s and women’s restrooms, among other things.
Governor Schwarzenegger, in cooperation with the Democratic legislature, has passed a bill that will change the future of California public education. Our public schools apparently don’t have enough to worry about, like trying to help students achieve proficiency in reading and math, or recruiting qualified teachers, or even dealing with the fact that as of the 2006-07 school year we’re 47th in the nation in education (down a spot from the previous year).
No, instead we’ve decided to focus on the apparently more important issue of banning anything in public schools that could be interpreted as negative toward homosexuality, bisexuality and other alternative lifestyle choices.
The newly signed bill, SB777, will leave its mark on aspects of education such as instruction, school-sponsored activities, textbooks and school facilities such as locker rooms and restrooms. So basically the bill imposes upon every major portion of public school education. Moreover, it actually redefines “sex” and “gender.”
The old definition of “sex” is that “sex” means the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being. As these terms are newly defined, “gender” and “sex” are one in the same. “Gender” means “sex” and includes a person’s gender identity and gender-related appearance and behavior, whether or not these match what are stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. Now I know I’m going to be treading on really controversial territory here, but please bear with me. As I understand sex/gender based on what I learned from the excellent professors here at Poly, if you have two X chromosomes (XX), you are female; if you have one X and one Y (XY), you are male.
Many schools are expected to take this definition to the next level when it comes to social issues on campus. For example, students, male or female, may be allowed to use the restrooms or locker rooms corresponding to the gender by which they “identify” rather than what their sex actually is. However, as we established just a moment ago, XX=female, XY=male. You may have a different gender identity, but that doesn’t change your actual gender. So if everyone could do me a favor and look at your chromosomes – once you’ve established what they look like – recognize what locker room and bathroom you belong in and go there.
When it comes to the education portion of this subject, public schools already aren’t using textbooks that disparage homosexuality, transsexuality, or bisexuality, so what would this bill actually accomplish? The accomplishment is that any text, reference or teaching aid that portrays marriage as only between a man and woman, sources that fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures, and sex education materials that fail to offer the option of sex changes would be banned. Terms such as “mom and dad,” “husband and wife” may even be in jeopardy if they can be interpreted by someone as negative toward homosexuality.
Some analysts are warning schools across the nation will also be impacted by the decision. Textbook publishers must cater to their largest purchaser – California is often the largest purchaser and it is doubtful that publishers will go through the expense of having a separate edition for other states.
Another bill (AB14) was also recently signed and would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding – even if it’s only a single state grant for a student – to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. This includes state-funded social services run by churches, private, religious hospitals and, of course, private and Christian schools. This begs the question of whether private schools and organizations should still be able to be in control of their own rules and mandates regardless of some state grant for one kid?
Schwarzenegger vetoed almost identical provisions a year ago, saying existing state law already provided penalties for discrimination. While homosexuals should not be discriminated against in schools or elsewhere, making provisions that may force others to comply with gender identities, whether in the classroom or restroom, should be completely out of bounds.
Offenders will face the wrath of the Department of Education and, as it is new, definitions of “sex” and “gender” open the door to a completely confused legal system where any individuals’ interpretation of a statement in a textbook can make way for a multimillion-dollar lawsuit. It should also be noted there is no provision or mention in these laws for students, teachers, or parents with lifestyle choices that include traditional lifestyle choices or sincerely held religious convictions. Students, teachers and parents alike should be outraged over these new laws and should demand that the state legislature focus on education, not social agendas.
Christina Chiappe is a social sciences senior, a member of a member of the Cal Poly College Republicans and a conservative columnist for the Mustang Daily.