Schoolchildren to Decide Own Sex
Given my age, by now I suppose I should be accustomed to change. I’ve seen a lot of it. Some good, some bad, some absolutely terrible, some fair and some unfair, both stupid and intelligent. You name it, and I thought I’d seen it all.
But, I never thought I would live to see the day when the crazies in our legislature would actually think it’s a good idea to allow schoolchildren to decide which sex they want to be. Not their sexual preference, mind you, but whether they are male or female, notwithstanding their anatomical makeup.
California’s Senate Bill 777 mandates that “Kids are going to be taught that they have the right to completely ignore their physical anatomy and choose the status of being ‘male’ or ‘female.’” (NC Times Commentary, Just The Facts, by Robert Tyler, general counsel for Advocates for Faith and Freedom, nonprofit religious liberty and pro-family law firm, December 29, 2007).
As Robert Tyler notes, “Ignore your common sense, ignore your chromosomes and ignore your anatomy. This is what your politicians want to teach your kids in school. After all, California’s kids have mastered reading, writing and arithmetic, haven’t they?” To illustrate the potential consequences of the law, Mr. Tyler posed the question, “What will prevent the 250-pound linebacker from deciding he wants to share the locker room with the cheerleaders?”
For those who may scoff at this example of the law’s potential impact, “The Los Angeles Unified School District has already adopted policies allowing boys to use girl’s restrooms and locker rooms – and vice versa.” The District’s Reference Guide “even tells teachers they need to refer to students using the student’s preferred pronoun. And of course, it prohibits the teachers from disclosing a student’s chosen gender to the student’s parents.” (The Jawa Report, California Schoolchildren to Decide Their Own Sex, December 31, 2007).
And, the “Los Angeles Unified School District has already implemented a policy that states a boy perceiving himself to be a girl may use the girls’ restroom and locker room. He may also participate in girls’ sports and other female-only activities.” (Testimony by legislative liaison Meredith Turney of Capitol Resource Institute, Newsmax.com, January 11, 2008).
How crazy is this? Children can now declare which sex they are without telling their parents. How, I wonder, does that work at home, or how does a teacher consult with a parent whose child has declared they are a different sex without the parents’ knowledge?
SB 777 was passed by the California legislature and signed into law by the governor late last year. It eliminated Education Code 212, which defined “sex” as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.” This law redefines the term “gender” for all schoolchildren by adding Education Code 210.7, which reads: “‘Gender’ means 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…In short, this redefinition of gender states that you are what you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up. (Emphasis added)…. SB 777 also uses this redefinition of gender to forbid educators from discriminating against any individual employee, student or other person based upon that individual’s unspoken claim of being male or female, regardless of his or her actual sex.”
Advocates of this legislation argue that “it’s needed to protect gays and others with non-heterosexual orientations from being harassed in schools. Opponents say it will force teachers and school officials to silence anyone who is morally opposed to homosexuality and allow anyone to claim privileges based on self-defined sexual orientation.” (Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee, December 3, 2007).
My sense is that this will stifle all free expression about sexuality in the schools, that it’s another step along the path of Political Correctness to mass confusion and resentment. And, no doubt it will add to the income of the trial lawyers, who will game the system with litigation to create and/or protect clients’ rights, real or imagined.
In October 2007, state Senator McClintock wrote, “After all, if courts begin ruling that exclusion is indeed a form of discriminatory bias – which is clearly the intent of this bill – there are no groups more excluded or less tolerated in the public schools today than evangelical Christians, orthodox Jews and traditional Catholics.”
The oft quoted declaration, “the asylum is being run by the inmates,” seems to describe California’s political system perfectly. If this didn’t have such serious potential consequences, it would be downright laughable.
© 2008 Harris R. Sherline, All Rights Reserved
Meat and Milk Products From Cloned Animals
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently ruled “that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring are as safe as the natural versions, clearing the way for the products to enter the food supply without special labeling…In releasing their final risk assessment on the safety of cloning technology…the FDA asked producers to continue keeping cloned cattle, pigs and goats out of the food supply during a transition period of unspecified length to give the market time to adjust.” (Charleston Daily Mail, January 16, 2008).
So, how is the public to know when these products will be on the shelves of our grocery stores and whether we will be able to avoid them if we don’t want to risk including them in our diet? Apparently we won’t.
Reviewing the information about this development, I couldn’t help but think back to another time, when the German government failed to adequately protect the public and, as a result, the world learned a new word, one that still evokes terrible images of physical deformities in babies. Does anyone else remember “Thalidomide babies”? Inadequate tests were performed to assess the drug’s safety, with catastrophic results for the children of women who had taken thalidomide during their pregnancies. “From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe deformities.” (Wikipedia)
The FDA’s approval of meat from cloned animals also put me in mind of another example of what might happen when government controls the nation’s food supply and does not permit the public to know what they are eating, as portrayed in a 1973 science fiction movie, Soylent Green. The story depicted the consequences of running out of food and how the government controlled the media to prevent people from learning what the food they were eating was actually made from. Pure fantasy, to be sure, but thought provoking nonetheless.
Opponents of releasing cloned animal products into our food supply raise the following objections:
- Unknown food safety risks.
- Animal cruelty.
- There is no requirement to require labeling of cloned food so consumers can avoid using them if they wish.
- Problems in clones could lead to increased incidence of illnesses caused by these food products, such as E. coli infections.
- Excessively high doses of hormones, antibiotics and other medications in the animals that are a necessary part of the process.
- Even healthy appearing cloned animals could have hidden defects that could affect food safety.
- Cloning animals for food is completely new technology, dating back just 10 years.
- A 2006 Pew poll found that nearly two-thirds (64%) of “American consumers” are not comfortable with animal cloning, and the Humane Society of The United States has declared that cloning has no “legitimate social value and decreases animal welfare.”
- “Widespread adoption of cloning could lead to the dramatic loss of genetic diversity in livestock,” which “may leave farmers and our nation’s food supply vulnerable to devastating epidemics due to an extremely narrow gene pool.” (The Cornucopia Institute)
Proponents argue that it is perfectly safe, that it has been adequately studied, and that it is a necessary and economic addition to the food supply.
If that’s true, why is it that they don’t want the public to exercise their own discretion in deciding what they want to eat?
We don’t yet know for sure whether cloned meat and milk are safe, notwithstanding the FDA’s claims. Until we do, these products should not be released for public consumption or, if they are, they should be clearly labeled so the public can decide for themselves if they want to include them in their diet.
As the old saw about drinking goes, “Name your poison.” For me, my poison will not include meat and milk products from cloned animals if I can avoid them. Not yet.