Gender, Your Child, and the DSUSD

Parent's Not Welcome

How about a little preview for the next Desert Sands Unified School District Board meeting? Might as well let them know we’re coming, nothing can stop us and they cannot change the information already out there. Well, [they] could try but it is all archived.

With just 3 minutes to speak, I will have to cut this down a bit. You can watch here: https://rumble.com/v10wb5v-dsusd-wants-to-change-your-childs-gender.html

Good evening,

First, I would like to point out that DSUSD Bylaws 9223 #3 and California Government Code 5494.2 state that:

“Without taking action, Board members or district staff members may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by the public about items not appearing on the agenda. (Government Code 54954.2)”

Please double check this as I will be asking you to respond.

Now, on to business.

According to California Assembly Bill AB-89 which was signed into law on September 20, 2021, and I quote:

Did you get that?  The fact that children cannot make good judgements or decision making is written into California Law.

Now look to the California School Success and Opportunity Act (Assembly Bill 1266).

The district, in the FAQs to its health curriculum (#19) mentions the The California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA), which took effect January 1, 2016 and provides links to the California Department of Education for how this law is to be implemented in the schools of California.

So, let’s talk about this a bit, because the district website simply links to the CDE without in depth discussion.  You have covered your liability well, but do parents and community members really find this page before the damage has been done?

The CDE prepared these FAQs to: (#s 6 and 7)

” address key issues regarding the requirements and implementation of AB 1266. These issues are: (1) privacy with respect to the student’s transgender status; (2) names and pronouns; (3) school records; (4) dress codes and uniforms; (5) restrooms and locker rooms”

It also quotes the bills author as stating:

“This bill is needed to ensure that transgender students are protected and have the same opportunities to participate and succeed as all other students. AB 1266 clarifies California’s student nondiscrimination laws by specifying that all students in K-12 schools must be permitted to participate in school programs, activities, and facilities in accordance with the student’s gender identity.”

It further states:

“Gender identity is a deeply rooted element of a person’s identity. Therefore, school districts should accept and respect a student’s assertion of their gender identity where the student expresses that identity at school or where there is other evidence that this is a sincerely held part of the student’s core identity. Some examples of evidence that the student’s asserted gender identity is sincerely held could include letters from family members or healthcare providers, photographs of the student at public events or family gatherings, or letters from community members such as clergy.”

However, in typical California contradictory fashion, it also states that:

“schools must consult with a transgender student to determine who can or will be informed of the student’s transgender status, if anyone, including the student’s family. With rare exceptions, schools are required to respect the limitations that a student places on the disclosure of their transgender status, including not sharing that information with the student’s parents.”

And even moar:

“If a student so chooses, district personnel shall be required to address the student by a name and the pronouns consistent with the student’s gender identity, without the necessity of legal documentation or a change to the student’s official district record. The student’s age is not a factor. For example, children as early as age two are expressing a different gender identity.”

The age of two!!!

In summary, although schools are told that students should have to prove they sincerely hold a transgender view of themselves, if an activist adult with a nefarious agenda is able to get a confused or depressed child (thank you covid fear-mongers) to  simply state “I am confused about my gender and I don’t want my parents to know” that is enough for this district to turn some unsuspecting parent’s little Bobby into Cindy while at school.

The boy will be Bobby at home, but everyone at school will call him Cindy.  The teachers and staff will be ordered to call Bobby Cindy, except when talking to the parents—at that time they must call him Bobby.  They can actually face disciplinary actions if they do not, according to the law.

My concern, and what I want you to respond to is this:

While you practice CYA well, by posting this information onto some obscure page of your website, do you agree with it?  Do you really think it is okay for activists with ulterior motives to change little boys into little girls, little girls into little boys, or both into “non-binary” without the parents knowledge?  Would it be okay with you if that had happened to your own children?

We must assume this is so.  For if you were true leaders, you would make very clear to parents how they could find out if their children were victims of this horrible law and policy. 

Can parents simply ask the teacher if they are calling their little Bobby Cindy at school?  The principal?  The way I am reading this all employees are required to lie to the parents if any K-12 student demands they do so.

I want each of you to look into that camera that is focused on you and explain to this community:

1.    why you are so supportive of this law. 

2.    If you are not supportive then why don’t you make this clear as day to ALL parents and prospective staff?

3.    Explain to parents exactly how they can find out if dsusd schools are in fact treating their Bobby as Cindy. Do this so that the parents have a level of confidence that they are not simply being lied to because “muh, the law”.

We all want to know, but let me warn you, your silence on this will be absolutely deafening.

**Edit 3/28: To demonstrate that virtue signalling can have world consequences, I present this article by Brad Jones of the Epoch Times. It is a tragic story of loss due to purported (by Mom) LGBTQ Coaching and brainwashing of a California teen which led to depression and suicide. The school kept her “gender identity” away from her Mom.

Edit 4/11: Groomers. The United States Department of Justice: “It is common for producers of child pornography to groom victims, or cultivate a relationship with a child and gradually sexualize the contact over time.  The grooming process fosters a false sense of trust and authority over a child in order to desensitize or break down a child´s resistance to sexual abuse.”