Title IX Diaries: Rants and Ramblings From Desert Sands Unified

Duran also said that there were “…more scary places than a track and field for our children.”

*Article also appears as a DSUSD Community Watch Press Release

The Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) approved a Title IX Resolution for adoption at their June 10, 2025, general meeting. The Resolution was originally submitted by the public with the request that it be placed on an agenda for discussion. The submitted request was a copy of the resolution adopted by the Chino Valley Unified School District under Sonja Shaw’s leadership. Other districts around Southern California have adopted similar resolutions. The final version that appeared on the DSUSD agenda for approval, as public supporters noted, was watered down from the original.

While the Resolution, which does not actually change any existing DSUSD policy, passed with a 4-0 vote, and one abstention, the board discussion lasted about 20 minutes and included some bizarre rants and ramblings from trustees Humberto Alvarez and Michael Duran. By contrast, board President Kailee Watson who submitted the Resolution, read a statement of scientific facts about the harms of boys pretending to be girls in girls’ sports.

The Resolution saw support from the public in the form of online comments and in-person attendance and comments at the board meeting. Only one person, a DSUSD employee, spoke out against approving the resolution.

Comments of Support

The comments sent online and read into the record voiced support for the resolution but concern that the Resolution did not “…go far enough to ensure fairness and physical safety for girls participating in sports.” Commentors also brought up the concern that the Resolution did not disavow CIF Rule 300D which allows boys in girls’ sports. The rule states: “All students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on a student’s records.”

In addition, there was concern that a “vital” paragraph from the original Resolution was left out. Namely, paragraph four which reads: “…biological differences between male and female athletes can create inherent advantages in competitive sports, particularly in categories designated specifically for girls….”

The online comments can be heard in the video below.

Board Behavior

The first comment heard in video above neither supported nor opposed the Resolution but rather took umbrage that Trustee Watson had been rude to Trustee Pierce when discussing if the Resolution would be placed on the agenda at the previous meeting. Watson had to correct Pierce on miss-statements that boys had never been on girls’ teams in the district—they had. The online comment looked to educate Watson on the proper behavior of board members.

Interestingly, and probably unbeknownst to Peirce’s defender, documents released by the DSUSD under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) illustrate that Trustee Pierce is the one that may need lessons on proper behavior. But that is another tale, and one I told here and in The Other Side of the Lunch Table.

In-Person

There were six members of the community (voters) that attended the meeting in support of the Resolution, although only two gave a public comment.

The first commenter, Reno, expressed concern that Trustees Alvarez and Duran had peacocked about protecting their daughters at the prior meeting, but had never explicitly said that it was wrong for boys to take part in girls’ sports.

“Your house is on fire, how long before you run in and save your girls?” Reno queried, to illustrate the wiffle-waffle statements that Duran and Alvarez had made previously. Reno pointed out that just because a boy says he is a girl doesn’t make it so, nor does it negate that boy’s natural physical advantages.

I was the other speaker, and I too expressed concern that the Resolution was tepid but was better than nothing. I used my time to expound on the musings of Alvarez and Duran from the previous meeting. I commended them on their feelings of duty and of having the right to defend their own daughters, which seems to be the reason both voted for the Resolution.

However, according to CPRA documents (which I had with me), the DSUSD had 192 Gender Support Plans (GSP) in place for district students between the years 2016-2022. A practice that continues to this day. I pointed out that the GSP asked what sex was assigned to the student at birth and how that implied that the district believed sex was randomly assigned by science-denying doctors at birth.

I also pointed out the sections of the GSP form that designated which names and pronouns the student wished to use, the staff members the student would confide in, and if staff was allowed to divulge (even accidently) any GSP information to the student’s parents, including preferred names and pronouns. I showed the board the question “Are the parents aware…” and how it was obvious, even through the redactions, that there were “no” answers.

The big question to the board Trustees Alvarez and Duran then, was why they would deny the right and duty of parents to protect their children when they so adamantly defend that right for themselves?

Board Comments

Watson

Discussion of the Resolution by the board came much later in the meeting, led by Watson after all other trustees declined to comment first. Watson delivered a near 9-minute prepared statement that consisted of fact after fact after fact. Facts that every person with common sense know to be true, and yet Marxist and the ideological left continue to deny. Watson pointed out the obvious physical advantage boys have and considered Governor Newsom’s revelation that he believed boys in girls’ sports to unfair to girls, an “admission of guilt.” That admission, coupled with CIF’s ridiculous “pilot” consolation heat nonsense being indicators that laws, guidelines, and regulations would be reversed. And Biology, don’t forget Biology!

The most relatable comment Watson made was how she could never had imagined that she would ever be “having this conversation.” She isn’t the only one. This is worth a listen.

Alvarez

Things took a turn to the bizarre, when Alvarez stated he didn’t have an opinion to share, except that anyone who did share an opinion should have that opinion respected. Then, apparently changed his mind, and delivered his opinion, which was disguised as a rant.

Alvarez accused supporters of the Resolution, who were 100% respectful and polite of being “divisive.” Alvarez went on to say that the supporters were being “…disrespectful to the LGBTQ+ community.”

Which begs the question, should school districts have any sort of sexual based “community”? To date, there have been no studies proving that connecting children with transsexual and queer adults improves skills in reading, writing, math, sciences, history…or anything.

Alvarez, who had previously stated his reluctance to follow federal law because half of Executive Orders get overturned anyway, was very adamant that he would “uphold the law,” but was not clear if he was referring to State or Federal laws. He never specified who or what hurt him, nor did he present any evidence of such, and seemed content to label anyone that disagreed with him as divisive outsiders.

What do you make out of Alvarez’s remarks?

Duran

Trustee Duran delivered the ramble of the night, speaking for nearly eight minutes about, well, just about everything. Duran talked about his history as a water polo coach, stretching back to the 1970s, and how it was co-ed sometimes because there was not a team for girls.

No big revelation. I played water polo in Riverside County in the 1980s and played with and against girls for that same reason.

However, Duran never offered an example of a boy pretending to be, and suiting up as, a girl on any of his teams. Nor did Duran share any experiences of having being forced to pretend a biological boy was a girl so as to not hurt his feelings. Duran never shared how he would punish team members who didn’t also pretend that the boy was a girl. I never experienced that either.

Duran also shared what sounded like an urban myth from his high school days about a female Indio High School teacher who was drafted by the NY Giants baseball team in the 1950’s. Duran did not relate that the woman was pretending to be a man, nor did it sound like it from his description.

Duran oddly said that he “…immersed himself recently in readings,” apparently about boys in girls’ sports. Only recently? Duran also said that there were “…more scary places than a track and field for our children.”

Duran then went on to compare the protection of women to a book he had read about White people seizing power. Ah, and there it is, the ‘ole “everyone that disagrees with me is a White Oppressor” argument. Listen:

Duran had other things to say, you can listen here if you are of a mind to. Mostly more rambling but, like Alvarez, he accused supporters of the Resolution to being finger pointing outsiders that just didn’t understand anything. Like Alvarez, Duran did not provide any evidence as to why he felt that way towards supporters other than, apparently, they pointed out something that could cost the district millions of dollars in Federal monies and suggested it be changed.

Bad voters! Bad!

Take note that both Alvarez and Duran are up for reelection in 2026.