We’ve mentioned before that the addiction of the ideological core of the Democratic Party to virtue signaling wokeness has trapped them on the wrong side of a whole lot of 80/20 issues where the vast majority of the American people are opposed to their insanity. Despite my oh so gentle persuasion otherwise, radical transsexism is one of those issues.
And the most radical edge of that radical edge is championing the idea that groomers at schools get to trans children without informing their parents. And Democrats are still defending the idea.
Item the first is (of course) from California. “Education Department to investigate California schools over policy that hides gender identity from parents.”
California and the Democrats are really going to die on the hill of transitioning kids behind their parents’ back, aren’t they?
The showdown is happening in California as Trump’s Department of Education has launched an investigation into the state’s policy that bans “forced outings.”
This means that schools keep sex secrets about students away from parents.
The investigation, announced Thursday morning by the U.S. Department of Education, essentially pits a California law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in July — prohibiting schools from automatically notifying families about student gender-identity changes and shielding teachers from retaliation for supporting transgender student rights — against an interpretation of federal law adopted by the Trump administration.
Yeah, it’s just legalized/forced grooming of kids. That’s all.
U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon said children are best protected when no information is withheld from parents.
I mean … duh?
It’s totally unreal that California and Newsom JUST signed into law this policy that would make it against the law to tell parents if their kid thought he was the other sex or if he was involved in LGBTQ clubs at school.
California really has made it their mission to protect students from their loving parents, because Gavin Newsom knows better.
It’s amazing that Newsom is trying to “reinvent” himself for 2028 just nine months after signing a bill to cut parents out of the loop.
But they’re not the only ones. A judge in New York has said that groomers at school can secretly “transition” preteens behind their parent’s backs.
Another federal court has ruled against a parent’s right to be notified when their child “socially transitions” to the opposite sex in school. Taking its cues from Foote v. Ludlow, a similar First Circuit case we covered here, the Northern District Court of New York held the school’s non-disclosure policy was necessary to promote a “safe” learning environment for all of its students.
New York mother Jennifer Vitsaxaki sued the Skaneateles Central School District last year, alleging school staff had treated her 12-year-old daughter “Jane” as a boy, referring to her with a new masculine name and new third-person pronouns—all without her parents’ knowledge or consent. We covered the mother’s lawsuit in detail here.
Like virtually every “trans” identifying student in the parental notification cases we’ve covered, Jane was an emotionally vulnerable child. Newly arrived from her native Greece, Jane was having a hard time adjusting to her new life. She was anxious and depressed when she told her new school she wanted to use a new male name and pronouns, the lawsuit says.
Shortly after meeting with her, according to the court filings, the all-too-willing school counselor told Jane’s teachers and staff they should call Jane by her new masculine name and use the ambiguous “they” and “them” third-person pronouns instead of “she” and “her.”
Jane’s parents, however, were not told about these actions. The school’s gender identity policy directed staff to deceive them by using Jane’s given name and pronouns when talking to her mother, while using her new masculine set at school. Even the school yearbook, the court noted, was to use Jane’s legal name rather than her preferred masculine one.
That’s because, under the school’s gender identity policy, the student calls the shots: The “district permits students to determine when, how, and if to notify their parents of their decision to elect a chosen name and/or pronouns at school.”
In her lawsuit, Vitsaxaki claimed that policy violated her constitutional rights, including both her religious and parental rights to direct her daughters’ upbringing, education, and healthcare—all of which were rejected by Judge David Hurd last week.
The school’s policy furthered its legitimate interest in promoting a “safe” learning environment for its students, he ruled, and therefore did not violate her religious rights.
Nor did it infringe the mother’s parental rights: The Skaneateles policy was more “like a civility code that extends the kind of decency students should expect at school: such as being called the name they ask to be called,” Judge Hurd wrote.
And here again, as in Foote v. Ludlow, the court grossly mischaracterizes the true nature of “social transitioning.” The cases we’ve covered all make clear: secret social transitioning—starting with using students’ preferred names and pronouns—puts the child on the path to permanent, life-altering medical transitioning. It’s not just a matter of etiquette.
In loco parentis used to mean that schools took on some aspects in the name of parents who couldn’t be there, but the modern left takes it to mean that the state should replace parents, having more rights over children than actual parents, up to and including secretly grooming them by pretending they’re another sex. And the logic of victimhood identity politics means that otherwise sane Democrats get dragged along by the ideological core’s unthinking embrace of anything that be clothed as “gay rights.”
But the fight against this insane social justice overreach has scored some victories. For example, a federal district court just struck down a Biden-era transgender pandering law.
Attorney General Ken Paxton successfully challenged a Biden administration rule that aimed to impose specific requirements on foster care providers regarding the affirmation of children’s “gender identities.”
The rule, promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), would have conditioned federal funding for foster care programs nationwide on the acceptance and promotion of “LGBTQI+ identities” among children in care.
The HHS rule, which took effect on July 1, 2024, created a new category of foster children based on their gender status or identity. It mandated that states provide designated placements for these children in a home that affirms their identity to prohibit “retaliation.”
Paxton filed a lawsuit against HHS in September 2024, arguing that the rule exceeded the agency’s statutory authority, violated the Spending Clause, and was arbitrary and capricious. According to Paxton, the rule was “attempting to hold the Texas foster care system hostage to force unscientific, fringe beliefs about gender upon the entire country.”
Texas sought a stay of the rule, arguing it would force a radical reshaping of its foster care system, jeopardizing the welfare of children and undermining state authority.
A federal district court in Texas granted Paxton’s motion to stay the rule earlier this month, finding that HHS lacked explicit Congressional authority to impose such requirements. The court ruled that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that Texas was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims.
The decision also noted that Texas would suffer irreparable harm if the rule took effect.
Paxton hailed the decision as a victory for Texas families and parental rights, stating that the Biden administration had no authority to force “radical gender ideology” on vulnerable children.
The Democrats that run California and New York seem to believe that groomer teachers have more rights than actual parents, and insist that children who are too young to sign a contract or vote are nonetheless knowledgeable enough to change their sex, and then hide that decision from their parents, all in the name of “tolerance.”
Fortunately, officials in red states like Texas think differently.
