Skip to main content
Exodus: Parental Rights vs Leftist Policies: CA's New Gender-Neutral Law

Exodus: Parental Rights vs Leftist Policies: CA’s New Gender-Neutral Law

Written by MichaelEhline on . Posted in Government Oppression Watch.

Anyone watching TV or posting on X knows parents and small business owners can’t flee California fast enough. California and the National Education Association (NEA) had been pushing anti-white Critical Race Theory in schools while claiming all along they weren’t.

Then, democrats passed a law (SB 145) lowering the penalties for criminals who like to have sex with underaged boys.

After that, democrats tried to pass a law allowing public school teachers (many of whom are already far-left LGBTQ activists) to SECRETLY transition kids without telling parents. Newsom wanted to sign it into law but came under too much political heat from people like Max Bonilla and Elon Musk.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have pushed parents to “affirm” the gender identities of trans children — bowing to statewide pressure from parents and high-powered critics such as Elon Musk, who called it “utter madness.” (Source.)

California district pays $100K to settle suit over support for secret transitioning conspiracy with teachers.

And good luck with school choice. You can’t even opt out of injecting your children with mRNA in CA, despite the fact zero scientific consensus exists to this day that it is safe and effective. Many military vets and parents in Southern California, in particular, see this as an erosion of their civil rights. To them, this is part of some woke gender ideology that has no place in supermarkets or retail stores, let alone in public schools.

A few days ago, Gavin Newsom argued straight-faced to the Florida Gov that more people are fleeing Florida than California. Of course, he used two sets of numbers (ignoring raw and choosing per capita), and, as usual, the fact check (aka Blackrock subsidiaries) glossed over this cheap parlor trick. 

“In raw numbers, close to 13,000 more Californians moved to Florida than the other way around.” (Source: Politifact.)

However, the Florida numbers alone are not what matters. What matters is that traditional families and small businesses are fleeing California for other states faster than any state in the history of the union. The few Californians returning voted to raise taxes and create a California welfare state where they moved (Austin, Texas, Denver, Colorado.) What did they think would happen?

With the recent signing of Assembly Bill No. 1084 by California Governor Gavin Newsom, certain retailers in California will be mandated to implement a gender-neutral section for children confused about their gender identity. Many doctors, fearful of speaking in fear of having Newsom take their medical licenses, assert that will further ingrain to single moms with Munchhausen’s Syndrome by Proxy that plenty of free money is there to gender affirm your “they, their, them.”

Student/Parental Rights Actvist Max Bonilla (@outragedteen_)Summed it Up on Twitter.

BREAKING: California law that will charge retailers hundreds for not having “gender-neutral” section will go into effect next year. Non-compliance with the legislation will result in companies facing a $250 fine for their first violation, and penalties for more… (Source: X)

ANTIFA Bused in To Scare Parents at School Board Meetings?

Many of us have seen ANTIFA bused to school board meetings, attacking parents and siding with the public school administrators. 

Biden’s FBI Sent to Intimidate CA Parents Over Trans Rights Disagreement?

The escalation of trans rights disputes in California has allegedly led to federal law enforcement intimidation of families. Parents say the FBI and other federal agencies have been weaponized to suppress dissenting viewpoints that infringe on parental rights and freedom of speech. A federal court ruling that the Biden Administration illegally colluded with social media and news agencies to suppress free speech seems to verify this operation. Many parents and doctors have been arguing that California and the Biden Administration are suppressing free speech to create the false impression of a consensus.

Critics say the government overstepped its role. Many injury lawyers agree this was an intrusion into personal liberties and family choices, similar to what happened under the Obama Administration (ala Lois Lerner of the IRS). They argue that this intimidates those who hold traditional values and sets a dangerous precedent for using government agencies to silence political opposition. 

Alleged Run-ins with the FBI: A Closer Look 

Local news outlets have highlighted instances where parents received unexpected visits from the FBI. These parents had reportedly opposed proposed gender-neutral legislation at school board meetings or through social media platforms. While details are sparse and confirmation is yet pending, the incidents seem to align with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pro-LGBTQ+ initiatives, prompting questions about the extent to which state political agendas can influence federal action. 

Concerns Over Federal Overreach 

The possibility that the FBI is being used to coerce parents into compliance sparks unease and reinvigorates conversations around federal overreach. Is it fair for the government to force policy adherence? Does this infringe the First Amendment rights of parents? These are questions that have been swirling in the public discourse. 

The Administration’s Response 

Yet, California’s government and federal agencies have remained largely silent on these allegations. Despite fervent demands for transparency and clarification, the agenda continues to be pushed forward, leading many to speculate about the blurred lines between political ideology and the enforcement of law and order. 

Left Wing School Boards, Middle School Students, and Gender Identity

Some of us have heard allegations that far-left school nurses are trying to force gender-affirming care on kindergartners, in particular kids with single moms. Just yesterday, non for profit media reported a story about school teachers allowing a boy with a penis to share a bed with little girls since the teachers union thinks that is “inclusive.” So it’s not just minor children in kindergarten; democratic lawmakers are also targeting middle school students at local public schools to explore and even alter their sexual orientation. 

Why the Sudden Push for Gender Affirming Care?

Why do you think that is, and why, out of the blue, this push for gender-affirming “health care,” aka child body part mutilation and endocrine system destruction? How does affirming mental illness protect children? Why are so many school teachers secretly pushing gender transition without seeking parental consent? This development might nudge you toward a fine line of contemplation in an age where tradition and progressive ideas often stand at odds. Most lawyers who have done the research won’t deny this is about nursing and doctors’ unions who donate large sums of cash to Democrats.

This move, although intended to promote inclusivity, sparked polarizing reactions by diverging two sides: 

  1. Parents Protecting Children: On one hand, concerned parents argue that the bill further enables an agenda driven by what they perceive as “woke” – an ideology that weakens traditional family values and imposes what they see as a faith-based dogma. It enforces affirmation of mental illnesses, they argue. They also say it infringes on parent’s and children’s rights. They champion protecting children from perceived threats, including child groomers (people who want to separate kids from parents and brainwash them into sexual ideologies). They fear corporations and major players with strange sexual proclivities are setting public policy. They argue that perverts have turned this into a profit mill with low-information voters.
  2. The Administrative State: On the contrary, advocates for the legislation, including LGBTQ+ activists, public school teachers, and left-wing college professors, insist that such measures are about inclusivity and acceptance rather than an imposition of any ideology. Many state-[taxpayer]funded experts assert the bill is an effort to counter harmful gender stereotypes that limit children’s potential and can lead to mental distress. Supporters argue that creating gender-neutral spaces and stores will create environments that allow children to be children, free of societal expectations and norms.

“We need to stop stigmatizing what’s acceptable for certain genders and just let kids be kids,” said California Democratic Congressman Evan Low, in his statement to the Associated Press, expressing the intent behind Assembly Bill No. 1084.

Gender identity detractors claim this bill has far-reaching implications. They claim it’s not just the toy sections in retail stores. They declare it sets a precedent to destroy future societal norms. 

Here’s a look at this clash of perspectives. We also look at the gender identity retail TOY SECTION bill itself.

Text of Assembly Bill No. 1084?

AB 1084, Gender-neutral retail departments.

Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, specifies that all persons within the jurisdiction of the state are free and equal, and no matter their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind.

This bill would require a retail department store that is physically located in California that has a total of 500 or more employees across all California retail department store locations that sells childcare items or toys to maintain a gender-neutral section or area to be labeled at the discretion of the retailer, in which a reasonable selection of the items and toys for children that it sells shall be displayed, regardless of whether they have been traditionally marketed for either girl or for boys.

Beginning on January 1, 2024, the bill would make a retail department store that fails to comply with these provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $250 for a first violation or $500 for a subsequent violation, as provided.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1084/id/2436578

The bill dismantles traditional constructs around gender norms. While it is appreciated by some who think it promotes inclusion by eradicating gender biases, others say its potential implications on parental authority and the perception of children’s mental health are dangerous. For them, such a law could potentially infringe upon parental rights and freedom of choice. 

Woke public education teachers’ unions, pro-pedophile organizations, and other gender affirmation organizations stand to gain a lot of political power and campaign funding from the likes of people like Klaus Schwab and Larry Fink of Blackrock.

Klaus of the WEF

The Concerns of the Parents v. Purported Far-Left Child Groomers

On one side of the argument, parents are voicing their concerns about recent legislative changes, asserting that these movements seek to undermine traditional family values and infringe upon their parental rights. They are concerned about other billionaire elites who regularly flew to Epstein Island to write public policy. Parents argue Newsom/Weiner’s societal shifts are less about children’s best interests and safety and more about endorsing an ideology they perceive as harmful.

They argue that billionaire perverts got caught red-handed at Epstein Island, and now they are trying to legalize pedophilia before Obama judge Alison J. Nathan allows full public access to Ghislane Maxwell’s address book.

Judge Nathan

“Judge Alison Nathan is now the only the second openly LGBTQ+ woman to serve on a federal appellate court after Judge Beth Robinson” (Source.)

Wokism as a faith-based religion, as its critics sometimes refer to it, can be a contrast to traditional family values. Traditional family values typically uphold so-called “heteronormative roles” The left calls these “gender constructs.” These social justice crusaders claim that marriage, child-rearing, and religious beliefs are basically “backward thinking.” 

Critics of wokism argue it promotes an acceptance and affirmative approach to morally or ethically questionable behaviors. On the other hand, proponents of wokism want to overturn outdated and harmful societal norms. They argue that affirming an individual’s perceived sexuality and choices leads to healthier communities.

These zealots think this leads to better mental health outcomes among marginalized groups. They believe it is violent to let parents choose whether girls can share the boy’s bathroom with boys across the country and vice versa. They argue no government overreach can be large enough when it comes to forcing the trans community belief system on non-LGGTQ people. With their de facto control over the school curriculum, state senate, and state assembly bills, population control advocates like Planned Parenthood are moving into the grift of LGBTQ issues.

Here’s the conflict: parents worry that laws like the gender-neutrality requirement in California constitute an overreach by an ‘administrative state’ – entities such as public schools, left-wing college professors, and gay and trans activists—into their private lives and choices. They view these rulings as disregarding their parental rights, where instead, these institutions decide what is best for their children. 

Fanning the Flames: The Role of Corporations and Individuals 

What deepens this ideological conflict are organizations and individuals that parents perceive to be advancing the cause of wokism. For instance, these parents see World Economic Forum (WEF), BlackRock, and Larry Fink as powerful entities leveraging their influence to further policies and narratives that they find disturbing. 

Moreover, individuals such as California Governor Gavin Newsom have drawn criticism for their support of legislation like Assembly Bill No. 1084. Parents argue Newsom and Weiner are championing laws that harm their children and empower pedophiles. Parents say promoting the idea of sexual self-determination at an age when children are incapable of forming consent is CHILD ABUSE.

Indeed, these ideological conflicts between works and traditional family values underpin a more extensive debate going on today and are unlikely to be resolved any t

The Role of Mental Health Classification in Gender-Neutral Legislation

The issue of mental health classification is central to the debate around gender-neutral legislation. Critics assert that it often places undue stress on children, who are compelled to make complex and irrevocable decisions about their sexual identity (by LGBTQ authority figures at school) at a young age. Parents argue that gender dysphoria is a mental illness. They claim it is absurd for a tax-subsidized doctor who went to a new medical school to put a confused child through hormone replacement therapy or surgery. They argue that common sense leads to grievous bodily harm and irreversible consequences.

In contrast, gender-neutral legislation supporters say acknowledging and addressing gender dysphoria is a matter of human rights. They think little kids should be (with SECRET help from their school teachers) free to explore their gender identities. These far-left zealots call this a crucial step to self-discovery and self-affirmation by your 2-year-old and up.

The Intersection of Politics, Medicine and Profit 

With the advent of government-sponsored healthcare, medical professionals are sometimes cast as profiteers who potentially exploit the vulnerability of individuals grappling with gender dysphoria for financial gain. Critics voice concerns over the possibility of children being swayed or pressured into hormone therapy or surgeries at a tender age – possibly even without the full informed consent or understanding of their parents. If woke teachers get their way, parents say this new trans-humanism religion will permanently damage the family structure, all by design.

Classifying mental health conditions to serve economic structures raises fresh questions about politics, medicine, and profit. This leads to exploring the role of large organizations, corporations, and individuals who stand to gain financially or politically from the legislation. 

Psychiatrists and Psychologists: The Bedrock of Classification 

Traditionally, mental health disorders are classified by psychiatrists and psychologists in frameworks such as the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and ICD (International Classification of Diseases).

While advocacy for greater inclusivity is generally laudable, dissent to AB 108 concerns eroding parental rights and financial burdens on businesses. 

The Battle for Business and Parental Rights 

Amidst these allegations, many parents and conservative groups remain adamant in their refusal to consent. They will not be silenced by intimidation when protecting their offspring. Their belief in preserving traditional family values drives their fight against what they perceive as an aggressive push towards radical wokism. 

These apprehensive parents are battling a strong tide. Powerful institutions are pushing for inclusivity and acceptance, with major organizations such as Lego committing to creating gender-neutral toys and stores like Target providing ‘gender-friendly’ clothing. Despite the backlash, these entities maintain their stands, citing a continuing commitment to the so-called LGBTQIA+ community (less than 1% of the entire US population, by some accounts. 

Conclusion: For Now It’s Large Stores Forced to Bow To Gender Affirming Care or Flee

As we close the lid on this contentious issue, it becomes apparent that society is at a crossroads. On the one hand, corporations and politicians push for greater inclusivity and diversity, advocating for measures like gender-neutral sections in large retail stores. On the other hand, they claim such policies infringe on their rights and expose their children to unnecessary gender confusion. Caught in the crossfire are retail giants – now forced to toe the line or risk facing hefty penalties. 

At the heart of the issue is not just the matter of childhood innocence, parental rights, and individual freedom. Still, societal norms and our collective future. Parents worry about their children being caught up in these new, arguably radical ideologies, which, to their mind, play fast and loose with biology and mental health. From kindergarten to the university system, gender crusaders are leading the way to normalize gender transition procedures and hormones. Becoming a trans child is as simple as choosing toys or clothes in a shop at Target by its very nature. 

So a clear line is drawn, and the struggle continues, first with children’s education and now with retail giants as the battleground over custody of trans kids. These non-Blackrock corporations must bow to the new norms of gender-affirming care or flee the state and its heavy-handed legislation. Whichever path they choose, they are bound to face criticism from one faction or the other. In the meantime, the exodus of what many call the Sodom and Gomorrah of America continues. Either way, any attempt to protect parental rights will be viewed as anti-LGBTQ legislation by Democrats and the California gov.