California Lawmakers Propose Alternate Reality Gender Classifications for Official Documents

Because… California.

And Democrats.

SB 179 is a bill proposed by California state Senator Toni Atkins, with the purpose of adding a “third gender” option to California drivers licenses, ID cards, and even birth certificates. Atkins maintains this will make it simpler for those who want to change their gender on those documents, at some point.

Should something so deeply steeped in a person’s mental state be made “easier,” or should there be an impetus for them to seek mental health counseling, first?

From Fox News:

Transgender people face discrimination in their everyday lives when they use IDs that do not match the gender they appear to be, Atkins said. The legislation would help transgender people and those who do not identify as either male or female to obtain official documents that match their gender identity, she said.

SB 179 would end the requirements that a person get a doctor’s sworn statement and appear in court even if no objections have been filed when petitioning to change their gender on official documents. The bill would also allow minors to apply for a gender change on their birth certificate.

Several things jump out at me about this.

For starters, legal documents should contain fact, not the fictions manufactured by social justice warriors. The prime reason being, if we start putting our “feelings” on official documents, where does it end?

It’s a slippery slope, in an age when you have fringe groups claiming myriad “realities” to reflect their mental or emotional whims.

We’ve seen reports of 50-year old men who want to be 6-year old girls. That is neither sane, rational, nor possible, on any level.

Time doesn’t care about your feelings, and I don’t want a 50-year old man sitting in my 6-year old niece’s elementary school classroom, or walking in a line with she and the other little girls to the restroom.

Secondly, any law that would take the parents’ rights out of the equation is a bad law.

Minors are not allowed to drink alcohol, marry (although in some states, with parental consent, they can), or vote for a reason.

They’re not mentally or emotionally ready for the consequences.

But allowing them to eenie-meenie-minie-mo a gender is acceptable?

A parent that would allow this is a parent with their own mental limitations, and also, a parent who doesn’t really want the responsibility of being a parent.

The LGBT advocacy group, Equality California is co-sponsoring SB 179. Jo Michaels, who works with the group, points out that this legislation would be the first of its kind in the nation.

“As a person who identifies as transgender and is non-binary, this piece of legislation is important to me on a personal level,” Michael said during a press conference on the bill. “For the first time, Californians could have accurate gender markers that truly reflect who we are.”

Accuracy is a DNA test. Get one, then go with that.

Jonathan Keller is a member of the California Family Counsel, a conservative Christian group opposing the bill.

“We believe government documents need to reflect biological facts for identification and medical purposes,” Keller said in a statement on SB 179. “Laws like this will simply erase any meaningful gender definitions, if being male or female is completely divorced from biological facts.”

Sanity and commonsense.

Senator Scott Wiener co-authored the bill and had something really dumb to say about it.

“The trans community is under assault in this country. California needs to go in the opposite direction,” the San Francisco Democrat said. “When they go backwards, we go forwards.”

Sadly, there are pockets of leftists all through the nation who are just as directionally challenged as Senators Wiener and Atkins, and for the rest of us, the battle is to keep our nation on a straight path, moving as far away from what California Democrats want for us as we possibly can get.

About the author

Susan Wright

View all posts