AB Hernandez walked away from the May 10 California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) Southern Section Track meet with gold medals in courage, conviction, grace, and honor.  She competed despite a months’ long campaign of vilification against her by the California Family Council (CFC).  AB won these awards because she has the heart of a lion and the grace of an angel.  It is just not fair.  She is not only transgender but also interspecies and transcendent!  Surely, we must banish her.

Sonja Shaw and Leandra Blades Abuse a Child.

Working in collusion with the CFC, Sonja Shaw and Leandra Blades planned a targeted campaign against a single female athlete who happens to be transgender as a means of advancing their political careers. Sonja Shaw is currently President of the Chino Valley Unified School District (CVUSD), and has declared her candidacy for the office of California State Superintendent of Public Instruction.  Leandra Blades was recently elected to a second term on the Placentia Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD) Board of Trustees.  At the May 10 track meet, Shaw and Blades rallied over a hundred people to carry signs and wear hats and t-shirts targeting this specific athlete.  The inferential message these artifacts conveyed is that AB is a boy, a fraud, a liar, and a cheater.   The hate-filled members of this crowd screamed at the athlete and anyone in the audience who happened to support her.  They chanted: “He’s a boy.  He’s a boy.”

It was one of the most despicable attacks on an individual high school student by politicians and bigots since the Civil Rights era of the 1950s and 60s.  The image of Elizabeth Ann Eckford being heckled by white mobs as she entered as the first African American at Little Rock Central High School comes to mind.  The personal attacks on AB Hernandez also reminded me of stories my uncle Pete Ragus told about experiences he had as the head football coach of the first racially integrated team to win the Texas state championship.  His team had to play against segregated teams on the road and face intensely hostile crowds.  I have written some of his story here.  It is also covered in chapter 9 of Black Man in the Huddle:  Stories from the Integration of Texas Football.  (The cover photo is of some of the members of his team and their bus driver.)

It’s not surprising that Shaw and Blades would attack the rights of this 16-year-old to compete.   Neither Shaw nor Blades have ever had respect for anyone else’s rights or dignity.  Shaw publicly tore up a cease-and-desist letter from Hernandez’ mom Nereyda demanding that Shaw stop harassing her child.  Blades still promotes the lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, and encouraged her son to commit an act of voter fraud during the successful Orange recall campaign of two extremist board members in the Orange Unified School District in 2024.  The list of lies they have told about what is happening in classrooms and counseling offices is a long one.

A proper course of action for those who disagree with California law would be to gather evidence and persuade legislators to change the law.  What should not be done is target a particular child who by current state law had every right to compete in this event.  The CFC and its cohorts have tried and failed to convince legislators and the courts that transgender athletes should be banned.  Opponents of transgender athletes have neither science nor history on their side.  They do, however, have the unfamiliarity of the American public on their side and that is why AB Hernandez is so important to political leeches like Shaw and Blades.

AB Hernandez is a national figure who has been targeted by the Murdoch propaganda empire and fundamentalist churches everywhere.  Because Hernandez is one of a tiny handful of successful transgender athletes, she provides a convenient example for bigots to claim that transgender females have an inherent physical advantage in athletic competition.  Since Hernandez also resides in the area where Blades and Shaw have influence, the teenager’s appearance at the May 10 meet became a prime opportunity to stage their political stunt. 

The Kindness of Marilyn Anderson

The campaign targeting AB Hernandez at the May 10 event had been long in the making and has been the source of various resolutions denying her right to compete.  It has become commonplace for extremist-dominated school boards in and around Orange County to pass frivolous resolutions targeting transgender students under the banner of “fairness” in girls’ sports.  Knowing that the public is largely ignorant of the details and has a general perception that transgender females have an athletic advantage, Blades has been trying for months to get the PYLUSD to pass just such a frivolous resolution.  She was enraged when Board President Marilyn Anderson refused to put it on the April agenda.  She demanded it be placed on the May agenda.  This was the background for another very tedious session that nevertheless provided a dramatic moment at a PYLUSD board meeting.

Here is the text of Blades’ proposed resolution:

In a stunning decision determining the fate of this frivolous resolution, this Resolution 24-23, Trustee Marilyn Anderson made the correct choice in rejecting the effort of Leandra Blades to deny not only the rights of transgender individuals to compete but deny their very existence at the May 6 session of the PYLUSD Board of Education.  (Please use the link on Action Item 18.3 of the May 06, 2025, Agenda.) In an evening filled with much heat but little light, Marilyn’s reliable instincts of gentleness and compassion prevailed.  After noting that transgender students are among those most frequently abused and most likely to commit suicide, Marilyn rejected the ignorant and bigoted rants of Trustees Blades and Frazier as well as the large crowd of rude hecklers those two had summoned to the meeting.  

During the lead-up to the final vote, it was not clear how the board would decide until the very end.  Trustee Blades, with some disturbing assistance from the district’s legal counsel Todd Robbins, managed to cloud the issues.  After a break during which Trustee Anderson consulted with counsel, colleagues, and probably her higher power, she returned with a clear decision to vote her heart.  The room became momentarily ugly, but the rabblerousers eventually left the scene.

The board rejected the resolution only after a deep dive and fascinating discussion of the biochemistry of gender identity.  Trustee Blades revealed her insightful understanding of the science behind transgender identities by explaining in acute detail the phenomenon of pseudovaginal perinoscrotal hypospadias.  Similarly, Trustee Frazier had prepared a captivating slide show covering the role of the basal ganglia of the brain focused specifically on the bed nucleus of stria terminalis in forming gender identity.  Just kidding.

The entire discussion and resolution were bereft of any meaningful consideration of the science and cultural phenomenon of transgender identities.  In the Trump era, school boards are to be the venue for cultural wars unfettered by considerations of science or history. 

The Blasphemy of Phony Christians

The core argument of Resolution No. 24-23 is that the 1972 Title IX amendment to the Education Act of 1965 intended to ensure women the same opportunities as men, and that allowing “biological males (males assigned at birth)” to compete undermines “competitive balance” while threatening the safety of women and ultimately diminishing their opportunities.  Leandra Blades, Todd Frazier, and the hundred or so individuals they rallied to the May 6 board meeting asserted four basic claims. 

The first claim states that the gender “assigned at birth” is the gender identity of the individual in question.  Such a claim is legally dubious and scientifically preposterous.  Despite clear scientific, cultural, and historical evidence to the contrary, Trustee Blades and her cohort believe that there are only two eternal and immutable genders.  And these gender identities are assigned exclusively at birth. 

For the record, the assignment of gender at birth is a perfunctory and unempirical process.  For the most part, once the genitalia are recognized the determination is made and the birth certificate is completed.  No serious medical professional would ever claim that this determination permanently establishes the gender identity of that person.  There is a condition called hypergonadotropic hypogonadism that has caused many misidentifications of gender at birth.  The phenotypes of intersex identities and the determination of all gender identities transpire and can vary over time.  I asked a friend who has been a labor and delivery nurse for decades whether she thought gender assignment at birth should be permanent.  She laughed.  For anyone who has spent more than ten minutes on the internet searching the topic of the phenomena of transgender identities, the notion of a permanent assignment of gender at birth is ridiculous.  Yet this was the essential foundation upon which Resolution 24-23 rested.

Once society establishes the absolute finality of the determination of gender assigned at birth, transgender individuals no longer exist as anything other than people with a psychological disorder.  In the mind of Trustees Frazier and Blades, the transgender athlete they have targeted in their campaign simply does not exist.  According to them, the athlete in question has no right to identify as anything other than a male based on the assignment of gender at birth.  For the two trustees, individuals have no right to identify themselves because some medical professional made a cursory observation in the first moments after birth.  For them, it is as simple as XX¹XY.  As Trustee Frazier said, “It’s common sense.”  They and their cohorts persistently disrespected the athlete in question by exclusively referring to her as he.  For them, she is a boy competing unfairly in girls’ sports. 

The microbiology of gender is a complex and fascinating topic that will not be engaged in detail here.  Instead, below is a very perfunctory listing of the types of biochemical factors that can determine variations in gender identity and sexual orientation. It was posted some time ago on Facebook by a retired biology teacher.

Transgender individuals exist as part of the wonder of human diversity.  The phenomenon of transgender identity operates in all animal kingdoms throughout the created order.  To deny the existence of transgender individuals is to deny the miracle of the created order.  To deny the existence of transgender individuals is to deny the Creator.  To deny the existence of transgender individuals is sacrilege.

2. The Alleged Superiority of All Male Athletes

The second claim, implicit in the resolution and explicit in statements made by Madison Miner and other such intellectual luminaries at the May 6 meeting, is that men are inherently superior athletically.  A variety of men came to the podium to make this claim.  Few of them provided much in the way of visual evidence in support of their claim.  None of the men who spoke on this topic at the May 6 board meeting has ever high-jumped over 5 feet, long-jumped over 20 feet, or triple-jumped over 40 feet.  These would be the relevant measures to compete successfully as a high school female in the CIF.  Only one of the men who spoke would appear to have a remote chance of making the roster cut to play tackle football on this team.

Their argument was that since medical professionals assign transgender females as males at birth, they are also therefore inherently superior athletically to cisgender females.  (By the way, cisgender was not in the vocabulary of the people who spoke on behalf of the Resolution.)  While it is certainly true that at the highest levels of athletic performance which focus speed and strength, elite male athletes on average outperform elite female athletes.  The gap, however, narrows as we move through time and as we move down the latter from the athletically elite. 

When Florence Griffith Joyner set the standing women’s world record in the 100m on July 16, 1988, she significantly closed the gap between women and men in that most definitive of strength and speed events.  Her time of 10.45 was only .34 seconds from that of the fifth and sixth place finishers in the men’s 1988 Olympics race.  Those fifth and sixth place finishers finished .19 seconds behind the winner.  Joyner would have beaten two men in that race, but there are complicating elements to that part of the story.  To put these microsecond results in larger context, Joyner had shaved .31 seconds off the previous women’s world record.  The gaps are closing between men and women in sports performance.  The greater the distance in foot races, the faster the gaps are closing.  The point is that the inherent athletic advantage of males over females has been greatly exaggerated.  And it is rare that elite cisgender female athletes complain about competing against transgender athletes.

It is only opportunists like four-time loser, Fifth Place Riley Gaines (hereafter 5PRG) who complain about the challenge of competing against transgender athletes.   5PRG has been on tour around the world visiting MAGA churches whining incessantly about the fact that she tied for fifth place in a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) race with a transgender female swimmer, Lia Thomas.  5PRG is identified here as a four-time loser because that is the way those opposed to transgender participation in athletics calculate losses.  For them, when a transgender athlete takes first place in a three-award race, all three cisgender female athletes (“real females”) were deprived of their proper award.  Therefore, three “legitimate” medals were lost.  So, by that logic, 5PRG lost four times to “real females” yet concerns herself only with the one transgender female she tied.

Taylor Ruck, the cisgender female Stanford swimmer who won the race, presents the champion’s perspective.  She focused on her own performance, relished the opportunity to swim against other fast swimmers, and honored the opportunity to compete against anyone in accordance with the rules determined by the NCAA.  If the rules are unfair, there are ways to change them.  There does not appear to be any evidence that Taylor Ruck has been invited to speak in any churches on this matter or host a show on Fox for the undisclosed salary that the Murdoch empire pays 5PRG.

Resolution 24-23 was designed to appeal to our base bigotries as a political ploy, a way to pamper male egos, and another way to saddle California public schools with frivolous litigation by going after the established rights of vulnerable minorities.

That having been said, there is a potential issue of fairness in allowing transgender female athletes to compete as females, but these concerns are being addressed by various agencies in relation to various sports.  The Women’s Tennis Association (WTA), for example, has been working at establishing measures to ensure fairness in allowing transgender females to participate.  These measures primarily involve the timespan of identity as a transgender female, the status of transitioning treatment, and measures related to levels of testosterone and other hormones.  The testosterone measure, however, can be tricky as cisgender women can vary significantly in testosterone production and may reach extremes of testosterone production such as may occur with a condition known as hyperandrogenism.

3. Threat to Safety, Loss of Opportunities

The third major argument of supporters of Resolution 24-23 claiming that allowing “biological males” to compete against females poses physical dangers to girls and deprives them of opportunities is also largely bogus. It has been essentially debunked by John Oliver.  For now, the number of cisgender females who have lost scholarships or opportunities due to having been defeated by transgender females athletes is miniscule because the phenomenon of transgender female athletes is miniscule.  For the record, no transgender athlete has ever received an athletic scholarship to a university.  Again, this is an issue that bigots like Blades and Shaw promote because it appeals to the base prejudices and ignorance of the public at large.

4. Privacy and Comfort

When opponents claim that having a “male” dressing and undressing in the presence of “real girls” violates their modesty, privacy, and sense of security, they are making a great deal out of a problem that is not terribly difficult to resolve.  When AB Hernandez spoke at the April PYLUSD board meeting, she indicated that she never dresses with other girls.  This reflects as much her own modesty as well as concern for her fellow classmates. 

Nor does she ever dress with the boys because that would be unimaginable for anyone who has ever taken the time and trouble to look at her and hear her.  A boys locker room would an entirely inappropriate, uncomfortable and insecure place for her.  It would be great if someone could assemble full body photos of AB and those she competes against and have the public pick which one that think is the transgender athlete.  The public would almost certainly NOT pick AB.  She looks like a girl.  She is a girl.

The PYLUSD Board “Discussion”

The board discussion did not add much to the one-minute presentations made by the 30+ public commenters.  Trustees Blades and Frazier could only see a boy competing unfairly against girls, thereby depriving “real girls” of the fruits of victory.  Trustees Buck, Quintero, and Anderson concerned themselves primarily with the legal ramifications of adopting the Resolution.  There was never a mention let alone an examination of the science or history behind transgender identity. 

For Trustee Frazier the resolution accommodates “common sense” by the “fact” that there are only two genders that can be determined at birth.  He reiterated the point he had made at the previous month’s board meeting:  he does not want his daughter to have to compete against his athletically superior son.  His points illustrated the fact that the Resolution was not really about protecting girls sports, it was about denying the very existence of transgender individuals.  They are just boys claiming to be girls in order to compete unfairly as girls.  It is that plain and simple.

Blades and Frazier’s constant reference to transgender females as boys recalls the proper response of transgender Congresswoman Sarah McBride to one of the many Republican bigots in Congress.  When the Republican chair of her subcommittee yielded the floor to “Mr. McBride,” she responded by thanking “Madam Chair.”  In the spirit of McBride, one is tempted to start referring to the two trustees as Mr. Blades and Mrs. Frazier.  But that would be to counter their stupid bigotry with our own.  That having been said, Sarah McBride had every right to respond to “Madam Chair” in the way she did!

Trustee Blades attempted to sway the rest of the board with the argument that the resolution only intended to make Sacramento aware of the concern parents had over the inherent unfairness of having boys compete against girls.  The resolution would not for now deprive the transgender female athlete the right to compete, but simply indicate that she should not have that right.  The resolution would only place any awards she might receive under the shadow of doubt as being the product of the unfairness inherent in allowing “biological boys” to compete against girls.  The CVUSD had already passed a similar resolution.  Had the PYLUSD passed theirs, the movement to ban transgender participation in supports would have received a big momentum boost just in time for the CIF Southern Section qualifying meet at Yorba Linda High School.  Hernandez provides one of the best and most convenient examples of a transgender athlete whose excellence might deprive cisgender females of opportunities to compete successfully. 

For supporters of this resolution, Hernandez embodies all that is wrong with the “woke” agenda that asserts the possibility of identifying as female even though medical professionals identified the individual as male at birth.  The timing and the language of this resolution clearly intended to use AB Hernandez as the pawn in a political game that Trustees Shaw and Blades cannot yet win in Sacramento.

Republicans clearly believe that this specific attack on transgender rights is political gold. By large margins, public opinion thinks it is wrong for males assigned at birth to compete against females. The problem Republicans face, however, is that this is a relatively minor issue that few people concern themselves with it.  That is why it is so important to keep it at the forefront of the news cycle.  Because of the central importance of this issue in the national Republican political agenda, official state media entity Fox News, the Trump administration, and political opportunists constantly impose it on the public.  As Americans experience the systematic destruction of our constitution, economy, and the resurrection of measles, Republicans are desperately in need of a winning issue.  This certainly has the appearance of a winning issue for them, as long as they can continue to appeal to the general ignorance and inherent biases of the public. 

When President Trump issued his executive order banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports, there were no more than 10 such athletes among the over 500,000 competing. The NCAA implemented a ban related to transgender athletes after the executive order from. The reason they did this was to avoid dealing with the complications and inconsistencies that arise from the fact that different states have different laws about transgender participation in sports. Instead of trying to navigate all the conflicting state rules, the NCAA opted for a uniform policy across all states. It was a practical but entirely unprincipled capitulation. 

According to Republicans, Trump saved America from the scourge of transgender participation in college athletics.  Those ten transgender athletes deprived so many “real females” of so many opportunities.  We should all be so grateful that Trump solved this urgent crisis in our nation.  America is truly great again!

Despite the surrender of the NCAA on this matter, California law still protects the rights of transgender females to participate in sports and this fact provided the opportunity for political predators like Trustees Blades and Frazier to stoke the flames of ignorance and hatred that their beloved President had ignited.  AB Hernandez was coming to town to deprive “real girls” of recognition and opportunities, and something had to be done to make it clear to the public that she should not be allowed to do so.  The resolution provided background drama for the long-planned attack scheduled for when Hernandez would come to YLHS to compete. 

The discussion between the board members at the May 6 meeting became testy.  Hostile outbursts by supporters of the resolution in the audience worsened the tensions.  Blades’ superficially reasonable argument that the resolution only intended to protect girls’ sports was difficult to oppose in short order and it became unclear where Trustees Buck, Quintero, and Anderson stood on the matter.  Because there had been no substantive discussion of either the biology of transgender identity or the measurable differences in athletic performance between transgender and cisgender females, the three trustees had a difficult time arguing against the resolution.

The district’s council, Todd M. Robbins of Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo, did not help them.  He assured the board that the text of the Resolution did not violate state law, adding further pressure on the three trustees to affirm the resolution.  Robbins indicated that he had already helped the CVUSD clean up its language so that its resolution did not violate state law.  He indicated that the PYL resolution could avert legal problems with the state of California as well with a few minor adjustments.  After Attorney Robbins’ presentation, President Anderson declared a brief recess.

While Counselor Robbins may be correct in his assessment of the district’s culpability in state law should the board have passed the resolution, it is not clear that the resolution would exempt the district from civil litigation.  Whereas the resolution clearly does not deny the right of transgender athletes to compete, its language defines gender strictly in relation to the dubious notion that gender is assigned at birth.  As explained above, this is an inherently flawed way of determining gender identity.  In short, Resolution 24-23 denies the very existence of a small and vulnerable category of individuals in a way that runs counter to the established science and the California laws based on that science.  State law may not be able to protect such minorities against such a carefully worded and fundamentally dishonest statement, but civil law may.

Attorney Robbins could have, should have explained to the board and the public the potential for civil suits against individuals and the district for harassing and vilifying a person based on the false claims of Resolution 24-23.  He only noted that the resolution went over the very low bar of not denying a transgender athlete the right to compete.  He should have pointed out that it is not advisable for a school district to make meaningless resolutions with purely partisan agendas.  He should have explained that while the statement is legally allowable, it is scientifically false and morally repugnant.  But Attorney Robbins does not get paid $400 an hour to explain science and morality to a school board, because evidently that is the price it takes to purchase a lawyer’s soul.

Because Counselor Robbins gave the legal green light on Resolution 24-23, it made it difficult for Trustees Buck, Quintero, and Anderson to vote against it.  Since there was no expert input over the course of the evening, neither the notion that gender assignment at birth is definitive nor the belief that males are inherently superior athletes were challenged.  Trustee Blades had expertly framed the issue in relation to fairness and opportunities for girls’ sports.  When President Anderson declared the brief recess, it was uncertain that anyone would vote against the resolution.  As it turned out, however, the three trustees did have the integrity to see the resolution for what it was and mustered the courage to go against the demands of the hostile crowd in the room and the flimsy legal advice given by the district’s well-paid attorney.

The Victimization of AB Hernandez

The failure of Blades’ resolution provided the opportunity for a minor political clash that Sonja Shaw could wage prior to the major attack she would target on AB Hernandez that Saturday.  Shaw immediately went after the three PYLUSD board members who voted against her friend Leandra’s resolution.  Blades’ campaign even affirmed a posting encouraging people to leave the PYLUSD.

Shaw’s ambitions, however, are not local.  She is not content to preside over a school board or engage much with school board members who are merely concerned with education.  She is still young enough to aspire to a political life in Sacramento, or even Washington, D.C.  She needs an issue.  She needs a cause.  And she needs a personal enemy to rally hate around.  She needs an AB Hernandez.

AB Hernandez thus became a scapegoat to serve the political ambitions of a pathological person like Shaw.  History has shown that such scapegoating is a very effective political tactic.  Adolf Hitler taught that effective political campaigns are built on emotion, not reason.  Targeting a vulnerable minority community with accusations that it is destroying the moral foundations of a nation generates the kind of fear and anger that drive support among the masses. 

Shaw has for months been building an obsessive campaign against the right of AB Hernandez to compete in girls’ high school athletics.  It helps Shaw as well that Hernandez has been vilified in the national right-wing media.  Articles about AB have been featured in the New York Post and she has been referenced on numerous occasions on Fox News.  FPRG regularly references Hernandez by name when she does her tours in the temples of hate.  Gavin Newsom has even agreed with Charlie Kirk that her competing is inherently unfair.  Shaw is not wrong when she claims that the attack on transgender female athletes is a winning political issue among a public that knows little of the science or history of transgender individuals.  She has admitted as much publicly.  Shaw’s political career benefits enormously because she lives so close to AB’s home district.  A political demon like Shaw is not going to miss this opportunity.

The Targeted Campaign Against AB Hernandez

The personal attack on Hernandez began in the days leading up to the May 10 CIF event.  This flyer was one of many artifacts produced by the California Family Council (CFC) to vilify AB Hernandez.

The girl pictured in this artifact is AB Hernandez.  The flyer refers to a “male athlete” who holds the top seed in three events but does not mention AB Hernandez by name.  The flyer does not indicate a source for the claim of the “male athlete” being top seed.  The flier exhorts people to pressure CIF to change policy regarding transgender sports.  The flier then identifies the time and location of the three specific events Hernandez participates in and urged its followers to proceed to the areas where they would take place. This flier is deeply disturbing for several reasons.

First, the CIF is not authorized to change policy on transgender participation in sports activities.  The rights of transgender people to participate in sports activities is protected in state law.  CIF cannot make rules that would violate state law.  One would think that an aspiring Superintendent of Public Education would know this.  The organizers also wrongly believe that President Trump can interpret Title IX in a way that excludes transgender athletes by executive fiat.  While it is true that elected Republican officials have allowed President Trump to undermine the fundamental principles of the constitution in favor of unilateral executive authority, our constitutional republic continues to operate at least in theory if not in practice.  California in particular remains a state where the law still matters.  The CIF MUST operate in accordance with state law, not some hypothetical interpretation of Title IX that goes against all precedent.

Second, note that the flyer specifically targets Hernandez and her events.  The crowd is directed to the time and place of her events.  They are told to cheer for the “female athletes” in only those events in which Hernandez participated.  In other words, this is not so much a campaign for “female athletes” as it is a campaign against Miss Hernandez.

Third, the claim that Hernandez was the top seed in all three events is a lie.  Spoiler alert!  Hernandez won only one of the three events identified.  She is an outstanding triple jumper who won that event by four feet.  That was not a surprise.  She took third in the long jump, losing that event by more than a foot.  Finally, she took eighth in the high jump, where she tied with nine other athletes at 5’2” but was placed low because of the number of misses she had in trying to reach that height.  It should be noted that this was a Division III competition.  The winning high jump in DI was 5’4”, a mark reached by five athletes in that competition.

In other words, reality puts a lie to the entire premise that this transgender athlete is unfairly advantaged because she was identified as male at birth.  She is outstanding at one event and merely excellent in two others.  The exaggeration of her seeding is merely one of the many lies meant to generate fear and hatred for political gain.  The events AB excels at require a high degree of skill in addition to athletic prowess.  The triple jump is one of the most beautiful events, part athletics and part ballet.  These events contrast with events that rely more purely on speed and power such as sprints and hurdles.

Finally, the flier identifies AB as a male.  That is a matter on which their biased belief is based neither in science nor law but on their preconceived notions of a divine order.  Efforts to deny transgender people their rights in California law have repeatedly failed because the beliefs of these extremists simply do not comport with the established science.  Moreover, our courts have the power to protect vulnerable minorities regardless of what the majority may believe.  The problem with the CFC is that it cannot make an effective case to deny trans rights despite the massive amounts of money their donors have thrown at it.  The point at which vulnerable minorities can no longer be protected by law and fundamental constitutional principles is the point at which we cease to exist as a republic.  And this is exactly what groups like the CFC are attempting to accomplish: destroy the republic.

CIF’s Reluctant Compliance

Colleagues who reached out to the (CIF) looking to ensure that it would take the necessary measures to protect the rights of Miss Hernandez were generally disappointed after their conversations.  The CIF indicated that they would do what they could to ensure that AB’s rights to compete were upheld, but there was little indication they supported those rights.  Perhaps there was nothing the CIF could do to prevent the persistent taunting of Hernandez by the hundred or so people who were at the event to protest her participation.  While the CIF could disallow signs being brought into the stadium, it did not force the audience to remove tshirts that specifically targeted AB’s rights.

The minimal news coverage of the event so far has been persistently biased against Hernandez, as illustrated by this local Fox News article.

The athletes pictured complained vehemently about the fact that the CIF demanded they remove these t-shirts while preparing for their events.  Clearly, though, these young women do not understand the connotation those t-shirts might represent to AB Hernandez.  The denotation is a simple statement in support of girls’ sports.  The connotation for Hernandez, though, is: “You are not a girl.”  “You do not know who you are.”  “Your life is a mistake.” “It is not your fault, but state law is allowing you to cheat us.” “ You do not belong here.”  “We do not want to compete against you.”  “Go, compete against the other boys.”  “You are not one of us.”  “You are living a lie.”  According to the article, the personal exchanges these young women had with Hernandez were nevertheless invariably positive.

The young women did not have malicious intentions, and Hernandez has experienced this lack of understanding and empathy enough to receive it with extraordinary grace.  One can hope that this will become a learning experience for these young women.  The best way to end prejudice is to get to know and appreciate the targets of prejudice.  Hernandez is a great ambassador for that mission.

There are a couple of things the young women stated in the article that should be corrected.  First, the number of people there to oppose Hernandez was far greater than the handful of people there to specifically support Hernandez.  The cluster of people there to oppose Hernandez who were standing near the pits ranged from 20-30.  Dozens of additional people opposed to Hernandez sat farther away from the pits in the shade in the northwest corner of the stadium.  I would estimate that there were at least 100 people at the meet wearing t-shirts opposed to Hernandez’ participation.  By contrast, I was there with no more than six people (the number varied throughout the day) in support of AB Hernandez. 

The girls in the interview also falsely claimed that both sides only rooted for the athletes of their preference.  While she was preparing to jump, those opposed to Hernandez chanted: “He’s a boy.  He’s a boy.” The attitude of the anti-trans group was persistently hostile toward AB.  The other side did nothing of the sort.  The LGBTQIA support group of about six cheered for every athlete.  Yes, they cheered for AB a little louder, but they cheered every jump of every athlete, nonetheless.  The LGBTQIA group was invariably calm and respectful.  Shaw and Blades’ bunch was not.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Kelly Stuart (@skyspiderla)

The CIF is caught up in a situation for which they do not appear ready.  They are being pulled in opposite directions by state and federal policies while being further forced to engage a public overtly hostile to the current state law that defines the parameters of their policy.  As with the local school boards, the CIF needs far more expertise in the established elements of science upon which our state law is founded.  The CIF will also need to address the challenges to its authority issued by some of the parochial schools that chose to enter this fray in an arrogant and appalling manner.

******************************

The Separation of Church and Hate

s contemptible as the abuse Blades and Shaw inflicted upon Hernandez was, it was far exceeded by the content of the joint statement by three parochial institutions: JSerra Catholic High School in San Juan Capistrano, Orange Lutheran High School in Orange, and Crean Lutheran High School in Irvine.  You can read that shameful statement here; it is is a muddled mess of illogic, absurd science, farcical civics, selective history, and irreverent theology.  This statement is a reminder of why the founders’ strict separation of church and state is essential in sustaining a functioning democracy in a pluralistic and free society. 

IN SUM: On May 8,  Mr. Richard Meyer, Dr. Mary Scott, and Dr. Jeffrey Beavers addressed a letter of concern in relation to CIF Gender Policy to CIF Executive Director Ron Nocetti, and the Southern Section Commissioner of Athletics, Mr. Mike West.  Mr. Meyer is the President of JSerra.  Dr. Scott and Dr. Beavers are the Executive Directors of Orange Lutheran and Crean Lutheran, respectively.

The letter complains about the decision of the CIF to not comply with the recent executive orders “protecting women’s sports” disallowing “male students” to compete against “female students.”  It charges the CIF with failing to protect female athletes against sex discrimination and creates a hostile environment toward the religious institutions affiliated with CIF.

The letter asserts that the CIF is operating in contradiction to the “objective, self-evident reality” that gender is assigned at birth and is not subsequently “fungible.”  The absolute distinction between male and female “characteristics and capabilities” is nothing less than a “biological truth.”  The complaint further asserts that the CIF violates the “common sense” intention of Title IX to protect women on the false assumption that gender is an immutable attribution “present from the moment of conception.”

According to the executives of these three “academic institutions,” God assigns gender at the moment of conception as a “divine gift” that cannot obscure the heavenly mandated, exclusively binary designation as either male or female.  This gender assignment is immutable from conception and anyone who identifies as anything other than their gender assigned at birth suffers from “gender dysphoria” who needs “authentic charity” in response to their suffering.  Allowing such  “biological males” to compete against “young women” is not only unfair to the young women, but actually hurts the athlete suffering from gender dysphoria.

The letter of complaint turns anonymously but specifically to the “male athlete who self-identifies as a female” and the inherent unfairness of allowing “him” to participate.  They write: “If their regular-season performances are any indication, the male student will trounce his female competitors, depriving them of opportunities for advancement in tournaments, state championships, performance records, and potentially even college scholarships.”  The three parochial school executives indicate that some of their female athletes intended to boycott the event in protest of its inherent unfairness. 

The three school executives then protest that CIF adherence to its current gender policy is “increasingly hostile” to the foundational religious beliefs of the three schools.  It puts these schools in the position of “adhering to the tenets of their faith in their classrooms and communities but practicing something contrary to their faith on their athletic fields.”  This policy compels them into a situation that violates their constitutionally guaranteed right to operate in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs.

The authors then make the claim that recent Executive Order of President Trump obviates California’s laws allowing “males” to compete against females.  They cite the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the US Constitution indicating that these California laws are no longer valid.

The authors conclude by encouraging the CIF to pressure the state legislature and the California Department of Education.  These three schools threaten litigation if the CIF and State of California fail to remedy this injustice.

My Response to this Nonsense

The unstated premise of this complaint is that the specific theological understandings of these three institutions should provide the definitions of gender identity that they and they alone can dictate.  Other views and understandings must conform to their theological understandings and accept the absolute right of the Executive Authority in the federal government to define all matters of gender and sexuality without recourse.  If one does not believe in God at all, or one does not share the authors’ understanding of God or Biblical hermeneutics, one violates the absolute truth of a loving God who did not design a world in which transgender or intersex individuals might ever be considered healthy or normal.  Transgender and intersex individuals are either suffering from psychological pathologies or biochemical abnormalities as basically diseased individuals.  The arrogance of this complaint is exceeded only its ignorance.

Bad Theology, Based in Bad Science

While the complaint alleges that it is based in truth, facts, reality, and common sense, does it comport with the established and peer-reviewed studies of biochemical analysis of gender formation in pre- and post-natal development? 

• What studies can they cite to show that gender is established firmly at conception and is manifest phenotypically at birth? 
• How does their understanding comport with the phenomenon of intersex individuals? 
• Do intersex individuals suffer from male or female gender dysphoria?  Or are they simply a mistake of nature, part of the curse resulting from Eve having forced Adam to eat an apple? 
• Or what is the “immutable” gender identity of an individual born with a 5alpha reductase deficiency, where they are born female at birth but grow a penis around the time of puberty?  Is this another curse of nature, another one of those unfortunate exceptions to the compassionate intentions of a loving God? 
• Should everyone suffering from “gender dysmorphia” be provided government funded clinics so that they can be treated for the psychological trauma these authors allege, even if the supposed victims are perfectly satisfied with who they are?
• Are gay people also part of the mental illness shared by the gender dysphoric? 
• Are lesbians and gays also outside the realm of the proper creation designed by the loving God the authors claim to worship? 
• If gender identity is definable at conception, does this mean that laws should be passed declaring life at the point of conception? 
• If that is the case, should all in-vitro fertilization clinics be banned? 

The questions raised by this embarrassing statement by the three representatives of the parochial schools could go on near unto eternity.

The complaint is a good illustration of how not to engage science and law.  Ever since the Enlightenment, science has operated on principles of induction, not deduction.  The authors embrace a method of inquiry that starts with an ideal based on preconceived ideas about the universe.  All “facts” must conform to the preconceived ideals.  Inductive inquiry, by contrast, looks first at nature and then draws conclusions from evidence to establish broader theoretical frameworks.  Deductive inquiries result in many of the absurd claims stated in this complaint.

One could go on pointing out the absurdity and absence of any consideration of scholarship established over decades on the admittedly complex and fascinating subjects of gender identity and human sexuality.  Suffice it to say that many people inherently disagree with the assertions made in this complaint.  A real problem arises when the fascinating diversity and complexity of the known universe does not comport with the deity one worships.  Some people’s God is just too small.

This entire episode has illustrated failings of science teaching in our public schools and not just in our parochial schools.  A few years ago, an author who struggled with his identity as a homosexual in high school decided to investigate the phenomena of sexual behaviors and gender identities in the world of animals.  The resulting book was a well-illustrated, humorous, affirming, sometimes raunchy look at such behaviors and identities.  Its title is Queer Ducks (and Other Animals): The Natural World of Animal Sexuality.  Some parents donated a copy to one of the high school libraries in the PYLUSD.  The principal declined the donation for fear that having such a book in our library might draw the attention of Blades and others who feel they and they alone have the right to determine what every child should and should not be allowed to read.  Such is the era of fear and preemptive censorship we live in.  One wonders how many young people in the PYLUSD this book might have given solace to who are struggling with their gender identities or sexual orientations.

A Willful Ignorance of Constitutional Law

While the authors cite the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) as the basis upon which federal authority can take precedence over state laws, they do not take the trouble to note the various potential challenges to the executive order compelling all states to recognize only genders assigned at birth.  There are at least three functioning branches of government still in operation at the federal level on the basis of a system of checks and balances.  Moreover, there remains the foundational principle of federalism that still renders all power not explicitly given to the Federal government to the states.  There are and will continue to be various challenges to Executive Order 14201 in both federal and state courts. 

Both science and legal precedent contravene the assertions of this complaint. The failure of the authors to address this complexity is further evidence that their interests are purely political, a way of advancing their own power and interests at the expense of others.

An Intentional Exaggeration is a Lie

The allegation that AB Hernandez was such a superior athlete that other female competitors would get “trounced” by her was a provable lie going into the meet on May 10, and that lie was confirmed by the results of the meet.  The authors cited this lie as a source for claiming expansive losses to their athletes, inferring that this might be the foundation for litigation against the CIF and the State of California.  This claim could have been investigated and moderated in relation to the facts.  But these authors are not interested in facts.  Since their lie has been proven false, the authors need to issue a public apology and a retraction of their statement.

Discrimination is a Two-way Street

The complaint that CIF policy compels the three parochial institutions to violate fundamental tenets of their faith is also preposterous.  The authors have posited assertions on gender identity that are poorly grounded in science and yet claim to experience discrimination when others in the CIF disagree with them.  The inclusive policy of the CIF is grounded in state law while the legal foundation for the three parochial schools is a highly contested executive order asserting that there are only two genders, and that they are determined at birth.  The CIF policy reflects science.  The authors’ claim reflects a very specific religious understanding that not all religions share or that not even all Christians share.

The Constitution allows the institutions represented by the complainants the freedom to teach whatever they like in their schools; but the Constitution does not permit those institutions to impose their beliefs on those who do not share them.  The religious institutions that share the understandings of the petitioners are free to form their own federation.  What they are not free to do is to demand taxpayer money from institutions accountable to the larger public through the democratic process and democratic institutions.  In other words, they should organize to change the law.  CIF cannot and should not be pressured into violating California state law that protects the rights of transgender individuals.  JSerra, Orange Lutheran, and Crean Lutheran should stop pressuring CIF to do so.  It is uncomely.  It is undemocratic.

There is a simple solution to the problems the complaint raises.  The parochial schools that agree with this perspective are free to leave the CIF and form their own federation.  That is a protected First Amendment right.  Imposing the religious beliefs of those specific institutions on others is not.

Jesus Sues!

When the three institutions end their complaint with a threat to sue the CIF and the California Department of Education, they are engaging an increasingly common tactic of using costly litigation to undermine the fiscal viability of public schools.  Sonja Shaw recently cost the district she represents well over a million dollars in a frivolous case related to a parental notification policy she advocated that was clearly in violation of state law.  She did not care that she lost the case, because her political career is more important than the classroom.  Leandra Blades and her cohort in the PYLUSD have also cost that district millions to promote her political agenda and personal career.  The extremists on the Orange County Board of Education have also increased legal costs by millions over previous decades, also as a means of undermining funding for schools.  It is difficult to see the letter of complaint by the three parochial schools as anything other than a different facet of the efforts of political extremists to destroy public education.  Litigation is their tactic to destroy the fiscal viability of the public schools they are out to abolish.

Destructive litigation has been a tactic long used by the parochial schools.  The religious schools have persistently violated CIF policies limiting their ability to recruit premier athletes.  Whenever the CIF has challenged the parochial schools’ violations of this policy, wealthy alumni and donors pour torrents of money into the legal defense of the parochial schools.  The CIF in far too many cases has had to withdraw because the costs of litigation exceeded what a public agency could reasonably afford to uphold their policies.

Because of this disregard for fairness and the communities affected by such recruitment policies, the performance gap between parochial schools and public schools in the CIF grows ever larger.  It is repulsive to hear these schools whine about how unfair it is that AB Hernandez is allowed to compete as a female considering the various ways they “incentivize” elite athletes to attend their schools because of the prestige and donations that championships bring these commercial institutions masquerading as religious entities.

A Bonhoeffer Moment

Meyer, Scott and Beavers appear to be suffering from a type of dysphoria known as dissociative identity disorder (DID).  While they represent themselves as the voice of a religious institution, their real identities are as political operatives in the broader Christian nationalist movement seeking to destroy public education.  Leandra Blades’ son suffers from a similar dysphoria.  Even though he was a minor living in Yorba Linda, he posed himself as a registered voter who lived in Orange.  It was because of this disorder that District Attorney Todd Spitzer compassionately decided not to pursue criminal voter fraud charges against him.  This complaint is bold-faced politics cloaked in the mantle of trite theology.

It is hard for someone with a sense of history to read this complaint without thinking of the dark stains that both the Lutheran Church and the Catholic Church wear because of their complicity with the Third Reich nearly a century ago in Germany.  That complicity was both active and tacit.  The prophetic voices in those communities who rose up in courageous opposition to Hitler were few.  One of those prophetic voices was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Very early on, he saw beyond the surface realities to the darkness that lurked behind them.  In the Third Reich, people like AB Hernandez were sent to death camps and forced to wear pink triangles on their shirts.  The road to genocide is paved with the belief that someone does not have the right to exist on the terms with which they identify themselves.

While it may be unfair to associate the authors of this complaint with the horrors of that specific history, that history nevertheless is blasting many warnings about the present day that everyone should heed.  Every day brings new instances of violations of fundamental constitutional principles and rights in favor of unchecked executive authority.  The concentration camp parallels between El Salvador and the United States with Nazi Germany and Poland should disturb everyone.  The Trump regime has targeted California as a venue powerful enough to undermine his agenda much in the same way that Hitler targeted Prussia as part of his Gleichschaltung.  The sickening list of parallels is long.

This complaint by the three parochial schools to the CIF is a theological and moral obscenity.  Catholics and Lutherans of good conscience should denounce it.  They should also demand a public retraction and the immediate removal from office of its authors.  Failure of the associates of these confessions to do so should elicit action on the part of local and state agencies.  Public schools should cease contracting events with these three parochial schools.  The public at large should not support these institutions in any way until proper action is taken.  Perhaps the CIF should even consider their expulsion in lieu of their unwillingness to follow CIF policy and the threat they posed to the very agency that these three parochial schools voluntarily joined.

*****************************

AB and The Joy of Sport!

Despite the sweltering heat, it was a joy to watch AB compete in the long jump and high jump on May 10.  Because of the long delay due to the heat, I was not able to stay for her performance in the triple jump.  She is a superbly conditioned athlete, standing around  5’7” and 120 pounds.  She walked around the jumping pits systematically planning her jumps.  She was totally focused in the way dedicated athletes are in preparing for competition.  She appeared to be unaffected by the taunts being screamed at her by the people wearing t-shirts denying her very identity and right to compete.  She casually and respectfully engaged fellow athletes, coaches, and officials.  Her body language was that of a person doing the thing she loves to do.

Everyone should be reminded that AB is the fourth daughter of a widow, with three older sisters.  AB’s dad died when she was very young.  She and her mom Nereyda are women of extraordinary courage.  They need to be celebrated, honored, and admired for their bravery and love.

When the intense heat forced officials to suspend the meet at around two o’clock, my good friend Misty Janssen and a small handful of people from the Lavender Democrats and Pride at the Pier walked off the campus of Yorba Linda High School to Bastanchury Avenue, where we planned to film a brief public statement.  We had to walk off campus because political statements are prohibited on the school grounds.  We respected that law and the purpose behind it. 

Once we found a spot to make our statement, a woman with her teenage daughter driving a black Escalade slowed down in traffic and begin gesturing toward us in a hostile manner.  The blond-haired daughter of the blond-haired mother was mortified by what her mother was doing.  The girl put her hands over her face in shame.  After impeding the traffic behind, this Cadillac Karen circled her boulevard yacht back to us after making two U-turns on Bastanchury.  This time she stopped along the road right by where we were, seriously impeding traffic and creating a dangerous situation.  She sat there for a couple of minutes, gesturing toward us and mouthing things we could not possibly hear.  She continued to impede traffic and only moved her rig after a sheriff used the PA speaker in his car to tell her to move.  Cadillac Karen eventually budged after taking her own sweet time.  The teenage daughter remained mortified throughout.

ARTIST’S RENDITION.

Three of us spoke.  Kanan Durham from Pride at the Pier (PAP) explained the reasons why we were there in support of the transgender athlete.  Then it was my turn to to read a statement by AB’s mom Nereyda, an honor for which I am very grateful to the mom and the brave people at PAP for giving me.  Misty Janssen, who is a Yorba Linda mom, long-time leader in the Yorba Linda community who has served on numerous PTAs in the district, one of the biggest-hearted and funniest people you will ever meet, and a Marine Corps Master Sergeant, spoke on behalf of the Yorba Linda community in support of AB.

It’s important that the public know that not everyone in the Yorba Linda supports what Leandra Blades is doing.  It should also be noted that PYLUSD board member Carrie Buck spent the day in the company of AB’s mom, ensuring that our district did all it could to ensure the safety of the young athlete as well as her right to compete without too much harassment from those there to disparage her.   There were many brave people who stood up against the hostile group assembled by Shaw and Blades. 

You can see the brief PAP statement here.  This is the full text of AB’s mom’s statement.

Good afternoon to everyone,

I forward this statement to be shared before you today, not just as a mother, but as a proud, fierce advocate for my child, a remarkable young athlete who happens to be a transgender-GIRL.

Let me be very clear: my child trains very hard, dreams just as big, and shows the same determination, grit, and heart as any other athlete. Her identity doesn’t give her an advantage; it gives her courage. It takes immense bravery to show up, compete, and be visible in a world that often questions your very right to exist, let alone to participate.

We celebrate sports, because they teach us discipline, teamwork, resilience, and fairness.  Fairness also means inclusion. It means ensuring that ALL young people, regardless of gender identity, are given the opportunity to learn, grow, and thrive!!!

When you look at my daughter, I want you to see more than a headline or a political talking point. I want you to see the hours of practice, the sacrifices, the joy in victory, and the lessons in defeat. I want you to see a student, a teammate, a leader, and most importantly a human being deserving of dignity and respect.

I am proud of my daughter not just for what she does out on the field or when she is in the court, but for the strength she shows every single day by simply being herself!!!

To those who have doxed, harassed, and violated my daughter A.B.’s privacy, who have chosen to ignore California laws, Education Codes and the ethical duty to protect all students, your actions are not only shameful, but they are also abusive.

By engaging in and encouraging online bullying, you have created a hostile and unsafe environment for a minor. You have neglected your responsibilities as adults and role models and instead have chosen to target a child for simply being who she is and doing what she loves.

I see your actions for what they are: cruel, irresponsible, and dangerous. You are adults who should know better, yet you use your platforms and positions to spread harmful, derogatory remarks that only fuel further harassment.

A.B. is a student athlete competing under the laws, policies, and guidelines that were created to protect her, ensure fairness, safety, and inclusion for ALL students. She has done nothing wrong, but you, YOU are violating her rights and undermining the very values that some of you are sworn to uphold. These wrongdoings lie with those who use their positions to intimidate, spread hate, and foster division.

Let me remind you that despite the noise, A.B. continues to rise. She continues to compete, to play, and continues to shine not because she is protected by favoritism, but because she is protected by law, by policy, and by the truth.

To the parents listening: support your kids. Stand by them, because when the world tries to tear them down, your support, your love, and your voice is what helps them rise.

To the policymakers and school officials: listen to the voices of transgender youth.  Protect them!!! To those who have stood beside us and taken steps to ensure A.B.’s safety and her ability to pursue what she loves, you are appreciated!!! Thank YOU!!!

To the young trans athletes out there: YOU BELONG, DO NOT GIVE UP, YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!!

As A.B.’s mother, I will continue to support her, protect her, and love her exactly as she is.  Nothing and no one will ever change that!!!

With All My Heart,

AB’s Mom

The May 10 CIF meet was a great way to celebrate the joy of sport.  The May 10 CIF meet was a great way to celebrate Mother’s Day weekend!

ACTION!

There are many actions that need to result from the harassment of AB Hernandez by various individuals, groups, and institutions.  Some have already been noted.  Others have been implied.  Still others should be considered by those who want to further pursue this matter.  For now, here are a couple of appeals for action that should be considered.

First, all administrative credentials issued in the state of California should require passing an advanced course devoted exclusively to the science, legal protections, and history of gender identity and sexual orientation.  No one should have to sit through a board meeting again without hearing from someone who can speak authoritatively on these matters.  For those administrators who already have credentials, this course should be mandatory for renewal.  Moreover, every school should have someone on staff or contracted as a consultant who has expert knowledge in this field.

Second, aspiring leaders in the Democratic Party need to take up the cause of transgender rights more forthrightly.  There are large numbers of Democrats who are tired of avoiding big and challenging issues.  They are looking for inspiration and are sick and tired of capitulation.