University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

Michie · Tuesday at 12:02 PM

Training module warns calling students by their 'deadname' is 'sexual harassment'

California universities are reportedly using state harassment prevention laws to compel students to endorse transgender ideology, with failure to comply potentially barring them from enrolling in classes.

Across the University of California system, all students are required to take sexual violence and sexual harassment prevention training under a programdubbed SHAPE (Sexual Harassment, Anti-Discrimination, Prevention and Education).

Delivered through mandatory online training and testing modules focused on sexual harassment and anti-discrimination, the required training asserts that failing to use one's self-declared trans pronouns or protesting the presence of men in women's restrooms constitutes a hostile environment and qualifies as harassment.

Students must achieve a perfect score on the module's questions, aligned with these views, to proceed with semester registration.

Continued below.

University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

California universities are reportedly using state harassment prevention laws to compel students to endorse transgender ideology, with failure to comply potentially barring them from enrolling in

www.christianpost.com

Delvianna · Tuesday at 12:41 PM

I mean, it's california, I can't say I'm surprised.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 12:46 PM

Delvianna said:
I mean, it's california, I can't say I'm surprised.

Its why I left. I miss my home state terribly, but not their insane policies where teachers have more rights than parents to indoctrinate young innocent children.

Jesus please come soon!

Delvianna · Tuesday at 12:48 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
Its why I left. I miss my home state terribly, but not their insane policies where teachers have more rights than parents to indoctrinate young innocent children.

Jesus please come soon!

I don't blame you one bit. California is going down the drain and it's better to get out before it just gets worse. I don't think anything is going to fix california but maybe the trib. We absolutely need the Lord to fix this mess.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 12:54 PM

Delvianna said:
I don't blame you one bit. California is going down the drain and it's better to get out before it just gets worse. I don't think anything is going to fix california but maybe the trib. We absolutely need the Lord to fix this mess.

I just pray the governor of California does not get the chance to try to do what he did to California to the rest of the States if elected.

I like what Mr. Wonderful said about him, I would not let him run a candy store. Its sad what he did to my home state. It was already in bad shape, but it was taken to a new level of bad.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 12:56 PM

SabbathBlessings said:
I just pray the governor of California does not get the chance to try to do what he did to California to the rest of the States if elected.

I like what Mr. Wonderful said about him, I would not let him run a candy store. Its sad what he did to my home state. It was already in bad shape, but it was taken to a new level of bad.

He's running for president next election.... no joke.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 12:57 PM

Delvianna said:
He's running for president next election.... no joke.

All anyone needs to do is take before photos of the State before he was elected to now. Its night and day.

PloverWing · Tuesday at 1:03 PM

Following a couple of links takes me to the University of California's policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SVSH). Section II.B.2, "Sexual Harassment", is consistent with the screenshot from the training video. I'd say that it's useful for a student to know what the university's policy is, even if they feel they must violate the policy.

SabbathBlessings said:
I miss my home state terribly, but not their insane policies where teachers have more rights than parents to indoctrinate young innocent children.

Whatever rules ought to be in place for K-12, I'll note that the context in the OP is a university, so we're talking about adults, not young children. In a university setting, parents of students no longer have rights over their children (FERPA), but the students themselves have rights that need to be respected.

When the rights of two different students clash, then of course things become more complicated.

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 1:07 PM

PloverWing said:
Following a couple of links takes me to the University of California's policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (https://policy.ucop.edu/doc/4000385/SVSH). Section II.B.2, "Sexual Harassment", is consistent with the screenshot from the training video. I'd say that it's useful for a student to know what the university's policy is, even if they feel they must violate the policy.

Whatever rules ought to be in place for K-12, I'll note that the context in the OP is a university, so we're talking about adults, not young children. In a university setting, parents of students no longer have rights over their children (FERPA), but the students themselves have rights that need to be respected.

When the rights of two different students clash, then of course things become more complicated.

Are you aware of what they are teaching young children in grade school now in California. Its starts way before College. The teachers who some are mentally ill have more rights than the parents.

I would never live in California if I had young children and wanted to teach them Christian values. My daughter still lives there she is an adult now, but her views are definitely Californiaized from being indoctrinated constantly.

In California, parents who do not support their child's gender identity may face significant consequences, including the potential loss of custody. Recent legislation, such as Assembly Bill 957, suggests that parents who fail to affirm their child's gender transition could lose custody rights or visitation rights, as it is deemed harmful to the child's health and welfare. This law is current

CA Legislators Pass Bill to Take Children from Parent Who Doesn’t Affirm Kid’s Gender Identity - California Family Council

Last week the state legislature approved a bill to require judges to equate “affirmation of child gender transition” directly with a child’s “health, safety, and welfare” when determining custody or visitation rights. Consequently, parents who do not affirm the chosen gender identity of their...

www.californiafamily.org

A child has the right to cut off their private parts without even telling their parents and before they are even the legal age to vote or drive.

PloverWing · Tuesday at 1:32 PM

It looks like California bill AB-957 failed, having been vetoed by the governor: Bill Status - AB-957 Family law: gender identity. . Is there a different version of the bill that passed?

SabbathBlessings · Tuesday at 1:33 PM

PloverWing said:
It looks like California bill AB-957 failed, having been vetoed by the governor: Bill Status - AB-957 Family law: gender identity. . Is there a different version of the bill that passed?

I am not sure I don't live there anymore, the fact they tried to pass it is bad enough. The point is this ideology is being taught in grade school.

Delvianna · Tuesday at 1:47 PM

PloverWing said:
It looks like California bill AB-957 failed, having been vetoed by the governor: Bill Status - AB-957 Family law: gender identity. . Is there a different version of the bill that passed?

The California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) - EC Sections 51930 - 51939 (Required for 7-12, optional for K-6)
EC Section 51932(b) states: "The opt-out provisions of this chapter shall not apply to instruction or materials that discuss gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, bullying, relationships, or family whenever the content is a part of a course subject other than comprehensive sexual health education."

This means that a parent cannot legally opt their child out of:

A Social Studies lesson discussing the history of the LGBTQ+ rights movement (per the FAIR Education Act).
A Literature lesson that includes a book with a main character who is transgender or has same-sex parents.
An Anti-bullying or Diversity lesson that discusses gender identity.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 2:44 PM

How is intentionally dead-naming someone not a form of harassment?

Delvianna · Tuesday at 2:49 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
How is intentionally dead-naming someone not a form of harassment?

Let's go by this definition:
harassment
noun
/həˈræs.mənt/ /ˈher.əs.mənt/ uk
/ˈhær.əs.mənt/ /həˈræs.mənt/
behavior that annoys or upsets someone

So, would it be? Sure... Jesus upset people too but that doesn't mean that pandering to a mental disorder is acceptable. Just like if you told someone who has bulimia/anorexia that they aren't fat, that might upset them too. Doesn't automatically make it wrong.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 3:00 PM

Delvianna said:
Let's go by this definition:
harassment
noun
/həˈræs.mənt/ /ˈher.əs.mənt/ uk
/ˈhær.əs.mənt/ /həˈræs.mənt/
behavior that annoys or upsets someone

So, would it be? Sure... Jesus upset people too but that doesn't mean that pandering to a mental disorder is acceptable. Just like if you told someone who has bulimia/anorexia that they aren't fat, that might upset them too. Doesn't automatically make it wrong.

First off, your definition is terrible. You clearly cherry-picked it from a list of better, more applicable definitions (like the second one from that same page) and then took the most broad interpretation of that overly-broad defintion because doing so better allowed you to construct a straw man.

Calling someone by their chosen name isn't "pandering to a mental disorder." It's a form of civility and respect. Calling them a different name is nothing more than an overbearing intrusion into part of their life that, frankly, isn't any of your business.

A better analogy would be if I insisted on calling you by your maiden name because I had some reason to object to the validity of your marriage (e.g. you came from different faith traditions; one of you had been divorced previously, etc). How would that make you feel? If you insisted that I call you by your married name, would that be a case of expecting me to pander to your sin?

Delvianna · Tuesday at 3:11 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
First off, your definition is terrible.

I didn't "cherry pick" anything, it's literally the very first option. lol

iluvatar5150 said:
straw man.

Man am I getting tired of these words that people feel necessary to use. Does it make you feel right just for using it? I went by the very first definition but you want to act like I had some nefarious hidden agenda... okay, whatever you say...

iluvatar5150 said:
Calling someone by their chosen name isn't "pandering to a mental disorder."

When their mental disorder consists of thinking God created them the wrong gender and in their head, they are different, and then you use a clearly different gendered name to promote said mental disorder, that is "pandering".

iluvatar5150 said:
A better analogy would be if I insisted on calling you by your maiden name because I had some reason to object to the validity of your marriage (e.g. you came from different faith traditions; one of you had been divorced previously, etc). How would that make you feel? If you insisted that I call you by your married name, would that be a case of expecting me to pander to your sin?

This is a terrible example because 1 deals with a mental disorder and this, doesn't. This deals with an obscure idea that would only be backed by a margin of people in some faith circles. You're arguing apples to oranges. So how would it make me feel? Nothing because in my view, you would be biblically wrong for doing so and if you believe biblical error, that has nothing to do with me.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 3:26 PM

Delvianna said:
When their mental disorder consists of thinking God created them the wrong gender and in their head, they are different, and then you use a clearly different gendered name to promote said mental disorder, that is "pandering".

This is a terrible example because 1 deals with a mental disorder and this, doesn't. This deals with an obscure idea that would only be backed by a margin of people in some faith circles. You're arguing apples to oranges. So how would it make me feel? Nothing because in my view, you would be biblically wrong for doing so and if you believe biblical error, that has nothing to do with me.

Let's say it is a mental disorder - lots of things are mental disorders. Where would you get off deliberately violating someone's means of coping with it? If a vet with PTSD asks you to avoid making loud, sudden noises so as to not trigger his condition, are you going to try to comply or are you going to sneak up behind him and pop a balloon because, darn it, you're not going to let pandering to somebody's mental condition get in the way of your fun? Or if somebody grieving the loss of their child asks you not to tell them about your new baby, are you going to respect their wishes or are you going to lay into stories about your kid anyways?

Delvianna · Tuesday at 3:36 PM

iluvatar5150 said:
Let's say it is a mental disorder - lots of things are mental disorders. Where would you get off deliberately violating someone's means of coping with it?

What about all the de-transitioned people that are speaking out and saying they wished ONE person at least talked to them about it instead of just accepting everything they said? This isn't one sided. Pandering to a mental disorder doesn't help them in the long run, it only fuels the mental disorder. Same way you don't tell an anorexic person that their choice of losing weight is normal. That's not being loving or caring, the same way going to buy a burger and fries for someone who is morbidly obese and is supposed to be on a diet as their health is failing, "but they're trying to cope and food helps!" Is that loving?

iluvatar5150 said:
Where would you get off deliberately violating someone's means of coping with it? If a vet with PTSD asks you to avoid making loud, sudden noises so as to not trigger his condition, are you going to try to comply or are you going to sneak up behind him and pop a balloon because, darn it, you're not going to let pandering to somebody's mental condition get in the way of your fun?

You need to take a step back and just stop. No one is saying or implying that not pandering to someones mental disorder is "fun" in anyway. You are going to the absolute extremes and it's honestly concerning.

iluvatar5150 said:
Or if somebody grieving the loss of their child asks you not to tell them about your new baby, are you going to respect their wishes or are you going to lay into stories about your kid anyways?

Again, not a mental disorder.

2PhiloVoid · Tuesday at 3:42 PM

Michie said:
Training module warns calling students by their 'deadname' is 'sexual harassment'

California universities are reportedly using state harassment prevention laws to compel students to endorse transgender ideology, with failure to comply potentially barring them from enrolling in classes.

Across the University of California system, all students are required to take sexual violence and sexual harassment prevention training under a programdubbed SHAPE (Sexual Harassment, Anti-Discrimination, Prevention and Education).

Delivered through mandatory online training and testing modules focused on sexual harassment and anti-discrimination, the required training asserts that failing to use one's self-declared trans pronouns or protesting the presence of men in women's restrooms constitutes a hostile environment and qualifies as harassment.

Students must achieve a perfect score on the module's questions, aligned with these views, to proceed with semester registration.

Continued below.

University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

California universities are reportedly using state harassment prevention laws to compel students to endorse transgender ideology, with failure to comply potentially barring them from enrolling in

www.christianpost.com

And here I thought I'd never learn anything on Christian Forums, but yet once again, I've been introduced to what is for me a new term: "dead-naming." So, I had to look it up ................ thanks a.i.

The term "deadname" began to gain prominence around 2012 in online transgender communities, particularly on blogs and message boards. It became more widely recognized in 2015 when notable LGBTQ writers used the term, especially following high-profile discussions about transgender identities.

Origin of the Term "Deadname"

The term "deadname" began to emerge in online transgender communities around 2012. It was used to describe the practice of referring to a transgender person by their birth name after they have chosen a new name.

Popularization

The term gained wider recognition in 2015, particularly after notable LGBTQ writers used it in their discussions. This period marked a significant increase in awareness and advocacy regarding transgender issues, including the importance of respecting chosen names.

Cultural Context

The concept of deadnaming reflects broader societal changes in understanding gender identity. It highlights the need for sensitivity towards individuals who transition and the impact of using their former names on their mental health and identity affirmation.

iluvatar5150 · Tuesday at 3:59 PM

Delvianna said:
What about all the de-transitioned people that are speaking out and saying they wished ONE person at least talked to them about it instead of just accepting everything they said?

I don't really see how this is relevant to the discussion, but I'm curious - who are these people? Because I know several trans people and not a one of them has gone through their transition without folks chiming in on it. Quite the opposite.

Delvianna said:
This isn't one sided. Pandering to a mental disorder doesn't help them in the long run, it only fuels the mental disorder. Same way you don't tell an anorexic person that their choice of losing weight is normal. That's not being loving or caring, the same way going to buy a burger and fries for someone who is morbidly obese and is supposed to be on a diet as their health is failing, "but they're trying to cope and food helps!" Is that loving?

Ok, so you think that by deadnaming somebody, you're helping them. Why do you think that? What do you know about mental disorders? Are you a mental health professional or have some experience with it yourself? What do you know about transgenderism?

University of California campuses mandate gender ideology training to register for classes

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Critically cutting wicked webs!

Origin of the Term "Deadname"​

Popularization​

Cultural Context​

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Origin of the Term "Deadname"

Popularization

Cultural Context