The California State Assembly has passed a bill that would penalise parents with losing their children’s custody if they resisted their gender transition.
The Bill, AB 957, which was passed with a decisive vote of 57-16 on Friday, incorporates gender affirmation as a significant factor to be taken into account in child custody proceedings. Prior to this, the California Senate also gave its approval with a vote of 30-9.
The recently passed law, known as the Transgender, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex Youth Empowerment Act, plans to accord paramount importance to the “well-being, safety, and overall welfare” of children by emphasising the affirmation of their gender identity. Originally introduced by Democratic Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson on February 24, the bill underwent revisions in the Assembly on March 13 and underwent additional changes in the Senate on June 5 prior to its ultimate passage.
In a nutshell, the Bill will require judges to take into account whether a parent “affirms” a child’s “gender identity or gender expression” in determining custody.
According to the proposed laws, parents who do not recognise and provide support for their child’s gender transition may encounter potential repercussions, such as losing custody rights to another parent or even the state. Advocates of the bill contend that it serves the well-being of children by striving to establish a more inclusive and validating atmosphere for gender-diverse youth.
The Democratic legislators who led this bill claim that it reflects a crucial measure to protect the welfare of transgender and gender-diverse youngsters. Their argument highlights that while judges currently possess discretion in assessing gender affirmation, enshrining it in law offers explicit guidance for judicial decision-making.
However, it saw stern opposition from Republicans, who expressed reservations, claiming that this legislation might encroach upon parental rights and independence. The critics contend that it could potentially result in scenarios where parents face repercussions for not conforming to their child’s gender transition, a situation they perceive as an overextension of government authority.
Elon Musk, a California-based entrepreneur and the owner of the social media platform X, and who is known for not mincing his words in his criticism, castigated the bill and described it as misleading in its implications. Musk suggested that in a situation where parents disagree with sterilisation procedures, they could risk losing the custody of their children. He vehemently disagreed with this notion, labelling it as “utter madness.”
This bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 8, 2023
What it actually means is that if you disagree with the other parent about sterilizing your child, you lose custody.
Utter madness!
Michael Seifert, the CEO of Public Square, also conveyed his profound disapproval of the bill passed by the California State Assembly, calling it a “legislated evil.” He further noted that he is content with his decision to relocate from the state, as he perceives it to have undergone such significant transformation that it no longer resembles the place he once called home.
This is legislated evil.
— Michael Seifert (@realmichaelseif) September 8, 2023
California is determined to discover rock bottom.
I’m so glad we left that state, I don’t even recognize my former home anymore. https://t.co/JvIuw4QnoJ
Assemblywoman Lori D. Wilson, who authored the bill, previously claimed that the legislation does not compel judges to place gender affirmation above all other considerations.
As per Wilson’s explanation, gender affirmation might involve permitting children to engage with toys aligned with their gender identity, exploring activities such as nail painting, or selecting hairstyles that align with their personal comfort.
Critically, the bill refrains from specifying any particular mandates regarding gender-affirming surgeries, recognizing that such significant decisions for minors in California continue to require parental consent.
