Three Bay area school board trustees speak out in support of parents' and girls' rights; local newspaper labels it "anti-trans"

Jennifer Jacobson, a trustee on the San Mateo Union High School District, gave the following statement at their September 10th board meeting:

I want to acknowledge all of the thoughtful comments and letters we have received from the community on this issue. I also really appreciate the legal analysis from our county counsel and the revisions the district is recommending on the CSBA’s language. Both CA law and FERPA (which is federal) give clear legal basis for many aspects of this AR, and to the extent that the language aligns with current law I support it on those grounds. I believe in the rule of law and as a district it is prudent to comply with state law at present. I want to be clear about some things though.

This AR does raise concerns for me when it comes to specific ways we as a district support LGBTQIA+ students and their families. Dozens of people have written to us with the statement “Protecting LGBTQIA+ students should not be up for debate.” Let’s be clear that we are not debating whether to protect these students, but how. While gender dysphoria has been around for a long time, the exponentially increased rate of ROGD is a newer phenomenon. With the recent testimonies, lawsuits, and activism of brave detransitioners and whistleblowers, combined with new quality research, there is not enough evidence to declare that gender-affirming care is the best practice for adolescents. The Cass Report, which is the most comprehensive review of research on the topic to date concluded that: “there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.” Its recommendations include "Standard evidence based psychological and psychopharmacological treatment approaches should be used to support the management of the associated distress from gender incongruence and cooccurring conditions, including support for parents/carers and siblings as appropriate."

People may be asking, "What does it hurt if we affirm a student who wants to go by a new name or pronouns?" There is reason to believe it can cause harm, because a majority of youth who experience GD will grow out of it, or "desist" over time. Changing names, pronouns and/or presentation significantly decreases desistance. It can also lead to leveling up intervention to invasive hormone therapy, which has been shown to make desistance extremely rare. There is evidence to support a social contagion with ROGD, with more people changing their gender among peer groups. Social transitions can play a role in that effect.

To my knowledge, there is no law that requires the district to affirm a student’s stated gender identity, at least there is not one cited in this AR. My personal belief is that such a request by a student should trigger a meeting with parents/guardians who are best positioned to support their child and assist them in navigating this life change. CA law AB 1955 prevents our district from having a policy that requires parental notification in such cases. However, the district recommended language in the AR returns inclusion of parents and guardians to encourage family involvement as it should. The choice to socially transition is a therapeutic decision with life-altering consequences that should not be left to a child alone. These decisions should be made by parents and children together, with informed consent and after consultation with competent medical and psychological professionals acting in good faith and who are informed by the highest quality, peer-reviewed, aggregated research.

Social transitioning also presents the complex problem of participation in sex-segregated sports and use of locker rooms and bathrooms. There is a tension between federal and state law on this issue. This issue will be adjudicated in multiple arenas soon. In July the DOJ sued the CDE and CIF for Title IX violations that discriminate against female athletes. The Supreme Court will hear a case this fall, West Virginia v. BPJ, that will give further clarity on the issue when it comes to the legality of CA’s law AB1266. I want to say for the record that my position on the matter is that athletes should compete in sports based on their biological sex, and polling shows 65% of likely CA voters agree. In maintaining this policy we preserve state funding, but we risk federal funding. We also fail to protect female sports and spaces, which means we fail to protect girls. Just as protecting LGBTQIA+ students should not be up for debate, neither should protecting girls. And I sincerely hope justice prevails to trigger changes to this law to reflect that truth.

Lastly, I have the concern that in some cases these guidelines may have tension with freedom of speech and religion rights. Other school districts have been sued on these grounds for policies similar to what we are considering tonight. I also worry that the gamut of plausible scenarios that can create “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational environment,” may put a chill on students’ willingness to express their valid opinions in class. Is it bullying or harassment to acknowledge reality? In voting yes, I am putting a great deal of trust in the language in the AR that states “The Compliance Officer shall consider the rights of all students and how those rights may affect and be affected by the rights of other students.”

I will vote yes not because I agree with everything in this policy, but in order to comply with present law and because voting no will not address my remaining concerns.

When we spoke on the phone, Jacobson wanted to be clear right up front that she did not speak for the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) school board. There was zero risk of that. It came as a surprise to me that even one Bay area school board member would give a calm, fact-filled, six-minute statement about the wide-ranging harms of gender ideology, including allowing boys in girls’ sports and locker rooms. In fact, thanks to WomenAreReal’s posts on X, I discovered that two other trustees, Teri Chavez and Bob Griffin, and other parents and community members, also spoke in favor of single-sex sports or expressed concern about the current California policy that allows boys in girls’ sports.

If you were not at that school board meeting, if you had not seen WomenAreReal’s posts, and had only read about this incident in the San Mateo Daily Journal, you would not know any of this. You’d think a single troublesome trustee was gumming up a routine vote that all right-thinking, enlightened people agreed on just to air her transphobic views. You’d think that because the San Mateo Daily Journal told you to think that, printing a horrifically slanted article that, sadly, is mistaken for journalism instead of the trans activism it clearly is. Since this article was behind a paywall, Jacobson copied it into a Google doc and sent it to me. We’ll fact check from there.

The headline, San Mateo Union High School District trustee questions trans-inclusionary policies, infers that Jacobson wanted to exclude students with trans identities. The sub-head gripes that because of this one trustee’s questions, it took three meetings to approve what the newspaper called routine changes that would bring the district in line with state, though not federal, law. Here’s how the Daily Journal described the context:

The update included moving detailed protections for transgender and gender nonconforming students, which were already established, to a different section of the policy book. …At its meeting Aug. 14, the board was slated to approve the updated regulations to reflect recent changes in law as recommended by the California School Boards Association. When the matter was brought up, board Trustee Jennifer Jacobson said she needed more information on what exactly the updates were before she felt comfortable approving.

The changes approved largely aligned with exactly what was recommended by the CSBA, except the district added language to certain policies to include recognizing the need for guardian involvement in regards to a student’s gender identity.

“There are times when it is appropriate to have family involvement, and there are times when it is not appropriate," Superintendent Booker said.

…CSBA advised moving existing policing supporting LGBTQIA+ students to a different policy section and clarified some definitions. No new policy was created and suggested.

A simple shifting of verbiage from one part of the policy to another. No big deal. Although one does stumble over the terms “largely,” which means not exactly, followed closely by “exactly,” which means exactly. In fact, there was pretty significant change in policy, and that’s what Jacobson was “uncomfortable” with.

“They proposed moving the section protecting trans students to the nondiscrimination category, but they didn’t just copy and paste that section. They amended it to remove parents' or guardians’ consent to change a minor’s name or sex on the permanent record,” Jacobson said. “We asked for a legal analysis which found some errors. They suggested we bring parents back in, to being involved in creating a plan to support the student ‘as appropriate’ and requiring written parental consent for minors to change their name and/or sex on the permanent record.”

The San Mateo Daily Journal continued to blame Jacobson for not rubber stamping a policy that would have let schools decide when and if to involve parents in their child’s major life change. This is how bad policy happens, it’s how we’ve gotten where we are now—trustees and committee members are discouraged from taking the time to educate themselves, facts are labeled as anti-trans, and they’re pressured to go along with nice sounding language without realizing that inclusion means inclusion of males in female sports, and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity removes girls’ Title IX rights.

Of Jacobson’s statement, up top there, the Daily Journal had this to say:

Jacobson elaborated further and shared anti-trans statements including that most children who question their gender identity will “grow out of it” and described gender dysphoria as a “social contagion.” She added that “athletes should compete in sports based on sex,” and that allowing students to play with their identified gender is a failure in protecting girls.

Again, all of Jacobson’s points were factual, easily corroborated with a simple search which, as journalists they could have and should have done, but the Daily Journal lazily opined that they were all “anti-trans.”

Add to that well-worn activist playbook, the Daily Journal scraped bottom, unfortunately quite common in attacks on those who dare to talk sense—they identified one of the commenters as Jacobson’s daughter, and also labeled her comments anti-trans, exposing a minor to serious safety concerns:

At Jacobson' s request, the matter was pushed from the meeting Aug. 14, to Aug. 28. At the second board meeting, board President Robert Griffin announced the matter would be pushed yet again following questions and concerns raised by family members over the policy.

Although the matter was delayed, public commenters at the meeting Aug. 28, already amassed to discuss the topic and shared their opinions — which were largely anti-trans in nature, and spoke to matters beyond the policy discussed — during public comment.

In addition to members of the public who had no connection to the district but have been national figures opposing trans inclusionary policies and laws was Jacobson's daughter who attends Hillsdale High School.

The Hillsdale girls varsity lacrosse team lost a tournament game to a team whose “best player” was described by Jacobson’s daughter as a boy who dominated the field. Jacobson’s daughter said she wished the district would establish a separate mixed-gender team instead of “disrupting or jeopardizing female athletics."

Jacobson contacted the reporter and editor, questioning calling a commenter with the last name of Jacobson her daughter, and requesting they remove the language labeling her comment as anti-trans. Instead the editor doubled down on ethically questionable treatment of a minor by saying they connected Jacobson and her daughter through social media, thus it was fair game. The editor also defended labeling factual statements as anti-trans, not to mitigate or stir up controversy, but because they deemed them anti-trans. Wait, huh? Apparently the editor was confused over the difference between reporting and opinion.

As a believe-it-or-not side note, the boy that Jacobson’s daughter spoke about dominating girls’ lacrosse was SIMULTANEOUSLY playing elite level boys’ volleyball, as reported by HeCheated.org.

The Daily Journal concluded their “coverage” of these meetings by saying that trustee Bob Griffin also noted the length of time devoted to discussion of this issue, making it seem as if everyone was put out over Jacobson’s tiresome “anti-trans” rhetoric, when in fact, before the meeting concluded, trustee Teri Chavez and Griffin himself commented that they too had concerns about allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports.

I contacted Jacobson because I could hardly believe that not one, but three, school board trustees in one district were willing to speak out about the harms of gender ideology and impact on girls’ rights. A couple years ago, that would not have happened. The tide is turning. That’s undoubtedly news to the San Mateo Daily Journal.