Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transgender Student Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and LGBTQ advocates criticize Kern County board’s prior resolution on transgender students
Summary
Public commenters told the Kern County Board of Education that a previously adopted August resolution opposing transgender girls in girls’ sports harms students and contradicts California law; the board heard requests for protections and did not revisit the resolution at this meeting.
Public commenters urged the Kern County Board of Education to address the harm they said flowed from an August 2025 board resolution opposing transgender girls’ participation in girls’ sports. At the December meeting, speakers described the resolution’s effect on students’ safety and requested concrete protections.
Kathy Arrieta, who identified herself as a concerned citizen with family in the district, said the resolution’s rhetoric sidelines transgender students and “emboldens and propers the bullying.” Arrieta cited research, saying transgender youth are “2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience depressive symptoms, seriously consider suicide, and attempt suicide compared to cisgender peers,” and asked what measures the board would take to prevent discrimination and harassment.
Jocelyn Frias of California Rural Legal Assistance, who said her organization operates an LGBTQ+ justice program, told trustees the August resolution conflicts with California law that allows students to participate in sports and use facilities according to their gender identity. Frias described the resolution as “misgendering” students and cited national and academic surveys documenting harassment of LGBTQ students. She asked the board to take steps to help transgender students “thrive as they are equally a part of this community.”
Trustees did not take a new action on the August resolution at this meeting. Several trustees later referenced statewide legal developments and pending litigation when discussing related policy items, and the board president said the board would not proceed with posting the Ten Commandments at this time, citing legal risks and recent community input.
The public comments were recorded during the meeting’s public-comment period; trustees acknowledged the speakers and thanked them for their testimony. The board did not schedule a policy vote or a formal staff directive tied to the public comments during the session, though trustees said staff would continue to brief the board on related legal and policy updates.
What happens next: Trustees said they have been monitoring state and federal developments on civil-rights enforcement and will continue to receive legal updates. No new resolution or policy was adopted at the December meeting.
