Proposal to discuss transgender athletics in Elk Grove schools rejected by EGUSD Board of Trustees
EGUSD Trustees warned - "Mark my words on this. I am a messenger of God."
After a lengthy public comment period during their regular meeting on Wednesday, September 23, the Elk Grove Unified School District Board of Trustees voted against a resolution that would have ultimately addressed the participation of transgender athletes contrary to state law.
Area 7 Trustee Heidi Moore proposed the resolution, which was titled "Title IX and Fairness in Girls' Interscholastic Sports." According to the staff report, the resolution would have placed the item on a future agenda for consideration.
During the public comment period on non-agenda items and when the item was heard near the end of the meeting, most speakers expressed support for Ms. Moore's pursuit. The arguments were mainly framed in the backdrop of Title IX requirements and the assertion of biological differences between assigned birth genders.
Typical of the speakers was Mr. Nate Le, who told the Trustees that he had access to billionaires and would use those relationships to seek their removal from office.
"If it takes voting you guys out to do what's righteous for girls' sports, that's what I am going to do," he said (see video below). "Mark my words on this. I am a messenger of God."
Mr. Le added, "Vote righteously."
The district staff recommended rejecting Moore's proposal. Addressing the reasons for the recommendation was Superintendent Christopher Hoffman, who stated that the resolution was "contrary to California state law."
Ms. Moore argued that the resolution should be placed on a future agenda item as a matter of fairness for women's athletics. Additionally, she asserted that state laws violate Title IX.
"Let me be clear, this is a civil rights issue," Moore said. "Historically, there were several feminist rights groups that fought for equality in sports."
After deliberations and public comments, Moore made a motion to place the matter on a future agenda. Because there was no second, the motion failed and therefore will not be placed on a future agenda.
