By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Sacramento, CA – Governor Newsom signed into law on Monday, among other bills, AB 1955, introduced by Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego) and the California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus. The bill came in response to policies in several school districts that have sought to forcibly out students.
“Politically motivated attacks on the rights, safety, and dignity of transgender, nonbinary, and other LGBTQ+ youth are on the rise nationwide, including in California,” said Assemblymember Ward. “While some school districts have adopted policies to forcibly out students, the SAFETY [Support Academic Futures & Educators for Today’s Youth] Act ensures that discussions about gender identity remain a private matter within the family. As a parent, I urge all parents to talk to their children, listen to them, and love them unconditionally for who they are.”
The bill arose in response to over a dozen school districts which have proposed or implemented policies requiring teachers to inform parents if their child identifies as transgender or requests to be identified by a different name or pronouns at school.
According to a release from Assemblymember Ward’s office, “These policies have 
significantly impacted the mental health of LGBTQ+ students, and can lead to instances of bullying, harassment, and discrimination.”
The SAFETY Act addresses these issues by:
- Prohibiting school districts from enacting forced outing policies.
- Providing resources for parents and students to manage conversations about gender and identity privately.
- Protecting teachers and school staff from retaliation if they refuse to forcibly out a student.
Since 2020, eight states have enacted laws mandating school staff to forcibly out transgender students, while five others have passed legislation encouraging such actions.
California becomes the first state to explicitly prohibit forced outing policies in schools.
“Despite homes not always being safe for transgender youth, schools should be a sanctuary. According to a 2024 Trevor Project survey, less than 40% of transgender and nonbinary youth find their homes to be LGBTQ-affirming,” the release explained. “Conversely, more than half of transgender and nonbinary young people reported that their schools are gender-affirming, which correlates with lower suicide attempt rates.”
Ward’s office called The SAFETY Act “a significant step forward in ensuring that all students, regardless of their gender identity, have a supportive and safe environment to learn and grow.”
“Today is a great day for California,” said California Legislative LGBTQ Caucus Chair Susan Eggman. “With the Governor’s signature on AB 1955, a first in the nation policy, reaffirms California’s position as a leader and safe haven for LGBTQ+ youth everywhere. I am incredibly proud of our LGBTQ Caucus, and Assemblymember Ward in particular, for their leadership on this life-saving legislation.”
“This essential legislation safeguards against policies that forcibly out students, offers vital resources for families, and protects educators who foster inclusive environments,” said Trans Family Support Services Executive Director Kathie Moehlig. “By preventing undue interventions in personal family matters, the SAFETY Act ensures private and consensual discussions between students and their parents. This bill is a crucial step toward making all California students feel safe and supported at school.”
“Today, with the signing of AB 1955, every student in California will hopefully feel safe and welcome in their classrooms,” said CFT President Jeff Freitas. “This is a major step in protecting the privacy of our students and keeping the focus of our educators on providing the best possible education that they can.”
“In California, LGBTQ+ students –– like all students –– have the right to a safe and welcoming school environment,” said Becca Cramer-Mowder with ACLU California Action. “With the Governor’s signature, our state becomes the first in the country to ensure protections against forced outing in school are clearly enshrined in statute. LGBTQ+ students and their families deserve to decide on their own terms when and how to have conversations about coming out.”
“The SAFETY Act could not be more timely or necessary, and LGBTQ+ students across California can breathe a sigh of relief following the Governor’s action today,” said Equality California Executive Director Tony Hoang. “LGBTQ+ youth across California can now have these important family conversations when they are ready and in ways that strengthen the relationship between parent and child, not as a result of extremist politicians intruding into the parent-child relationship.”
“Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California (PPAC) is proud to see Assembly Bill 1955 signed into law to ensure inclusive school environments where students feel safe to be themselves is the standard in California, not the exception,” said PPAC President and CEO Jodi Hicks. “We know the same extremists who attack reproductive health care are also intent on restricting the right of LGBTQ+ students to feel safe and supported at school as they learn and grow.”
The SAFETY Act represents a great victory in the never ending battle to protect LGBTQ+ human and civil rights against hard right extremists.
Just because a home is not affirming, does not mean it is not safe. That’s an implicit assumption in this legislation, which is a dangerous overreach by government.
Even though parents and children may disagree on issues, the overwhelming majority of parents have their children’s best interest in mind. You may not agree with it, government might not agree with it, but they do.
The state of California has decided that people who are essentially strangers (i.e. teachers) have more of an understanding of the nuance of family life than do the parents who have been with their children since (mostly) birth.
In order to rationalize this legislation, there are three assumptions being made. First that the child knows what’s best for them (this is the gnosticism inherent in trans ideology). This is a massive fallacy especially when we understand the confusing environment to which children are subjected in this age of constant social media engagement.
Second, the assumption that disagreement with parents is inherently dangerous. This is nonsense and is pushed by the activists who (and I speculate here) had terrible times with their own parents and are projecting that onto the rest of the parents out here.
Third, the assumption that the state (as represented by a teacher or the school) knows better than the family. Another nonsense that tears down the fabric of the family in favor of the will of the state.
CA has decided that the moral/cultural decision of the majority must be imposed on everyone. This is tyranny of the majority and I wouldn’t have it if I were in a deeply religious constituency either.
With proportionally little exceptions, the most ardent and insightful nurturers of child development are their families. The schools should be partners of the families, and as partners we share information that is needed to nurture the child. This is also why public schools should not push belief systems that have no factual basis and come into conflict with other belief systems in our society (whether it be established religions or gnostic cults).
l said Joseph, I agree 100% with everyone you wrote here.
“Well said Joseph”
The decision to inform the parents should be the student’s. Requiring teachers, counselors, or principals to inform the parents can lead to harmful situations. Obviously it is best to involve the whole family when possible. But this law is intended to prevent school districts from forcing school employees to contact parents.
This is neither provable nor falsifiable. I have seen surveys that show that a significant percentage of trans adolescents do not feel supported at home. Trans and gay adolescents are disproportionately represented among homeless youth, and have much higher rates of suicide.
Yes, you are speculating without any evidence.
“Disagreement” about your very identity is pretty fundamental. Many parents don’t believe there is such a thing as transgenderism. Some believe that adolescents have come to their trans identity only due to direct influence of others. If you don’t respect someone’s identity and won’t let them live it, it’s pretty likely that home life will become unacceptable.
Again, neither provable nor falsifiable. You don’t have to pass a test or get a license to make a baby and keep it. When my kids were teenagers, I knew parents who neither knew nor even cared where their kids were nor what they were doing. But even if we accept your premise, what do you do about those “proportionally little exceptions”?
Arguably it is the student who knows best about the safety of their own home in this regard. They may have misconceptions about their parents and how they’ll respond, but I think you can see how it might be useful for them to proceed with some professional input rather than being outed involuntarily.
Part of the problem stems from where these policies that the bill addresses are coming from. It’s in an environment in which trans youth have to make bathroom choices, can’t participate in sports, have to endure bullying or harassment, and are facing restrictions on medical care. In effect, those who are pushing hard against these protections are saying that trans youth should be required to remain in the closet. That is provably unhealthy.
No, if the adults (school) knows about it then they should be the partners of the parents and tell the parents. Yes, requiring schools to inform the parents could put children into harmful situations. And requiring schools to not tell parents could ALSO put children into harmful situations. However, the latter breaks the compact between schools and parents where the schools are seen as a proxy for the parents.
Teens can tell other teens without telling their schools. They can speak to their health care providers if they are concerned about their schools reporting to their parents.
You all don’t see two steps down the line. And again, you assume that the parents are going to react badly. Don’t bring “provable” into this… what has been disproved by the Cass Report is that transitioning actually helps kids.
David, your use of “forcibly” here is risible. States require teachers to report to parents. There is no force involved (other than the force expelling the hot air that spins this issue as “far right”).
This is statist and anti-family.
The language came directly from the law: “came in response to policies in several school districts that have sought to forcibly out students.”
To say this is not ‘forced’ outing is disingenuous at best because it is obviously not voluntary. The people in favor of abhorrent forced/involuntary student outing policies are attempting to spin this important issue nine ways to Sunday. Really?
If the child is self transitioning toward adults at school, then the parents should know.
They child does not have to express this to the adults at school.
Parents knowing has a full range of possible consequences, among them….
1) unexpectedly sympathetic parents.
2) parents who will work with the children.
3) parents who disagree with the children and open a discussion
4) —- ?? and so on and so on down the line to include parents being abusive.
But the negative consequences of teachers keeping secrets from parents is far more damaging to the social fabric. If the parents become abusive there are other mechanisms to deal with this and children should be aware of those mechanisms.
Again, you are all looking one step down the line about the consequences of this law.
Typo above. I meant “If a child is demonstrating their transition to the adults at school”.
The way this is written one would think that children were being outed to the world. No, it was just the parents who would’ve been notified of what pronouns their children were using in schools.
*just*
That word minimizes the fact that school boards set a policy, the state went to court to block them, and the state legislature and governor passed legislation to prevent other school districts from doing the same. Whatever side you come down on, minimizing the issue with the modifier *just* seems to downplay the efforts on both sides of the issue, does it not?
There is a huge difference between outing a student to the world and “just” their parents. Do you not agree?
I don’t agree.
If you can’t realize the difference then I can’t help you.
That’s because you’re not thinking this issue through from the perspective of someone who has actually lived it. When my child came out, they did so after multiple suicide attempts, under the guidance of teachers and counselors. They did so to us after having thoroughly discussed and worked with trained professionals and did so in a space that they felt safe, comfortable and supported. We showed them love and support through the entire process, but it was difficult and very delicate. I worry about kids who don’t have that kind of support and often teachers are on the front line of that trust and if they don’t have that support system, I worry about how many kids will be harmed. You’re not thinking through this issue from that perspective. You have not lived that experience. Maybe you should stop being flippant and start thinking through how to actually address trauma and harm.
That was your experience and I respect that. That doesn’t mean that would be the experience of most others. I believe that having parents involved would be advantageous to most children in whatever they were dealing with. And maybe it’s you that should stop being flippant, something you often do.
The question is not whether having parents involved is advantageous, the question is whether the best approach is mandate a teacher to inform parents. It puts the teacher in a bad position and potentially leaves the student with no safe routes to go before they are ready to talk to their parents.
Keith jokes around whenever he doesn’t have any meaningful to say or just gets frustrated. It’s a definite pattern with him.
Walter, where am I joking around here? Please give an example.
??
Anyway, this takes away local control.
David, this breaks the compact between teachers and parents. There are other mechanisms to deal with abusive parents.
If telling parens that children are transitioning puts children in conflict with parents, well, that’s life. [In fact, a similar thing happened to me growing up when my teacher revealed something to my parents that I didn’t want them to reveal. It lead to horrible and difficult conversations, but as an adult I now understand that I’m grateful my parents were informed.]
This law presupposes that the parent will be abusive. It puts the values of the state (worse yet, the values of a single teacher who has no oversight) ahead of the values of individual families. It allows individual teachers to impose their values, without oversight, on vulnerable kids.
Those who support this social fabric shredding law can only see the possibility of abuse by families, but not the possibility of abuse by teachers and the school system.
Furthermore, why does the state have to get involved in this when individual jurisdictions can find their way for themselves?
I’m hopeful this, like other CA gov’t overreach laws, will be shredded in court.
I want to respond to the issue of “abusive parents.”
I don’t agree that this is aimed at abusive parents. I think my kid – and other people’s kids who I have spoken with recently – needed to be able to come out to the parents on their own terms. I was appreciative that my kid had a safe place, was able to work with trusted adults, and then when they were ready, came out to us. For me at least, safety of the child was a real not a theoretical concern.
I think the worst thing you could have done with our kid is to have jumped that process – even though we were always going to be loving and accepting. What this law would do in my view is bypass the teacher as the adult the child confides in. I don’t think that’s a good outcome. If a kid isn’t coming out to the parent first there is a reason for that. You can’t force that issue.
Repercussions of the new AB 1955 law is going to cost CA a lot of money and jobs;
The law has nothing to do with his business, he’s just sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong.
Damn, all my replied got mis-ordered
Hopefully I cleared the right ones.
Often times people and businesses make decisions with their wallets like this when they don’t agree with the politics or policies of a given business or state. Ever heard of Bud Lite?
But the point is you can’t really craft laws in anticipation of “irrational” responses. But let’s take another scenario – Disney World leaves Florida in response to “Don’t Say Gay” – should that in your estimation negate the law? It happens a lot and the actor is a hero or goat depending on one’s perspective.
Yes it will. And it will break the relationship between parents and public education.
MAGA man child Musk and his cult want California to bow down to extortion. He was always going to desert California anyway in a hissy fit sooner or later. That’s how man children and their followers behave. Don’t hit your heads while you leave through the door. That would be such a shame.
David, I can’t seem to click “reply” to your responses, so this is a general response to everything said beofre.
I now realize that you (and the TRAs and activists) have co-opted the word “safe”.
This is a quote from Brianna Wu on Twitter which I shared with your twitter account.
———————
This is going to be an unpopular opinion. I think teachers should alert parents if their kids are trans at school. California’s law is bad. The trans community can’t have it both ways. That being trans is a health care issue that can cause suicide and that minors need health care access before puberty does lifelong damage. But also, it’s none of parent’s business? These are two mutually exclusive attitudes. And to me, getting those kids psychological care is the higher priority. I was a queer kid with crazy right wing parents who disowned me the second I came out. I do understand the risk. But if the school is aware of the situation, there are state resources and CPS if that child ends up homeless or abused.
———————-
There are other mechanisms to protect kids at risk. It is the teachers’ role to partner with parents, not to keep secrets from parents. Conflict at home is not “lack of safety” – it is inherent in the process of growing up. If that conflict becomes truly unsafe for a child, there are other mechanisms to deal with it.
Where does this stop? A kid is drinking, using marijuana, cutting, exhibiting signs of depression, behavior problems, or whatever else at school. Notifying the parents could create conflict at home, so do we keep it a secret?
Just because you and TRAs think that the way to resolve teenage growing up problems is “affirming their trans identity” does not mean that it actually helps (please look at the Cass Report), it does not mean that it is the only way to do so, and it definitely does not mean that is the way that the family wants to handle it. In a multi-cultural society like the US (or even CA with its vast cultural differences) it is the parents who must teach the children their cultural values and navigate the tensions that come with conflicting values between child and parent, it is not the state who does so.
It is especially absurd that this law prevents local districts from making values choices for themselves.