This is an ominous development since anybody perceived to be "TS", whether it be actually students who regard themselves gender-queer, persons with an intersexed condition and concommitant "gender issues", or those with so-called gender dysphoria/identity "disorder" will fall within that established "category" These actions by fundamentalists seemingly are an attempt to criminalize any such human beings by subjecting them to "penal code" applications:

WESTMINSTER, Calif. (AP) - With help from a Christian legal rights group, the school board voted to sue the state Department of Education in an effort to change the definition of the word "gender" in the anti-discrimination policy for all California schools.
Board members Judy Ahrens, Helena Rutkowski and Blossie Marquez consider a state law that defines gender as "a person's actual or perceived sex" as immoral and they voted Thursday to challenge the definition in court.
The Westminster School District board members believe the state education definition conflicts with the state penal code - which defines gender as "a person's biological sex" - and therefore schools should not be required to comply with it.
The Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian organization that wages legal battles promoting traditional religious views, agreed to represent the district and pay all legal costs.
"This is a legal not a moral battle," said Robert H. Tyler, an attorney with the group. "We see this anti-discrimination policy as a contradiction with the law."
Ahrens, Marquez and Rutkowski have said the state's definition could promote transsexual behavior in schools and they repeatedly voted this year against adopting an anti-discrimination policy that included the state's definition of gender.
The board eventually adopted the state policy but attached the penal code wording.
State Superintendent Jack O'Connell, who threatened to withhold millions in school funding, accepted the district's policy but rejected the attached definition.

The above news item dated 9/3/04 is found under the below link 3 articles from the top header.

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/m...ews/9575248.htm

Actually that's not what it means. The bit about the penal code is an example of the kind of nonsense that so many people hate lawyers for.

In 1998, California passed a hate crimes bill which increased punishment for crimes motivated by the victim's sexual orientation or gender. This law defined gender as "the victim's actual sex or the defendant's perception of the victim's sex, and includes the defendant's perception of the victim's identity, appearance, or behavior, whether or not that identity, appearance, or behavior is different from that traditionally associated with the victim's sex at birth." (California Penal Code Section 422.76)

In 2000, the California legislature added the same prohibitions to the education code (AB 537) and last year also passed an employment non-discrimination act (AB 196) which referenced the definition of gender in the penal code. So that is how the penal code definition entered into this.

Apparently, an older section of the penal code contains another definition of gender as "a person's biological sex". Obviously the religious fundamentalists liked that better, so they want to use that definition instead, despite the fact the the education code specifically referred to Penal Code section 422.6 et seq. So this is a really stupid argument.

Thanks for the clarification of the penal code usage, neko.