AB 957 Debate Panel, Part 1

AB 957 Debate Panel, Part 1

AB 957 Debate Panel

This week I appeared on a debate panel with India Willoughby and Dr. Gideo Karplus.  The debate aired Global Eye on i24News, filmed in Tel Aviv.  Ellie Hochenberg was the moderator.

India is an English newsreader, broadcaster, journalist and reality television personality. She is Britain’s first transgender national television newsreader and the first transgender co-host of an all-women talk show, Loose Women on ITV.

Gideo is the Head of Surgical Gastrointestinal Surgery unit in Sheba Medical Center at Sheba Tel HaShomer City of Health.

Below is the video and transcript.

Welcome

Moderator:  Welcome back thanks for staying with us.

Our panelists already lined up, so without further ado, let’s welcome tonight’s summit.

Introduction to Panelists

And today joining us from London: broadcaster and a journalist India Willoughby.

From Los Angeles: Constitution and family law attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

And Dr. Gideon Karplus, pediatric surgeon from Sheba Medical Center here in Israel.

Debate Topic: New California Legislation

Hello all and thank you so very much for joining us today. Our main topic new legislation is suggesting parents in California might be a risk of losing custody should they fail to affirm their child’s gender identity.

Is it a step forward in entrance rights or a step too far?

Let’s take a closer look and pick up the conversation from there.

Video About AB 957

California looks to make parental gender acceptance of a child a factor that judges will consider when making custody and visitation decisions. The new bill, which cleared state Senate, was introduced by lawmaker Laurie Wilson, a Democrat who has a transgender son. Wilson says that gender affirmation would be one factor, amongst others, to be considered and would not be the only component that judges must weigh during custody cases.

Every Republican in the state Senate voted against the bill.

Opponents say that it violates the right to privacy as well as freedom of speech and religion. Supporters
say that the proposed law protects the health and well-being of transgender children.

Is this a preventative measure to protect transgender children or a violation of parental rights?

Will this proposed law affect other states and should gender acceptance factor into custody cases.

30-Second Lightning Round: Should Gender Acceptance Factor Into Custody Case?

All right dear panelists, let’s get to it: Should gender acceptance factor into custody cases?

As always, we begin with a quick fire round: 30 seconds each to learn your initial sense on the matter and we pick up the conversation from there.

So India Willoughby, please take the lead, 30 seconds on.

India Willoughby

India: Yes, it absolutely should be a factor. We all want what’s best for our kids right.  And the diagnostic criteria for somebody being trans is persistent and consistent. And if some child has demonstrated that over a period of time, then we’ve got to accept it.

If you’ve got the backing of one parent and a doctor, then that will outweigh a parent who is opposed to it for purely ideological reasons.

Moderator: Kelly Chang Rickert, your thoughts.

Attorney Kelly Chang Rickert

Kelly:  No, like any religion, gender acceptance should not factor into custody cases.  Courts usually steer away from favoring one religion over another.  Gender ideology is absolutely a religion and doing so, awarding custody based on religion is unconstitutional, and I don’t believe it should be done.

Moderator: Last, but not least, Dr. Gideon Karpus, your thoughts.

Dr. Gideo Karplus

Gideon: Yes, gender has nothing to do with religion.  Gender has something to do with a child’s well-being.  If a child has a gender issue ,and a child sees himself as a certain gender and the parent doesn’t accept it, it’s going to affect his well-being.

I think it’s definitely one of the factors that should be weighed in when you decide on a custody case.

Moderator: All right, dear panelists, please feel free to interact from this point onwards to engage in a conversation.

And I do want to begin from the point Kelly made, and ask you, India: Is it a matter of civil liberties or of government intervention?

Is it a matter of civil liberties or of government intervention?

India: Well, it’s a little bit of both.  You know, it is a civil liberty to be who you are and nobody should try and change that.  And just to pick up on the Republican point of view, which is that trans is a religion.

Well, I’ve never heard anything so preposterous in my life.

Trans people exist in all walks of life throughout time and the Republicans are obviously pushing this in a big way. They see it as a key to getting into much deeper territory, which is then going to impact LGBT rights across the board, and eventually abortion.

We’ve already seen that in America where they’re pushing back on women’s rights, the rights to have an abortion.

So trans people are being used as a pawn here mainly by the US religious right, and it’s a natural occurring aspect of humanity, not zero 0.2 percent of the world’s population.

All the doctors perceive very carefully. There’s lots of caution involved and any stories you hear about children being fast-tracked for sex change operations is frankly a load of rubbish.

Moderator: Kelly.

Kelly Chang Rickert

Kelly: Hi.  So I think there’s a big misunderstanding about this bill. It has nothing to do with trans rights. It’s an attack on parental rights, parents and families that are already going through a hard time in divorce.

And this is what the bill says, because I think there’s a huge misunderstanding.

So currently, custody in a custody battle is awarded based on the best interests of a child.  And right now, it says in assessing best interests of the child, you have to look to the health, safety and welfare.

This bill wants to add gender affirmation to the health, safety and welfare.  So it’s adding an extra thing that was not there before.  It was purposely left blank because parents were free to choose what’s in the best interests of their child.

So you know if you have a Jew and a Muslim getting a divorce, the courts aren’t going to be like I favor Jewish people.  So I’m going to give custody to a Jewish parent based on religion.  In the same manner, it should not be, you know, I’m gender affirming, my husband’s not. Then you would award custody to the not gender affirming or the gender affirming.

It should not be a factor in custody cases, not at all.

India Willoughly

India:  I think you’re getting a little bit confused there with religion all the time.  Trans is a medical diagnosis. It’s been recognized as such for many a year now, so I don’t see, well.

I do know why you’re comparing it to a religion.

You’re deliberately trying to be offensive really to the trans community and denigrate it into some belief system which that just isn’t the case –

Kelly:  – that’s not what I am doing!  I fully support you just as, I love you!  I don’t know you from anyone else, but this is not born out of hatred or anything.  This is just to do with the law and my concern is the politicians in California don’t care about trans rights. They’re using you guys as a pawn to inject themselves, and so that’s all they’re doing.

This has nothing to do with trans rights.  It only applies right now in family law cases.  They want to tie gender affirmation to health, safety and welfare.  They’re now going to inject it into other areas of law.  So it has nothing to do with protecting trans rights.

India: I think you’ll find the discussion is called gender identity and custody battles.  So clearly it does have to do with trans rights –

Kelly:  – but you’re assuming that the abusive parent is always going to be so.  For example, if you have a mother that always had custody and a gender-confused child, and then you have a father that just came out of prison, now all he has to do to get custody is to say, “Oh, I gender affirm.  Don’t know what that is,

Gideon:  -that’s not what the bill says. That’s not what the bill please. Yeah, no, no, I’m sorry that’s not what the bill says. And the other thing is that gender has nothing to do with religion and it has nothing to do with what the child decides it wants to be. It wants to be.

It has everything to do with what the child is, and once the parent doesn’t accept what the child is, then we have a problem with the child’s well-being. I don’t care if that it’s for LGBT rights or not. I really don’t care. I just want the parents to accept the gender of that child, and if it doesn’t do that then the wellbeing of the child is –

Kelly: – I mean a father just came out of prison right, he was in there for rape.  Allegedly.  And he comes out and he says, “I gender affirm the child. I gender affirm the child”, and he has never spent any time with the child, and now you’re opening these cases up for some serious problems, because now you’re messing with families, but you’re injecting.

You can call it a religion or don’t call it a religion. The way Wikipedia defines religion is a collected set of beliefs, practices, and systems that certain groups of people adhere to.  So there’s a lot of people. You or me that don’t subscribe to this right, so that’s why I call it a religion.

I’m not saying that gender is a religion.  I’m just saying it’s likened to religion in custody battles, court to stay away.

Gideon: You can also not subscribe to the fact that the sun rises every day, but it does and the fact is that there are children that are LGBTQ and you have to accept them as they are.  I don’t care what you think about gay rights. I just want you to accept the child for what it is and give it the love that it deserves.

Moderator: And yes, Dr. Karplus,  if I understand, I understand Kelly Chang Rickert.  The question here is whether children’s, a kid’s gender is going to be legally weaponized.

Gideon: I don’t think it’s used as a weapon. I think it used as a part evaluating the well-being of the child and how this child is going to be raised that all yes –

Kelly:  – Correct.  It has nothing to do with gender identity, it has more to do with the fact that someone can pretend to be gender-affirming

Moderator: it is difficult to hear all of you together and we do want to hear all of you, so Doctor, please conclude and then we can take a listen to India.

Gideon: This is only one of the factors that we’re going to weigh for a child to be in custody. And if the parent is an abusive parent or a parent that is not fit to be a parent, the fact that he’s gender affirmative, it has nothing to do with having custody.

Okay, yeah, the only thing that matters is what the well-being of that child. And you can’t decide that this child is not what it is.

Kelly: But you’re assuming –

India:  I agree 100% with Gideon and I know we’re hanging onto this religion thing.  But I don’t know any medical condition, any religion that is classed as a medical condition which totally blows out the water, the accusation, the Republican research and it doesn’t seem that look with aspect, you had a there.

So if you can just give me a go here, you heard in the three –

Kelly: May I clarify something because genderism isn’t always gender dysphoria correct? Like just because you fall under the umbrella of transgender doesn’t mean that you suffer gender dysphoria right. And so if affirmation of a child’s gender has nothing to do with gender dysphoria because not all transgender people suffer gender dysphoria, so then the question hinges on. What do you mean by affirming?

Is it as simple as you know little boy wants to be called a girl’s name? Is that affirming? And can a father who was abusive pretend to call this boy and then a girls you just to be gender affirming to get custody?

So that’s where I’m not debating like we’re not debating whether transgender is a religion or is right or wrong, we’re just debating whether this law, language –

India: Please, you’ve literally just spent, You’ve literally just spent a minimum of five minutes talking about trans people in the context of it being a religion so then to come on have coveralls basis.  So not give me a gender. No, give me –

Kelly: I didn’t say that – I said transgender is the umbrella –

India:  –  yeah, yeah, one chance here, so yeah, as I was saying you know, gender dysphoria is a recognized medical condition and has been for many a year. There’s a general medical consensus around the world the best way to treat it. Clearly. There is a sway of opinion in the Republican Party and other rightwing forces that is totally against trans and wider LGBT people as a whole, and they will come up with all sorts of reasons to stop trans people.

I think there’s something like 200 bills going through America at the moment. In certain states in America now it’s actually tantamount to being illegal to be trans. You can have your children taken off you harking back to other much darker times in history, which is a terrible thing. And it’s all done by scare stories that Republican forces are putting forward all right.

Moderator: And on that note, we obviously have so much more to unpack here, but we really need to take a quick break, but we will be back in a couple of minutes with all three of you.

India Willoughby, Kelly Chang Rickert, and Dr. Gideon Karplus.  You’re staying with us and so should you, their viewers don’t go anywhere a few minutes and we’re back with us something.

Go to Part 2 of debate.