What’s behind California’s hostility to parents being apprised of their children’s gender identity? It stems from two central presumptions.

The first is that nonbinary gender identification is an essential good that must be encouraged. …

The second presumption is that, on matters concerning sex and gender, the state holds authority over a child’s life, not parents. The aforementioned SB-107 and the quartet of bills that will soon take effect in California make this plain. During debate on the Orange Unified School District’s proposed parental notification policy, opposing board member Kris Erickson stated that “parents do have expansive rights and they should; but they don’t own their children . . . There are certain rules that still apply, and children still have the rights, and we have a duty to protect their health, welfare, and their education.” Maybe so. But aiding and abetting a child’s sexual transition is something entirely different. In California, however, the state presumes to decide what’s in that child’s best interest. Any objection must be motivated by animus. That’s Bonta’s position.

[It’s simpler than that. California progressives have decided that the state owns children, and that parents only have authority granted by the state at the state’s discretion. In that, they are no different than any other socialists. The gender-identity fad is merely their current excuse. — Ed]