During Tuesday evening’s Kern County Board of Education meeting, the Board approved a Title IX resolution that prohibits transgender girls from participating on sports teams that match their gender identity. Critics say the measure unfairly targets transgender students, ignores scientific evidence, and could harm mental health, while supporters argue it protects fairness in girls’ athletics.
Following the meeting, Kern County Superintendent of Schools Chief of Staff Steve Sanders emphasized that the resolution does not directly impact most Kern County students.
“The resolution expresses the opinion of six of the seven members of the Kern County Board of Education, which has jurisdiction over about 400 students in the Alternative Education program run by KCSOS,” Sanders said. “Those students do not participate in any sports programs while enrolled with us. This is not a KCSOS resolution.”
Sanders clarified that the Board of Education does not oversee sports programs or have jurisdiction over Kern County’s 46 local school districts.
“The elected boards for each school district would need to adopt their own resolutions,” he said, adding that California law generally allows transgender student athletes to participate in sports consistent with their gender identity.
Greg Ardoin, with the California Teachers Association, said the resolution conflicts with both state law and athletic governing rules. He pointed to California Education Code 221.5(f), which states that students must be allowed to participate in sex-segregated school programs, including sports, in line with their gender identity “irrespective of the gender listed on the pupil’s records.”
“The California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) also has a bylaw 300D, which says all students should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner consistent with their gender identity,” Ardoin said. “If a school district tried to enforce this kind of resolution, they would definitely face a very steep lawsuit.”
Ardoin also commented that the resolution is outright bigotry, stating that, “They’re singling out this one population to exclude and target. They’re not truly looking for fairness, because there are so many other ways to address fairness, like equitable school funding, better training for coaches, and improved resources, without taking a gender stance.”
The resolution, passed in a 6-0 vote with Trustee Jose Gonzalez absent, is modeled after a similar measure recently approved in Orange County. It asserts that biological differences between male and female athletes can create inherent advantages in competitive sports and calls on governing bodies to ensure fairness in girls’ athletics.
Trustee Lori Cisneros, who introduced the measure, said she worked with Superintendent John Mendiburu and the board’s attorney to ensure the resolution complies with California law. She noted that the measure draws on language another county board approved and aligns with the state Education Code.
While the resolution focuses on girls’ sports, Trustee Mary Little questioned whether it should also address boys’ athletics. “Anytime it says girls’ sports, and it says that in a couple of different places, I do think that boys’ sports are targeted as well, and they could be,” Little said, suggesting that both should be included. Cisneros responded that Title IX is “specific to girls’ sports” but acknowledged the concern.
Cisneros framed the resolution as an effort to “bring Title IX back to its original intent” by clarifying that its protections apply based on biological sex rather than gender identity. She said she eventually hopes to add references to executive orders President Trump issued, including one “defending women from gender ideology extremism” and another “ending radical indoctrination in K–12 schooling.”
Public comments highlighted deep community division, though many speakers strongly opposed the resolution.
Lori Brashler opposed the measure, arguing it lacked a factual basis. “This resolution claims to be about fairness in sports, but there is no credible scientific evidence presented to support that claim,” she said, noting that major sports bodies such as the NCAA and the International Olympic Committee recognize that transgender athletes do not inherently have an unfair advantage. Brashler also warned that the policy would “erase intersex students” and “invite costly legal battles.”
Paul Linfesty also urged the board to reject the resolution, citing mental health concerns. “LGBTQ+ students are already facing suicide rates more than four times higher than their peers,” he said. “Resolutions like this make school feel hostile, unsafe, and unwelcoming for some of our most vulnerable kids.”
Other speakers supported the measure, framing it as a matter of fairness and protecting girls’ athletics. Terry Maxwell told the board, “We go to school knowing certain things. We shouldn’t have to be told that boys and girls are the same when it comes to sports.” He urged trustees to pass the resolution to ensure “boys compete with boys and girls compete with girls.”
Jeff Sanders echoed that sentiment, saying, “All boys should be treated as boys, all girls should be treated as girls. If you need transgenders to play in sports, get an all-transgender league.”
Erika Hawkyard, an advocate with The Source LGBT Center, argued that the measure targets one group while ignoring larger inequities in athletics.
“If the board truly cared about fairness, it would talk about equal funding for girls’ programs, better coaching resources, and ensuring that all students have the equipment they need,” said Hawkyard. “Instead, this resolution targets one marginalized group while ignoring real inequities. Protecting women means protecting all women, including trans women.”
