From: Jon Uhler <jkuvpc@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2019 7:16 PM To: VBroyles <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>; Andre Van Mol <95andrev@gmail.com>; Lee Schoenbeck <lee@schoenbecklaw.com>; Michael Laidlaw <mike@drlaidlaw.com>; 'Jon Hansen' <hansen.jonathon@gmail.com>; William Malone <malone.will@gmail.com>; Mary McAlister <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>; Richard Mast <RMast@lc.org>; Walt Heyer <waltsbook@yahoo.com>; Matt Sharp <msharp@adflegal.org>; James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com>; Chris Motz <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>; Katherine Cave <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>; Michelle Cretella <drmcretella@gmail.com>; michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk; pamosa27@comcast.net; Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> Subject: Re: update Thanks for all your work. On Saturday, August 17, 2019, 06:25:32 PM EDT, Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> wrote: All, just a note to update you on status of the Vulnerable Child Protection Act. I’m comfortable the bill and white paper are at or near final form. I’ve begun my road trips across the state to meet with key moderate Republicans. Response has been mixed but mostly positive. Not a single legislator I’ve spoken with so far has a clue about what’s happening with transgender advocacy nor affirmative therapy. All of this is new to them. Despite the generally positive response, I have no doubt this will be an uphill battle when we get to session. The last time I introduced a transgender-related bill in 2016, the state and the governor experienced political and economic pressures including boycott threats from around the country. I doubt this time will be any different. I meet with the governor’s top policy advisor next week to discuss the bill. I’ve targeted about 20% of the legislature to meet one-on-one prior to session. KC from Kelsey Coalition will be developing her suggested strategy for testimony that I’ll bounce off our South Dakota team. As always, please do not share this with media. The longer we can fly under the radar, the better. Please let me know if you have questions. I am grateful for your support and prayers. Fred -www.KelseyCoalition.org Sent: To: Cc: 8/19/2019 6:37:30 AM "James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe)" <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> "Kelsey Coalition" <kelseycoalition@gmail.com>, "Lee Schoenbeck" <lee@schoenbecklaw.com>, "Fred Deutsch" <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov>, "Andre Van Mol" <95andrev@gmail.com>, "Jon Uhler" <jkuvpc@yahoo.com>, "VBroyles" <vbroyles@childparentrights.org>, "Laidlaw Michael" <mike@drlaidlaw.com>, "Jon Hansen" <hansen.jonathon@gmail.com>, "William Malone" <malone.will@gmail.com>, "Mary McAlister" <mmcalister@childparentrights.org>, "Mast Richard" <RMast@lc.org>, "Heyer Walt" <waltsbook@yahoo.com>, "Sharp Matt" <msharp@adflegal.org>, "Chris Motz" <cmotz@sdcatholicconference.org>, "michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk" <michael.biggs@sociology.ox.ac.uk>, "pamosa27@comcast.net" <pamosa27@comcast.net> Subject: Re: update Jamie’s new version does seem explicit to me despite my previous objection to adding biological. I also think “incorrect perception†as KC suggested works well. Sent from my iPhone On Aug 19, 2019, at 9:51 AM, James Shupe (Formerly Jamie Shupe) <jamie.shupe@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm still in favor of Andre's version, with just a change to biological instead of natal, because it tackles both meanings very explicitly. Proposed: "attempting to change the child’s acceptance of their biological sex or to affirm the child’s perception if other than their biological sex.†Andre's original: "attempting to change the child’s acceptance of their natal sex or to affirm the child’s perception if other than their natal sex.†I had my wife, who largely stays out of the trans issues, read the paragraph last night and she was confused by the language in the sentence we've been debating, so there's definitely a problem with it. On Monday, August 19, 2019, 09:30:07 AM EDT, Fred Deutsch <Fred.Deutsch@sdlegislature.gov> wrote: All, what do you think about KC’s suggest to add incorrect to the sentence: “...attempting to change or affirm the child’s incorrect perception of their sex.†I like the idea – I think it helps to further narrow the bill and avoids causing problems with other medical conditions. But does adding the word cause add’l problems? The other side will certainly argue “who are you to say what’s an incorrect perception?†The answer, of course, is if perception varies from reality, than it is an incorrect perception (the bill’s definition of sex is reality). That said, the process is political. Does the change cast doubt in the mind of legislators about who is to say what’s an incorrect perception? - Fred