LOS ANGELES (AP) - Ending a standoff that threatened funding, the state Department of Education has approved the Westminster School District's revised policy on gender discrimination.

But state Superintendent Jack O'Connell had strong words for the school board.

"In fact, it appears the district may intend to deny protection from discrimination and harassment to a class of students that the law clearly protects," O'Connell wrote to the Westminster board president.

Despite protests from parents and other district residents, three of five members of the Westminster school board repeatedly refused to adopt the state's version of a policy intended to protect transgender students, and those whose appearance or behavior may be considered unusual for their sex, from discrimination.

The three dissenters said they believed the state's law is immoral and would promote homosexuality and transsexuality. Officials had warned that the Orange County district could lose up to $10 million in funding if it was found to be out of compliance with state law.

O'Connell and lawyers for the Department of Education spent a week reviewing the district's policy before determining it was acceptable.

"As a local board of education, you lack authority to defy state law by adopting your own definition of gender based on your own personal prejudice," O'Connell wrote.

He added that the board's "policy pronouncement on gender" carries "no legal effect or authority," and that the district is still required to resolve any complaints of alleged discrimination on any basis.

But the district's attorney, Mark Bucher, said the state's language is vague, and the district's position is sound.

"In the regulation, it talks about the perception of somebody's sex ... but it doesn't make it clear whose perception, and the vagueness is, can a man perceive himself to be a woman and claim discrimination if you refuse to treat him as a woman, even though he's clearly a man?" Bucher said.

The board eventually adopted its own language that defines gender in its discrimination complaint policy as "the biological sex of an individual or the alleged discriminator's perception of the alleged victim." It goes on to say that the "perception of the alleged victim is not relevant to the determination of 'gender' ... It is the perception of the alleged discriminator which is relevant."

The board was informed in February that the policy needed to be changed to be in compliance with state law, but the three members held out through several meetings. In April, they voted to approve the language declaring the victim's perception of their gender irrelevant.