“Don’t Say Gay,” CRT, & Trans Sports Bans: What Education Professionals Need to Know

Over the last two years we’ve found ourselves in the midst of a culture war, with repeated attacks on trans and queer rights (especially that of trans kids), the teaching of truthful accounts of our country’s ugly history of racism, colonialism, and genderism, and an encroachment upon the professional judgements and expertise of education professionals. To some folx, this might seem like cultural whiplash – how do we go from the BLM protests of 2020, the Obergefell (legalizing LGBTQ+ marriage) and Bostock (LGBTQ+ protections against employment discrimination) Supreme Court decisions, and the praising of teachers as heroes at the start of the pandemic, to…well….this.

While I understand where these folx are coming from, the truth of the matter is, these attacks are not new. They are simply the latest manifestation of a long history of the Right’s attempt to induce fear in political conservatives (thus rallying the conservative base to get out and vote) in order to help maintain political power and to “thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fully in civic life”(p. 3). So, to understand our current political climate and what we can do about it, it is important that we first take a moment to go back and explore how we got here.

These Attacks Are Not New

I should start by noting that I’m not a history scholar and the information in this section only scratches the surface of what I’ve come to understand about the history of curriculum, schooling, and the controversy surrounding the purpose of schooling and what children should be taught in schools. I highly recommend that you do your own research beyond this blog post, as is required for developing a nuanced understanding on any given issue. 

While the debate over what should be taught in schools (not to mention how it should be taught) has likely been raging since the start of American schooling, the first documented occurrence I was able to find was from the late 1800s. Following the Civil War, the United Daughters of the Confederation (UDC) began sounding the alarm, stating that “Northerners were peddling a false narrative of the Civil War, ”(p.49) one that portrayed southern traditions and history in a negative light. As a result, the UDC began writing their own history textbooks which “interject[ed] a strong pro-Southern narrative”, “challenge[d] the falsities of the North and…uph[e]ld the legacy of the Confederacy and the ‘Lost Cause’” (p. 49). The arguments used by southern leaders in support of the UDC’s curricular initiatives mimicked many of those that we hear today, namely that texts “authored and published by northerners…indoctrinated southern children in a nationalism born out of a Union victory, which relegated their region to a place of dishonor in the national narrative” (para. 4).  This initiative of the UDC eventually led to a nationwide revisionist textbook campaign that was largely successful, even in Northern states. From what I can tell, this is how we have arrived to 2022 with our current process of state level textbook adoption policies and the focus of many textbookson how much “progress” has been made since the time of slavery, as if racism could not possibly exit today. We also see its residual effects in how southern states like Florida and Texas (who are the largest state textbook adopters, along with California) largely drive the content of textbooks, essentially making it impossible to move away from this “progress” narrative of textbooks, since FL and TX have been leaders in passing restrictive legislation that requires this sort of “patriotic” narrative (as we have seen with the most recent anti-Critical Race Theory Bills).

Moving into the post-World War II era, organized efforts to censor education, curriculum and textbooks reared their ugly heads again when Harold Rugg and Louise Krueger began publishing a series of social studies textbooks, Man and His Changing Society. Speaking of this textbook series, Zindars writes:

Rugg had become convinced that laissez-faire economic policies, geared towards unrestrained capitalism, were detrimental to American society and its democratic foundation. This belief influenced Rugg’s textbooks as he reimagined social studies and the role of children in their learning. The intent of his curriculum was to empower students to think critically about problems in American society, encouraging them to question societal structures and to propose alternatives. While early opposition to his textbooks existed, dire concerns over the textbooks being “un-American” and “communist” developed as organizations like the American Federation of Advertising and American Legion began a crusade against Rugg. By labeling Rugg and his textbooks “un-American” and associating them with communism, the opposition proved successful. A drastic decline in the sale of his textbooks occurred in just a four-year span, mangling the dispersion of Rugg’s legitimate criticisms. (p. 49)

In the 1950s these attacks were picked up by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his attempt to fear monger, with his campaign to root out “communists” (The Red Scare) and “homosexuals” (the lesser talked about, Lavendar Scare). Throughout the McCarthy era, Lopez et al. write that there was:

“a widespread ideological campaign emphasized allegations that ‘school children were being poisoned by the pernicious influence of socialism’ and by ‘traitors in the classroom.’ This campaign purported to want to find and root out communists [and homosexuals, who where thought to be more succeptible to communist influence] and their sympathizers and to destroy their influence. The symbolic framing of the threat of communism resulted in teachers having to sign so-called loyalty oaths and, out of fear, avoid discussing ‘controversial’ issues. Teachers who refused to cooperate with McCarthy-era congressional investigating committees were dismissed” (p.6). 

Around this time, FL formed the Johns Committee, which would deploy armed state troopers and other investigators to conduct investigations on campus to root out communists and “homosexuals.” While early efforts of this committee (in the early 1950s) were focused out on rooting out the NAACP and sympathizers of Black liberation, in the late 1950s and early 1960s the focus shifted to rooting out secondary and university teachers that were “homosexuals.” The Johns Committee believed “homosexual professors were recruiting students into ‘homosexual practices’ and they in turn were becoming teachers in Florida’s public-school system and recruiting even younger students.” As a result, the Committee began taking allegations of “homosexual” teachers. Often little to no evidence was required for the committee to fire an individual and bar them from teaching or to expel students from their universities. Accounts suggest that something as ridiculous as wearing Bermuda shorts was reason to suspect someone was a “homosexual.” The Tallahasssee Democrat describes the impact of the Johns Committee, writing “at least one attempted suicide is linked to the committee’s work along with more than 100 professors and public school teachers losing their jobs. More than 400 students were forced to drop out of college, according to researchers.”

In the 1960s and 1970s we also saw an attack on ethnic studies, after student strikes were held at SFSU and Berkley, among other university campuses. Much of the same rhetoric of “divisive” or “un-American” curriculum was circulated in reaction to these protests. This rhetoric continues in the opposition to expand ethnic studies today. We also see the rhetoric of “perversion” and “inappropriateness” in relation to queer identity beginning to pick up again in the 1980s and 1990s at the height of the AIDs epidemic, when activists were calling for changes to sex education that would encourage teenagers to understand the need for condoms and other preventative measures, rather than simply telling them to be abstinent. Similar arguments of “perversion” and “inappropriateness” continue today with the fight for effective and inclusive sex education.

As we can see from this brief history, the attacks on Critical Race Theory and the teaching of gender identity and sexual orientation is not new in schools. So given that knowledge, what do teachers need to know about this legislation?

First, we should probably talk about what Critical Race Theory is. Essentially, Critical Race Theory is a theoretical tool that scholars use to make sense of the world and injustice. It allows us to understand how racism is systemic, endemic, and ordinary (among other things). It also requires we understand multiple interlocking systems of oppression (intersectionality) and the impact that has on any given individual. This video by Dr. Gloria Larson Billings gives a concise overview of the theory and its relevance to education.

Now that we understand what Critical Race Theory is, let’s take a look at the attack on Critical Race Theory.  While the Critical Race Theory Bans we’ve seen vary by state,  they tend to promote the same bans on concepts they deem “divisive” in State and Federal employee training programs and PK-12 schools. What counts as divisive? Lopez et al. point to Tennessee’s HB 580 as an example. The language of the bill prohibits promoting one race or sex as “inherently superior” over another; that individuals have unconscious or conscious bias; a person should feel guilty about past actions of individuals of their race, that meritocracy is a racist farce, that the state and US are “fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist,” among other items. Lopez et al. state, “such legislation clearly requires that schools promote the story of the United States in inaccurately positive terms, ignoring documented historical and contemporary injustices and inequities. Among other things, this need to tell an inaccurate ‘positive story’ has prompted both state and federal officials to issue parallel calls to ban the 1619 Project. And, there is little doubt that state and local boards will come under increasing pressure to do so in the immediate future” (p. 9).

You might be wondering, what does this have to do with Critical Race Theory? The short answer? Nothing. As Lopez et al. note,

“Well-established and powerful far Right organizations are driving the current effort to prevent schools from providing historically accurate information about slavery and racist policies and practices, or from examining systemic racism and its manifold impacts. These organizations include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Goldwater Institute, Heritage Foundation, Koch family foundations, and Manhattan Institute, as well as billionaire-funded advocacy organizations such as Parents Defending Education and the Legal Insurrection Foundation. These organizations have long produced model legislation and other resources to defund and privatize public schools” (pp 9-10).

The strategy of these organizations and far Right politicians (and as of late, not so far Right politicians) is to push a narrative that “Critical Race Theory intentionally essentializes race into categories of Blackness and Whiteness where positive traits are associated with the former and negative with the latter” (p. 10). They are also mislabeling research backed practices such as social and emotional learning (SEL), culturally responsive pedagogy, and anti-racism as vehicles to teach Critical Race Theory theory in schools and the bills tend to be vague in nature. This is intentional. The purpose is to scare teachers into removing any and all anti-racist and truthful historical analysis from PK-12 schools (curriculum, professional development, and other related areas). They also serve a political purpose. As noted by Lopez et al., these bans on CRT are seen “as a wedge issue in the culture wars that date back to Jim Crow. These tactics are designed to both incite and mobilize the Right’s political base and influence individuals who might otherwise be inclined to support racial justice to support the Right’s agenda instead…these tactics rely on the most fear-inducing symbols in U.S. politics—those that play to White racial fears” (p. 10). What better way to stir up the base than to start a “culture war” to “protect the children in our school”? (insert eye roll)

The attacks on CRT are mirrored in the attacks we have been seeing on transgender girls seeking to play sports on teams that match their gender identity and on teachers attempting to adopt queer inclusive curriculum. Such attacks are taken again under the guise of “protecting children” from “divisive,” “perverse,” and “inappropriate” curriculum (in the case of CRT bans and “Don’t Say Gay” bills) or “unfair advantages” and “safety” (in the case of trans girls just wanting to play sports with other children of their same gender). Thus, it’s no surprise that we see many of the states adopting CRT bans also pushing Trans Sports Bans and Don’t Say Gay Bills. 

What do teachers need to know about these legislative attacks on queer and trans youth? To understand that, we will first look at Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The law itself has three main prongs that are concerning:

1. It doesn’t allow any primary grades teachers to “encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity” and for older grades, such topics cannot be discussed “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” 
2. It places emphasis on the parent’s right to “information about his or her [LOL BECAUSE ALL PARENTS ARE OBVIOUSLY OF BINARY GENDERS…insert eye roll] student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage a student to withhold from a parent such information, unless a reasonably prudent person would believe such a disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.”
3. It allows parents to directly sue a school district if they feel an educator has violated the law…and receive monetary compensation for damages and attorney’s fees should they win such a lawsuit. 

First, the language of the law itself is intentionally vague, in an attempt to scare educators to not teach about 2SLGBTQIA+ identity or attempt to create affirming classrooms. Such actions could lead to the very real and scary consequence of a family deciding to sue, under the guise of “parental rights.” Some advocates are even worried that the vague wording could allow outside parties, who are NOT parents or guardians in the school district to sue. To provide a small number of examples, this effectively means that teachers could be intimidated into not displaying a rainbow flag, reading or making available books that have different representations of different kinds of families or that dont have characters that follow narrow gender norms, or asking for/honoring chosen names or pronouns of students. 

Even if the element of parental and outside parties’ rights to sue were removed from the bill, the first two items still remain inherently problematic and vague. Here’s why:

Item 1: The law states that primary teachers cannot “encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity.” First, we are ALWAYS talking about gender identity and sexual orientation. Does that mean we can’t mention families and parents at all? Does that mean we can’t celebrate Women’s history month? Republicans have begun using the language of gender identity and sexual orientation instead of homosexuality and transgender because they have been learning from legal battles that laws that directly target individual groups are discriminatory and thus likely to be struck down. The vagueness of gender identity and sexual orientation is an attempt to bypass that risk. So, while Republicans might say that “of course teachers can teach about women’s history or mention families and parents,” the law is intentionally designed to stoke fear and confusion, even for identities that firmly exist within a hetero and cisnormative framework. 

For those outside of those dominant frameworks, things become extremely complicated as well. Young children are commonly asked to draw pictures of their families and they get displayed around the room. Under this law, a teacher who has a child from a family with two moms or two dads, or with gender nonconforming or transgender parents effectively has to make a decision – Do I allow this child to participate and risk being perceived as “encouraging” conversations about gender identity or sexuality? Do I discard the assignment altogether and disallow all the children in my class from talking about their families and lives (defying what we know to be best practice)? Do I allow the student to participate in the assignment but not to present or display their images?

For the older grades, these questions are no less complex, given that the bill states that gender identity and sexual orientation may not be discussed “in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Again, what is age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate? 2SLGBTQIA+ advocacy groups and researchers have extensive evidence ce that shows that discussing gender is age appropriate even at the earliest of ages (e.g., see Gender Spectrum’s discussion of the question “Isn’t my child too young to be learning about gender?” and other common questions that come when parents are pushing back against discussions of gender identity). Yet, right wing groups continue to deem such conversations as inappropriate or controversial. The vagueness of this bill is intended to give teachers pause before introducing anything that may be deemed 2SLGBTQIA+ inclusive, for fear of invoking backlash from the right.

Item 2: The bill emphasizes parental rights to information about their students’ “mental, emotional, or physical health or well being.” Guess what? If a student tells their teacher or counselor that they are struggling with their gender identity or sexual orientation (or that they aren’t struggling and firmly identify as 2SLGBTQIA+), the parent should have a right to that information. This could encourage educators to fear that if they do not “out” a student, then they will risk losing their jobs or becoming the target of backlash. True, the bill does provide a caveat of “unless a reasonably prudent person would believe such a disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect.” But again, what does “reasonably prudent” mean? 2SLGBTQIA+ youth are 120% more likely to be homeless than their peers, due to rejection by their families. Given this, shouldn’t it be “reasonably prudent” to keep a student’s 2SLGBTQIA+ identity confidential in all cases? The vagueness of this language is intentional and dangerous.

As for trans sports bans, such attacks on trans youth are again rooted in lies intended to stoke a culture war. The main argument that those on the far Right are that transgender girls have some unfair advantage over cisgender girls. This is scientifically false. 

Given the nature of these laws, the first and most essential thing teachers need to do is to read the legislation that has been passed or being considered in their states (check out this legislative tracker) to understand exactly what the laws say and do not say. Developing this political knowledge, a necessary component of what Dr. Rochelle Gutiérrez calls political conocimiento is an essential first step to combating these laws and understanding how we can better support our BIPOC and 2SLGBTQIA+ students, while also keeping our jobs. After reading the laws, we must determine the best way to move forward with our support of BIPOC and 2SLGBTQIA+ students in ways that are in their best interest. To understand how one might engage in such practice’s I highly recommend Dr. Gutiérrez’s work on creative insubordination. 

In addition to the above stated suggestions, I have created an educator toolkit that educators can use in their efforts to support their BIPOC and 2SLGBTQIA+ students. The toolkit provides talking points, resources to understand the political landscape, research on the experiences of 2SLGBTQIA+ students in PK-12 schools, resources to familiarize yourself with best practices for supporting 2SLGBTQIA+ students, model policies and more. Additionally, it contains slides with specific action steps that educators, teacher educators, district leaders and administrators, education researchers, policy makers, professional organizations, and students and families can take to continue pushing for educational liberation. We must come together and keep pushing for the liberation of queer, trans and BIPOC students in PK-12 education. Who will join me in this fight?

Note: If you’re interested in learning more about the “Don’t Say Gay” legislation in Florida, here are a list of questions a Florida educator sent me to better understand the legislation, as well as my answers to those questions

1. What negative effects could come with students and faculty being unable to talk about topics about sexual orientation and gender identity in Florida educational institutions?

In general, LGBTQ+ students are more likely to report experiencing harassment and bullying at school or to have considered suicide in the last year. Looking at Florida specifically, GLSEN’s most recent National Climate Survey (administered in 2019 and published in 2020) found that (among other items):

•  94% of surveyed LGBTQ+ students reported hearing anti-LGBTQ+ language at school (with 19% saying they regularly heard homophobic remarks from “school staff” and 39% hearing negagtive comments about an individual’s gender expression). 
• The majority of LGBTQ+ students in FL had experienced some sort of anti-LGBTQ+ victimization (verbal and/or physical harassment and/or physical assault) at school.

Such conditions at schools are harmful to LGBTQ+ students who already “more than four times as likely to attempt suicide compared to their straight and cisgender peers.”Add to this fact that 94% of LGBTQ+ youth reported that recent political efforts to infringe upon the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals have had a negative impact on their mental health, we have already reached a crises of monumental proportions in our schools in relation to supporting LGBTQ+ youth. Research has shown time and time again that “LGBTQ youth who had access to spaces that affirmed their sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of attempting suicide,” as did youth who had access to LGBTQ+ curricular representation, and those whose schools had affirming policies that respected students’ pronouns, among other inclusive policies. This bill runs counter to all well researched best practices for supporting LGBTQ+ students in PK-12 classrooms, as well as their non-LGBTQ+ peers.

2. What are ideal ways to approach the topic of sexual orientation and gender identity in educational institutions? 

I don’t really know how to answer this question, as it’s quite broad. I’m assuming that the question relates to instruction, rather than classroom climate (given that the next question seems more targeted to classroom climate). Just like students from all underrepresented groups, it’s important that LGBTQ+ students have access to texts (I’m using “text” loosely here to encompass anything from a book, a meme, a mirror, a mathematical graph or problem, etc) that serve as mirrors to affirm their identity. It’s equally important for non-LGBTQ+ students to have access to such texts because they serve as windows into the lives of individuals that may be different from them and help to cultivate empathy. I really love this chapter by Yeh and Rubel, which discusses how teachers can develop “border consciousness” to widen the number of windows and mirrors they present to students. It’s equally important to teach LGBTQ+ history and to acknowledge the queer identities of individuals like James Baldwin, Pauli Murray,  and Emily Dickenson (to name a few) so students understand that we (queer people) have always been here and have made positive contributions to American society. Similarly it’s important to understand that sex, gender, and sexuality are social constructs and the gender roles that we ascribe to are arbitrary (this connects deeply to the countries history of colonization and the erasure of indigineous long histories of celebrating queer members of their tribes, today known as two-spirit individuals). Learning for Justice’s Best Practices for Supporting LGBTQ+ Students has a number of suggestions for broaching these conversations (under the Instruction heading).

Also – it is often overlooked, but equally important is a school’s inclusion of appropriate sex education that does not shame LGBTQ+ youth into seeing themselves as deviant. Such policies lead to higher levels of distructive behavior and risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases for LGBTQ+ youth, especially gay men.

3. What can be done to cultivate an environment where students are comfortable with approaching faculty about topics relating to their own sexual orientation or gender identity?

My five day challenge for educators covers the following five actions that can help create inclusive LGBTQ+ environments in their classrooms:

1. Know essential terminology…if you don’t know what the letters of LGBTQ+ represent or mean, that’s a good place to start (check out this glossary), as is understanding the gender unicorn. 
2. Ask for students’  pronouns and honor them. Here’s an excerpt from my guide for PK-16 educators, Talking about LGBTQ+ Identity, which touches on some of the major points related to this.

Many of us recall learning about pronouns as one of many “parts of speech” in our ELA education. Back then, we probably learned that pronouns are the words we use in place of nouns, but we also probably were taught that singular pronouns (pronouns used for one person, rather than many people) were limited to he/him/his and she/her/hers. These pronouns, if we view them as the only singular pronouns, actually reinforce a gender binary (i.e., there are only two genders, man and woman). But we know that there are many genders that exist outside that binary language. For this reason, some people use “gender neutral” or “non-binary” pronouns such as they/them/their or ze/hir/hirs. Schools in Transition: A Guide for Supporting Transgender Students in K-12 Schools (Orr et al., 2015) has a really nice table demonstrating the pronunciation and use of such pronouns (see p. 45). 

There are a number of important items to understand in relation to pronouns. First, everyone has and uses pronouns and it’s important to respect each person’s pronouns and to not assume you know a person’s pronouns before they disclose that information to you. Personally, I am trying to move to a policy of using “they” for anyone who has not disclosed their pronouns to me. Once someone does disclose their pronouns, it is also essential to honor those pronouns as a matter of respect. If you know someone identifies as a woman, you would likely be confused and offended if someone continuously referred to that person as “he” or “him.” Same goes for individuals that do not identify singularly as a man or a woman. Using their gender neutral pronoun is a sign of respect and decency.

It’s also important to note that a person’s pronouns are not “preferred,” they are their pronouns. While the language of “preferred pronouns” may have been widely recognized several years ago, the LGBTQ+ community has pushed to eliminate the use of “preferred” when referring to someone’s pronouns because it communicates a message that the use of those pronouns is optional, when it is not. The use of someone’s correct pronouns is, again, a sign of respect and decency.

Another item of note, particularly for educators, is about the process of asking for student pronouns. It has become common practice in many spaces to have individuals introduce themselves by stating their names and pronouns. This practice, though rooted in an attempt at inclusivity, can actually be harmful to trans and non-binary individuals (especially those that are currently grappling with how they identify). As noted by Kean (2020), “It can be very risky to announce your pronouns in front of a group of people you do not know, where there is not yet trust or a sense of community. Additionally, there is absolutely no guarantee that sharing one’s pronouns will mean that those pronouns are actually understood, taken up, and correctly used by the other people in the group… And so, in each of these interactions, in every new class, group meeting, interview, or orientation, trans and non-binary people must make the agonizing decision: do I show up authentically in this moment, risking my safety and credibility, or do I silence myself in order to remain safe while at the same time denying my full humanity?” (p. 13). Instead of asking for this information in such a public way, many leaders in the field have begun to recommend allowing students to disclose this privately, if they so choose. Gender Spectrum (n.d) has created a sample Gender Inclusive Registration form that teachers may utilize as an example.

A final note about pronouns is that you might sometimes get a person’s pronouns wrong. If you do, simply apologize, correct yourself and move on. Over-apologizing runs the risk of putting the person you have misgendered in a position in which they feel they need to comfort you. This is an unfair burden that we must avoid forcing upon someone.

1. Create an environment that’s a brave space, rather than a safe space.
2. Speak up in the face of cissesixt and heterosexist language/slurs. Every. Single. Time. Learning for Justice’s Speak Up at School Guide has some excellent suggestions for this.
3. Scan your daily curricular materials for hidden messages that reinforce gender and/or heteronormative assumptions. I like to recommend using the questions from the Yeh and Rubel chapter I mentioned above.

4. What are some things students should know when it comes to questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity, especially in talking to adults (family or otherwise) or other students about what they are going through?

Students should know that they are not alone and there is nothing wrong with them. Who they are is beautiful. It’s also important for them to know safe spaces they can visit to find other folx like them and to receive support as they explore their questions about their gender identity and sexual orientation. These might include a local pride center or a school’s gender and sexuality alliance (GSA). If they are out to their families and their families are struggling, students should know of local PFLAG groups that serve as a support for such parents and families. Students should also know their rights and who to contact if their school violates those rights.