Author
Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed by opponents as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, is sparking a wide array of arguments on all sides of the spectrum.
Should public schools teach primary school students about sexual orientation and gender identity? At what grade level should teachers start teaching LGBTQ+ topics in the classroom? Is banning the discussion of these issues a threat to LGBTQ+ identities and free speech, or a necessary measure to ensure classroom content is age-appropriate and to respect parental beliefs on controversial matters?
Explore all perspectives, stances, and arguments for and against teaching LGBTQ+ topics in the classroom with AllStances™ by AllSides.
School Districts Should Actively Support and Teach LGBTQ+ Topics In The Classroom Acknowledging the LGBTQ+ community in the classroom is a fundamental step in terms of fully integrating them into society.
See arguments »
Schools Shouldn’t Limit Students From Learning About LGBTQ+ Issues and Identities
Gender and sexuality should be taught in schools or available to learn about, but not overly emphasized.
See arguments »
LGBTQ+ Topics Should Be Introduced Only to Older Students And Kept To A Minimum
Gender and sexuality shouldn’t be introduced into the classroom until children reach a certain age.
See arguments »
School Districts Should Not Teach LGBTQ+ Topics, Especially to Children
LGBTQ+ topics should be kept outside of the classroom.
See arguments »
A new Florida law limiting classroom discussion in public schools about sexual orientation and gender identity highlights a key battle within the modern culture war and clashes about “woke” ideologies.
Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law states that “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”
Opponents have dubbed it the “Don’t Say Gay” law, and some academics have argued that the bill’s intentions are vague and unclear. Some of the legislation’s supporters have framed it as an “Anti-Grooming Law” that keeps “transgender ideology” out of the classroom, and lawmakers in Georgia recently introduced a similar bill. Coverage of the bill from news outlets on the left and right reflects the wide perception gap on whether the bill harms the LGBTQ+ community or protects parents’ rights.
As the percentage of U.S. people who identify as LGBTQ+ continues to grow, Americans remain divided over the notion of incorporating discussions around sexual orientation and gender identity into school curriculums across the nation.
Some believe that banning discussions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in primary school is a discriminatory notion that will lower many students’ self-esteem, and that progressing the understanding and acceptance of LGBTQ+ identities should begin in the classroom. Others believe that teaching very young children about these topics can lead to confusion or even indoctrination into what they consider a harmful ideology. Some want to reserve education about LGBTQ+ issues for older students — others would like to ban it from schools altogether.
Explore all the arguments, stances and perspectives around incorporating LGBTQ+ topics in schools. (Keep in mind that all stances aren't mutually exclusive — some viewpoints might align with multiple stances).
Are we missing a stance or perspective? Email us!
Stance 1: School Districts Should Actively Support and Teach LGBTQ+ Topics In The Classroom
CORE ARGUMENT: Acknowledging the LGBTQ+ community in the classroom is a fundamental step in terms of fully integrating them into society.
More arguments for this stance:
- Bills that restrict schools from teaching students about LGBTQ+identities are a clear message to LGBTQ+ students that they are unwanted and unacceptable.
- Anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is just a larger part of a small-minded culture war that will ultimately harm children.
- Bills that are set up to diminish the existence of young LGBTQ+ identities are pretending to solve problems that don’t even exist.
- Schools should be a growing environment and safe space for all LGBTQ+ students, and should not discriminate against any of them based on their race, gender or sexuality.
- Politicians seeking to restrict LGBTQ+ discussion in schools are emphasizing sneaky language to paint the misguided idea that LGBTQ+identities are inherently more sexual than straight or cisgender identities.
- An LGBTQ+ identity is something that is felt deep down inside. If kids feel safe expressing these feelings, they are less likely to report suicide attempts.
- Being LGBTQ+ is not an “ideology,” but a real lived experience. It is natural and inborn. Raising the specter of “gender ideology” aims to curtail sexual and reproductive rights and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality by playing on people’s fear of social change.
- Many students fear disclosing their LGBTQ+ identity to their parents and should be able to seek guidance from teachers, counselors or coaches.
- It’s wrong that the most conservative parents can dictate how everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity.
- Teaching LGBTQ+ topics in schools will help students realize that supporting this community means standing on the right side of history, akin to the civil rights movement.
Stance 2: Schools Shouldn’t Limit Students From Learning About LGBTQ+ Issues and Identities
CORE ARGUMENT: Gender and sexuality should be taught in schools or available to learn about, but not overly emphasized.
More arguments for this stance:
- Schools shouldn’t totally avoid instruction on gender identity and sexuality but should focus more on adequately teaching kids the solid fundamentals of learning such as reading, writing, civics and math — as well as more practical matters such as everyday skills in how to manage your own finances, sew, cook, fix a car and file taxes.
- LGBTQ+ issues shouldn’t be worked into every topic but should be discussed when applicable (civil rights, gay historical figures, HIV/AIDS instruction, embracing family unit structures with same-gender parents, etc.)
- Legislation that seeks to limit children’s access to certain information through mediums like books or film can have deep ramifications on their general ability to express ideas and empathize with others who aren’t like them.
- The banishment of LGBTQ-related books and films could lead to other important issues like race and racism becoming censored in school libraries.
- Each school district and its respective board of education should be able to compromise with their communities and incorporate LGBTQ+ topics as they see fit.
Stance 3: LGBTQ+ Topics Should Be Introduced Only to Older Students And Kept To A Minimum
CORE ARGUMENT: Gender and sexuality shouldn’t be introduced into the classroom until children reach a certain age.
More arguments for this stance:
- Younger students shouldn’t be exposed to gender theory or sexual identities until they are mature enough to understand and learn about them.
- Young children are still developing their sense of self and will not be able to understand the complexity of sexual and gender identities.
- Gender identity should only be taught once children can understand what is at stake, and some activists are pushing to introduce these concepts too early.
- Each school district and its respective board of education should be able to compromise with their communities and incorporate LGBTQ+ topics as they see fit.
Stance 4: School Districts Should Not Teach LGBTQ+ Topics, Especially to Children
CORE ARGUMENT: LGBTQ+ topics should be kept outside of the classroom.
More arguments for this stance:
- Progressive sexualism is a questionable ideology that shouldn’t be taught in schools.
- Highlighting LGBTQ+issues in schools will indoctrinate more children into believing they are LGBTQ+, which will hurt healthy sexual and mental development.
- There are only two genders — male and female — and they are intimately connected to biological reality. Teaching students otherwise leads to mental illness, hurt, confusion, and potentially, invasive medical treatments, many of which are irreversible or do lifelong damage.
- Parents should be free to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values, without the inference of government forces.
- American schools that reflect alternative understandings of sex and sexuality undermine parental rights as well as religion.
- We must protect parental rights and children by ensuring they are not exposed to topics that are not age-appropriate or will be taught in such a way as to encourage ways of thinking and lifestyles that are ultimately harmful.
- Teaching transgender ideology, in particular, has negative consequences. Gender is largely determined by our biology. Teaching otherwise can lead children down a harmful line of thought, and perhaps toward irreversible medical interventions that constitute child abuse.
- Being LGBTQ+ is learned more than inborn; the increasingly high numbers of youth identifying as LGBTQ+ is due to peer contagion and advertising.
- Some progressive parents are pushing to sexualize children, which will shatter the once-important notion of childhood innocence.
- Voices on the left have continually misunderstood what the objectives of these bills are, thus potentially convincing the public that the bills are ill-intentioned.
The Author:
Antonio Ferme, AllSides Weekend Editor, Center bias
Reviewers and Contributors:
Julie Mastrine, AllSides Director of Marketing, Lean Right bias
Joseph Ratliff, AllSides Daily News Editor, Lean Left bias
Andrew Weinzierl, AllSides Research Assistant, Lean Left bias
Henry Brechter, AllSides Managing Editor, Center bias
Stephanie Bond, Chief Operations Officer, Lean Left bias