Earlier this year, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce voted to recommend H.R. 7661 to the full U.S. House of Representatives.
H.R. 7661, or the “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act,” aims to prohibit funding that would otherwise “develop, implement, facilitate, host, or promote any program or activity for, or to provide or promote literature or other materials to, children under the age of 18 that includes sexually oriented material, and for other purposes.”
Initially, the language in this bill appears respectable, even admirable. A bill that prioritizes the protection of children? How could anyone oppose that? But upon further examination, this bill is yet another power grab masquerading as a protective measure.
First, let’s address the language of this bill. “Sexually oriented material” is defined in this bill as anything from explicit content such as lewd dancing or stripping to anything that “involves gender dysphoria or transgenderism.”
Most would agree that exposing children to explicit sexual material in school is inappropriate, but to couple it with concepts involving personhood, such as “gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects,” is dangerously intentional.
This chosen verbiage transforms the topic from a child-protection measure to subjective government censorship in educational settings.
According to pen.org, there are “100 grassroots literary and library organizations” that are opposite of this bill, saying the broad language used could lead to the restriction of books and curriculum and jeopardize classroom inclusivity. Some organizations include Penguin Random House, American Library Association, National Education Association and GLAAD.
Supporters argue that this bill does have exceptions. These include certain science courses, “classic” literature and art, and specific religious texts. The implication here is that core materials will not be affected by the passing of this bill.
However, there is a quiet part these supporters refuse to say out loud. By relying on “classics” and pre-approved dated courses, modern voices and experiences are silenced. They are completely excluded from classroom settings. It is in confronting this truth that the bigger issue emerges.
Schools are not simply a place where children learn how to memorize keywords and facts. Schools expose students to the complexity of the world around them, whether that be through the curriculum that is provided or the process of social circle building, or a combination of the two.
It should also be a place where representation of all is present, including but not limited to culture, gender, sexual orientation and identity. This isn’t just reflected in either the curriculum or the population, but rather both.
Specifically targeting transgenderism and labeling gender dysphoria as “sexually oriented material” to ensure these topics are banned from curriculum and classroom discussion will result in an entire population of students not only being unrepresented but also unprotected in a system that should be fostering their growth and development as it would with any other child.
Blurring the line between “explicit” content and essential education is not a protective measure for children — it is a control tactic that will make young people less informed about themselves and those around them.
