House Republicans have introduced a bill that would ban books, activities, and programs that mention trans people—and potentially all LGBTQ people—from K-12 public schools nationwide.
The Scope
U.S. Representative Mary Miller (R-IL) and 17 Republican colleagues introduced the bill, H. R. 7661, on Tuesday, just after the president’s State of the Union address in which he railed against the purported harms of gender transition. If passed, the legislation would prohibit schools from using federal funds “to 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,” including material that “exposes such children to nude adults, individuals who are stripping, or lewd or lascivious dancing.” “Sexually oriented material” is further defined as that which contains “any depiction, description, or simulation of sexually explicit conduct” or that involves “gender dysphoria or transgenderism.”
As Kelly Jensen of Bookriot has pointed out, “The latter is an intentionally harmful word used as a cudgel to harm trans people. Such a broad definition also ensures that this kind of bill could be applicable in any situation where it would benefit the banners. It isn’t a stretch to see a bill like this used to outright ban all books by or about LGBTQ+ people under the guise of it being ‘sexually oriented.’”
That’s an important point. Books and programs with trans representation are the most obvious target of this legislation, but if you think the impact will be limited to trans content, you haven’t been paying attention. This bill could pressure schools to remove any books with LGBTQ representation. One only need look at how the U.S. Supreme Court last year twisted the meaning of several perfectly innocuous picture books that depict LGBTQ people, viewing the stories as sexualized when they’re not. Or at how two early LGBTQ-inclusive picture books, Heather Has Two Mommies, by Lesléa Newman, and Daddy’s Roommate, by Michael Willhoite, were said to “promote sodomy” back in 1992. (See Newman’s 1997 interview with the Horn Book.) There is of course no sodomy or even a hint of anything sexual in either book.
As Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics has noted, too, the bill’s language around facilitating, hosting, and promoting programs that include “sexually oriented material” goes beyond just books, but would ban lessons, including sex education, from mentioning trans people, and stop school clubs, including GSAs (Gender and Sexuality Alliances) and other support groups from discussing them. In addition, Vaca says, “because of its vagueness, it may also force trans teachers into the closet and prevent schools from affirming trans kids’ identities out of fear of retribution.”
The bill’s reference to “lewd or lascivious dancing” also seems like an obvious attempt to reference drag performances and drag storytimes—even though drag performances for children, unlike some for adults, are not lewd or lascivious.
Let’s be clear: There is indeed sexual content that is not appropriate for children (although this varies by age, something the bill does not recognize). But the mere inclusion of trans or other LGBTQ people does not make content sexual. The phrasing of the bill, however, along with the way that LGBTQ-inclusive books have been incorrectly sexualized for decades, means that many books would likely be taken off shelves for fear of violating the legislation, even if they are not sexual in nature but simply depict LGBTQ lives.
Biased Exceptions
The bill makes some exceptions to the restrictions on sexually oriented material, permitting federal funds to be used for “standard science coursework,” “the texts of major world religions,” “classic works of literature,” and “classic works of art.” It cites several sources to define what these works are. For “classic works of art,” the bill relies on an AP Art History guide from Smarthistory. For literature, it relies on a collection of classic books published by Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1990, which skews heavily White and male. Lastly, it relies on two literature lists from Compass Classroom, one for middle schoolers and one for high schoolers, and here’s where more bias creeps in.
Compass Classroom develops Christian materials for homeschoolers and, according to its “Statement of Faith,” adheres to “historic Christian creeds as well as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” the last of which was developed by Evangelical leaders in the 1970s. The books on its lists (which you can easily find with an online search; I’m not going to give them links here) are not exclusively about Christianity, but its high school list, referenced by the bill, includes a section of titles on “Christendom,” but not on any other religion. I am not a lawyer, but including this in the bill seems to be a pretty clear violation of the Constitutional principle that Congress shall remain neutral on matters of religion. The mere use of a religiously affiliated source, particularly only one rather than a selection from a wide range of faiths and beliefs, also gives away the game in terms of what the bill’s intent is. It’s about more than just keeping kids from sexualized materials. It’s about pushing a particular worldview.
Furthermore, several of the books on both the middle school and high school lists from Compass Classroom clearly include the warning: “Contains sexual content that may be a bit mature for some audiences”—so it seems that it’s not really sexual content that is the issue.
Impact and Action
The legislation specifically says that schools shall not use funds provided under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) for the kinds of “sexually oriented materials” the bill defines. ESEA is “the primary source of federal aid for elementary and secondary education … particularly its Title I-A program, which authorizes federal aid for the education of disadvantaged students.” That means that the schools with the most to lose if they don’t adhere to the legislation, should it pass, would likely be those receiving the most aid for disadvantaged students—students whose families are the least likely to be able to afford books at home, and who therefore rely on access to books at school.
Theo Harrison at Freedom for All Americans calls H. R. 7661 “a signal bill” that “links a high-profile presidential messaging moment, a culture-war issue that has become central to Republican campaign politics, and federal education funding law in one package.” He says, “The introduction date, sponsor lineup, and public messaging indicate that supporters want the measure read as part of a wider push on school content and youth gender policy.” I don’t disagree.
As I’ve said before, book bans aren’t just about books, but about erasing certain children’s identities. The message is that they and their families don’t matter. And it’s a small step from banning books with certain types of representation to telling children they can’t talk about themselves or their families if that would bring up such representation.
Vaca opines that “While this bill may pass the House, it will almost certainly be blocked by Senate Democrats. Because of this, as of today, this thankfully doesn’t present an imminent threat.”
I hope she’s right—but the bill is still immensely worrying as an indicator of how some are trying to move this country. I’m guessing that specific action steps to oppose the bill will be forthcoming from LGBTQ organizations and others fighting censorship and book bans. In the meantime, you can always phone or write to your members of Congress and state your opposition to H. R. 7661. I also encourage you to follow:
- Unite Against Book Bans
- PEN America
- The National Coalition Against Censorship
- Literary Activism, an excellent e-mail newsletter from Bookriot’s Jensen
And of course, use my Database of LGBTQ Family Books to explore the many wonderful LGBTQ-inclusive books that now exist for young people.