The U.S. House is set to vote today on a bill that would require schools to censor any mention of trans and nonbinary identities, and to out trans and nonbinary students to parents. And the FCC is considering warning labels for “transgender and gender non-binary programming” on TV. Take action now against these moves.
Don’t Say Trans
The House bill, H.R.2616 (PDF), would ban public schools from “teach[ing] or advanc[ing] concepts related to gender ideology,” as defined in the president’s 2025 executive order on the subject. That executive order basically said that there are only two, unchangeable genders and that trans and nonbinary identities are invalid. The bill would therefore mean that schools could not teach about gender identity, have any books or materials with transgender or nonbinary characters in them, or even acknowledge that trans and nonbinary people exist. The impact on trans and nonbinary children, or those with trans or nonbinary parents, would be stigmatizing and harmful, and all children would be less prepared for the world today and the people they may encounter.
Furthermore, although the bill focuses on gender and not sexual orientation, it is easy to see that not everyone will make that distinction. This bill could easily have the effect of scaring schools into removing materials and discussions related to any LGBTQ identities.
Additionally, the bill would require schools to notify parents before changing an elementary or middle school student’s gender markers, pronouns, name, or bathroom/locker room accommodations. For some children, sharing such information could lead to parental rejection or denial, with harmful effects on the child’s mental health; in some cases, it could also endanger them physically. If a school asks for a parent’s permission and they say no, then the student is stuck at school being misgendered and misnamed, which is also detrimental to their mental health. Yes, as a parent, I would hope that if my child ever wanted to mach such changes, they would share so with me first; I would then support them in making the changes—but I also get that even if a parent would clearly be welcoming, young people may sometimes wish to try out a new name or pronouns at school first before sharing with parents. In any case, I do not believe it is the federal government’s role to dictate what schools should do here.
Schools that don’t comply with the legislation would lose federal funds, which help support students in at least 90% of school districts, according to one calculation.
Contact your representatives today and tell them to oppose H.R. 2616. HRC has a simple form you can use, with pre-drafted text that you can customize. You can also contact representatives directly via e-mail or phone.
TV Warning Labels
Separately, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is asking people to submit comments about whether the TV Oversight Management Board (TVOMB) should create new TV ratings that specifically flag “transgender and gender non-binary programming” and “the discussion or promotion of gender identity themes.” The FCC is particularly concerned with children’s programming, explaining:
Recently, parents have raised concerns that controversial gender identity issues are being included or promoted in children’s programs without providing any disclosure or transparency to parents. Specifically, the industry guidelines that parents rely on are rating shows with transgender and gender non-binary programming as appropriate for children and young children, and doing so without providing this information to parents, thereby undermining the ability of parents to make informed choices for their families.
I’m not sure who the parents are who have raised these concerns, but as a parent, I’ll say that the idea of creating a warning label simply because a trans or nonbinary person appears onscreen is ludicrous. Warning labels carry stigma, with the implication that the identities they warn about are somehow shameful or dangerous. As GLAAD explains, “Applying warning labels to programs with transgender and nonbinary characters and stories incorrectly equates them to programming with coarse and crude language, sexual situations, or violence.”
That is not the message we should be sending, particularly to children, who may be transgender or nonbinary themselves or have friends, parents, or other relatives who are. Trans and nonbinary representation, or discussion of gender identity, should not require a warning label. Instead, such representation is part of helping children to understand themselves and/or others and giving them skills for thriving in the world today. GLAAD notes, too, that if the FCC is allowed to do this, it is not only harmful to LGBTQ people, but also “sends a message that the FCC can pressure the TVOMB to add even more ratings that stigmatize other diverse groups.”
I also think it is likely that many networks will not want to air children’s programming with warning labels, which may scare many parents even before they really know what the programming contains. Why risk producing something and then scare viewers away? The result will be less LGBTQ inclusion onscreen in the first place—and if that is driven by government policy, that’s censorship. (And again, although gender identity is the focus here, I think these warning labels would create fears that extend across LGBTQ identities.)
Submit a comment to the FCC before the deadline this Friday, May 22, 2026. GLAAD has set up a page with more information, tips, and prompts for submitting a comment, which can be as short as “a single, well-reasoned paragraph.”