This Ohio bill is not 'Don't Say Gay.' Parents should have final say in sex ed.

Originally published in the Columbus Dispatch, this is a slightly expanded version that goes into more detail. I truly appreciate the Dispatch for their willingness to include contrarian voices and headlines that help to sell newspapers.

Imagine being a parent and your child’s schoolteacher chooses to intentionally withhold information from you about your child’s potentially life-altering or life-threatening mental health risks. Imagine further that the teacher chose to do this based on a presumption that you are a greater threat to your child than those mental health concerns.

You don’t have to imagine it because that’s exactly the preference of activists opposing Ohio House Bill 8, also known as the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

H.B. 8 is a plainly written bill that simply establishes in law that parents are not merely the primary decision-makers regarding their child’s sexuality related education but are, in fact, the final arbiters of it. It’s true for every other aspect of a child’s life, why should it be different for this most sensitive topic?

The measure further stipulates that schools must promptly notify parents of “any change… related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being,” and that school personnel are prohibited from “encouraging a student to withhold” that information from their parents.

It’s about as close to common-sense legislation as politicians can produce.

The state Senate added two significant provisions to the bill, one that prohibits sexuality related instruction in grades K-3 and another that requires school districts to allow released time from school for religious instruction. I’ve previously shared my concerns about religious released time, but adding it to the other provisions of H.B. 8 risks the entire bill running afoul of Ohio’s constitutional requirements that legislation address only one subject.

Critics have tried to tar H.B. 8 with the dishonest “Don’t say gay” tagline, which wasn’t true when they tried to use it against a similar Florida law and isn’t part of the Ohio bill either. Such bloviating is merely a distraction from the fact that large majorities of Americans oppose classroom discussion of sexuality with children just five to eight years old. 

The real drama over the bill centers around the parental notification requirement that includes “any request by a student [to school personnel] to identify as a gender that does not align with the student’s biological sex.” Activists refer to this as a forced “outing” of a child’s gender dysphoria.

We all know adolescence can be a difficult time for children and their families. We also know from the gay rights movement of their struggle for acceptance and understanding, including from their own families.

There is a substantive difference, however, between a school’s responsibility toward their same-sex attracted students and those who are gender confused. For the former, nothing at all is required that is different than for their heterosexual students.

Schools don’t have to tell Jack’s parents that he’s dating John any more than they do if he’s dating Jill. No medication, no name changes, no special facilities or accommodations are necessary.

Prior to legislation like H.B. 8, schools took the opposite approach with students with gender confusion. Too often, school personnel actively conspired with minor students — children — to facilitate a “social gender transition” at school without parental knowledge or consent. Teachers could ask for and agree to use student names and pronouns different from the reality of their biological sex and then actively hide those facts from parents.

This might not alone justify legislative action were it not for the fact that social gender transition “is not a neutral act”. A Finnish study found that “evidence from a combined 12 studies to date demonstrates that when children with cross-gender or gender variant behavior are left to develop naturally, the vast majority come to terms with their bodies and learn to accept their sex. When they are socially transitioned, virtually none do .”

The process that follows social transition can lead to chemical castration and other permanent medical and surgical interventions. School personnel are neither qualified nor justified to facilitate the social transition process without parental consent. 

I’ve been told by activists that a pronoun was no different than a nickname. But in the next breath, they’d insist that if everyone didn’t go along and use that nickname, the child might take his or her own life. The logical absurdity of the claim is bad enough, but the suicide threat is far worse. 

The oft-stated claim that 41% of transgender youth attempt suicide comes from a non-scientific survey compromised by selection bias, done by the Trevor Project, a transgender advocacy organization. A U.K. study found the actual suicide rate to be 0.03%. Even one is one too many, but policies should be based on facts, not fears.

Unfortunately, the constant suicide threat can frighten parents into continuing the transition process that schools start. For school personnel to do so and hide it from parents is utterly abhorrent.

While it’s sadly true that a fraction of parents may be a threat to their children, school personnel already have mandatory reporting requirements for those cases. Absent credible evidence that goes beyond mere ideological speculation, parents are correctly presumed to have their children’s best interests at heart.

H.B. 8 restores that presumption, preserves parental rights, and keeps school personnel focused on their real jobs.