Early exposure to LGBTQ+ issues matters

Fifteen. The number of states that have followed Florida’s lead in introducing or codifying anti-LGBTQ+ legislation targeting discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in early educational settings is 15.

The recent signing into law of Florida’s “Parental Rights in Education” bill (HB 1557), otherwise known as the “don’t say gay” bill, has emboldened a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that almost certainly will harm LGBTQ+ youth. Such policies may also contribute to the underrepresentation and exclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals within higher education. Approximately 10% of LGBTQ+ students report that repeated verbal harassment in school settings has affected their decision to attend college. The immediate impacts of anti-LGBTQ+ policy on sexual and gender minority youth’s mental and physical health outcomes, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, substance use and suicidality, have been well-documented. However, little is known about the longterm effects that such legislation has on educational and employment opportunities for these youth.

As HB 1557 goes into effect this July, educational leaders across the U.S. worry that these policies may further exacerbate negative experiences in the classroom and increase the invisibility of LGBTQ+ youth and their families. Parental rights laws coupled with “don’t say gay” bills limit early exposure to issues related to sexuality and gender identity in an ostensibly safe, organized and nondiscriminatory environment. Specifically, the vague language throughout HB 1557 may provide the weapons necessary to largely erase discussions of diverse lived experiences and LGBTQ+ topics from primary (and potentially secondary) educational spaces. Further, the law requires schools to request permission from parents to provide wellness services and allows parents to opt out of those services for their child. Even as half of LGBTQ+ youth report concerns for their safety at school due to their sexual orientation and only one third report a supportive home environment, the presence of supportive teachers and counselors who create an affirming environment for these students may no longer be available.

Instead, under the guise of “parental rights,” Florida’s law places the onus of facilitating conversations related to LGBTQ+ topics on parents. While parents should already be actively fostering these conversations, this could be seen as a call to action for parents who may not have the capacity or willingness to do so or may do so in a damaging or non-affirming way.

Concerted efforts should be made by parents to educate themselves with information from credible resources — i.e. outside of the comments section of Facebook — on topics related to sexuality, gender and equality and to provide a judgment-free and safe space for their child to discuss these topics openly. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected several resources from LGBTQ+ and ally organizations, including Healthy Children, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and Genders and Sexualities Alliance Network (GSA). These resources were created for parents and present LGBTQ+ educational information that is approachable and accessible. These resources also connect parents to supportive services and aim to improve communication skills to navigate age-specific conversations and to create an open and supportive environment for their child.

Recently, I was involved with the development and delivery of a family-based sexual health intervention for sexual minority teens and their families in the South. In conversations with parents and teens, we found that parents felt largely un- or undereducated on gender and sexuality topics, and, often, were unwilling to have conversations on these topics with their child. Given this experience, I am skeptical of the emphasis placed on parent-led education, as it would seem unlikely that these conversations would be helpful or even happen without the proper resources and reinforcement.

Beyond the immediate potential effects of HB 1557, policymakers may have underestimated or ignored possible long-term implications. Research has demonstrated that LGBTQ+ individuals are underrepresented in the educational pathways for health professionals, specifically those related to psychology, public health and medicine. LGBTQ+ individuals in these fields have reported safety concerns and feelings of isolation in their academic training programs, and exhibited higher rates of attrition. Policies like HB 1557 will not only widen existing gaps in representation in these fields but will also reinforce structural barriers that prevent LGBTQ+ youth and emerging adults from finding affirming educational spaces. Additional research will be needed to further understand the multilevel impact of “don’t say gay” bills on the education and career trajectories of LGBTQ+ youth.