"Don't Say Gay," shame, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

It appears as a parenthetical comment in a CNN opinion piece by Jill Filipovic and then amplified in an Amanda Marcotte piece at Salon. It's one more reason that the Don't Say Gay bill in Florida is doomed. Look at the heart of the language again:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

As Filipovic points out, heterosexuality is a sexual orientation, and male and female are gender identities.

This law is so vague and badly written, that it outlaws any classroom materials that refer to boys and girls, or that talks about traditional hetero romance. So, every fairy tale would be ruled out. Every reference to boys and girls would be verbotten. And we'd have to do something about those gendered bathrooms. As Marcotte puts it:

In other words, if we read the law literally, it would create the kind of gender-less dystopia that conservatives are always claiming liberals want, where any acknowledgment of maleness or femaleness is erased entirely.

Because gender and sexual identity are baked into most of the experiences we subject littles to. As a well-circulated meme says, folks may be freaking out over LGBTQ for littles, but they'll still ask your toddler son if he has a girlfriend and buy your toddler daughter a "Heartbreaker" onesie. 

The answer from proponents of LGBTQ suppression would, I'm betting, be something along the lines of "Tradition roles and identities are normal, and therefor discussing them with littles is age-appropriate," which dovetails with the old notion that LGBTQ persons are not born, but made--or, for the most paranoid, recruited. 

At least part of the impetus here is anger that LGBTQ persons won't demonstrate any shame over their orientation. "Don't Say Gay" echoes that old nomenclature "The love that dare not speak its name." 

The desire to shame and silence has begun to crop up in ways that would be merely silly if they weren't so damaging. The Mississippi assistant principal fired because he read second graders I Need a New Butt may be the result of localized foolishness, but as Alyssa Rosenberg shows in her Washington Post column, it opens a window on how adults forget to appreciate the value of "gross, rude, and absurd" in children's books and lives. Children have a great deal of exploring to do when it comes to themselves. I have often repeated my belief that education should be the business of helping young humans to become more fully their best selves, to grasp what it means to be fully human in the world.

Delivering to children a message that they should feel shame for having butts would not be a useful tool in helping them grow.

But when you unleash shame in a sort of omni-directional vagueness, there's no predicting where it will land. You come up with bad laws that say "Don't talk about X" when you really mean "Don't talk about X in the wrong, abnormal way." It's one more way of saying "We're not actually against indoctrinatin' kids as long as it's done the right way." This law is like a flipped version of all those times conservatives called for freedom of religion and then got upset with Muslims, Pastafarians, and followers of the Church of Satan exercised it.

And there you are, punching yourself in the face. Here's hoping that when DeSantis signs this bill, as he almost certainly will, it goes straight to the courts, where it is struck down as it so richly deserves to be.