Against Missouri House Bill 634
Introduction
The following was a written testimony I submitted to the Missouri House of Representatives concerning the contradictions of House Bill 634, or the “Parental Bill of Rights.” Despite our advocacy as communists that we should not participate in the legitimate government, that it holds no power for reform, we still must stand against its needlessly repressive actions. If yelling at lawmakers will alleviate the pressure to harm trans and queer children and adults, then we should do it. My argument takes on the bill from a legal-politico-historical perspective.
Testimony
My name is Thomas Sebacher, and I am a graduate student in the Master of Arts in Public History program at Southeast Missouri State University. I graduated with bachelor’s in philosophy & religion and history from Truman State University. My current research regards the history of mental health treatment and sexuality in the state of Missouri, and I have written a book for the Missouri Hospital Association regarding its 100 years of history. I testify in opposition to this bill from a logical perspective as well as a historical perspective.
With all due respect, the bill has two major flaws; it amounts to a poor attempt to “out” queer children to their parents and a denial of the existence of sexual orientation and gender identity in the public education system. Here, we’ll begin by focusing on the first problem: although the bill’s opponents may claim that it does not require the disclosure of sexual orientation or transgender status to parents, the wording of the bill in subsections 1 and 2 requires disclosure of “mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, a change in related services or monitoring.”
This is based on an outdated and misguided assumption that alternative sexual or gender expressions relate to “mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being,” which, according to the professional guidelines set by the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) is not the case. This would also violate the ethics of the field of psychology if a school psychologist or counselor believed that this disclosure would lead to emotional or physical harm of their patient. This bill would therefore encourage the psychological community to either violate or trivialize their professional obligations to their patients.
Alternatively, the requirement would propose a breach of confidential mental health information. According to Missouri regulations, the law bans disclosure of an “individual’s” confidential information, not the client’s confidential information (20 CSR 2235–5.030, subsection 2A). The parent may be the client in this case, but confidential information including “issues directly affecting the physical or emotional safety of the individual” do not relate to the client. As sexual orientation and gender identity directly affect this physical and emotional safety (see American Psychological Association’s “APA Resolution on Supporting Sexual/Gender Diverse Children and Adolescents in Schools,” Feb. 2020), the bill as proposed would argue that the state should violate its own established code of ethics for the sake of parents’ rights.
My second objection is that the bill violates not only previous Missouri laws regarding sexual education, but also internationally established best practices for comprehensive sexual education. Regarding the first point, the state of Missouri has very clear guidelines for the discussion of sexuality in schools in Title XI 170.015. Since this bill bans discussion or instruction regarding sexual orientation in school, which includes both heterosexual and homosexual orientations, this would make the fulfillment of Title XI impossible (see Jonathan Ned Katz’s The Invention of Heterosexuality and John D’Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman’s Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America). It also makes any discussion of men or women impossible, as both are gender identities, according to established historical and sociological interpretation (see Joan Wallach Scott’s “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” and similar works).
Meanwhile, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education” argues that sexual orientation is an integral part of sexual education. Banning this educated discussion on gender identity and sexual orientation would not effectively protect students and would strain the state’s mental and physical health resources. It could also contribute to increased transmission of HIV/AIDS among the general population; men who have sex with men (MSM) are a group with acknowledged higher risk, and thus constitute a vulnerable population. HIV has and will continue to spread extensively outside of this group, and this could strain already scarce resources in the state for the disease’s surveillance and treatment. As sexually transmitted disease education is mandated (as previously noted, in Title XI) by state law, this would be contrary established state regulation and spark significant confusion.
Aside from the general absurdity of banning teaching regarding gender identity and sexual orientation in Missouri public schools, it is highly unethical educationally. Educational institutions, especially primary and secondary public schools, have a duty to prepare their students for the world that surrounds them. Ignoring these two categories will leave our students unprepared for their inevitable contacts with transgender individuals and those with alternative sexualities. Any parents that propose to challenge this should realize that the consequences of their actions may very well harm their own children.
I remember the issues I confronted when I witnessed the protests in Ferguson during my junior year of high school. I was completely bewildered. I had been repeatedly informed that racial strife was a thing of the past. I was under the impression that the Civil Rights Movement had successfully remedied all the problems of racial inequality. I was not prepared to discuss the topic, nor did I understand how race and racial issues permeate society still to this day. I only became equipped to understand the events in Ferguson years after the protests and violence had ended.
I urge that the committee reconsider this proposal. It violates ethical standards for a variety of professions, educational standards the state as previously established, and it will lead to the coddling of children to the point that they will be unequipped to understand the society in which they live. It will lead to unnecessary emotional and physical distress. It will strain already scarce state resources in critical areas. Altogether, parental rights to know about their children should not extend to knowledge that could negatively predispose them to their own child, especially that will cause undue emotional or physical harm to the child.
