Florida banned teaching about sexuality and gender in K-3 last year, and authorized only age "appropriate" lessons in higher grades. Now the state education department has ruled that teaching about sexuality and gender is OK only in health classes with students given a chance to opt out, or if required to meet state standards. The Legislature may turn that into a new law.
On the flip side, a Vermont district has removed "male," "female," "boy" and "girl" from the fifth-grade health curriculum. Essex-Westford will use "gender inclusive" language, such as "person who produces sperm" and "person who produces eggs."
Teaching students about gender identity makes sense, if it sticks to the "scientific and sociological facts," argues Max Eden in Newsweek. If it means "presenting gender theory as fact," then his answer is "no."
The Centers for Disease Control recommends teaching fifth-graders about puberty blockers. Sure, writes Eden.
Children could be taught that the most popular puberty-blocking drug was long used to chemically castrate sex offenders, and that blockers can cause permanent bone density problems, mood disorders, seizures, brain swelling, and cognitive impairment.
Students could study why Sweden, Finland, Britain and other countries have limited transgender procedures on children after medical reviews of risks and benefits, Eden suggests.
When students discuss social contagion, they could read about rapid-onset gender dysphoria in girls, and analyze the data about the high rate of psychiatric issues and autism in children with gender dysphoria, he writes.
Public schools "should present students with the facts and information they need to critically examine society," Eden concludes. Yet he suspects that advocates of teaching about gender identity want to indoctrinate students with their "sectarian" dogma.