Massachusetts bill H.551 isn’t exactly a repeat of Florida’s infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill, but it does rhyme. These types of bills follow the “if you don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist” school of thought that’s been haunting our nation lately.
But what about parental rights?
The argument in favor of these types of bills is that parents deserve the right to exercise control over what their children learn in school. More specifically, those on the right contend that children shouldn’t be taught about sexuality in class. It’s typically presented as a “save the children” bill–which puts opponents of it on the defensive, seemingly having to argue in favor of teachers talking about sex to kindergarteners.
What we stand to lose
As with many matters of free speech, people will dream up absurd hypothetical situations to justify eroding our rights to save themselves from discomfort. This bill doesn’t actually protect children from predators–it protects parents from having to explain concepts they’d rather pretend don’t exist. Opposing this bill is predicated on a few simple concepts:
- Actual predators already circumvent laws to prey on children
- Acknowledging that LGBTQ people exist doesn’t mean explaining how, for example, gay sex works
- Teachers shouldn’t be afraid to lose their jobs just from answering questions
- Children may need a safe place to ask such questions, especially if home is a hostile environment for them
- It stigmatizes LGBTQ people by design by “othering” them
Oppose H.551
If you’d like to join the voices opposing this bill (and you should), find out who your representatives are, contact their offices, and deliver a message like this, tailored to your liking:
I am writing to urge you to oppose H.551. While the bill is presented as a measure to “protect children,” its true impact will be to silence students and educators, foster stigma, and harm the very kids it claims to protect.
Policies like H.551 do nothing to stop predators. Actual abusers are not deterred by restrictions on classroom discussion. What this bill does accomplish is censoring teachers, punishing schools, and telling LGBTQ+ students and families that their identities are taboo.
Please reject this bill and stand for a school environment that treats all kids with dignity and honesty.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your City/Town]
[Optional: Contact Info]
Leave a comment
[Guest] eBos on September 02, 2025
“Actual predators already circumvent laws to prey on children” - no. This is not a law to prevent predators. It’s to keep curriculum age appropriate for K-3 and to notify parents about change in mental status of their child and to not hide anything from parents. The child does not belong to the state or the school. The child belongs to the parents. “Acknowledging that LGBTQ people exist doesn’t mean explaining how, for example, gay sex works Teachers shouldn’t be afraid to lose their jobs just from answering questions” no- this is again about appropriate school curriculum, and about hiding a child’s trans ideation from parents and secretly socially transitioning them behind the backs of parents. And teachers have no reason to tell their K-3 students about their personal lives anyways. “Children may need a safe place to ask such questions, especially if home is a hostile environment for them” sorry not in K-3 these kids really don’t need to talk about gay sex or “gender identity “ “It stigmatizes LGBTQ people by design by “othering” them “ …how does it do this?
📝 massandra (author) on September 02, 2025
But it isn’t aimed at general curriculum—it targets specific content of speech.
That’s the claim, but the law is far broader than that. Teachers could be penalized simply for acknowledging someone is gay in a lesson, based on the letter of the law.
Teachers aren’t the only people to ever be LGBTQ. This bill applies to historical figures as well.
A man saying “I have a husband” isn’t talking about sex any more than a woman saying it is, yet it would be penalized under this law.
The law penalizes “instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity”, yet you can imagine that teaching, for example, that George Washington had a wife would not be considered “instruction on heterosexuality”, whereas the implication is that teaching about a gay couple could be seen as “instruction on sexual orientation”, up to interpretation by a judge. That’s a line teachers probably wouldn’t risk their jobs over just to make a point, which makes the law more potent than even just its exact wording.