The bills target trans kids and one will make discussions of LGBTQ+ people in schools much more difficult. LGBTQ+ advocates spoke out against the bills, saying that they mandated discrimination against trans children.
Sununu vetoed H.B. 396, which would have allowed any person or organization to use “biological sex” as criteria for accessing gender-specific spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and prisons
“the challenge with H.B. 396 is that in some cases it seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves in New Hampshire, and in doing so invites unnecessary discord.”
The bills Sununu did sign, though, force schools to re-organize sports so transgender student-athletes athletes cannot participate on the teams associated with their gender, ban gender-affirming surgery for minors, and require that teachers notify parents two weeks in advance if they are discussing topic related to gender or sexual orientation.
I think that overall this is a moderate set of policies and appropriate for New Hampshire (a state I lived in and like a lot). He vetoed the bill that would have a large impact on the quality of life of trans people. Meanwhile the issue of transgender athletes is both unpopular and unimportant; if I were the governor, I would have vetoed it for the same reason he vetoed H.B. 396, but given that he didn’t, I think it’s definitely not a fight worth picking. Even the New York Times is running articles very critical of surgery on minors. And I had assumed that schools were already informing parents before discussing any sort of sex-ed or sex-ed-adjacent topics.
New Hampshire legalized genital checks for participating in children’s sports and regulated morality in the doctor’s office. As a proud denizen of the Green Mountains, fuck you Whites. This is a dark, perverted path you’re walking. I’ll be damned before I let my kids go to school where they’re forced to pull up their skirts to play soccer
I feel like the two-week notification topic is vague enough that it can end up screwing with a bunch of normal curriculua, though.
The article goes a bit further on that topic:
H.B. 1312 amends a law that requires public school educators to give parents at least two weeks’ notice before any instructional material or program about human sexuality. In the amended version of the bill, educators must give parents at least two weeks’ notice before discussing sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or gender expression.
It was already policy to give two weeks notice before teaching programs about sexuality, but this new verbiage seems like it expands that application beyond specifically sex-ed curricula.
For example, if I’m an English teacher and I want to bring in a work of queer lit into the classroom, or even just a classic text that happens to feature a gay character or queer themes like The Color Purple, what does this mean for me? Do I now have to give that two-week notice every time we start one such text, and then have to pivot my entire unit plan if even one ultra-religious parent does not consent?
If I am a science teacher and one student asks a question about whether or not homosexuality is natural, and I point out that there are a number of other animal species that practice homosexual behavior, am I now penalized because I acknowledged the topic in the classroom without giving advance notice?
Or since it even covers “gender” as a topic, does this affect my ability to discuss the different social roles of men and women in the 20th century and the issue of women’s suffrage?
That’s the only one that’s functionally a no-op: Add the disclaimer that sexual orientation, gender/identity/expression, etc will be taught during the year to the normal school forms for the district.
I agree with you. The intervention of the state government is a blunt instrument and these issues are best left to the discretion of the teacher, the principal, and the school district. Are there actually any school districts so libertine and so heedless of the wishes of the parents that the state needs to restrain them? I doubt it. I’d put this law into the “seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves in New Hampshire, and in doing so invites unnecessary discord” category (I would say “culture war bullshit” category, but that’s why I’m not the governor) but at the same time I think vetoing a law passed by the state legislature shouldn’t be done lightly and the problems caused by this law are sufficiently minor that a veto isn’t necessary.
I suppose I should elaborate on what I meant by “appropriate for New Hampshire”. I didn’t mean “what I would personally prefer” but rather “what strikes a good balance between protecting vulnerable people and being responsive to voters”. I think a lot of the voters want to fight in the culture war, the governor clearly doesn’t (and rightly so), he’s doing what he can to reduce tensions without just ignoring what the voters want, and in this case what the voters want is mostly symbolic.
I think that overall this is a moderate set of policies and appropriate for New Hampshire (a state I lived in and like a lot). He vetoed the bill that would have a large impact on the quality of life of trans people. Meanwhile the issue of transgender athletes is both unpopular and unimportant; if I were the governor, I would have vetoed it for the same reason he vetoed H.B. 396, but given that he didn’t, I think it’s definitely not a fight worth picking. Even the New York Times is running articles very critical of surgery on minors. And I had assumed that schools were already informing parents before discussing any sort of sex-ed or sex-ed-adjacent topics.
New Hampshire legalized genital checks for participating in children’s sports and regulated morality in the doctor’s office. As a proud denizen of the Green Mountains, fuck you Whites. This is a dark, perverted path you’re walking. I’ll be damned before I let my kids go to school where they’re forced to pull up their skirts to play soccer
I feel like the two-week notification topic is vague enough that it can end up screwing with a bunch of normal curriculua, though.
The article goes a bit further on that topic:
It was already policy to give two weeks notice before teaching programs about sexuality, but this new verbiage seems like it expands that application beyond specifically sex-ed curricula.
For example, if I’m an English teacher and I want to bring in a work of queer lit into the classroom, or even just a classic text that happens to feature a gay character or queer themes like The Color Purple, what does this mean for me? Do I now have to give that two-week notice every time we start one such text, and then have to pivot my entire unit plan if even one ultra-religious parent does not consent?
If I am a science teacher and one student asks a question about whether or not homosexuality is natural, and I point out that there are a number of other animal species that practice homosexual behavior, am I now penalized because I acknowledged the topic in the classroom without giving advance notice?
Or since it even covers “gender” as a topic, does this affect my ability to discuss the different social roles of men and women in the 20th century and the issue of women’s suffrage?
That’s the only one that’s functionally a no-op: Add the disclaimer that sexual orientation, gender/identity/expression, etc will be taught during the year to the normal school forms for the district.
I agree with you. The intervention of the state government is a blunt instrument and these issues are best left to the discretion of the teacher, the principal, and the school district. Are there actually any school districts so libertine and so heedless of the wishes of the parents that the state needs to restrain them? I doubt it. I’d put this law into the “seeks to solve problems that have not presented themselves in New Hampshire, and in doing so invites unnecessary discord” category (I would say “culture war bullshit” category, but that’s why I’m not the governor) but at the same time I think vetoing a law passed by the state legislature shouldn’t be done lightly and the problems caused by this law are sufficiently minor that a veto isn’t necessary.
I suppose I should elaborate on what I meant by “appropriate for New Hampshire”. I didn’t mean “what I would personally prefer” but rather “what strikes a good balance between protecting vulnerable people and being responsive to voters”. I think a lot of the voters want to fight in the culture war, the governor clearly doesn’t (and rightly so), he’s doing what he can to reduce tensions without just ignoring what the voters want, and in this case what the voters want is mostly symbolic.
As long as BREAST IMPLANTS for Minors remains UNTOUCHED I SUPPORT all this!
-Republicans who think Drag Queens are Pedophiles!