Opinions
‘Don’t Say Gay’ for sex education
Far-right politicians using abstinence-only playbook to target LGBTQ students
The Administration for Children and Families recently sent letters to health departments in states and territories across the United States, requiring them to remove “all references to gender ideology” from the Personal Responsibility Education Program that provides federal funding for sex education. It’s a disturbing move that mirrors how from the 1980s through the early 2000s, the Bush administrations threatened to and did cut federal funding to states and schools that refused to teach abstinence-only sex education as part of the Purity Culture Movement.
Similar to contemporary “Don’t Say Gay” movements that empower parents seeking to remove references to LGBTQ individuals from classrooms and libraries, abstinence-only sex education has been proven to be deeply ineffective and harmful to children. These parallels are more impactful than ever, as the administration regulates what sex education can be taught in schools by withholding funding. It’s a sex education version of “Don’t Say Gay” that shows how modern anti-LGBTQ legislation is a new form of purity culture, and one bent on eliminating not only representation but also education about LGBTQ bodies.
Understanding this history is vital to unpack and argue against sexual education restricts any discussion of trans, nonbinary, and queer people.
In the 1980s, Congress passed the Adolescent Family Life Act, or the “chastity law.” Title XX of the Public Health Service Act, this act funded a program, which has received more than $125 million to date, that encouraged young people to practice “chastity.” It wasn’t until 1993, following the lawsuit Bowen v. Kendrick by the ACLU that programs functioning out of the AFLA were not permitted to utilize religious references or use churches as host spaces. For the first time, AFLA programs also had to be medically accurate despite a 2004 report by the office of Rep. Henry A. Waxman found that two-thirds of abstinence-only education materials included false information.
By 1996, Title V of the Welfare Reform Act set up a new system of grants providing funding to states that offered abstinence-only sex education. Title V required that federal funding received would be matched by state funds — for every $5 of federal monies, $4 of state monies would be contributed to a program that “teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” Title V was followed by Title XI, §1110 of the Social Security Act, that provided grants to community-centered (including faith) organizations.
This funding often required educators to not teach young people — 12-18-year-old children were targeted by the program — about contraception or other safe-sex practices. This program later moved to the Administration for Children and Families, known as the Community-Based Abstinence Education program. In 2006 alone, $176 million dollars was spent in state grants, and the new program released a new program that urged educators to emphasize traditional family values, including explicit instructions that “material must not encourage the use of any type of contraception outside of marriage or refer to abstinence as a form of contraception.”
While these programs largely went defunct by 2009 when President Barack Obama removed almost all funding for abstinence-only sex education, the Community-Based Abstinence Education and Title V programs continue to allocate funding. A new bill–Senate Bill 3 sponsored by Senator Shay Shelnutt–on the docket for the Alabama Senate’s 2026 session seeks to require any sex education program or curriculum taught in a public K-12 school to “encourage abstinence from all sexual activity.” The bill would also require a parent or guardian’s permission before a child could be part of sex education, establishing an opt-in option rather than an opt-out that was discussed this past March in New Hanover County.
As students return to school in New Hanover County, they face a new sex education program — one that removes lessons on gender and sexuality. This includes removing discussions of gender roles and the LGBTQ+ community. This past March, the New Hanover County Board of Education voted to change its sex education programs to comply with federal mandates related to gender identity, namely executive orders like the one signed on Trump’s first day in office that denied the existence of trans, intersex, and nonbinary individuals.
This was also deeply influenced by Trump’s Jan. 29, 2025 executive order titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” stating that within 90 days of the order, the Secretary of Education, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of Health and Human Services would provide an Ending Indoctrination Strategy “eliminating Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools, including based on gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.” The New Hanover County Board of Education’s vote also came after the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights mandated that districts remove DEI, or programs or initiatives focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion.
While the option of establishing an opt-in program rather than an opt-out one were squashed by the Board of Education and were opposite staff recommendations, they were brought up during the conversation–setting a dangerous precedent, and as the Administration for Children and Families’s letters this past week reveal, historical (and present) funding restrictions surrounding sex education directly mirrors current efforts to remove mentions to LGBTQ+ identity and same-sex relationships.
And it has a historical precedent — purity culture has roots in the Social Purity Movements of late 19th and early 20th centuries that sought to eliminate social impurities, like sex work and contraception use, along with LGBTQ+ identity and representation. Perhaps the best example are the 19th-century Comstock laws. Anthony Comstock, an infantryman during the Civil War, tipped police about sex trade merchants and got his anti-contraceptive bill passed on March 3, 1873. Comstock was instrumental in the passing of a federal law with his namesake in 1873 criminalizing the distribution of pornography, contraceptives and information about them, and any materials that could be used to produce an abortion.
The Comstock Act of 1873 also classified LGBTQ+ publications as “obscene” and prohibited their transport through the US Mail. It wasn’t until 1958 that classifying LGBTQ+ materials as “obscene” was overturned by the Supreme Court. In 1954, the Los Angeles Postmaster argued based on the Comstock Act that One: The Homosexual Magazine was obscene and thus could not be transported via the mail, but four years later, the Supreme Court ruled in One, Inc. v. Olesen that the Comstock Act had limited application over written materials.
Today, anti-abortion activists are debating the resurrection of the Comstock Act of 1873, which is still in effect but has largely become dormant in the last 150 years. The law is still technically enforceable and could be used to stop the distribution of contraceptives and abortion medications and supplies through the mail and local carriers.
Modern anti-trans legislation uses some of the same language that Comstock did over 150 years ago and abstinence-only educators did over 20 years ago that access to information about sexual intercourse, contraceptives and abortion will cause people to seek them out. It’s the same argument used within late 20th and early 21st purity culture to mandate the erasure of queer and trans people from libraries, classrooms, and public spaces, which conservative Christian leaders argue that they can stop children from “becoming” gay by “protecting” them from all discussions of LGBTQ+ identity and expression.
So the news of these letters from the Administration for Children and Families are not surprising but rather show how far-right Christian politicians are mobilizing the abstinence-only sex education playbook to target discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in schools. After the Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court case that ruled in June 2025 that parents could opt their children out of lessons that including books with LGBTQ+ representation on the basis of religious rights, this aim to restrict federal funding on the basis of including LGBTQ+ representation and discussions of LGBTQ+ identity in sex education is the next logical step to “Don’t Say Gay” in classrooms.
Emma Cieslik is a D.C.-based museum worker and public historian.
Opinions
A reminder that Jan. 6 was ‘textbook terrorism’
Capitol attack started an effort to make civic engagement feel dangerous
Jan. 6 taught us what it costs to defend our families and our communities.
Five years ago, Michael Fanone went to work as a Metropolitan Police Department officer and ended the day fighting for his life while defending the United States Capitol.
After Michael spoke publicly about what he witnessed on Jan. 6, the response was not disagreement or debate. It was intimidation. His mother was swatted in a targeted attack.
We are not immediate family, but we spend holidays together. Our lives overlap. And that was close enough.
Unpaid pizza deliveries were sent to our homes. Strangers showed up demanding payment. Threats followed, by phone and online. The message was unmistakable: Speaking out against Donald Trump would come at a cost, not only for you, but for your family.
As Mayor Muriel Bowser said at the time, Jan. 6 was “textbook terrorism.”
What made this harder was not only the intimidation itself, but the absence of any clear support once the headlines faded. One of us was a Metropolitan Police officer. The other served on the D.C. State Board of Education. If anyone should have known where to turn or had access to guidance or protection, it should have been us. Instead, there were no clear resources to help families deal with harassment, no guidance on what to do when threats followed us home, and no sense that anyone had our backs once the attention moved on. We were left to absorb it quietly and figure it out ourselves.
That experience changed how I understood Jan. 6, not as a single violent day, but as the start of a longer effort to make civic engagement feel dangerous and isolating. You do not have to silence everyone. You only have to make examples of a few.
I know many people in this city recognize that feeling now. The sense that speaking out carries risk. That you cannot afford to lose your job. That scrubbing your social media is safer than risking the consequences. In this context, silence is not necessarily apathy. It is self-preservation.
As a school board member and healthcare navigator, I hear it from families who decide to keep their children at home rather than send them to school. I hear it from families who decide not to re-certify their Medicaid, not because they are ineligible, but because they fear being targeted for using public benefits. These are not abstract concerns. They are everyday decisions shaped by fear of retaliation, fear learned by watching what happens to people who speak out.
More people in our city are now asking the same question my family was forced to confront on Jan. 6: Who will back you when the pressure does not stop, or when it follows you home after work?
This is where the city should step in and say clearly: We will have your back.
Yes, D.C. operates under real constraints. We lack statehood. We cannot deploy the National Guard without federal approval. Congress can overturn our laws.
But even within those limits, choices still matter. Across D.C., neighbors are walking children to school when families fear being targeted by ICE. Passersby are stopping to question why someone is being profiled or detained. These acts do not eliminate risk. They redistribute it, often making the difference between retreat and resistance.
This is not about asking everyone to be louder or braver on their own. It is about whether we are willing, as a city and a community, to make it safer for people to stand up to a bully. That means building real support around those who take risks, so they are not left isolated afterward. It means treating endurance as a shared responsibility, not an individual test.
Our city may not have all the powers it would have as a state, but we still have choices. Right now, residents and city workers who face threats are left to navigate a maze of agencies, hotlines, and informal advice on their own. That gap is a policy choice, and it does not have to remain one. There should be one clear place to go when harassment or threats occur, a single point of contact that helps document what’s happening, connects people to existing resources, and coordinates a response across agencies. Not a new bureaucracy, but a clear front door. The message it would send matters as much as the help itself. You are not on your own, and the city is paying attention beyond the news cycle.
Jan. 6 did not end at the Capitol. It moved into our neighborhoods, our families, and our daily choices. The work now is not to demand a single expression of courage, but to make it safer for all of us to stand up in our own way, together.
Allister Chang is a member of the D.C. State Board Of Education from Ward 2.
Opinions
A dangerous precedent on trans rights in Texas
State compiling list of those who have updated gender on driver’s licenses
Recent reporting from Texas Standard revealed what should alarm every American who values privacy, civil rights, and constitutional restraint: the state of Texas is compiling a list of transgender residents who have attempted to update the gender marker on their driver’s licenses.
Under a policy quietly implemented after August 2024, the Texas Department of Public Safety stopped accepting court orders or amended birth certificates as valid documentation for gender marker changes. Instead, DPS employees were instructed to forward the names and identifying information of applicants seeking such updates to a dedicated internal email channel labeled “Sex Change Court Order.” Those records, which include sensitive personal information, are now being collected internally by the state.
Texas officials have not offered a clear explanation for why this information is being gathered, how long it will be retained, or what it will ultimately be used for. That lack of transparency is deeply troubling on its own. But in the broader context of Texas’s recent legislative trajectory on transgender rights, the implications are far more serious. This is not merely a bureaucratic shift. It is the creation of a targeted registry of transgender people.
The discriminatory nature of this practice is difficult to ignore. Governments are generally prohibited from singling out individuals based on protected characteristics for special monitoring or record-keeping. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, discrimination against transgender people has been understood as a form of sex discrimination under federal law. Compiling a list of people solely because they sought to align their identification documents with their gender identity runs directly counter to that principle.
Even states with restrictive policies around gender marker changes have historically focused on procedural barriers rather than surveillance. Texas has crossed a new threshold by moving from denial to documentation. The state is no longer just refusing recognition; it is actively cataloging those who seek it.
This practice also represents a profound violation of privacy. Driver’s license records contain some of the most sensitive personal data the government holds. Associating that data with a person’s transgender status without consent or statutory justification creates obvious risks, particularly in a political environment where transgender people are already subject to heightened hostility.
The chilling effect is unavoidable. Trans Texans will now have to weigh whether engaging with basic state services could land them on a government list. That fear will discourage people from updating identification, interacting with public agencies, or asserting their legal rights at all. When a government’s actions deter a specific population from participating in civic life, the harm extends well beyond administrative inconvenience.
What makes this development especially dangerous is how neatly it fits into a broader pattern. Texas lawmakers have spent years advancing legislation that narrows the legal definition of sex, restricts access to gender-affirming care, and limits the recognition of transgender people across public institutions. The creation of this list does not stand apart from those efforts; it complements them.
Once such a database exists, it becomes a tool. Data collected today for “administrative review” can be used tomorrow to justify new exclusions, enhanced scrutiny, or punitive enforcement. History shows that registries built around identity rarely remain benign. They become mechanisms of control.
Other states are watching. Texas has increasingly functioned as a testing ground for anti-trans policy, with lawmakers elsewhere ready to replicate measures that survive legal or political backlash. If compiling a list of transgender residents becomes normalized in Texas, it will not remain isolated. Red states searching for new ways to restrict trans lives will take notice.
The constitutional issues raised by this practice are significant. The Equal Protection Clause forbids states from treating similarly situated individuals differently without sufficient justification. Singling out transgender people for special tracking invites heightened scrutiny. There are also serious Fourth Amendment concerns when the government collects and retains sensitive personal information without a clear, lawful purpose.
At stake is not just the safety of transgender Texans, but the integrity of government itself. If states are permitted to quietly assemble lists of disfavored populations, the precedent does not stop with gender identity. It becomes easier to rationalize similar measures against other groups, under different political conditions.
This moment demands scrutiny and resistance. Texas must be compelled to explain why this data is being collected, how it will be protected, and whether it will be shared across agencies. Civil rights organizations and federal authorities should treat this practice as a serious warning sign, not a minor administrative quirk.
The United States has made meaningful progress toward recognizing the rights and dignity of transgender people, but that progress is fragile. It can be reversed not only through sweeping legislation, but through quiet bureaucratic maneuvers that evade public attention.
A list of transgender citizens is not a neutral administrative artifact. It is a signal. It tells a vulnerable population that their government is watching them differently, recording them differently, and preparing to treat them differently. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they live.
If we allow this to stand, Texas will not be the last state to do it.
Isaac Amend is a writer based in the D.C. area. He is a transgender man and was featured in National Geographic’s ‘Gender Revolution’ documentary. He serves on the board of the LGBT Democrats of Virginia. Contact him on Instagram at @isaacamend
One year gone, another just beginning. The best of all worlds would be no regrets about how you lived your life in 2025, and a positive outlook for 2026. I wish that for all of you, along with good health and happiness.
For me, 2025 was a good year. No new health issues as long as I don’t consider my recent root canal. Friends kidded if that was my worst, life is OK. But then they didn’t sit in the dentist chair for three hours. As you are aware, if reading this in the Blade, I write about politics. The felon in the White House ensures there is always something to write about. Unfortunately, it’s 99% bad. He recently said he will interfere in Europe, and support far-right parties. Not surprising for him, and his fascist leaning administration. Again, as you know, I usually refer to him as ‘The felon,’ my most polite name for him. He has a slew of scary incompetents around him, but truly frightening are the fascists like Russell Vought at OMB who wrote Project 2025, and his personal Goebbels, Stephen Miller. They are proposing policies that are destroying lives. While many don’t impact me, they create a certain amount of guilt in how I live my life. I am a white, privileged, cisgender, older, male and can escape the immediate repercussions of some of the worst things happening in the world today. Nearly all perpetrated, or supported, by the evil SOB in the White House. There, another name for him.
As long as my Social Security keeps coming, and Medicare still pays 80% of my doctor bills, I should be OK. In 2025, I continued to join friends every morning for coffee. In D.C. at Java House; in Rehoboth Beach, it’s The Coffee Mill, owned by my good friends Mel Damascena and Bob Cartwright.
My regular column allows me to vent and comment on the world. My second column is the Blade’s Comings & Goings column. It lets me share the successes of so many in the LGBTQ community. We have a truly amazing community, of which I am so proud to be a part. In 2025, I also began my second book, this one on politics, but don’t hold your breath for a publication date. I am also a theater reviewer for the Georgetown Dish. I get to see as many plays as I like, and share thoughts about them. Mind you, I call myself a reviewer, not a critic. I always try to find something nice to say about every production, even if I don’t recommend others see it. Maybe a good actor, great scenic designer, always something good even in a bad production.
I am fortunate to continue to travel. Now it’s on cruise ships. Great to unpack once, and know where the bathroom is. This past year I went on two cruises, and the Blade was kind enough to publish my blogs. One, a bucket list cruise, something I wanted to do for over 40 years, to the Norwegian Fjords, and the Arctic. Twelve days on Celebrity APEX out of Southampton. It was amazing, and met all my expectations. The second was my recent transatlantic cruise, something I do annually, with a large group of friends from around the country, and world. It was 13 nights from Rome to Ft. Lauderdale. I’ve already booked next October; 16 nights on Celebrity XCEL, Barcelona to Miami. I even have two cruises booked in 2027, one a transatlantic, the other a river cruise on the Douro, in Portugal. Feel free to join me if you like cruising, at least the kind done on the water.
All-in-all, 2025 was a good year. I look forward to the same in 2026. More travel, including a barge trip in June from Lyon to Paris, through the canals of Burgundy. I hope for good health, time with good friends, and more writing. In addition, I promise my friends, and community, I will continue to fight with, and for you, trying to make our lives better. I will demonstrate against the felon and his policies, work hard to elect Democrats, especially my friend Zach Wahls, running for United States Senate in Iowa. I will stand up, and speak out, for my trans friends, and friends who are immigrants, all threatened by the felon.
I ask you to join me and do everything we can to take back our country and look forward to maybe seeing many of you on a cruise, but definitely on the battle lines, here at home. Together, we can work in 2026 and beyond, to ensure everyone can live the life they want, and deserve; in what again must be the land of the free and home of the brave.
Peter Rosenstein is a longtime LGBTQ rights and Democratic Party activist.
PHOTOS: Freddie’s Follies
Imperial Court of Washington drag group has ‘dissolved’
What to watch for in 2026: midterms, Supreme Court, and more
A reminder that Jan. 6 was ‘textbook terrorism’
Claudia López criticizes Trump over threats against Colombian president
A look back at the best books of 2025
D.C.’s 10 best theater productions of 2025
The year in photos
Safer Ways to Pay for Online Performances and Queer Events
