House Bill 1104 was recently passed by the Georgia State Senate in a 33-21 decision, leaving the state’s House of Representatives as one of the final barriers before it can become law.

The bill has three focuses. First, it bans sex education from being taught in public schools below the sixth grade; second, it requires public schools to notify parents about library books checked out by students; and third, the primary focus of the bill, it restricts transgender and non-cisgendered youth from locker rooms and sports matching their identity if it does not align with their biological gender.

Non-cisgender youth, youth whose identity does not match their biological sex, have been at the forefront of several attacks and instances of harassment within the past few years. Critics of this bill claim that dangerous incidents will rise by restricting school participation of transgender and other non-cisgender youth.

“Denying transgender students a fair chance to play sports with their classmates, or forcing them into restrooms and locker rooms that don’t match their gender, puts them at increased risk of mental health challenge, harassment and bullying,” said Jeff Graham, the executive director of LGBTQ+ advocacy group Georgia Equality. “Our lawmakers need to stop this dangerous measure.”

However, this bill only recently included anti-trans rhetoric. Before March 19, when Republican state senators added language targeting transgender youth, the bill was originally proposed to offer mental health resources to student athletes.

“My bill was to prevent suicide,” said Omarl Crawford, the representative who proposed the original piece of legislation. “I don’t think that this bill does this now.”

Some GC students hold similar beliefs: that the original contaminants of the bill are diametrically opposed to the new revisions. Kat Mornhinweg, a sophomore computer science major, claims and expands this philosophy to incorporate a larger political dynamic.

“This bill is actually going to cause more suicides than it was originally intended to prevent,” Mornhinweg said. “This is happening throughout the country in every normally red [conservative-prominent] state, especially in the Midwest and South.”

Many states, such as Florida and Oklahoma, participate in these types of legislation, some arguing on a unique front: that parents have an innate say in the gender identity of their kids and surrounding youth.

“No matter what the male claims his gender identity is, it would be based on the birth certificate, and [they] would not be allowed to play in those girls’ sports,” said Clint Dixon, a Republican state senator in Georgia. “[This bill] protects children and empowers parents.”

The “empowers parents” sentiment is also reflected across the two other passages of the bill: banning sex education for public school students before sixth grade and requiring public schools to notify parents about library books checked out by students. This begs the question, why might debates about parental authority surround schools?

Kevin Spann, a political science lecturer at GC, considers there to be a long-standing tradition of conflict between parental values and the government. Spann also claims that schools happen to be a potent area for this conflict to take place, hence explaining why public education is continuous in trailblazing political initiatives.

“For better or worse, public schools have always been at the forefront of social change,” Spann said. “From the Scopes Monkey Trial, to integration to debates regarding the extent of First Amendment rights for minors, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. In a diverse pluralist democracy, public schools simply represent a friction point where parental values and government policy naturally intersect and sometimes come into conflict.”

Nonetheless, one thing is definite regarding this conflict: Greater parental authority in public schooling can have unpredictable effects on the health, privacy and safety of students. Some GC students consider these effects to be amplified for gender-transitioning youth, especially for those of unsupportive parents.

“If your parents are supportive of that [LGBTQ+ identifying persons], then parental notifications for LGBTQ+-centered books shouldn’t be a problem, but there are a lot of people out there who are trans or non-binary who don’t have that kind of support from their parents,” Mornhinweg said. “If their parents are notified about that, that is dangerous — incredibly dangerous.”

Considering these dangers, the general changes to House Bill 1104 raise many deeply ethical and political questions. While the bill remains on the State House floor for upcoming voting, the future for non-cisgendered youth is certainly significant, yet unpredictable.