On March 28, 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis approved House Bill No. 1557 – a bill colloquially labelled the “Don’t Say Gay” bill (Florida House of Representatives, 2022). The bill effectively bans the discussion of queer identity and topics in Florida public schools. Originally, the ban only applied to students from kindergarten to the third grade. However, with the passage of House Bill No. 1069, the ban now applies through the entirety of a student’s K-12 education (Florida House of Representatives, 2023). These bills are the governor’s and conservatives’ answer to modern questions regarding gender identity, sexuality, and their implications. The state declares in its laws that there are only two genders, and queerness is not to be acknowledged while in school. Consequently, students suffer. Those who are queer are forced to the peripheries of society, while those who are not lose valuable opportunities to learn more about the world around them. This paper will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the rhetorical situation, genre, and historical discourse pertaining to the text. It aims to furnish additional context regarding the adverse implications of the social change document at hand.
This text introduces a Florida House Bill, often referred to as "HB." A Florida House Bill is a type of proposed legislation presented in a governing body's House of Representatives. The bill goes through various committees and representatives' reviews before being put to a vote. If it gains approval, it moves on to the state senate. Upon approval in the Senate, it is then sent to the governor for final endorsement. Once a bill successfully completes this process and receives the governor's approval, it becomes law.
A Florida House Bill is formalized in the Florida Statutes. It has distinctive features, including a section number and, if applicable, a subsection number and paragraph reference. These features specify which part of the law the bill relates to and the details it addresses. For instance, the "Don't Say Gay" bill is in Florida Statutes section 1001, subsection 42, point (8), paragraph c, point 3. Section 1001 pertains to the administration of early learning institutions, subsection 42 deals with school district governance, point (8) addresses student welfare, and lastly, paragraph c. is the key addition introducing the new rules for school districts to adhere to.
This topic will be discussed further in the analysis of the text's historical discourse, but the genre's constraints are used by the author as an advantage. While bills can be unambiguous in their writing and their application (for example, speed limits within school zones may not be greater than 20 miles per hour as found within the Florida statutes), many laws are purposely drafted with opaque language. This is to provide leeway to those enforcing the laws, such as judges or police officers. An excerpt from the document is below with the sentence of note in bold:
“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in prekindergarten through grade 8, except when required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46. If such instruction is provided in grades 9 through 12, the instruction must be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.” This subparagraph applies to charter schools (Florida Government, n.d.).
This section follows all standards of legal writing found within a bill, but the sentence in bold does not provide much clarity as to what is “age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” (Florida Government, n.d.) The citations before it provides some context, but this will be explored later in this essay. Because of the vague language, enforcers of these standards may now exploit and weaponize the phrase so it may apply to any innocuous instance of queer representation. Whether the author intended this and was successful in their utilization of the genre is up to individual interpretation.
The rhetorical and historical discourse analysis of the text will make up the lion’s share of this paper and will be heavily intertwined in their content and themes. The exigence – the text’s purpose – according to the bill’s authors is that the bill “reinforces a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care and upbringing of his or her child in the public-school setting.” The impetus behind the creation of this bill arises from conservative reactions to the growing acceptance and visibility of queer individuals in mainstream culture. The authors, made up entirely of Republican Florida House members (Florida Government, n.d.), crafted this bill not only with their Republican peers in the Senate and Governor’s office in mind, but also with the conservative population of Florida at large. The bill appeals to the aforementioned parties for a variety of reasons; for some, the bill satisfies their authentic desires, for others, it satisfies the desires of their constituents.
The text serves as a surrogate response from the conservative body of Florida to the “woke” population in the state. Florida has emerged in recent history as the focal point for conservative ideology. Republicans, championed by Governor DeSantis, have transformed Florida into a battleground against progressive ideology, from ousting university personnel to banning classroom instruction on topics of race to retaliating against corporations that support queer representation. By drafting this bill, the law makers are taking an active role to dismantle and defeat the cultural discourse around queer identity.
Introducing this body of texts achieves this goal on many fronts: discussion of identity and sexuality in public schools is limited in a vague enough manner that the bill can apply to a plethora of situations (this is discussed more later in the paper), the bill “advocates” the protection of children from topics that may be inappropriate to their age, thus erasing responsibility for any of its harmful consequences, and the bill embellishes the image of Republican influence on Florida politics. Through these achievements, the agents of the bill – those who drafted it – weaponize the law to advance the agenda of conservatives within the state of Florida.
For those who agree with the bill’s intentions, there has never been a better time than now to submit it to the state for approval. During the session in which the bill was passed, Florida had a majority Republican House of Representatives and Senate, as well as a Republican Governor. This political preeminence over the opposing parties provides the highest chance of success. With the cultural influence of Ron DeSantis and influence of Donald Trump on Florida conservatives, the bill entered the House at a time when a significant portion of the public would be in favor of its passing.
The bill integrates Aristotle’s appeals – logos, pathos, and ethos – to justify its framework. With regard to logos, the appeal to logic, the bill folds the prong that effectively restricts the discussion of queer topics in schools between numerous other policy additions. This framing aims to mitigate any potential emotional responses from the reader by contextualizing this prong within a broader spectrum of education-related changes. If all the other changes and additions are sound, how could this one be different? Regarding pathos, the appeal to emotion, the bill continuously stresses that it exists for the benefit of parents. This effort is found in the bill’s title, “Parental Rights in Education,” and is also found in text on the first page that explicitly explains its purpose: “requiring such procedures to reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children in a specified manner.” (add citation). The author wants to make clear to parents and other readers that the bill’s prongs exist to support parents, not to erase queer visibility. Finally, regarding ethos, the appeal to credibility, the authors benefit from the fact they are elected officials chosen by the public. As such, their proposals are assumed to be made with the desires of the public in mind.
This section of the paper will not be exhaustive in its discussion of queer visibility in public discourse, but it will focus on such visibility in Florida’s recent history. As previously mentioned, House Bills No. 1557 and 1069 were constructed by conservative lawmakers. They are framed as defenses of parents’ rights but are more likely responses by conservative party members in Florida to the increasing visibility of queer issues. Florida is not known for its history of supporting queer people: the state is responsible for the creation and spread of the notorious 'purple pamphlet,' most of its voting population voted to ban gay marriage as recently as 2008 and is now aiming to ban queer topics from public view. As briefly mentioned, Ron DeSantis’ election to the Governor’s office is another factor in this document’s creation. The platform that DeSantis has built his office around actively pushes against 'woke' ideology. In a victory speech given on November 8, 2022, in Tampa, Florida after winning reelection, DeSantis is quoted saying:
“We [referring to the Florida Republican Party] reject this woke ideology. We seek normalcy, not philosophical lunacy. We will not allow reality, facts, and truth to become optional… We fight the woke in the legislature. We fight the woke in the schools. We fight the woke in the corporations. We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Florida is where woke goes to die!” (Florida Governor's Office, 2023).
Woke, as defined by Merriam Webster, means “[to be] aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)…” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.). The drafting and confirmation of House Bills No. 1557 and 1069 serves this anti-woke goal.
The bill addresses classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity by school personnel or third parties, deeming it entirely inappropriate around students, except as required by ss. 1003.42(2)(n)3. and 1003.46 in Chapter 1003 of the Florida Statutes, which pertain to public K-12 education (Florida Government). Notably, subsection 42(2)(n)3. does not exist, despite being referenced in the bill. The correct reference is subsection 42(2)(o)3., which defines 'Comprehensive age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate K-12 instruction’. The statute the bill intends to reference, and considers one of the only exceptions to discussing sexuality and gender orientation with students, is the one stating, “For students in grades 6 through 12, awareness of the benefits of sexual abstinence as the expected standard and the consequences of teenage pregnancy” (ss. 1003.42(2)(o)3.). This subsection pertains to health education in public schools and outlines similar standards as previously mentioned. The inclusion of subsection 1003.46 likely stems from the following quote from ss. 1003.46(2)(a):
“[when such instruction and course material contains instruction in human sexuality, a school shall] Classify males and females as provided in s. 1000.21(9) and teach that biological males impregnate biological females by fertilizing the female egg with male sperm; that the female then gestates the offspring; and that these reproductive roles are binary, stable, and unchangeable” (Florida Government).
The absence of representation, discussion, or protections concerning queer and transgender topics reflects the conservative stance of Florida's governing body. State statutes include exceptions that unequivocally establish a cisheteronormative perspective within the Florida school system, deeming alternative approaches as inappropriate.
A cisheteronormative society is presented as the truth of the Florida public school system. Cisheteronormativity can be better understood when broken down into its respective pieces: cis-, -hetero, and normative: "cis-" (meaning 'on this side of'), “-hetero” (meaning 'another'), and “normative” (referring to societal standards). “Cisgender” aligns with one's birth-assigned sex, while “transgender” does not. “Heterosexual” indicates attraction to the opposite gender, while 'homosexual' refers to attraction to the same gender. Normativity denotes what is considered standard in society, such as raising a hand to signal a question or comment. The conservative government of Florida actively promotes this viewpoint, wielding it as a blueprint for governance. Governor DeSantis, in his book, The Courage to be Free, asserts, “What Florida has accomplished is nothing short of a resounding success, serving as a direct challenge to the entrenched elites who have steered our nation off course,” (DeSantis, 2023). Through policy and rhetoric, Florida seeks not only to establish its ideological stance within the state but also to influence the nation at large, asserting its vision of societal norms and values.
The aspect of the text that is most effective in responding to its purpose – which according to the authors of the text is to “[reinforce] a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions regarding the care and upbringing of his or her child in the public-school setting,” (add citation) but really are to minimize the presence of queer voices in public education – is its usage of language. The text is just vague enough to act as a dog whistle for conservative politicians and constituents. A dog whistle is defined as “an expression or statement that has a secondary meaning intended to be understood only by a particular group of people” by Merriam Webster’s dictionary (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). The bill itself makes no explicit mention of any of the following terms:
• Gay;
• Lesbian;
• Homosexual;
• Pansexual;
• Transgender;
• Transsexual;
• Nonbinary; or,
• Queer.
Consequently, conservatives may respond to criticism of the bill by claiming it does not discriminate against queer people for this reasoning. This reasoning is flawed. Due to the definitions provided by the state in subsections 1003.42(2)(o)3. and 1003.46, any discussion of sexuality in a context other than that related to abstinence is prohibited. Any discussion of gender in a context other than saying it ascribes to biological traits is prohibited. Any discussion of the stories, history, and voices of queer individuals is prohibited. This marks a significant rhetorical and legal victory for the bill's authors, and it has already had a profound impact on diminishing queer representation and safety within the Florida public school system.
I wrote this research paper to elucidate the effects of discriminatory legislation on disenfranchised populations in Florida. This paper focuses on the challenges faced by Queer students within the school system, but the Florida House, Senate, and Governor’s office have made sweeping decisions that also affect a variety of other disenfranchised populations.
The Florida legislature and DeSantis administration both came under fire in 2022 when the Governor approved a new congressional map that erased a North Florida congressional seat (Fineout, 2022). The seat that was erased represented the 5th district of Florida, where 46% of voting-age residents were Black; the 5th district housed the state’s only African American county (Parra & Rhoades, 2023). Shortly after the redistricting, the incumbent representative, Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, lost by 20 points.
In 2018, Florida voters passed Amendment 4, an amendment restoring the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence (Florida, n.d.). Within his first year of office, DeSantis signed Senate Bill 7066 (The Florida Senate, 2019), requiring that previous felons pay back all fees and fines owed, despite Florida not having a centralized system to find what they owe. DeSantis was sued shortly after by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, arguing Florida created a system that impedes the will of the voters (Ellenbogen, 2019).
Now, the Florida government is looking to expand its discriminatory policies again. On November 21, 2023, Florida state Representative Ryan Chamberlin proposed House Bill 599 – Gender Identity Employment Practices (Chamberlin, 2023). Below, we will find excerpts from the bill that explain the author’s intentions better than any summary could:
(2) It is the policy of the state that a person's sex is an immutable biological trait and that it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person's sex.
(3) An employee or a contractor may not be required, as a condition of employment, to refer to another person using that person's preferred personal title or pronouns if such personal title or pronouns do not correspond to that person’s sex.
(4) an employee or a contractor may not provide to an employer his or her preferred personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.
And regarding section 760.10 of the Florida Statutes, the section that sets the standard for “Unlawful Employment Practices,”
(10) It is an unlawful employment practice for a nonprofit organization or an employer who receives funding from the state to require, as a condition of employment, any training, instruction, or other activity on sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression.
Carlos Guillermo Smith, a senior policy advisor at Equality Florida, the state's largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, made the following statement on behalf of the organization: “HB 599 is an alarming escalation of right-wing extremism in Florida. The bill imposes unprecedented government control over the work of nonprofit organizations disfavored by the DeSantis administration and goes far beyond its proposed regulation of pronouns to aggressively target the rights of transgender government employees to simply exist as themselves,” (Chu, 2023).
The language of the bill would effectively ban any LGBTQ+ non-profit organization from existing in Florida, and completely ban the Queer populations use of their personal pronouns and identities from the state.
All these details come together to show that our government is actively taking measures to limit diversity within the state. When I joined ENC 4353: Writing for Social Change, I was given the opportunity to craft a project of my choice related to something I care about. The topic I chose to focus on was diversity in Florida and the Florida Government’s role in it.
My whole life, I have only known diversity. In 2021, Orange County, Florida was 32.6% Hispanic, 19.5% Black, and 5.1% Asian – 57.2% of the population was made up of minorities. The White population made up 38.2% of Orange County (Data USA, n.d.). That same year, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law found that Orlando, FL was the 7th largest metro area in the United States for Queer populations by percentage of population, with an estimated 93,000 citizens making up 5% of the population (Conron, Luhur, & Goldberg, 2021). Queer people in the United States are estimated to make up about 3.8% of the population. Diversity and representation are fundamental to the lives and education of citizens throughout the United States. Ignorance is something learned, but the solution coincidentally also involves learning. Exposure to people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs, in the classroom and in the workforce, is the primary means of creating an equitable and equal society.