Let’s Stop Sexual Harassment and Violence Before They Begin With Comprehensive Sex Ed
When I was in middle school, I got some very basic sex ed. For one week, a very uncomfortable health/gym teacher taught me about body parts and reproduction, that sex — always heterosexual — can lead to pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, and that we should therefore abstain from sex or use condoms. I was lucky because most people I know didn’t get the condom bit.
What I didn’t learn was key information and skills that would have equipped me to have healthy relationships. I didn’t learn about gender and power. I didn’t learn what consent meant and how to give, refuse, or make sure you have it. There was nothing about what sexual harassment is or how gender stereotypes play out in harmful ways. And I most certainly didn’t learn how to navigate the many unsafe, threatening, harassing, and violent situations I’ve experienced in the workplace and beyond. I wish I — and all the men who have harassed, demeaned, and harmed me — had.
This is a seismic moment of #MeToo and #TimesUp, which are unmasking behaviors most women routinely experience but have traditionally gone unpunished. This, in turn, has led to the start of real consequences, accountability, and solutions rooted in equity.
But we need to talk more about prevention. To stop the objectification of women and power imbalance that fuels this societal epidemic, we need to start long before anyone enters the workplace. If we want to be serious about making long-term cultural change to stop sexual harassment and violence, we should provide comprehensive sex ed in all of our schools.
Our knowledge of what makes for good sex ed has come a long way since I was in middle school. In 2011, dozens of experts came together to develop the for sexual health education. The standards are the “essential minimum” age-appropriate core content for K-12 students. They recommend students learn information and usable skills about identity and bias because it impacts how we feel about ourselves and how we interact with each other. This includes cultural gender roles, gender stereotyping, gender nonconformity, gender identity, and sexual orientation.
The standards say we should be learning how to maintain healthy and safe relationships and how to treat others with dignity and respect. In pursuit of these goals, the standards recommend teaching students how to communicate personal boundaries, how to recognize unhealthy and abusive relationships and sexual harassment, how to understand the role of power in relationships, and where to go for help in an abusive relationship, and how to stop bullying of others.
Teaching this kind of comprehensive sex ed can have real impacts. A recent that included the United States shows that young people firmly believe and act upon gender stereotypes by at least age 10. Another found including gender and power lessons in sex ed improved health outcomes and healthy behaviors. Abstinence-only education is a and frequently reinforces gender stereotypes that play out in our behavior.
In 2012, the New York Civil Liberties Union unearthed some horrific in sex ed lessons then in use in state schools. One lesson explained how men “want to conquer & dominate” whereas women try “to manipulate and control,” that men see “women as a trophy” whereas women see men as security and protector[s],” and that “Teenage boys want sex, teenage girls want love.” Some lessons, including textbooks, sent the message that girls are at fault for harassment or assault if they dress or act in a way that invites it. Boys were taught that this behavior is somehow innate because boys just can’t help themselves.
Armed with this knowledge, California took a big step in 2015, mandating sex ed in middle and high school for the first time through a law called . The law, sponsored by the ACLU of California and a coalition of advocates, is groundbreaking, based on all the best science, and can serve as a model for what truly comprehensive and inclusive sex ed looks like. Students must be taught age-appropriate and medically accurate lessons and skills designed to equip them to have healthy, positive, and safe relationships. By doing so, the law aims to minimize gender and sexual orientation bias and stereotyping as well as foster a positive and healthy attitude toward sexuality.
The California Healthy Youth Act squarely addresses harassment and violence. Students learn about what consent constitutes, how to distinguish healthy from unhealthy relationships, and how to identify sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating abuse, and sex trafficking. Because providing information alone is not enough, students must also obtain concrete skills like how to recognize and navigate abusive situations and how to find local resources for help.
The law directly tackles bias and stereotyping that fuels the harassment and discrimination we experience in the workplace and beyond. It mandates teaching about gender, gender identity, and the harm of negative gender stereotypes. Same-sex couples must be depicted. Transgender and non-binary people cannot be erased. Accurate information about all contraception methods and pregnancy options, including abortion, must be taught, giving young people a greater ability to control their fertility and, relatedly, equality.
Schools are actively implementing the law, and time will tell how far it goes in helping to bring about true cultural change. But we in California hope it will serve as a useful model for people in other states looking for creative ways to tackle the underlying dynamics that fuel sexual harassment and violence before it starts.
Will comprehensive sex ed stop all predatory and misogynistic behavior? No. But will it make more people understand consent and boundaries? Will it make more people aware that gender bias and stereotyping hurts us all? Will it make us more prone to believe and support our friends and peers when they speak up and say, “I was harassed,” “I was assaulted,” “I was raped?”
Unequivocally, yes.
Learn more about California’s law and or .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090