An amendment by the League to the Valditara bill on informed consent for sexual education activities was approved in the Chamber. The law provides that parents must consent in writing to their children’s participation in the hours dedicated to sexual-affective education, after consulting the programs and materials that will be proposed. The underlying idea is that it is a delicate and personal issue which concerns first of all the sphere of the individual, and which therefore must be managed by families. The State must therefore not interfere too much, but ask permission: parents have the right to exclude their child from activities that they consider dangerous or inappropriate; or, obviously, in contrast with their religion or family ethics (it will not escape anyone that a large part of the right-wing electorate is Christian).

Something doesn’t add up

This already poses problems, because the school is effectively admitting that the contents it would propose to pupils may not be suitable for them: otherwise why should parents have doubts? This is risky, because it sets a precedent that the family can judge the curriculum, having no competence to do so. Furthermore, it is not clear what the alternative would be for those who decide to refuse: there is talk of substitute activities, we don’t know what type, but this would mean that while some students undertake a journey of self-knowledge and relational dynamics, as well as prevention and risks related to sex, others would remain locked out. The disproportion that this would generate is evident, in terms of emotional maturity and tools to face the world.

Furthermore, these activities would not constitute teaching, a school subject: there would therefore not be a curricular teacher who decides what to offer to students at will, but everything would be coordinated by psychologists, sexologists, educators, whose approach is not based on personal beliefs, but on skills and studies. Would we ever think of making attendance at an anti-bullying activity optional? Some parents might ask this, believing that children are being brainwashed by teaching them that even a breath is violence; but this is not allowed. The same should apply to sexual-affective education, which is not at all different from other courses that are not strictly didactic. There should be no fear of being taught inappropriate or dangerous things.

Is the problem skills?

And this is where another contradiction comes into play. Supporters of the law declare that it is a great step to prohibit the entry into schools of ideological and extremist associations that could teach pupils aberrant things. In fact, it is stated that it is necessary for those who deal with sexual education to be experts, adequately trained, not influenced by any personal vision of the world and of people. But if that’s the case, why then should parents feel threatened?

It is clear that the real concern here is not “gender theory”, the risk that young people will be convinced to “become” homosexual; but precisely the fact of speaking openly about sexuality, of confronting young people with complex and delicate topics which, my God, could lead them to have sex before marriage! In fact, we know that until they learn at school what a condom is, they won’t even touch themselves. Sexual desire suddenly kicks in at 14 for those whose parents consent to the activity, and at 18 for everyone else.

At 14 years old, yes: the amendment recently presented by the League and approved in the Chamber, in fact, establishes that primary and lower secondary schools are excluded from any possibility of dealing with these topics. They wouldn’t be optional: they wouldn’t be there at all. In this case the excuse is that these are children, who must not be polluted with impure thoughts that they would never do. This is an issue that is even more difficult to object to. In fact, we note that the protests against this proposal focus almost exclusively on middle school, the period in which children enter early adolescence and therefore undoubtedly need to be informed about what they will most likely begin to do shortly thereafter.

Even in childhood one needs guidance

But the problem actually arises even in primary school. Behind this amendment there is in fact the vision of the sexual-affective sphere as something impure, dangerous, of which children must know nothing, because it is very distant from their thoughts and needs. However, if the famous competent experts were actually consulted, it would be discovered that this is not the case, and that, in a manner commensurate with age, children also benefit from an adequate education. Obviously it’s not a question of explaining to him how sexual intercourse occurs or what precautions to take, that would be absurd; it’s about talking about relationships with others, about feelings, emotions, attraction or repulsion.

And, yes, it’s also about raising awareness of the possibility of someone being attracted to someone of the same sex. It’s not about brainwashing, but about exposing children to the reality of the world; after all, a 7-year-old child may very well feel a form of attraction for a partner of the same sex, and be upset if he is made to believe that the only possible form of bond is that between a male and a female.

Meanwhile, minors see everything on social media

It is clear that for the League this is something out of this world. But the problem here is not just wanting to hide the existence of LGBT people; it is precisely a question of closing students in a kind of bubble of obscurantism, which violently clashes with what they are exposed to every day, often since they were children, on TikTok and the various social networks to which they have access. It is therefore not thought that it is useful to give them tools to navigate that vortex of bodies, of allusions that they do not understand, of surreptitious messages that disturb them and influence them without them knowing it. This is how our Parliament and the Government plan to protect minors.