you're right, hopefully all those political woke people will go elsewhere. Then they can be replaced by people who believe in minimal oversight and free speech, and then twitter will be truly apolitical.
Please don't post this sort of shallow ideological flamewar comment. It just leads to crap threads. If you want to express your substantive views more thoughtfully, that's of course fine.
"Un-woke" people are greater than or at least equally political compared to those you call "woke", is my experience from real life as well as internet encounters with them, so your longing for an apolitical Twitter/online public town square seems a pipe dream, I'm afraid.
You've made an awful lot of comments in threads about politics for someone who "doesn’t discuss politics in any significant quantity".
Perhaps take some time to reflect as to whether that label is really true for you, and focus more on that latter belief. Being a decent person is admirable.
Everyone is political. But “woke” people are like the old Christian right. They’re willing to use their control of institutions to prosthelytize their ideology in a way that ordinary liberals or conservatives aren’t.
it's not that woke people control the institutions - it's that companies see that they can run successful PR and marketing campaigns by espousing progressive values. Their boards don't give two shits about progressive values, but flying a rainbow flag during pride month doesn't require that they do anything, while gaining praise from liberals and criticism from conservatives, both of which are coverage/press.
In addition to this, white collar workers are going to align a little more left and it makes them feel better if the company isn't cheering for gays to be lynched or whatever. It's generally easier to hire for highly educated positions if you appear mildly woke, even if you do absolutely nothing to that end.
Conservative states are literally passing laws banning the teaching of radical ideas like "gay people exist". If that's not "prosthelytizing their ideology", I don't know what is.
> The law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten to grade 3 in Florida public school districts, or instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students". It also allows parents and teachers to sue any school district if they believe this policy is violated. The bill additionally prevents school districts from withholding information about a child’s "mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from their parents.
> Due to the "Don't Say Gay" nickname some commentators and social media users thought the bill banned mentioning the word "gay" in school classrooms, though the bill does not actually mention the word "gay" or explicitly prohibit its use.
Please define: "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
The point of the bill is that nobody will talk about anything because: "It also allows parents and teachers to sue any school district if they believe this policy is violated"
Teachers and school districts don't have the money to fuck around in court to learn what this means. This is basically the same strategy as the Texas abortion bill as it allows random evangelical busybody assholes to be morality police with the threat of crippling court costs.
The bill [0] does not define it, instead it leaves it up to the Florida Department of Education to come up with a framework of what is and is not appropriate for 5-8 year olds consistent with the bill by a certain deadline.
The change here is that the bill is enforcing that some kind of framework is followed in public schools when it comes to teaching 5 to 8 year olds about sexual orientation and gender identities. What the Florida Department of Education comes up with here remains to be seen, but the vagueness of the bill actually seems reasonable here as the appropriateness of such topics likely varies depending on the age of the child.
The meat of the bill is reenforcing parental rights in public schools, such as being able to access their child's mental health records, to be notified of any medical procedures with the option to opt out, access to their child's curriculum, etc.
In the US, most public schools have health class that covers these topics in 8th or 9th grade. The bill isn't touching that. Third grade is far too young.
But why do the teachers and schools have to talk about sex orientation, gay or not? I grew up from a culture where sex was never talked about by teachers and I don't think I missed anything. Of course students did talk about it among themselves. This whole idea of teachers must talk about sex in school sounds extremely stupid to me.
The title makes it was about the message on the board, while it was not. The music teacher talked about sex orientation and trans issue in the classroom.
QUOTE:
“The issue at hand is the conversations that took place during class. I firmly believe that students and their parents expect teachers to teach content about their assigned curriculum in a subject area,“ Saylor said. “Of course, there are times that conversations may vary from that day’s lesson plan, but these conversations went far beyond the music curriculum. It is my job to make sure that parents are not surprised by these types of situations.”
Saylor said he believes that all teachers have a responsibility to be supportive of their students, “but when students share difficult situations and circumstances with them, the student should be referred to a certified school counselor.”
I'm guessing maybe you were probably cis-hetero? No judgment if that's the case, the vast majority of people will be fine in that regime. However, when I was growing up we did have non typical kids in class and they were very much picked on. Non typical gender alignment wasn't talked about so the only words kids had at the time were "weird" and "funny" along with whatever stuff they picked up from the early internet porn sites and magazines. It wasn't great.
The thing we have to realize is the would is a bit different now. Before we just assumed these people didn't exist and that became a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy. Now we better understand this reality and the consequences of ignoring them as well as the options available for helping them.
When I was growing up, kids were picked on for anything and everything. I think we can decouple "teaching kids not to bully" from "teaching any particular gender/sexual ideology".
We did have kids looking weird, but nobody picked on them because of this. I think the school's responsibility is forbid bulling, for whatever reasons.
I don’t have time to cite a study but there’s a clear correlation between the lack of health education and teen pregnancy (which pipes into abortion). I would argue porn addiction is at least contributed to adolescence learn sex from porn cites instead of actual education.
I wonder how many of the male population understand periods, the cost contributed to them, and other female health issues that affect 50% of the population.
I consider myself pretty firmly in favor of LGBT+ rights. But at the same time, I can see why parents wouldn't want sexual education as a part of a curriculum for 5 to 8 year olds. Sex ed certainly wasn't being taught in elementary school when I was a kid. But this legislation goes both ways. A teacher can't teach 5-8 year olds that there are only two genders, either.
People arguing for the bill believe those against it want to give 5yo kids a lecture on sex positions but in reality there's a lot of material to cover in the window they're banning that isn't the heavy sexual content they have in mind.
This feels like a straw man. No doubt some conservatives sling "liberals just want to groom children" with varying degrees of seriousness, but I would have guessed that the primary impetus is to prevent teachers proselytizing their sexual identity beliefs on young children. At least with older children "sexuality" is an important and legitimate educational topic and it's difficult to legislate against indoctrination without imperiling legitimate education; however, I can't think of any legitimate reason to broach sexuality with first graders. I also think transparency in education is eminently desirable--I can't think of any good reason that schools should hide from parents what they're teaching children, and the tenuous arguments against this seem likely to damage Democrat credibility in the minds of swing voters--politically, this seems like a terrible hill to die on (much like how Democrats distanced themselves from "abolish the police" a couple years ago, it seems like they should distance themselves from secretly teaching very young kids).
I think the more compelling rebuttal is that the fear of indoctrination is overblown, that there aren't many cases of this happening. That said, I think it's perfectly fine to preemptively legislate against something when there's no real downside to the legislation. To this point, I would be curious to hear what legitimate material you think this legislation imperils. I would also like to hear proponents of the legislation give examples which show that this could become a problem in Florida (are there many examples of teachers proselytizing to students, especially sexual and gender identity ideologies?).
Can a teacher cover why a child might have "two dads" (either because it comes up because it applies to a student, or in a childrens book, or ...) on the same level that relationship between "mom and dad" is covered and why it's ok even though its different than most other families or is that "proselytizing sexual identity ideologies" (or at risk being a violation if a parent decides they think it is)?
The law prohibits teaching sexual orientation. If discussing families with two dads violates this law, then discussing families with one mom and one dad must necessarily also violate it. Interpretation about what is/isn't appropriate is left to the Florida Department of Education, but the law itself preserves equality. Note also that without this law, it would also be legal for teachers to teach that gay people don't exist or any manner of right-wing ideology.
That's a nice theory, but there's little reason to believe it will work like that instead of working like it does basically everywhere else that tries such laws. "Don't discuss" turns into "tacitly ignore it for the 'norm' because it's impossible to not acknowledge it, single out 'deviations'". See also things like content filters treating any LGBT content as "adult", regardless of it being explicit in any way or not.
That's the obvious concern with the law, especially if you add such a "parents can sue" mechanism and with the political environment around. Any parent that sues over discussing families with one mom and one dad will look like a nutjob and loose, but parents suing over two dads appearing in a childrens book will have very legitimate concerns that have to be taken seriously.
Time will tell if that concern is wrong, but I'm not giving that scenario much chance.
> That's a nice theory, but there's little reason to believe it will work like that instead of working like it does basically everywhere else that tries such laws. "Don't discuss" turns into "tacitly ignore it for the 'norm' because it's impossible to not acknowledge it, single out 'deviations'".
You and I seem to inhabit very different realities. Pushing boundaries (especially in the name of equality) is glorified in American culture, and has been since the 60s and 70s. "Subversiveness" is a virtue. Moreover, the left dominates cultural institutions (media, entertainment, academia, etc)--the idea that any speech is going to be quelled over this seems ridiculous. Anything that one attempts to suppress gets amplified (Streisand Effect).
If conservative parents sue to block the discussion of homosexual content, liberal parents can sue to block the discussion of normatively heterosexual content. The ACLU and other progressive organizations exist for exactly these kinds of cases.
> Any parent that sues over discussing families with one mom and one dad will look like a nutjob and loose,
1. Again, you and I seem to live in very different Americas if you think suing for equality is unpopular. Such a suit would be national news, and the plaintiffs would enjoy unfailingly favorable treatment by the national press (save for Fox News) which famously skews left on precisely these kinds of social issues.
2. IANAL, but I would think it would be relatively straightforward to point to all of the cases where the courts interpreted discussing same sex parents as "teaching sexual orientation". Seems like a slam dunk, and I wouldn't be surprised if lawyers would take the case pro bono just to make a name for themselves with all of the national press coverage.
Agreed. I was all ramped up to be vehemently opposed to the bill, but then I read it (it's only a few pages of giant, monospaced font) and it seems... eminently reasonable. It protects against right-wing indoctrination as well as left-wing indoctrination as it pertains to sexual identity, and it targets a pretty agreeable age range--it still leaves the door open for proselytizing to older students (I'm not convinced this is a good thing, but I appreciate the difficulty of legislating against proselytizing without infringing on legitimate education). I can't understand why anyone would oppose this bill unless they explicitly want to indoctrinate very young children.
Literally no state has passed a law teaching gay people do not exist. You should read the actual bills and take some time off Twitter while you are at it.
Have...you? Specifically looking at Florida, the issue is, while they don't say you can't "say gay" the wording is deliberately vague on what can be taught and when. This is very much intended to create a chilling effect on classroom speech because teachers and school districts don't have the cash to find out in court and all it takes is one dumb parent to start a massive court battle.
The bill is not unclear about what and when things can be taught. Please stop buying into the hype on this bill.
First the bill applies to kindergarten to 3rd grade. Very clear who it applies to. If you teach fourth grade or above this does not apply.
Second, the bill basically prevents three things.
1. The withholding of information "affecting a
student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from a parent. It also requires no prohibitions on parents "accessing any of their student's education and health records created, maintained, or used by the school district".
2. Banning teachers of kindergartens through 3rd grade from "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity or in a manner that is not age
appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
3. Prevents a school from "administering a student well-being questionnaire
or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through
grade 3" without providing "the questionnaire or health screening form to the parent and obtain[ing] the permission of the parent"
The law also requires the school districts to "notify parents of each healthcare service offered
at their student's school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service."
It is quite clear and less than 10 pages long. It is not chilling speech to not talk to a 5 year old about sex. Also, this bill also literally would apply to all sexual orientations including straight. If this is a don't say gay bill then it is also don't say straight.
A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what teacher is going to risk it?
It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the subject as much as possible.
I addressed your main point which is that a teacher should be able to talk about another student's home life.
You said:
>A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay."
If a teacher is telling other students about Timmy's home life that is very much gossip.
The other students have no reason or right to know what Timmy's home situation is. If Timmy wants to tell other students about his situation he can. The teacher should not be doing that.
Would you hold the same standard if a teacher said Timmy only has one parent if one of his parents died? It is gossip and the teacher should not be talking to other students about it.
The fact that you're comparing homosexuality to a death in the family really drives this home, doesn't it?
If someone is okay with being out (like a married-with-children couple) then it's okay to acknowledge they are gay. Just like saying Timmy's dad is a doctor is okay. A teacher shouldn't risk legal action for saying so.
I used the example of a dead parent because death is something that many young people do not really understand (do any of us?). They may never have experienced the death of a family member or friend. This is similar to how many young people don't understand homosexuality.
The fact you think I am trying to say homosexuality is the same as death is quite telling isn't it?
I don't care if somebody is OK with being out. It is not the place of a teacher to tell other students the home life of another student. I don't think a teacher should tell other students what the profession of a student's parents are either.
> The fact you think I am trying to say homosexuality is the same as death is quite telling isn't it?
I didn't say that. I said you compared them. You did so again in this comment, again putting them on the same level as taboo discussion subjects for children, which is just plain wrong. The fact that people of the same gender can love each other is not hard to understand, it's really quite simple to explain, but your last comment attempted to make it sound difficult to explain, seemingly to justify speaking in hushed tones about it or not at all if children are nearby, as if you were talking about their deceased parent. But it's an easy-to-understand, neutral subject, so your point is invalid.
And really? One kid tells another kid that his dad is an architect, the second kid asks the teacher to explain what the first kid's dad does. And the teacher says "No, I can't talk about anyone's parents." That's what you're going with?
This isn't necessarily about a student's parents anyway. That's just one example of where a child might be triggered to ask about it. Kids are curious, they will ask, and with this new legislation teachers will avoid it as if the kid asked about death. And when something gets treated as if it's taboo, it becomes taboo.
The problem is it is not quite so simple as you make it out. Kids are often told when a mommy and a daddy really love each other their love creates a baby. What happens if Johnny, a 5 year old, asks what happens if there is a daddy and a daddy. How far should the teacher go? No matter how the teacher answers it is going to cause issues.
Why not let the parents who know the child better explain these things?
In terms of a parent's profession there is nothing age inappropriate about an architect. There is certain age inappropriate things about sex. A teacher does not know if a kid has hit puberty, how mature they are, etc. This is why a parent should be involved with this not teachers.
How many 5 year olds are paying attention to laws being passed? None. The only reason they would know is if their parents or teachers tell them. I think kids should be kids. You shouldn't be telling kids about cultural / legal things that are going on if you can avoid it. I have no idea why so many people want kids to get involved with legal discussions. Just let kids be unaware of the strife, conflict and other things that don't matter to them in the world.
I don't want to talk to 5 year olds about taxes. Does that mean I want conversations about taxes to be taboo? I just think there is a time and place for things like this and teaching 5 year olds about this stuff is too early.
Also, I would note that the law only bans classroom instruction. If a student asks a teacher outside of that context the teacher could answer.
Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves until after onset, including potentially asking their teachers questions privately.
> Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
No it doesn't. Third graders are 8-9.
The idea of third graders learning about sex and puberty is very strange. We (public school) had health class in 8th and 9th grade where we learned about puberty, sex, and similar topics.
Additionally, it's odd to me that you include mention of "asking teachers questions privately". Why don't 8-9 year olds ask their parents privately? The assumption is that the parents are the enemy. That's exactly what led to this bill.
Those are extreme lower bounds. I had a friend who started puberty at 9 but it's very, very rare.
You wrote:
> puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
That's wrong. Replace "generally" with "very, very rarely" and it's right.
> Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if you were my parent
Why? Why wouldn't you be able to talk to a parent about going through puberty at 8 years old? Any parent is going to notice. Why is it better to talk to a virtual stranger?
The bill [0] leaves the definition of "not age or developmentally appropriate" up to the Florida Department of Education, which apparently defines such things anyway.
>Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
This is of course the least clear part of the bill. I believe I saw one if the Florida representatives supporting this bill basically say the existing sex ed / health classes are fine and students should be in at least middle school.
Very few people are complaining about general sex ed.
>Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves until after onset
I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with a ban on K-2 on this then?
Just because a kid starts puberty does not mean they suddenly have sexual preferences. It takes time to grow so even if they start puberty at 8 they will take a while to understand.
Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the declining age for puberty such as the increase in sexual content at a younger and younger age. I think the average age kids first see porn is now 10 or so. That means quite a few kids are seeing it earlier than that (and probably earlier than puberty). If that is the case then maybe we should try to lower the sexual content instead of increasing it.
Kids also aren't banned from learning about themselves. Not sure where you got that idea from? How would such a thing even be enforced?
>including potentially asking their teachers questions privately.
I am dubious this is banned. The law is explicitly says classroom instruction. Asking a teacher a question privately doesn't seem to fall under it.
Regardless, I don't think English or math teachers or whatever subject should be teaching sex related things. If it is going to be be taught in schools it should be taught by a health teacher. Maybe we should be advocating for health classes in elementary school instead of middle school.
This is far too late in my experience. If you wait this long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on and everyone else has learned how sex works from internet porn.
> I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with a ban on K-2 on this then?
I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a year would solve the issue.
However...
>Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the declining age for puberty
Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just a hypothesis, but even if we accept this, there's another facet to this problem. Gender identity isn't a sexual issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to 3rd grade. There isn't any harm in explaining to children that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories.
A lot of the lefts outrage over this bill is based on the premise that there wasn't harm happening as a result of education before this was proposed, but now there definitely will be, as a result of a lack thereof.
>If you wait this long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on
I think the better thing to do would be to work on fixing bullying overall. Even if kids understood different sexual orientations better they would still make fun of people who are different. If somebody talks different or looks different they will be made fun of.
>everyone else has learned how sex works from internet porn.
I don't think sex ed will fix this. It quite possibly peak kids interest and cause them to view porn even earlier when they look up information about sex.
>I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a year would solve the issue.
You are the one who brought up puberty.
>Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just a hypothesis,
Fully agree. I think the problem is testing this. Introducing porn and other sexual content to a 5 year old doesn't seem like the greatest thing to do.
>Gender identity isn't a sexual issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to 3rd grade.
How many actually are showing signs of this? There is a growing number of people who think if a boy plays with a Barbie or likes pink that means he is showing signs of gender dysphoria.
>There isn't any harm in explaining to children that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories.
There is a harm. 80% of kids who display gender dysphoria at this age grow out of it. Those 80% may become more certain in their incorrect gender identity and start treatments over conversations you are proposing. The longer kids are on medications (and if they get surgery) the harder it is to detransition, which as I mentioned already is at 80%.
If the bill prevents any discussion that would teach someone who was unaware that gay people existed, with no explicit reference towards banning teaching that gay people existed, does that make a material difference in your eyes?
First, the bill does not say you cannot teach that gay people exist. It says you can instruct students on sexual orientation. This only applies through 3rd grade (about 8 or 9 years old). As far as I know there are no health classes or sex ed prior to 10 years old. Any talk about sexual orientation or gender identity would not be relevant to the subject material.
There is no reason why a young kids needs to be instructed about such things. Any author or historical figure who is gay could still be taught.
Second, this only applies to classroom instruction. If a student stays after class they could ask their teacher about sexual orientation if they are wondering why a student has two dads or something. Some may try to extend the law to cover that, but as far as I can tell it wouldn't apply to that.
I understood what you were asking. I reject the premise. Teachers can literally still teach gay people exist so long as it is part of the curriculum and they do it in an age appropriate manner.
If they were intending to ban X (and presumably promote Y) they shouldn't write a bill that also bans Y. (Y being straight).
You’ve yet to answer to my question on whether it matters when bills functionally block something without explicitly stating so.
If you want to infer some assumptions without answering some basic axioms so we can make sure we’re on the same page and not arguing past each other, I’ll just dive in.
Since I’m seeing many supporters of the bill get incensed at the fact that Y is also functionally banned, and been told that I should know what the bill is “really about”, and that the bill does not define “age appropriate”, I reject your rejection of the premise. There’s a chilling effect of the government saying you could be in legal trouble for this, but they won’t let you know what the line is until you’ve crossed it. That causes people to pull their behavior far back from wherever they think the nebulous line might be.
I hope I am not coming off as incensed as you mentioned some people are.
To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as it would be constitutional / legal if they were to explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to prevent any confusion.
If you think this bill functionally blocks talking about gay people existing then it also functionally blocks talking about straight people existing.
I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I don't really mind.
I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or gender identity regardless if they do it in an age appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate portion.
Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation to kids who are too young to be hearing it.
I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues. There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children.
You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies. Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will.
That gets back to my point about the functional blocking in the law, which youve stated you’re fine with if it’s constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
>I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues.
That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself.
>There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children.
Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't think a single teacher told us they were married until we were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do by not talking about it.
>You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade
And? Just because children understand they have parents and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean teachers need to talk about it.
>Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies
Not a given.
>Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will.
I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either. I think they all would be glad if everything related to sexual orientation and gender identity was banned (at least at this age).
>As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else.
A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom instruction.
> Literally don't talk about it. I don't think a single teacher told us they were married until we were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any of the other student's parents.
Were you actually unaware of people being married until middle school? This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me. People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended. Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs. There's also your own parents or your friends parents. I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality.
>I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either.
I literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people
>That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself.
>Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else.
If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law, unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue. I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that
>Were you actually unaware of people being married until middle school?
Of course I knew about marriage, but I didn't ask my teachers and none of my fellow students asked. My teachers in elementary school didn't tell us if they were married. Maybe they understood kids don't actually care about the social lives of their teachers so they didn't tell us.
>This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me.
It is dystopian for teachers to not tell students about their personal life?
>People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended.
This law has nothing to do with parents and teachers knowing about each others lives, but young kids.
>Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs.
Good for you. Many of my teachers just went by Ms even if they were married. I remember when I was in maybe first or second grade one teacher used Mrs but didn't explain the difference. I just assumed it was for older woman since the teacher was quite a bit older than the previous teachers I had. Kids are quite naive and will just assume things. You don't need to explain everything to them.
Even if a student knew the woman was married they wouldn't have to tell their students if they are gay or straight.
It also doesn't work for men so they wouldn't have a reason to bring it up.
>There's also your own parents or your friends parents.
No clue what you are trying to say here.
>I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality.
We need things to be age appropriate. If you had a 5 year old kid and he asked about sex would you show him a gang bang video? I would assume not. I don't think 5 year olds should know about such things regardless if it is straight or gay.
>I literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people
You are talking about decades ago I assume. Regardless, if a parent wants to have their kid celebrate a marriage they can.
This law is saying teachers shouldn't be teaching this stuff.
The law strictly speaking doesn't even ban a teacher telling their students they are gay so it wouldn't even have an impact.
>If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law
Which law was made by people without open biases? I am going out on a limb and saying none.
The law has never been enforced so how could it be enforced in a discriminatory way?
>unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue.
Of course not.
>I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that
You are jumping to a conclusion probably because you didn't like your childhood you described. You think all conservatives are like the ones you grew up with. You think they are filled with hatred and can't move on. Conservatives appear to have become a boogie man for you, where you think the worst of them.
It is clear you hold deep seated biases and it is not going to be a fruitful dialogue.
>You are jumping to a conclusion probably because you didn't like your childhood you described. You think all conservatives are like the ones you grew up with. You think they are filled with hatred and can't move on. Conservatives appear to have become a boogie man for you, where you think the worst of them.
I grew up conservative. Theyre my family, not boogie men. But you do you. Gonna have to agree to disagree on this all then. You are describing a reality I do not believe exists
I take your point--that the choice to stop smothering people in woke content is itself a political decision (for sufficiently abstract notion of "political"), but it seems infinitely better than smothering people in any particular ideological content at all. The woke people can still opt into their own filter bubbles without their ideology being foisted on everyone.
