10 ms·

The way this (4-page) bill is being spun is completely insane. We are no longer grounded in reality. This bill basically says: - If something happens to you

The way this (4-page) bill is being spun is completely insane. We are no longer grounded in reality. This bill basically says: - If something happens to your kid at school parents must be informed - Teachers can not say "Don't tell your parents." to children - Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2. Those seem incredibly common sense! You can see House Bill 1557 here [1] [1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Filed/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Fil...

caiob 5y ago
RobertDeNiro 5y ago
You conveniently left out the part that says : "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." And that parents may sue a school over it.
- dontcare007 5y ago
  seems good to me. kids at that age are too young for those kinds of discussions, and could be mentally warped by them.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ghiculescu 5y ago
  That rule seems common sense too. I’d want that at my kids school. As a non American I don’t understand your collective love of suing, what would a better recourse here be?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  I did not. If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable then we fundamentally disagree at a moral level.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    It's not clear if you're intentionally trying to conflate kindergartners, with all school children. There's a lot of things in life that are not suitable for kindergartners, but are suitable and appropriate for other school age children, I believe driving trucks is one such thing in America. If your only argument against those things is "well its not appropriate for kindergarten" when the law is not only covering kindergarten, then it feels like you're confused about what this law you support says. Maybe thats why you can't understand people's reactions to it?
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > conflate kindergartners, with all school children It appears the bill is concerned with K through 2 and has the caveat of age and developmental appropriateness. I don’t think it bans a teacher reading a storybook with a gay couple doing dishes together. (EDIT: never mind, it bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” [1].) [1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed/pdf https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... 1001.42 § 8(c)(3)
      - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
        The bill specifically says no mention of sex or gender in primary 'or' no age inappropriateness with no year specified. If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.
        JumpCrisscross 5y ago
- pensatoio 5y ago
  > that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students You're quoting it like it's an issue, but I'm not seeing one. Teaching sexuality to young children is tantamount to abuse, in my opinion. Obviously that sentiment is not shared by everyone, but that's why it shouldn't be forced on kids without their parent's consent.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    What does "Teaching sexuality to children" mean to you? Is talking about marriage "teaching sexuality"?
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    WTF do you think they teach? Sexuality at that age group is mostly stuff like "if somebody touches you there or takes pictures of you without your clothes on, tell somebody".
  - stby 5y ago
    That's ridiculous. Kids start asking questions about sex as soon as they or one of their friends mother gets pregnant and they deserve honest answers and they can handle it, probably better than many grown-ups. That doesn't mean they need to know about all or even most aspects of sexuality, but some basic and factual knowledge doesn't hurt.
- lp0_on_fire 5y ago
  and you're conveniently leaving out the ages of the students this is targeting: 3rd grade and below. 8 years or younger. There's no reason students that age should be taught about sexuality's and gender by anyone other than their parents and I'm continually creeped out by the ever-larger contingent of teachers who _insist they must_ be able to talk to my 5 year old nephew about sex.
  - bendergender 5y ago
    Gender? If a kid has a friend who is non binary, or has a trans friend, and asks their teachers about it you think it's inappropriate for the teacher to say, "well, some people are boys, some people are girls, some people are neither, and we try to make sure we respect each other."
    - slowmovintarget 5y ago
      The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that. Unpacking the accurate phrase "some people feel they are neither and their views should be respected" for a five year old or even an eight year old is not reasonable territory for a primary school teacher whose only training on the matter is political.
      - drewbug01 5y ago
        Teaching children to respect other's views is very much something that I want schools to do. What's the legitimate alternative? What should the teacher say there? > The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that. So - imagine that little Timmy has religious parents, and thus believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (a not-uncommon belief held in the fundamentalist Christian community). Suppose then that little Susie overhears it and asks the teacher about why her parents told her that life evolved gradually over the course of eons. In my mind, an appropriate response could be "some people believe that the universe was created by a deity, and their views should be respected." But you've indicated that "some people believe <x> and their views should be respected" is in fact inappropriate. What would you suggest be done, otherwise?
dontcare007 5y ago
The same thing was done with the GA voter laws. Reality left the building...
candiddevmike 5y ago
Primary grade in the US isn't K-2, it could mean anything from K-4, or even K-7. Not sure why the bill isn't more specific.
- mgkimsal 5y ago
  it might have a specific meaning in Florida, where the bill will take effect?
  - candiddevmike 5y ago
    You're right, it's through grade 3 per this site: https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/certificate-subjects/ https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/certificate-sub...
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I know nothing about this issue, but can tell from a quick read through, that that's a bad summary. It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy. I'm going to go with 'its a bad law' as my prior on this.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy. Or all the people briefing the CEO live in the same filter bubble and have advised them that this is a fight worth picking. Cook has kept his mouth shut on a lot of adjacent, sometimes even more egregious, issues over the past few years so I think it's a bit foolish to think that the advice these guys are getting plays no role.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I did mention the "world has gone crazy" option that the person I replied to seems to believe. I'd file "CEOs of both Apple and Disney wading into a Florida political battle about sexuality and education by mistake because they didn't bother to read the text of the law they're protesting about" under that same "world has gone crazy" heading. Luckily for us, it seems that it's just Republicans being intentionally vague in order to pass laws that wouldn't pass if they spelled out what they actually mean.
bendergender 5y ago
It also forbids discussing gender identity in primary school, which is completely reactionary. Discussing gender is fine for kids, and it's totally developmentally appropriate for primary school kids to know that there are boys, girls, and non binary people. It also requires disclosing any emotional or mental health changes to parents. If a kid tells a teacher, "I've realized I'm gay, and that is making me depressed/hard to concentrate" the school needs to inform the parents. That's a huge problem in some parts of the country where being gay can result in neglect, abuse, abandonment, being sent to conversion therapy, or more subtle discrimination and outing. You've really given this law a very surface reading, and not thought about, "how could this be used adversarially to hurt people." (I'm about as lefty as they come, but I'm generally against gun control laws, for instance, because I believe they will be enforced in a way that hurts people.)
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> seem incredibly common sense The word “or” in 1001.42 § 8(c)(3) [1], which bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate,” looks problematic. (Emphasis mine.) Nix that word and the statute is fine. With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. They can’t read a storybook about two married men or women doing dishes. That seems excessive. [1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed/pdf https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... top of page 3
- moltke 5y ago
  > With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. I would expect them to say nothing other than "ask your parents" and I don't know why anyone would think anything else makes sense.
  - NoSorryCannot 5y ago
    I have a problem with it being taboo. It's not a talk about the birds and the bees and can absolutely be addressed in an age-appropriate manner.
JohnTHaller 5y ago
Leaving out the ambiguous and vague language seems to be a huge GOP talking point. K-2 "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate". It's purposely and needlessly vague. If it applied to ONLY K-2 that would be an entirely different story.

caiob 5y ago

RobertDeNiro 5y ago

You conveniently left out the part that says : "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." And that parents may sue a school over it.

dontcare007 5y ago
seems good to me. kids at that age are too young for those kinds of discussions, and could be mentally warped by them.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ghiculescu 5y ago
That rule seems common sense too. I’d want that at my kids school. As a non American I don’t understand your collective love of suing, what would a better recourse here be?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
I did not. If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable then we fundamentally disagree at a moral level.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  It's not clear if you're intentionally trying to conflate kindergartners, with all school children. There's a lot of things in life that are not suitable for kindergartners, but are suitable and appropriate for other school age children, I believe driving trucks is one such thing in America. If your only argument against those things is "well its not appropriate for kindergarten" when the law is not only covering kindergarten, then it feels like you're confused about what this law you support says. Maybe thats why you can't understand people's reactions to it?
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > conflate kindergartners, with all school children It appears the bill is concerned with K through 2 and has the caveat of age and developmental appropriateness. I don’t think it bans a teacher reading a storybook with a gay couple doing dishes together. (EDIT: never mind, it bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” [1].) [1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed/pdf https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... 1001.42 § 8(c)(3)
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      The bill specifically says no mention of sex or gender in primary 'or' no age inappropriateness with no year specified. If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
pensatoio 5y ago
> that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students You're quoting it like it's an issue, but I'm not seeing one. Teaching sexuality to young children is tantamount to abuse, in my opinion. Obviously that sentiment is not shared by everyone, but that's why it shouldn't be forced on kids without their parent's consent.
- mcphage 5y ago
  What does "Teaching sexuality to children" mean to you? Is talking about marriage "teaching sexuality"?
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  WTF do you think they teach? Sexuality at that age group is mostly stuff like "if somebody touches you there or takes pictures of you without your clothes on, tell somebody".
- stby 5y ago
  That's ridiculous. Kids start asking questions about sex as soon as they or one of their friends mother gets pregnant and they deserve honest answers and they can handle it, probably better than many grown-ups. That doesn't mean they need to know about all or even most aspects of sexuality, but some basic and factual knowledge doesn't hurt.
lp0_on_fire 5y ago
and you're conveniently leaving out the ages of the students this is targeting: 3rd grade and below. 8 years or younger. There's no reason students that age should be taught about sexuality's and gender by anyone other than their parents and I'm continually creeped out by the ever-larger contingent of teachers who _insist they must_ be able to talk to my 5 year old nephew about sex.
- bendergender 5y ago
  Gender? If a kid has a friend who is non binary, or has a trans friend, and asks their teachers about it you think it's inappropriate for the teacher to say, "well, some people are boys, some people are girls, some people are neither, and we try to make sure we respect each other."
  - slowmovintarget 5y ago
    The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that. Unpacking the accurate phrase "some people feel they are neither and their views should be respected" for a five year old or even an eight year old is not reasonable territory for a primary school teacher whose only training on the matter is political.
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      Teaching children to respect other's views is very much something that I want schools to do. What's the legitimate alternative? What should the teacher say there? > The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that. So - imagine that little Timmy has religious parents, and thus believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (a not-uncommon belief held in the fundamentalist Christian community). Suppose then that little Susie overhears it and asks the teacher about why her parents told her that life evolved gradually over the course of eons. In my mind, an appropriate response could be "some people believe that the universe was created by a deity, and their views should be respected." But you've indicated that "some people believe <x> and their views should be respected" is in fact inappropriate. What would you suggest be done, otherwise?

dontcare007 5y ago

The same thing was done with the GA voter laws. Reality left the building...

candiddevmike 5y ago

Primary grade in the US isn't K-2, it could mean anything from K-4, or even K-7. Not sure why the bill isn't more specific.

mgkimsal 5y ago
it might have a specific meaning in Florida, where the bill will take effect?
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  You're right, it's through grade 3 per this site: https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/certificate-subjects/ https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/certificate-sub...

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I know nothing about this issue, but can tell from a quick read through, that that's a bad summary. It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy. I'm going to go with 'its a bad law' as my prior on this.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy. Or all the people briefing the CEO live in the same filter bubble and have advised them that this is a fight worth picking. Cook has kept his mouth shut on a lot of adjacent, sometimes even more egregious, issues over the past few years so I think it's a bit foolish to think that the advice these guys are getting plays no role.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I did mention the "world has gone crazy" option that the person I replied to seems to believe. I'd file "CEOs of both Apple and Disney wading into a Florida political battle about sexuality and education by mistake because they didn't bother to read the text of the law they're protesting about" under that same "world has gone crazy" heading. Luckily for us, it seems that it's just Republicans being intentionally vague in order to pass laws that wouldn't pass if they spelled out what they actually mean.

bendergender 5y ago

It also forbids discussing gender identity in primary school, which is completely reactionary. Discussing gender is fine for kids, and it's totally developmentally appropriate for primary school kids to know that there are boys, girls, and non binary people. It also requires disclosing any emotional or mental health changes to parents. If a kid tells a teacher, "I've realized I'm gay, and that is making me depressed/hard to concentrate" the school needs to inform the parents. That's a huge problem in some parts of the country where being gay can result in neglect, abuse, abandonment, being sent to conversion therapy, or more subtle discrimination and outing. You've really given this law a very surface reading, and not thought about, "how could this be used adversarially to hurt people." (I'm about as lefty as they come, but I'm generally against gun control laws, for instance, because I believe they will be enforced in a way that hurts people.)

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> seem incredibly common sense The word “or” in 1001.42 § 8(c)(3) [1], which bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate,” looks problematic. (Emphasis mine.) Nix that word and the statute is fine. With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. They can’t read a storybook about two married men or women doing dishes. That seems excessive. [1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed/pdf https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... top of page 3

moltke 5y ago
> With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. I would expect them to say nothing other than "ask your parents" and I don't know why anyone would think anything else makes sense.
- NoSorryCannot 5y ago
  I have a problem with it being taboo. It's not a talk about the birds and the bees and can absolutely be addressed in an age-appropriate manner.

JohnTHaller 5y ago

Leaving out the ambiguous and vague language seems to be a huge GOP talking point. K-2 "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate". It's purposely and needlessly vague. If it applied to ONLY K-2 that would be an entirely different story.