5 ms·

You conveniently left out the part that says : "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary

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
        You’re right. Thank you.
    - friedturkey 5y ago
      It doesn't explicitly. But in practice it would. If a kid asks "Why are there two daddies in the book?", a huge can of worms is opened. It'll be selectively applied by people with political motivations and administrators fearing (or facing) backlash and violent threats from parents. Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fired-reading-need-new-butt-second-grade-class-rcna19362 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fir...
    - bendergender 5y ago
      Why do you think it wouldn't ban that? What if a kid says, "why are there two daddies in that story?" Or goes home to their parents and says, "my teacher read us a story about two daddies". Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received. In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  > I did not. You selectively quoted from the law. From your original post: "Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2." However, the actual text of the law is: "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" > If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable This is a huge part of the problem - you're presuming it's just about "sexual" content when it's also about gender identity (they are not related). But the broader point you miss is that "Johnny has two daddies" is inappropriately considered "sexual" by the right-wing in America. And that is a huge issue. Take a personal example, if you will: my husband is a teacher (and I am a man). If a similar law were to pass in our state, the law as-written would likely preclude him from mentioning anything about me at all to the students, while straight teachers would face no such limitations regarding their relationships. Because some people think any discussion of LGBT people in any capacity is inherently "sexual."
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    > 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 > sexual orientation: a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; Perhaps everything, even text, is a form of Rorschach test that we personally interpret. Sexual attraction discussion just seems inappropriate for primary school regardless of orientation. When I read the bill's text it seems to me that it's saying: A teacher shouldn't bring up the topics of sexual orientation, regardless of that orientation, be it straight, gay, or otherwise for a classroom discussion. Such as, "Hello class, Today we are going to discuss sexual orientation." Discouraging that seems reasonable if parents are uncomfortable with it for their young children. I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting. Taken from the opposite angle. Would you like to have a teacher provide their personal perspective on sexual orientation? What if that teacher was homophobic? Sexual orientation seems like a personal choice that's best just left out of the classroom entirely. Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
- kragen 5y ago
  Kindergartners discuss sexual orientation all the time; it's extremely common for them to "play house" with an imaginary spouse or to read about married couples in books or to see them portrayed in movies or TV shows. Not all of the fantasy life of kindergartners revolves around sexual orientation—much of it is instead built around fantastic monsters, sports, animals that actually exist, killing people, and driving large earthmoving machines—but it's very common for it to center on sexual orientation in these ways. Moreover, many of them live with married adult couples, so they are exposed to their sexual orientation on a daily basis, and they talk about it with each other. What would you do if you saw two kindergartners playing house, either as husband and wife or with one of them referring to her imaginary husband? Would you really tell them it was "completely unacceptable" because it involves heterosexuality?
- jankins 5y ago
  Your phrase “discussing sexual content” strikes me as really odd. If you discuss a “traditional” relationship with a 5 year old, you’re already discussing sexual content on the same level & terms that you would use if you were talking about sexual orientation and gender identity.
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

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
      You’re right. Thank you.
  - friedturkey 5y ago
    It doesn't explicitly. But in practice it would. If a kid asks "Why are there two daddies in the book?", a huge can of worms is opened. It'll be selectively applied by people with political motivations and administrators fearing (or facing) backlash and violent threats from parents. Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice. [1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fired-reading-need-new-butt-second-grade-class-rcna19362 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fir...
  - bendergender 5y ago
    Why do you think it wouldn't ban that? What if a kid says, "why are there two daddies in that story?" Or goes home to their parents and says, "my teacher read us a story about two daddies". Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received. In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.
drewbug01 5y ago
> I did not. You selectively quoted from the law. From your original post: "Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2." However, the actual text of the law is: "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" > If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable This is a huge part of the problem - you're presuming it's just about "sexual" content when it's also about gender identity (they are not related). But the broader point you miss is that "Johnny has two daddies" is inappropriately considered "sexual" by the right-wing in America. And that is a huge issue. Take a personal example, if you will: my husband is a teacher (and I am a man). If a similar law were to pass in our state, the law as-written would likely preclude him from mentioning anything about me at all to the students, while straight teachers would face no such limitations regarding their relationships. Because some people think any discussion of LGBT people in any capacity is inherently "sexual."
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  > 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 > sexual orientation: a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted; Perhaps everything, even text, is a form of Rorschach test that we personally interpret. Sexual attraction discussion just seems inappropriate for primary school regardless of orientation. When I read the bill's text it seems to me that it's saying: A teacher shouldn't bring up the topics of sexual orientation, regardless of that orientation, be it straight, gay, or otherwise for a classroom discussion. Such as, "Hello class, Today we are going to discuss sexual orientation." Discouraging that seems reasonable if parents are uncomfortable with it for their young children. I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting. Taken from the opposite angle. Would you like to have a teacher provide their personal perspective on sexual orientation? What if that teacher was homophobic? Sexual orientation seems like a personal choice that's best just left out of the classroom entirely. Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
kragen 5y ago
Kindergartners discuss sexual orientation all the time; it's extremely common for them to "play house" with an imaginary spouse or to read about married couples in books or to see them portrayed in movies or TV shows. Not all of the fantasy life of kindergartners revolves around sexual orientation—much of it is instead built around fantastic monsters, sports, animals that actually exist, killing people, and driving large earthmoving machines—but it's very common for it to center on sexual orientation in these ways. Moreover, many of them live with married adult couples, so they are exposed to their sexual orientation on a daily basis, and they talk about it with each other. What would you do if you saw two kindergartners playing house, either as husband and wife or with one of them referring to her imaginary husband? Would you really tell them it was "completely unacceptable" because it involves heterosexuality?
jankins 5y ago
Your phrase “discussing sexual content” strikes me as really odd. If you discuss a “traditional” relationship with a 5 year old, you’re already discussing sexual content on the same level & terms that you would use if you were talking about sexual orientation and gender identity.

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?