6 ms·

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.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Not conflating anything. The bill specifically only relates to primary grades, which includes kindergarten, and doesn't include older students, such as anyone of truck driving age, as you conflated. I'm not confused. It seems totally practical. If parents disagree on the appropriateness of a topic for young children the most amenable response is to not discuss that topic in the classroom. It's a can of worms best left unopened for young kids. Parents saying let's focus on Art, Reading, STEM skills in school is reasonable.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Why does the bill refer to school boards being forced to give access to all education records of "minor children" (which in Florida is anyone under the age of 18). Either the bill is really poorly drafted, or you have no idea what it says. I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      > may not prohibit a parent from accessing any of his or her minor child's education records created, maintained, or used by the school district. How is this controversial? Are you saying parents should not have access to their child's public school records?
      - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
        Well, according to you they won't have that ability once they leave primary since this bill doesn't apply to older kids. Why are the Florida Republicans saying that parents should not have unrestricted access to their child's public school records in their teenage years? Doesn't really seem like something they would say but you seem quite adamant on this point so I'm going to cave and accept your interpretation.
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.

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.
TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Not conflating anything. The bill specifically only relates to primary grades, which includes kindergarten, and doesn't include older students, such as anyone of truck driving age, as you conflated. I'm not confused. It seems totally practical. If parents disagree on the appropriateness of a topic for young children the most amenable response is to not discuss that topic in the classroom. It's a can of worms best left unopened for young kids. Parents saying let's focus on Art, Reading, STEM skills in school is reasonable.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  Why does the bill refer to school boards being forced to give access to all education records of "minor children" (which in Florida is anyone under the age of 18). Either the bill is really poorly drafted, or you have no idea what it says. I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    > may not prohibit a parent from accessing any of his or her minor child's education records created, maintained, or used by the school district. How is this controversial? Are you saying parents should not have access to their child's public school records?
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Well, according to you they won't have that ability once they leave primary since this bill doesn't apply to older kids. Why are the Florida Republicans saying that parents should not have unrestricted access to their child's public school records in their teenage years? Doesn't really seem like something they would say but you seem quite adamant on this point so I'm going to cave and accept your interpretation.

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.