4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- drewbug01 5y ago
  > I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc. The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied. > 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. Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary. > Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents. Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
    - drewbug01 5y ago
      > e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies. I'm fascinated by what you mean here. > Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual. However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right. There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.

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.

drewbug01 5y ago
> I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc. The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied. > 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. Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary. > Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents. Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
  - drewbug01 5y ago
    > e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies. I'm fascinated by what you mean here. > Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual. However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right. There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.