4 ms·

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.

edrxty 5y ago
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.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  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.
  - edrxty 5y ago
    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.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >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.
      - edrxty 5y ago
        >at least 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.
lovich 5y ago
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?
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  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.
  - lovich 5y ago
    I can make the question simpler since I didn’t seem to convey what I meant. If the law functionally prevents X without explicitly stating that they are intending to prevent X, does that make a difference to you?
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      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).
      - lovich 5y ago
        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.

edrxty 5y ago

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.

_-david-_ 5y ago
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.
- edrxty 5y ago
  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.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    >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.
    - edrxty 5y ago
      >at least 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.

lovich 5y ago

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?

_-david-_ 5y ago
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.
- lovich 5y ago
  I can make the question simpler since I didn’t seem to convey what I meant. If the law functionally prevents X without explicitly stating that they are intending to prevent X, does that make a difference to you?
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    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).
    - lovich 5y ago
      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.