6 ms·

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

by 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.
- srveale 5y ago
  It is absolutely unclear. A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what teacher is going to risk it? It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the subject as much as possible.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    A teacher shouldn't be gossiping about another student's home life regardless of their age. I hope this bill bans that!
    - srveale 5y ago
      1. Acknowledging that a married-with-children couple is gay is "gossip?" 2. You want to ban gossip? Both of those are nonsense. And neither address my point. The bill is vague on purpose, and the purpose is to scare teachers into silence.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        I addressed your main point which is that a teacher should be able to talk about another student's home life. You said: >A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." If a teacher is telling other students about Timmy's home life that is very much gossip. The other students have no reason or right to know what Timmy's home situation is. If Timmy wants to tell other students about his situation he can. The teacher should not be doing that. Would you hold the same standard if a teacher said Timmy only has one parent if one of his parents died? It is gossip and the teacher should not be talking to other students about it.
        srveale 5y ago

by edrxty 5y ago

_-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.
srveale 5y ago
It is absolutely unclear. A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what teacher is going to risk it? It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the subject as much as possible.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  A teacher shouldn't be gossiping about another student's home life regardless of their age. I hope this bill bans that!
  - srveale 5y ago
    1. Acknowledging that a married-with-children couple is gay is "gossip?" 2. You want to ban gossip? Both of those are nonsense. And neither address my point. The bill is vague on purpose, and the purpose is to scare teachers into silence.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I addressed your main point which is that a teacher should be able to talk about another student's home life. You said: >A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." If a teacher is telling other students about Timmy's home life that is very much gossip. The other students have no reason or right to know what Timmy's home situation is. If Timmy wants to tell other students about his situation he can. The teacher should not be doing that. Would you hold the same standard if a teacher said Timmy only has one parent if one of his parents died? It is gossip and the teacher should not be talking to other students about it.
      - srveale 5y ago