4 ms·

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

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.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I hope I am not coming off as incensed as you mentioned some people are. To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as it would be constitutional / legal if they were to explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to prevent any confusion. If you think this bill functionally blocks talking about gay people existing then it also functionally blocks talking about straight people existing. I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I don't really mind. I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or gender identity regardless if they do it in an age appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate portion. Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation to kids who are too young to be hearing it.
  - lovich 5y ago
    I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues. There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children. You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies. Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will. That gets back to my point about the functional blocking in the law, which youve stated you’re fine with if it’s constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      >I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues. That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself. >There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children. Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't think a single teacher told us they were married until we were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do by not talking about it. >You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade And? Just because children understand they have parents and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean teachers need to talk about it. >Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies Not a given. >Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will. I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either. I think they all would be glad if everything related to sexual orientation and gender identity was banned (at least at this age). >As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else. A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom instruction.

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.

_-david-_ 5y ago
I hope I am not coming off as incensed as you mentioned some people are. To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as it would be constitutional / legal if they were to explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to prevent any confusion. If you think this bill functionally blocks talking about gay people existing then it also functionally blocks talking about straight people existing. I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I don't really mind. I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or gender identity regardless if they do it in an age appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate portion. Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation to kids who are too young to be hearing it.
- lovich 5y ago
  I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues. There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children. You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies. Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will. That gets back to my point about the functional blocking in the law, which youve stated you’re fine with if it’s constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    >I agree that the letter of the law also prevents mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans issues. That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself. >There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children. Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't think a single teacher told us they were married until we were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do by not talking about it. >You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade And? Just because children understand they have parents and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean teachers need to talk about it. >Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies Not a given. >Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will. I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either. I think they all would be glad if everything related to sexual orientation and gender identity was banned (at least at this age). >As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else. A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom instruction.