32 ms·

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

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
    > 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. Were you actually unaware of people being married until middle school? This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me. People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended. Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs. There's also your own parents or your friends parents. I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality. >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 literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people >That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself. >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. If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law, unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue. I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that

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
  > 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. Were you actually unaware of people being married until middle school? This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me. People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended. Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs. There's also your own parents or your friends parents. I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality. >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 literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people >That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself. >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. If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law, unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue. I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that