13 ms·

Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida

46 points by physicsfox 5y ago

mike_d 5y ago
The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom.
- KerrAvon 5y ago
  It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom. > It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct. Actually, reading the bill text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...), I don't think that's technically correct: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
    - dariusj18 5y ago
      This bill is created to be vague. If it wasn't vague it would most likely be shot down instantaneously in courts.
- avs733 5y ago
  And the reaction is telling… the vagueness and the double meaning is the point not an accidental side effect
- vecplane 5y ago
  This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.
  - countvonbalzac 5y ago
    Or just let the kids be kids, stop mandating at a state level who they have to be.
    - raxxorraxor 5y ago
      I think objective sexual education is not only under attack by religious reservations anymore, there are also ideological elements. Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities. So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
  - imode 5y ago
  - stusmall 5y ago
    "This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what gay people where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone." You see where people are coming from now?
  - Gigachad 5y ago
    It's more just an advancement on English really. Gendered terms aren't really useful. Especially with most written English being online now where no gender is known, it just becomes natural to use a non gendered term in all cases.
  - s5300 5y ago
    > We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents. They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe. As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
- fundad 5y ago
  When I was in high school, the straight English teacher married the straight gym teacher. It was discussed so openly that it probably had something to do with me eventually marrying a straight woman.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  Referring to children by gender is not instructional content. It's working within their level of development.
- MatteoFrigo 5y ago
  They can just call everybody "comrade". Problem solved. "Comrade" is gender-neutral.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    If you're thinking this would be a win for the D's then you're not thinking about the PR win it would give to the R's. Especially with Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine.
Gigachad 5y ago
Surely some sex/gender education is required and appropriate for this age group. Things like consent/personal space etc are useful and important for kids of any age. Would be much more logical to have some kind of standard education program for the topic.
- avs733 5y ago
  You are obviously and logically correct. The obviousness is exactly the point of the law because it creates vagueness. It’s just another right wing attack on public schools.
  - _skzr 5y ago
    There is no reason for you or anyone else to talk about my 6 year old’s genitalia with him. Our desire to keep you from talking to our kids about their junk is a right wing attack?
    - avs733 5y ago
      It’s very strange that people want to conflate genitalia and you know…like pronouns? There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.
- drooby 5y ago
  FWIW, my school provided basic sexual anatomy and puberty eduction (basic biology stuff) in 5th grade. We then had a “health class” in middle school (grades 6-8), which explored sexual orientation and safe sex practice. This all felt very appropriate. 3rd grade feels a bit young to start with sexual anatomy and puberty tbh Consent and personal space are separate subjects that probably aren’t prohibited under this new law.
- 99_00 5y ago
  You are conflating three related but different things: sex education, gender education, and consent/personal space. The bill forbids only one of those three things, sexual orientation or gender identity.
tablespoon 5y ago
The current post title is "Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida," though that doesn't seem accurate. According to the article: > The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade... I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed. FWIW, the actual OP title is "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education."
- hayd 5y ago
  Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
  - s5300 5y ago
    It should be. Historically, children started working the farm much younger than 8. Sex Ed comes pretty naturally with that, especially if you have… horses.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? > In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...). Honestly, I don't know for sure. I didn't go to a public school until 5th grade (10–11). That year we definitely had "family life" for an awkward couple days. And I'm sure the subject was at least covered the prior year if not before. However I recall there was very little about "sex" per se, it was mostly babies, bodies, and biology, etc. IIRC, my parents had "the talk" with me much earlier. Probably preschool or kindergarten.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? Pedagogical material that references gender identities and sexual pair bonds is very common (and is not “sex education”); this law is not principally in response to sex education but to pedagogical material mentioning non-cisgender gender identities and non-heterosexual relationships and family structures.
hex123 5y ago
According to the website, banned up to 3rd grade, which apparently is 8-9 years old. I do not recall being interested on knowing anything about sex until 11-12. Let children be children. Also, even if one uses the LGBTQIA+ classification for older children, where "A" stands for "asexual", would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?
- striking 5y ago
  I don't think having adults I trust inform me that it's okay to be entirely disinterested in sex and to be myself would make me uncomfortable.
  - hex123 5y ago
    If it is a school subject the 8 year old would be forced to listen to the LGBTQI parts as well.
    - striking 5y ago
      I don't immediately take offense to hearing about things that don't apply to me, and maybe hearing about things that my classmates or their parents or whomever is going through might help me get a better understanding of them and their lives. The use of the word "force" here is especially interesting. I doubt you'd use the same word for a subject like Math or English, despite it being the same degree of "force".
- flatiron 5y ago
  Did they really solve a problem or was it just chest pounding? I don’t believe sex Ed was in the curriculum for those grades. But now if a teacher does something that could possibly fall under this new law they can be sued by the parents. I simply believe this wasn’t an issue and they are trying to “fix” something not broken.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
lesgobrandon 5y ago
- aaronbrethorst 5y ago
  In case anyone's wondering what this person's username refers to, it's a childish way of saying "Fuck Joe Biden." https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean-republicans-joe-biden-ab13db212067928455a3dba07756a160 https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean...
  - fundad 5y ago
    They think we don't know they're cursing the president, we know they're cursing. They also call it the "Brandon Administration", so "let's go" actually appears patriotic. It's a monumental testament to bootlicker intelligence.
jmole 5y ago
What do teachers say if a kid asks them something about it? If you don't like your kids teacher, it seems like you could get them fired just by having your kid say obnoxious things in classroom until the teacher is forced to address it directly.
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  School principal sets policy here. Usually a referral to school psych. or guidance counselor given some conditions (e.g. persistent asking, paired with mental distress, etc.)
  - jmole 5y ago
    Frankie: "Mrs. Brown, Timmy called me gay, what does that mean?" Mrs. Brown: "Ok, Frankie, you'll need to go to the school psychologist now, they will explain there."
- fundad 5y ago
  They just won't find evidence to terminate in accusations against the straight white teachers. That's the point of laws like this.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    Let's not inject race unnecessarily. And if you're going to, at least check your facts first. Acceptance of SSM is higher among Whites than among Blacks or Hispanics. [1] 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...
    - fundad 5y ago
      Let’s be real here, Republicans passed the law. Public acceptance doesn’t matter in a Republic, not a Democracy.
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
This is also being referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, and it's expected to be the first of many similar bills across the country, just like Texas's vigilante anti-abortion bill. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say-gay-anti-transgender-bills https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say...
- 99_00 5y ago
  >it's expected to be the first of many similar bills across the country, Do you favor that? Why or why not?
  - falcolas 5y ago
    Personally, no. If a state government wants to ban such things, then let them do the prosecution. Don’t legitimize vigilante justice.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hex123 5y ago
Mizza 5y ago
All right, I guess I'll spend some karma. Unless there's an aspect of this I'm not aware of, I don't think this is so bad. I went to a very good public school in the US, and we didn't have sex education until 4th grade, and even then I think we were a bit immature for it at the time. They were still only doing the _very_ basics and I remember the class not being well behaved during it. I think sex education any younger than that is totally unnecessary and kind of inappropriate. I find it pretty weird that American politics has become really obsessed with the sexual topics around little kids lately.
- ninkendo 5y ago
  The absence of this law wouldn’t mean we start teaching sex to 6 year olds. My state doesn’t have such a law and I didn’t learn sex ed until I was 11 or so. The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist, it’s just scoring points for Florida politicians, getting in digs at the “woke culture” boogeyman that is an easy win to stoke their base. They didn’t have a “teaching gay sex to 6 year olds” epidemic in Florida prior to this bill, no matter what politicians tell you.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist... Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
lr4444lr 5y ago
There is nothing in this bill that prevents a school psychologist or guidance counselor from working with individual children to address their personal needs. The bill's text is hardly remarkable at all. 20 years ago, no one would have batted an eye if you said that sex ed should not be taught below a certain grade level.
- jjj123 5y ago
  My understanding is this bill is more focused on sexual orientation and gender than it is sex ed. Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years. I don’t think kindergartners need sex ed, but I do think explaining that some kids have two moms or two dads is worthwhile at that age.
  - raxxorraxor 5y ago
    > Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years. I think you propose agreement on issues where there is none which was partly the motivation of this bill.
  - hayd 5y ago
    > some kids have two moms or two dads I 100% agree that's reasonable. What's unreasonable is schools/teachers practicing "gender affirmation" of 5 year olds (or indeed any age) behind parents' backs. If a boy likes playing princess it doesn't mean he's a girl, and to be honest that seems patronising and cruel.
crackercrews 5y ago
Both the right and the left have misrepresented this law. The left calls it the "don't say gay" law. The right says it's just about K-3. neither is accurate. The law isn't about saying the word "gay" or all possible references to it. The law doesn't prohibit mentioning a same sex spouse. And it doesn't prohibit a kid from talking about her two moms. It's just about classroom instruction. The right talks about how this is just about K-3 but the actual law is a complete ban on classroom instruction at this age AND a ban on non-age-appropriate instruction at other grade levels. This second part is often left off in right-leaning news. When people have mentioned it they tend to defend it by saying that it will make teachers rightfully hesitant to speak about LGBTQ issues in the classroom. They think that teachers should leave these issues to parents. But most right-wing commentators do not recognize this part of the law. They pretend it's just about K-3. It's too bad that both sides misrepresent the law. It leads to further distrust in the media. And it gives the other side an excuse to continue to behave badly.
- fundad 5y ago
  Remember these same groups fought teaching straight sex education at any grade level. That this prohibits non-age-appropriate instruction means it will be used as a backdoor attempt to ban sex education.
  - crackercrews 5y ago
    Is there evidence of this? If not, seems like a weak syllogism.
    - fundad 5y ago
      Yeah the conservative movement’s history of actions against sex education (and contraceptives)
QuikAccount 5y ago
People saying "let kids be kids." Kids don't make a big deal out of something until their parents make a big deal out of something. America has such a weird relationship with sex education or sex in general.
- 99_00 5y ago
  The bill doesn't forbid sex education in general.
arrakis2021 5y ago
I don’t understand why these people want to talk to my 6 year about his pee-pee. This was never normal, accepted, or even a topic of debate. I don’t want anyone discuss my child’s genitals with them or with anyone else. If you want people talking to your child about their genitalia, that’s on you.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  The bill opens up the possibility for being sued for acknowledging in any way that gay people exist, e.g. acknowledging that somebody has two same-gender parents - even as a corollary fact on a topic that is unrelated to sex education.
  - arrakis2021 5y ago
    Ok but I still don’t want you or a random teacher talking to my 6-year old kid about his weiner and what he can do with it. It would seem that many parents feel the same way.
    - plusmax1 5y ago
      No one really was. This bill exists just to score political outrage points in order to "solve" a non-existent problem. And the insidious way it goes about solving this allows vigilante witch hunting and even more polarization and hate. There is nothing good about this bill.
yongjik 5y ago
This isn't a "don't teach sex to third graders" bill. If Florida teachers were spending too much time talking about sex to third graders, it would have been a totally uncontroversial decision at each district level to tone it down to an age-appropriate level. We don't have a "Don't teach integrals to third graders" law, after all. This is basically "Mrs. White can no longer explain to the kids what it means that Timmy has two moms and why it's okay for Timmy" bill. Anyone saying "But why do third graders need a sex education?" are missing the obvious, maybe intentionally.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- insickness 5y ago
  A teacher should not explain to kids that age "what it means" that Timmy has two moms, nor "what it means" that Tammy has a mom and a dad. Not appropriate. Leave the conversation about where babies come from to a sex education class.
  - happytoexplain 5y ago
    It's possible to explain what it means without getting into the mechanics of sex. Just like Bobby has a daddy, who is a boy, and a mommy, who is a girl, and they love each other; so does Timmy have two mommies, who are both girls, and who also love each other.
- MrMetlHed 5y ago
  As a parent of a toddler, I have read plenty of books where gay or lesbian parents are mentioned in the story in passing. In context it's a nice way to acknowledge that different types of families exist without drawing attention to them. My understanding is that these books would no longer be allowed in a Florida classroom. And even if they're technically allowed the chilling effect of a law that may lead to lawsuits will probably effectively ban them anyway. And for what? For maybe one or two children in the class to never see a representation of their family in a classroom? Seems kind of sad to me.
yongjik 5y ago
Meta comment: I find it pretty amusing that the usual "No to the government! There should be no more regulations because it leads to more government power, corruption, and tyranny!" crowd is conspicuously absent this time. ...but not really surprised.
- smt88 5y ago
  They're not absent. They're literally in this comment thread preaching the opposite now.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Eager for this law to be vigorously enforced against all content referencing cisgender identities and heterosexual relationships, which are quite common in material aimed at K-3.
drewbug01 5y ago
If you’re at all interested in where this is all going next, here’s a clip from Fox News that makes it clear: https://mobile.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1513516195613450246 https://mobile.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/151351619561... If you’re not inclined to watch, the tl;dr is “gay teachers are pedos.” None of this is being done in good faith or for good reasons, and the informed HN crowd would be wise to consider the broader context of this bill - and the historical attempts over the years to paint LGBT folks as pedophiles, particularly in schools. It’s not a new thing, in many ways. It’s just a more drawn-out, gradual way to get there than other attempts over the past 40-50 years.

46 points by physicsfox 5y ago

The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom.

KerrAvon 5y ago
It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom. > It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct. Actually, reading the bill text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...), I don't think that's technically correct: > Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    This bill is created to be vague. If it wasn't vague it would most likely be shot down instantaneously in courts.
avs733 5y ago
And the reaction is telling… the vagueness and the double meaning is the point not an accidental side effect
vecplane 5y ago
This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.
- countvonbalzac 5y ago
  Or just let the kids be kids, stop mandating at a state level who they have to be.
  - raxxorraxor 5y ago
    I think objective sexual education is not only under attack by religious reservations anymore, there are also ideological elements. Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities. So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
- imode 5y ago
- stusmall 5y ago
  "This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what gay people where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone." You see where people are coming from now?
- Gigachad 5y ago
  It's more just an advancement on English really. Gendered terms aren't really useful. Especially with most written English being online now where no gender is known, it just becomes natural to use a non gendered term in all cases.
- s5300 5y ago
  > We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents. They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe. As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
fundad 5y ago
When I was in high school, the straight English teacher married the straight gym teacher. It was discussed so openly that it probably had something to do with me eventually marrying a straight woman.
lr4444lr 5y ago
Referring to children by gender is not instructional content. It's working within their level of development.
MatteoFrigo 5y ago
They can just call everybody "comrade". Problem solved. "Comrade" is gender-neutral.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  If you're thinking this would be a win for the D's then you're not thinking about the PR win it would give to the R's. Especially with Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine.

Gigachad 5y ago

Surely some sex/gender education is required and appropriate for this age group. Things like consent/personal space etc are useful and important for kids of any age. Would be much more logical to have some kind of standard education program for the topic.

avs733 5y ago
You are obviously and logically correct. The obviousness is exactly the point of the law because it creates vagueness. It’s just another right wing attack on public schools.
- _skzr 5y ago
  There is no reason for you or anyone else to talk about my 6 year old’s genitalia with him. Our desire to keep you from talking to our kids about their junk is a right wing attack?
  - avs733 5y ago
    It’s very strange that people want to conflate genitalia and you know…like pronouns? There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.
drooby 5y ago
FWIW, my school provided basic sexual anatomy and puberty eduction (basic biology stuff) in 5th grade. We then had a “health class” in middle school (grades 6-8), which explored sexual orientation and safe sex practice. This all felt very appropriate. 3rd grade feels a bit young to start with sexual anatomy and puberty tbh Consent and personal space are separate subjects that probably aren’t prohibited under this new law.
99_00 5y ago
You are conflating three related but different things: sex education, gender education, and consent/personal space. The bill forbids only one of those three things, sexual orientation or gender identity.

tablespoon 5y ago

The current post title is "Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida," though that doesn't seem accurate. According to the article: > The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade... I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed. FWIW, the actual OP title is "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education."

hayd 5y ago
Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
- s5300 5y ago
  It should be. Historically, children started working the farm much younger than 8. Sex Ed comes pretty naturally with that, especially if you have… horses.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? > In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...). Honestly, I don't know for sure. I didn't go to a public school until 5th grade (10–11). That year we definitely had "family life" for an awkward couple days. And I'm sure the subject was at least covered the prior year if not before. However I recall there was very little about "sex" per se, it was mostly babies, bodies, and biology, etc. IIRC, my parents had "the talk" with me much earlier. Probably preschool or kindergarten.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US?? Pedagogical material that references gender identities and sexual pair bonds is very common (and is not “sex education”); this law is not principally in response to sex education but to pedagogical material mentioning non-cisgender gender identities and non-heterosexual relationships and family structures.

hex123 5y ago

According to the website, banned up to 3rd grade, which apparently is 8-9 years old. I do not recall being interested on knowing anything about sex until 11-12. Let children be children. Also, even if one uses the LGBTQIA+ classification for older children, where "A" stands for "asexual", would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?

striking 5y ago
I don't think having adults I trust inform me that it's okay to be entirely disinterested in sex and to be myself would make me uncomfortable.
- hex123 5y ago
  If it is a school subject the 8 year old would be forced to listen to the LGBTQI parts as well.
  - striking 5y ago
    I don't immediately take offense to hearing about things that don't apply to me, and maybe hearing about things that my classmates or their parents or whomever is going through might help me get a better understanding of them and their lives. The use of the word "force" here is especially interesting. I doubt you'd use the same word for a subject like Math or English, despite it being the same degree of "force".
flatiron 5y ago
Did they really solve a problem or was it just chest pounding? I don’t believe sex Ed was in the curriculum for those grades. But now if a teacher does something that could possibly fall under this new law they can be sued by the parents. I simply believe this wasn’t an issue and they are trying to “fix” something not broken.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

lesgobrandon 5y ago

aaronbrethorst 5y ago
In case anyone's wondering what this person's username refers to, it's a childish way of saying "Fuck Joe Biden." https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean-republicans-joe-biden-ab13db212067928455a3dba07756a160 https://apnews.com/article/lets-go-brandon-what-does-it-mean...
- fundad 5y ago
  They think we don't know they're cursing the president, we know they're cursing. They also call it the "Brandon Administration", so "let's go" actually appears patriotic. It's a monumental testament to bootlicker intelligence.

jmole 5y ago

What do teachers say if a kid asks them something about it? If you don't like your kids teacher, it seems like you could get them fired just by having your kid say obnoxious things in classroom until the teacher is forced to address it directly.

lr4444lr 5y ago
School principal sets policy here. Usually a referral to school psych. or guidance counselor given some conditions (e.g. persistent asking, paired with mental distress, etc.)
- jmole 5y ago
  Frankie: "Mrs. Brown, Timmy called me gay, what does that mean?" Mrs. Brown: "Ok, Frankie, you'll need to go to the school psychologist now, they will explain there."
fundad 5y ago
They just won't find evidence to terminate in accusations against the straight white teachers. That's the point of laws like this.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Let's not inject race unnecessarily. And if you're going to, at least check your facts first. Acceptance of SSM is higher among Whites than among Blacks or Hispanics. [1] 1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...
  - fundad 5y ago
    Let’s be real here, Republicans passed the law. Public acceptance doesn’t matter in a Republic, not a Democracy.

aaronbrethorst 5y ago

This is also being referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, and it's expected to be the first of many similar bills across the country, just like Texas's vigilante anti-abortion bill. https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say-gay-anti-transgender-bills https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say...

99_00 5y ago
>it's expected to be the first of many similar bills across the country, Do you favor that? Why or why not?
- falcolas 5y ago
  Personally, no. If a state government wants to ban such things, then let them do the prosecution. Don’t legitimize vigilante justice.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hex123 5y ago

Mizza 5y ago

All right, I guess I'll spend some karma. Unless there's an aspect of this I'm not aware of, I don't think this is so bad. I went to a very good public school in the US, and we didn't have sex education until 4th grade, and even then I think we were a bit immature for it at the time. They were still only doing the _very_ basics and I remember the class not being well behaved during it. I think sex education any younger than that is totally unnecessary and kind of inappropriate. I find it pretty weird that American politics has become really obsessed with the sexual topics around little kids lately.

ninkendo 5y ago
The absence of this law wouldn’t mean we start teaching sex to 6 year olds. My state doesn’t have such a law and I didn’t learn sex ed until I was 11 or so. The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist, it’s just scoring points for Florida politicians, getting in digs at the “woke culture” boogeyman that is an easy win to stoke their base. They didn’t have a “teaching gay sex to 6 year olds” epidemic in Florida prior to this bill, no matter what politicians tell you.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist... Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law. The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.

lr4444lr 5y ago

There is nothing in this bill that prevents a school psychologist or guidance counselor from working with individual children to address their personal needs. The bill's text is hardly remarkable at all. 20 years ago, no one would have batted an eye if you said that sex ed should not be taught below a certain grade level.

jjj123 5y ago
My understanding is this bill is more focused on sexual orientation and gender than it is sex ed. Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years. I don’t think kindergartners need sex ed, but I do think explaining that some kids have two moms or two dads is worthwhile at that age.
- raxxorraxor 5y ago
  > Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years. I think you propose agreement on issues where there is none which was partly the motivation of this bill.
- hayd 5y ago
  > some kids have two moms or two dads I 100% agree that's reasonable. What's unreasonable is schools/teachers practicing "gender affirmation" of 5 year olds (or indeed any age) behind parents' backs. If a boy likes playing princess it doesn't mean he's a girl, and to be honest that seems patronising and cruel.

crackercrews 5y ago

Both the right and the left have misrepresented this law. The left calls it the "don't say gay" law. The right says it's just about K-3. neither is accurate. The law isn't about saying the word "gay" or all possible references to it. The law doesn't prohibit mentioning a same sex spouse. And it doesn't prohibit a kid from talking about her two moms. It's just about classroom instruction. The right talks about how this is just about K-3 but the actual law is a complete ban on classroom instruction at this age AND a ban on non-age-appropriate instruction at other grade levels. This second part is often left off in right-leaning news. When people have mentioned it they tend to defend it by saying that it will make teachers rightfully hesitant to speak about LGBTQ issues in the classroom. They think that teachers should leave these issues to parents. But most right-wing commentators do not recognize this part of the law. They pretend it's just about K-3. It's too bad that both sides misrepresent the law. It leads to further distrust in the media. And it gives the other side an excuse to continue to behave badly.

fundad 5y ago
Remember these same groups fought teaching straight sex education at any grade level. That this prohibits non-age-appropriate instruction means it will be used as a backdoor attempt to ban sex education.
- crackercrews 5y ago
  Is there evidence of this? If not, seems like a weak syllogism.
  - fundad 5y ago
    Yeah the conservative movement’s history of actions against sex education (and contraceptives)

QuikAccount 5y ago

People saying "let kids be kids." Kids don't make a big deal out of something until their parents make a big deal out of something. America has such a weird relationship with sex education or sex in general.

99_00 5y ago
The bill doesn't forbid sex education in general.

arrakis2021 5y ago

I don’t understand why these people want to talk to my 6 year about his pee-pee. This was never normal, accepted, or even a topic of debate. I don’t want anyone discuss my child’s genitals with them or with anyone else. If you want people talking to your child about their genitalia, that’s on you.

happytoexplain 5y ago
The bill opens up the possibility for being sued for acknowledging in any way that gay people exist, e.g. acknowledging that somebody has two same-gender parents - even as a corollary fact on a topic that is unrelated to sex education.
- arrakis2021 5y ago
  Ok but I still don’t want you or a random teacher talking to my 6-year old kid about his weiner and what he can do with it. It would seem that many parents feel the same way.
  - plusmax1 5y ago
    No one really was. This bill exists just to score political outrage points in order to "solve" a non-existent problem. And the insidious way it goes about solving this allows vigilante witch hunting and even more polarization and hate. There is nothing good about this bill.

yongjik 5y ago

This isn't a "don't teach sex to third graders" bill. If Florida teachers were spending too much time talking about sex to third graders, it would have been a totally uncontroversial decision at each district level to tone it down to an age-appropriate level. We don't have a "Don't teach integrals to third graders" law, after all. This is basically "Mrs. White can no longer explain to the kids what it means that Timmy has two moms and why it's okay for Timmy" bill. Anyone saying "But why do third graders need a sex education?" are missing the obvious, maybe intentionally.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
insickness 5y ago
A teacher should not explain to kids that age "what it means" that Timmy has two moms, nor "what it means" that Tammy has a mom and a dad. Not appropriate. Leave the conversation about where babies come from to a sex education class.
- happytoexplain 5y ago
  It's possible to explain what it means without getting into the mechanics of sex. Just like Bobby has a daddy, who is a boy, and a mommy, who is a girl, and they love each other; so does Timmy have two mommies, who are both girls, and who also love each other.
MrMetlHed 5y ago
As a parent of a toddler, I have read plenty of books where gay or lesbian parents are mentioned in the story in passing. In context it's a nice way to acknowledge that different types of families exist without drawing attention to them. My understanding is that these books would no longer be allowed in a Florida classroom. And even if they're technically allowed the chilling effect of a law that may lead to lawsuits will probably effectively ban them anyway. And for what? For maybe one or two children in the class to never see a representation of their family in a classroom? Seems kind of sad to me.

yongjik 5y ago

Meta comment: I find it pretty amusing that the usual "No to the government! There should be no more regulations because it leads to more government power, corruption, and tyranny!" crowd is conspicuously absent this time. ...but not really surprised.

smt88 5y ago
They're not absent. They're literally in this comment thread preaching the opposite now.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Eager for this law to be vigorously enforced against all content referencing cisgender identities and heterosexual relationships, which are quite common in material aimed at K-3.

drewbug01 5y ago

If you’re at all interested in where this is all going next, here’s a clip from Fox News that makes it clear: https://mobile.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/1513516195613450246 https://mobile.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/151351619561... If you’re not inclined to watch, the tl;dr is “gay teachers are pedos.” None of this is being done in good faith or for good reasons, and the informed HN crowd would be wise to consider the broader context of this bill - and the historical attempts over the years to paint LGBT folks as pedophiles, particularly in schools. It’s not a new thing, in many ways. It’s just a more drawn-out, gradual way to get there than other attempts over the past 40-50 years.