6 ms·

> I don't see how you could possibly think that is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader, much less a kindergartner. Why is it inappropriate for young childr

> I don't see how you could possibly think that is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader, much less a kindergartner. Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? Kids live in modern families! Banning discussions like this is to ban the reality of lived experiences of millions of people. Just a couple of days ago, my wife, who is a school librarian, told me a story about this. A teacher was in her library, doing story time with her kindergarten class, and for whatever reason the subject of parents came up. This kid stated, “I have a mama and a mami” (it’s a French school in Canada), and the woman said, “no, you have a mama and a papa”. No, the child insisted, “I have a mama and a mami”. And the teacher tried to argue the point, with this five-year-old. Of course the five-year-old knew what she was talking about, and the teacher was being either clueless or bigoted. But that right there is a “teachable moment”, and one that is completely appropriate for children of any age.

Clubber 5y ago
I would argue that saying, "some people have two mommies," is arguably age appropriate, but adding, "because some women like to have sex with other women," would not be. The teacher in question should have just said, "ok," or something and not tried to bring in a deeper discussion about sexual preferences.
- LordDragonfang 5y ago
  The problem is that a reasonable reading of the bill bans both the latter and the former, so either the law was incompetently crafted, or it was not intended to serve the distinction you've laid out.
  - nullc 5y ago
    I can't reasonably extract that reading, particularly since the posters "age appropriate" speaks directly to the text of the legislation. But poorly crafted legislation-- particularly at the state level-- is the norm, not the exception.
    - LordDragonfang 5y ago
      As I pointed out in my other comment, re-read that sentence, it's two separate clauses joined by or. As in, it bans {any discussion of the topics {K-3 OR not "age appropriate"}}.
      - nullc 5y ago
        Fair enough.
remarkEon 5y ago
>Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? Because it's creepy and weird for adults, who are supposed to be teaching math and so on, to have conversations with young children about sex. What I don't get is how this became controversial. Probably because of the internet, again, amplifying the worst takes and the worst interpretations of any given event. >Kids live in modern families! Banning discussions like this is to ban the reality of lived experiences of millions of people. The overwhelming majority of kids do not, but that's besides the point and saying "we should wait to discuss sex and sexual orientation until kids are old enough" doesn't "ban reality" in any way. It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds.
- adriand 5y ago
  > Because it's creepy and weird for adults, who are supposed to be teaching math and so on, to have conversations with young children about sex. > It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds. That's a strawman argument. Sexual orientation and gender identity != sex. Nothing about this conversation needs to be awkward. "Oh, interesting, NAME, you have two moms? Well, everybody, that's true, you can have a mom and a dad, or two moms, or two dads. Some people have one parent, and some are raised by their grandpa or grandma or someone else. Does anyone else here have two moms? Does anyone have two dads? Or a single parent?" Blah blah blah. It's not awkward, it's not sexual, and it normalizes the experience for the great many children who live in "non-traditional" families.
- magicalist 5y ago
  > It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds. This is exactly what people are talking about, by the way. "I have a mama and a mami" is a potential awkward conversation about sex that needs to be sidestepped. "You have a mama and a papa" is no problem. If we accept that as a premise, don't you see the issue with the law?
teakettle42 5y ago
> Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? It’s not something that extremely prepubescent children need to be instructed on. > Kids live in modern families! Then their families can instruct them. > But that right there is a “teachable moment”, and one that is completely appropriate for children of any age. What, exactly, should the school be teaching the kids in that moment, and how would this law prevent it? I’m fairly certain admitting the existence of a child’s parents is not “classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity”.
- adriand 5y ago
  > What, exactly, should the school be teaching the kids in that moment How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay". [1] > and how would this law prevent it? IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. But “classroom discussion” is broad. That could discourage a teacher from speaking about gay families with the whole class, even if some students have gay parents.' In other words, precisely the scenario I just described. This is a gag law that prevents educators from having the kind of conversation that should have happened in the library at my wife's school. 1: The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal in FL and constitutionally protected, and that same-sex couples can, for instance, adopt children, that value judgment seems to be not just ethical but legally enshrined. 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay-actually-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay...
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay". “That’s okay” is non-neutral moral judgement that exceeds the teacher’s purview. “People are different in many ways; in this classroom, we treat everyone with respect regardless of our differences” is a content-neutral restriction on speech that does not exceed a teacher’s purview. > IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. The law is not tied to any particular sexual orientation (or gender “identity”); if that analysis were true, the law would also eliminate books with straight characters or historical figures. > The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal … “That’s legal” is a statement of fact; it’s very different than “that’s okay”.
rayiner 5y ago
> Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? Because kids’ brains aren’t fully developed until age 25 and sexuality is a complicated and potentially damaging force that parents try to insulate their kids from until they’re old enough to understand what it is and what it isn’t. Also, more fundamentally, because many parents are just fresh out of trust: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri/blog/that-8-letter-word-including-pleasure-in-sex-education https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-st-loui.... There’s a vocal faction of the left that’s obsessed with sex. These are the folks who thought same-sex marriage was a bad thing because they wanted more sweeping changes to sexual and gender norms. These folks are always trying to sneak in the door behind people advocating for equal rights, and right now we’re in a phase where the broader center left doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to them.

Clubber 5y ago

I would argue that saying, "some people have two mommies," is arguably age appropriate, but adding, "because some women like to have sex with other women," would not be. The teacher in question should have just said, "ok," or something and not tried to bring in a deeper discussion about sexual preferences.

LordDragonfang 5y ago
The problem is that a reasonable reading of the bill bans both the latter and the former, so either the law was incompetently crafted, or it was not intended to serve the distinction you've laid out.
- nullc 5y ago
  I can't reasonably extract that reading, particularly since the posters "age appropriate" speaks directly to the text of the legislation. But poorly crafted legislation-- particularly at the state level-- is the norm, not the exception.
  - LordDragonfang 5y ago
    As I pointed out in my other comment, re-read that sentence, it's two separate clauses joined by or. As in, it bans {any discussion of the topics {K-3 OR not "age appropriate"}}.
    - nullc 5y ago
      Fair enough.

remarkEon 5y ago

>Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? Because it's creepy and weird for adults, who are supposed to be teaching math and so on, to have conversations with young children about sex. What I don't get is how this became controversial. Probably because of the internet, again, amplifying the worst takes and the worst interpretations of any given event. >Kids live in modern families! Banning discussions like this is to ban the reality of lived experiences of millions of people. The overwhelming majority of kids do not, but that's besides the point and saying "we should wait to discuss sex and sexual orientation until kids are old enough" doesn't "ban reality" in any way. It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds.

adriand 5y ago
> Because it's creepy and weird for adults, who are supposed to be teaching math and so on, to have conversations with young children about sex. > It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds. That's a strawman argument. Sexual orientation and gender identity != sex. Nothing about this conversation needs to be awkward. "Oh, interesting, NAME, you have two moms? Well, everybody, that's true, you can have a mom and a dad, or two moms, or two dads. Some people have one parent, and some are raised by their grandpa or grandma or someone else. Does anyone else here have two moms? Does anyone have two dads? Or a single parent?" Blah blah blah. It's not awkward, it's not sexual, and it normalizes the experience for the great many children who live in "non-traditional" families.
magicalist 5y ago
> It's instructive that you assume the teacher was "clueless or bigoted" and not, ya know, trying to sidestep an awkward conversation about sex in front of five year olds. This is exactly what people are talking about, by the way. "I have a mama and a mami" is a potential awkward conversation about sex that needs to be sidestepped. "You have a mama and a papa" is no problem. If we accept that as a premise, don't you see the issue with the law?

teakettle42 5y ago

> Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? It’s not something that extremely prepubescent children need to be instructed on. > Kids live in modern families! Then their families can instruct them. > But that right there is a “teachable moment”, and one that is completely appropriate for children of any age. What, exactly, should the school be teaching the kids in that moment, and how would this law prevent it? I’m fairly certain admitting the existence of a child’s parents is not “classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity”.

adriand 5y ago
> What, exactly, should the school be teaching the kids in that moment How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay". [1] > and how would this law prevent it? IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. But “classroom discussion” is broad. That could discourage a teacher from speaking about gay families with the whole class, even if some students have gay parents.' In other words, precisely the scenario I just described. This is a gag law that prevents educators from having the kind of conversation that should have happened in the library at my wife's school. 1: The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal in FL and constitutionally protected, and that same-sex couples can, for instance, adopt children, that value judgment seems to be not just ethical but legally enshrined. 2: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay-actually-say.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay...
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > How about this: "There are lots of different types of families, and among those many types, there are ones where there are two moms or two dads, and that's okay". “That’s okay” is non-neutral moral judgement that exceeds the teacher’s purview. “People are different in many ways; in this classroom, we treat everyone with respect regardless of our differences” is a content-neutral restriction on speech that does not exceed a teacher’s purview. > IANAL but according to this analysis [1], 'Classroom “instruction” could mean eliminating books with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. The law is not tied to any particular sexual orientation (or gender “identity”); if that analysis were true, the law would also eliminate books with straight characters or historical figures. > The first part of this lesson is a simple fact, and the second part ("that's okay") is a value judgment, but given that gay marriage is legal … “That’s legal” is a statement of fact; it’s very different than “that’s okay”.

rayiner 5y ago

> Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? Because kids’ brains aren’t fully developed until age 25 and sexuality is a complicated and potentially damaging force that parents try to insulate their kids from until they’re old enough to understand what it is and what it isn’t. Also, more fundamentally, because many parents are just fresh out of trust: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-st-louis-region-southwest-missouri/blog/that-8-letter-word-including-pleasure-in-sex-education https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-st-loui.... There’s a vocal faction of the left that’s obsessed with sex. These are the folks who thought same-sex marriage was a bad thing because they wanted more sweeping changes to sexual and gender norms. These folks are always trying to sneak in the door behind people advocating for equal rights, and right now we’re in a phase where the broader center left doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to them.