8 ms·

> Why is it inappropriate for young children to be present for educational discussions about gender identity and sexual orientation? It’s not something that ex

> 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”.
  - adriand 5y ago
    We could easily get into semantic or philosophical weeds here, but maybe instead of that, let me ask you: is it okay? Is it okay that this particular five-year-old has a mama and a mami? And if that’s okay, why should it be a crime to say that?
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      I’m not really sure what “okay” means as a metric, and I couldn’t say whether it’s “okay” or not — so I withhold judgement. If I were to discuss this with my children, it would be a very nuanced topic. It’s certainly not a public school teacher’s remit to indoctrinate children within the teacher’s own moral framework. “It’s okay” would be just as inappropriate as “it’s not okay”, in this context.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 5y ago
      In a pluralistic society like ours, religious freedom and pluralism demands something of schools here. Article 18.4 of the UN convention on civil and political rights states: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... > 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. This is not a simple matter of “inclusiveness.” The nature of men, women, the purposes of marriage, is a fundamental moral and religious concept. In my part of the world, it has nothing to do with “two people who love each other” but is instead a fulfillment of Mohammad’s exhortation to get married and have children as a central moral obligation of life. It’s deeply intertwined with what God’s purpose is for us on earth. The reason people want to talk about this in school is to counterbalance the influence of the world’s largest religion and alter the moral views of children on a question central to religious morality. The very reason they want to do it is why it’s not a legitimate purpose of instruction in public schools. NB: As a convert to mainline Protestant Christianity, I happen to think it’s okay. Most people in the world, including the world’s fastest growing religion and the religion followed by the fastest growing minority group in the US, do not think it’s okay.

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”.
- adriand 5y ago
  We could easily get into semantic or philosophical weeds here, but maybe instead of that, let me ask you: is it okay? Is it okay that this particular five-year-old has a mama and a mami? And if that’s okay, why should it be a crime to say that?
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    I’m not really sure what “okay” means as a metric, and I couldn’t say whether it’s “okay” or not — so I withhold judgement. If I were to discuss this with my children, it would be a very nuanced topic. It’s certainly not a public school teacher’s remit to indoctrinate children within the teacher’s own moral framework. “It’s okay” would be just as inappropriate as “it’s not okay”, in this context.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 5y ago
    In a pluralistic society like ours, religious freedom and pluralism demands something of schools here. Article 18.4 of the UN convention on civil and political rights states: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... > 4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions. This is not a simple matter of “inclusiveness.” The nature of men, women, the purposes of marriage, is a fundamental moral and religious concept. In my part of the world, it has nothing to do with “two people who love each other” but is instead a fulfillment of Mohammad’s exhortation to get married and have children as a central moral obligation of life. It’s deeply intertwined with what God’s purpose is for us on earth. The reason people want to talk about this in school is to counterbalance the influence of the world’s largest religion and alter the moral views of children on a question central to religious morality. The very reason they want to do it is why it’s not a legitimate purpose of instruction in public schools. NB: As a convert to mainline Protestant Christianity, I happen to think it’s okay. Most people in the world, including the world’s fastest growing religion and the religion followed by the fastest growing minority group in the US, do not think it’s okay.