5 ms·

Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill cert

Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people are seemingly unworried about the potential for overreach in this case.

zmgsabst 5y ago
This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?
- jlmorton 5y ago
  You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher was not complying with school district policy, then the recourse was to fire the teacher. The bill you're arguing in favor of hijacks control from local voters, overrides the expressed preferences of parents and local voters, and relies on civil lawsuits to enforce a state policy.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic. It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      If the local area has a subpopulation with enough political power to ban the teachings of things they don't like, such as basic science, should they be allowed to do that given the harm it will cause the kids and society?
      - zmgsabst 5y ago
        Yes — I believe in democratic societies where if a majority feels something is dangerous, they have a right to make policy around that issue. I also believe in constitutional republics where we have overriding laws which protect minorities — but that doesn’t apply in this case, as there isn’t an inherent right to discuss sex with other people’s young children.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
        >I believe in democratic societies where if a majority feels something is dangerous, they have a right to make policy around that issue. So it would be acceptable for those same religious people to stop females from getting the same sort of education males receive? The damage done to others by such actions has to be taken into account.
        zmgsabst 5y ago
        > I also believe in constitutional republics where we have overriding laws which protect minorities I addressed that already. > The damage done to others by such actions has to be taken into account. This is something said but not done: look at how the male minority is treated in education, where the female majority speaks about equality while engaging in institutional sexism against the minority. If Democrats want me to believe they are genuine in those principles, they should apply them consistently.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
        Why did you bring up Democrats in this discussion with the implication that other political parties don't do the same thing? >I addressed that already. Females are slightly more than 50% of the population.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  If the rule is meant to address actions by state government agencies and educational organizations (as your other comment implies), why is the execution of the bill only actionable at and/or below the school district level?
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    Why wouldn’t it be? There’s many mechanisms by which a school can be influenced and covering them all at a high level is difficult. In trying to set specific process controls, you merely encourage gamesmanship: “this wasn’t done by the board — we voted to outsource our decision to a NGO!” A more effective mechanism is to define the standard (ie, don’t talk to kids below 9 about sex in schools) — but give enforcement powers when that standard is breached to the people actually impacted by that breach. This law gives people a tool to hold government accountable when it breaches the norms expected by the community, eg when they groom children.
mbg721 5y ago
Why do children have to be taught about relationships in school? They have home and families, even extended ones, for that.
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Except for the ones who don't.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality. Sexuality \Sex`ual"ity\, n. The quality or state of being distinguished by sex. --Lindley. [1913 Webster] They wrote the law so they could punish those they don't like and ignore violations by those they support.
  - mbg721 5y ago
    Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. If the purpose of schools is to undo the instillment of parents' values (or lack of them), we should at least be honest about it. That's the assumption behind most debates of this type. If the purpose of schools is to teach specialized skills that most parents don't have, then we should cut the crap so that kids can learn them. If the purpose of schools is to babysit kids so that their parents can be used as human batteries for Nestle and Kroger, then God help us.
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      >Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.
rayiner 5y ago
> Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Show me where the Florida law says anything about "families and relationships?" Young kids don't view parental relationships as inherently sexual, and therefore talking about different kinds of families doesn't require talking about sexuality. That is, in fact, pretty much the point of the law--to prevent teachers from using discussions of families as a vehicle to talk about sexuality and sexual attraction to third graders.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  > An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S. ... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner [0] This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense. [0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... (warning, PDF)
  - rayiner 5y ago
    This is the relevant text: > 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3… I read this to prohibit discussion of sexual attraction with kids third grade and under. I don’t read this to prohibit incidental mention of someone’s same-sex spouse.
    - psyklic 5y ago
      In practice, there is no problem if a teacher shows video incidentally including a straight couple. If it contains a gay couple, however, suddenly that could count as "classroom instruction" of sexual orientation. The teachers are left with the unenviable position of interpreting a vague law, resulting in it being safest to exclusively show kids straight couples.

zmgsabst 5y ago

This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?

jlmorton 5y ago
You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher was not complying with school district policy, then the recourse was to fire the teacher. The bill you're arguing in favor of hijacks control from local voters, overrides the expressed preferences of parents and local voters, and relies on civil lawsuits to enforce a state policy.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic. It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    If the local area has a subpopulation with enough political power to ban the teachings of things they don't like, such as basic science, should they be allowed to do that given the harm it will cause the kids and society?
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      Yes — I believe in democratic societies where if a majority feels something is dangerous, they have a right to make policy around that issue. I also believe in constitutional republics where we have overriding laws which protect minorities — but that doesn’t apply in this case, as there isn’t an inherent right to discuss sex with other people’s young children.
      - JaimeThompson 5y ago
        >I believe in democratic societies where if a majority feels something is dangerous, they have a right to make policy around that issue. So it would be acceptable for those same religious people to stop females from getting the same sort of education males receive? The damage done to others by such actions has to be taken into account.
        zmgsabst 5y ago
        > I also believe in constitutional republics where we have overriding laws which protect minorities I addressed that already. > The damage done to others by such actions has to be taken into account. This is something said but not done: look at how the male minority is treated in education, where the female majority speaks about equality while engaging in institutional sexism against the minority. If Democrats want me to believe they are genuine in those principles, they should apply them consistently.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
        Why did you bring up Democrats in this discussion with the implication that other political parties don't do the same thing? >I addressed that already. Females are slightly more than 50% of the population.
InitialLastName 5y ago
If the rule is meant to address actions by state government agencies and educational organizations (as your other comment implies), why is the execution of the bill only actionable at and/or below the school district level?
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  Why wouldn’t it be? There’s many mechanisms by which a school can be influenced and covering them all at a high level is difficult. In trying to set specific process controls, you merely encourage gamesmanship: “this wasn’t done by the board — we voted to outsource our decision to a NGO!” A more effective mechanism is to define the standard (ie, don’t talk to kids below 9 about sex in schools) — but give enforcement powers when that standard is breached to the people actually impacted by that breach. This law gives people a tool to hold government accountable when it breaches the norms expected by the community, eg when they groom children.

mbg721 5y ago

Why do children have to be taught about relationships in school? They have home and families, even extended ones, for that.

crooked-v 5y ago
Except for the ones who don't.
JaimeThompson 5y ago
Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality. Sexuality \Sex`ual"ity\, n. The quality or state of being distinguished by sex. --Lindley. [1913 Webster] They wrote the law so they could punish those they don't like and ignore violations by those they support.
- mbg721 5y ago
  Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. If the purpose of schools is to undo the instillment of parents' values (or lack of them), we should at least be honest about it. That's the assumption behind most debates of this type. If the purpose of schools is to teach specialized skills that most parents don't have, then we should cut the crap so that kids can learn them. If the purpose of schools is to babysit kids so that their parents can be used as human batteries for Nestle and Kroger, then God help us.
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    >Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life. Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings. They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.

rayiner 5y ago

> Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Show me where the Florida law says anything about "families and relationships?" Young kids don't view parental relationships as inherently sexual, and therefore talking about different kinds of families doesn't require talking about sexuality. That is, in fact, pretty much the point of the law--to prevent teachers from using discussions of families as a vehicle to talk about sexuality and sexual attraction to third graders.

InitialLastName 5y ago
> An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S. ... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner [0] This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense. [0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... (warning, PDF)
- rayiner 5y ago
  This is the relevant text: > 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3… I read this to prohibit discussion of sexual attraction with kids third grade and under. I don’t read this to prohibit incidental mention of someone’s same-sex spouse.
  - psyklic 5y ago
    In practice, there is no problem if a teacher shows video incidentally including a straight couple. If it contains a gay couple, however, suddenly that could count as "classroom instruction" of sexual orientation. The teachers are left with the unenviable position of interpreting a vague law, resulting in it being safest to exclusively show kids straight couples.