5 ms·

>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 w

>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.

mbg721 4y ago
What conservatives want (and can't say) is to prevent schools from telling young children that families without two opposite-sex parents are normal, when their parents disagree with that. That's fundamentally a value-judgment that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, but if it's interfering with math class, they have a point.
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  A same sex teacher having a wedding ring on or mentioning their spouse during math class would be teaching the kids about same sex relationships. It it was interfering with classes they would be showing examples of it but, to my knowledge and research, they haven't shown this.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    You should read the actual text of the law. It's directed to "instruction" on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." It's meant to prevent an off-hand mention of someone's same-sex spouse from turning into a discussion of sexual attraction and sexual orientation.
    - JaimeThompson 4y ago
      All activities in the classroom typically fall under the category of instruction not just the formal segments. This law is one of those laws meant to be used against the wrong people while ignoring when the correct people do the same sort of things.
      - mbg721 4y ago
        Teachers by definition act in loco parentis; if parents disagree with other adults about values, that's a separate issue, but teachers shouldn't be overriding kids' parents on ideology.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
> 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. How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  The word sexuality has a specific meaning that is much broader than you are giving it credit for. http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuality http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuali... We are, after all, talking about a law and a legal system where definitions are somewhat important.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    So relying on a real dictionary, M-W, I get: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality > Definition of sexuality : the quality or state of being sexual: > a : the condition of having sex > b : sexual activity > c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive I don’t think I’m being a prude in saying that third graders shouldn’t be learning about any of this.

mbg721 4y ago

What conservatives want (and can't say) is to prevent schools from telling young children that families without two opposite-sex parents are normal, when their parents disagree with that. That's fundamentally a value-judgment that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, but if it's interfering with math class, they have a point.

JaimeThompson 4y ago
A same sex teacher having a wedding ring on or mentioning their spouse during math class would be teaching the kids about same sex relationships. It it was interfering with classes they would be showing examples of it but, to my knowledge and research, they haven't shown this.
- rayiner 4y ago
  You should read the actual text of the law. It's directed to "instruction" on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." It's meant to prevent an off-hand mention of someone's same-sex spouse from turning into a discussion of sexual attraction and sexual orientation.
  - JaimeThompson 4y ago
    All activities in the classroom typically fall under the category of instruction not just the formal segments. This law is one of those laws meant to be used against the wrong people while ignoring when the correct people do the same sort of things.
    - mbg721 4y ago
      Teachers by definition act in loco parentis; if parents disagree with other adults about values, that's a separate issue, but teachers shouldn't be overriding kids' parents on ideology.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

> 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. How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.

JaimeThompson 4y ago
The word sexuality has a specific meaning that is much broader than you are giving it credit for. http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuality http://dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=sexuali... We are, after all, talking about a law and a legal system where definitions are somewhat important.
- rayiner 4y ago
  So relying on a real dictionary, M-W, I get: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexuality > Definition of sexuality : the quality or state of being sexual: > a : the condition of having sex > b : sexual activity > c : expression of sexual receptivity or interest especially when excessive I don’t think I’m being a prude in saying that third graders shouldn’t be learning about any of this.