3 ms·

> "prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified man

> "prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education." I'm not 100% sure what that means though. What if a kid draws a picture of his two dads or two moms; does the teacher just not allow him to present to the class because that might lead to a discussion of sexuality? It's not clear, and as a result it will probably lead to "othering" of gay parents. > I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees. Yes, but then (I believe) it's up to the school to actively countersue to retrieve legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit. Again, it's not really clear. > Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing. Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215-gov-desantis-spokesperson-says-dont-say-gay-opponents-are/ https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215...

hersko 3y ago
So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. I don't know enough about how laws are written to know if this standard or not. > Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215 https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215... This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse (which i don't agree with) that the only reason people would object to this is because they must be groomers. Seems like it was the law first and then this "groomer" thing. I appreciate you explaining your criticism to me.
- tombert 3y ago
  > So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. It's open to interpretation, but in some cases it's actually more bluntly horrible. For example, it seems like conservatives are clutching their pearls about the possibility of a math problem mentioning two moms [1]. From the article: > The legislation could also impact how teachers provide instruction on a day-to-day basis. At a Senate hearing on Feb. 8, Republican Sen. Travis Hutson gave the example of a math problem that includes the details that “Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.” Republican State Sen. Dennis Baxley, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, said that is “exactly” what the bill aims to prevent. This seems to imply that my fears of othering of gay families is founded. > This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse I feel like the LGBT grooming conspiracies have been around for a long time. There are 50's era PSAs about how gays will show your kids porn and then try and molest them [2]. I don't think these sentiments ever really went away, at least not completely. In more recent history I don't know if the "gays are trying to groom your kids" came before or after the bill. [1] https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/ https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/ [2] https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ EDIT: I think I linked the wrong video. https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q

hersko 3y ago

So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. I don't know enough about how laws are written to know if this standard or not. > Simply not true: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215 https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/597215... This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse (which i don't agree with) that the only reason people would object to this is because they must be groomers. Seems like it was the law first and then this "groomer" thing. I appreciate you explaining your criticism to me.

tombert 3y ago
> So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. It's open to interpretation, but in some cases it's actually more bluntly horrible. For example, it seems like conservatives are clutching their pearls about the possibility of a math problem mentioning two moms [1]. From the article: > The legislation could also impact how teachers provide instruction on a day-to-day basis. At a Senate hearing on Feb. 8, Republican Sen. Travis Hutson gave the example of a math problem that includes the details that “Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.” Republican State Sen. Dennis Baxley, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, said that is “exactly” what the bill aims to prevent. This seems to imply that my fears of othering of gay families is founded. > This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse I feel like the LGBT grooming conspiracies have been around for a long time. There are 50's era PSAs about how gays will show your kids porn and then try and molest them [2]. I don't think these sentiments ever really went away, at least not completely. In more recent history I don't know if the "gays are trying to groom your kids" came before or after the bill. [1] https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/ https://time.com/6155905/florida-dont-say-gay-passed/ [2] https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ https://youtu.be/3bPZxRD1GJQ EDIT: I think I linked the wrong video. https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q https://youtu.be/EqIIeGmhL2Q