[Clubber]

>ban what can be said in schools

So if you are referring to the "Don't say gay," law, you should actually read it.

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

That's the actual text. I don't see how you could possibly think that is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader, much less a kindergartner. The partisan hyperbole around it is ridiculous on both sides.

>books being banned

Like Huckleberry Finn? Agree, books shouldn't be banned. Well maybe Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries. Maybe some shouldn't be taught in public schools, right? How about the Bible? Should that be excluded from the public school corriculum? No screening of A Birth of a Nation you'd agree with? It's not like they're removing them from public libraries or the internet. What is taught in public schools vs what is allowed to be said in a public forum are quite different things as well.

>laws that allow drivers to run over protesters

I don't think that is a free speech issue, plus you are misrepresenting this legislation as well. It's not like a democrat can run over a GOP protestor or vice versa, I believe there has to be an actual threat involved like a group encircling your vehicle baseball bats.

Here's the issue with your argument, you are arguing with an imaginary person. That's like a GOP person saying something like, "libs are socialist!" It's a huge generalization and mis-catagorization. It's an emotional, misinformed argument rather than a rational one, and you are doing the same thing. You're consuming too much news / opinion. Take a break from it, most of it isn't that great for you. I fell into the same trap when I was younger.

[Zak]

> I don't see how you could possibly think that is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader, much less a kindergartner. The partisan hyperbole around it is ridiculous on both sides.

What's problematic about it is that it's enforceable by private litigation. In one recent example[0], shortly before the law was passed, a group of Florida parents demanded action be taken against a 6th grade teacher for disclosing that his marriage was to another man after taking time off for his wedding. Had the law been in effect, it's likely one or more of those parents would have sued.

Such a suit probably wouldn't be successful in terms of winning a judgment. His disclosure wasn't "classroom instruction" after all, and most people probably would consider it age appropriate. Winning isn't necessarily the point though; creating a chilling effect such that teachers have to pretend queer people don't exist seems like the likely goal to me.

Indeed, the teacher in question is quitting teaching.

[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/-can...

[Clubber]

>What's problematic about it is that it's enforceable by private litigation. In one recent example[0], shortly before the law was passed, a group of Florida parents demanded action be taken against a 6th grade teacher for disclosing that his marriage was to another man after taking time off for his wedding. Had the law been in effect, it's likely one or more of those parents would have sued.

Thanks for the article. Assuming it's accurate it sounds like only the school districts are able to be sued. I assume teachers themselves would fall under qualified immunity which applies to all government workers. Florida teachers also have (albeit weak) union representation. Unfortunately in the US anyone can sue anyone else for any reason, so for the individual there doesn't seem like anything would be legally different. Having said that, many Florida schools are absolutely horrible at education outcomes.

>Parents will be able to sue school districts for alleged violations, damages or attorney’s fees when the law goes into effect July 1.

This whole enforced by private litigation trend is troubling, I wholeheartedly agree. Texas is doing something similar with abortion clinics. I believe some democratic states (CA maybe?) is doing it with gun shops too. Hopefully when enough people lose in court and lose their attorney's fees, it will cease to become a thing.

[throwaway0a5e]

>What's problematic about it is that it's enforceable by private litigation.

I don't see how this is problematic in the slightest.

"They're not following the law make them follow the law (or pay me to go away)" is a really common form that lawsuits against municipal entities take.

[notahacker]

> I don't see how this is problematic in the slightest.

Because it's part of a new trend to de facto ban stuff the governing party would like to ban despite it being theoretically constitutionally protected by creating new civil offences and encouraging vexatious litigants to file nuisance suits. In this case the outcome is, as the state which passed the bill intended, that homosexuals are being harassed out of their jobs.

Regarding the state circumventing constitutional protections to make references to the gender of their partner a potentially career-limting move for certain minorities as less problematic than a company adding suggestions to avoid gendered language as a [clunky] grammar checking feature of its software is a point of view, I guess....

[adriand]

> 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.

[remarkEon]

>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.

[PeterisP]

I strongly believe that even if we'd accept the notion that this awkward conversation needs to be sidestepped, it's completely inappropriate to do it by invalidating the reality of that child's family and requesting them to agree to a ridiculous lie ("no, you have a mama and a papa") which insults their family. Arguing about this topic is entirely opposite to sidestepping the issue, it's the teacher explicitly starting the awkward conversation and failing at it.

Furthermore, while that indeed is not the lived reality for the majority of the individual kids, it's IMHO relevant for very many classrooms or teachers which will have at least one family like that; with 20-30 kids in a classroom, a 1% "rare case" will be represented in 20-30% classes and in almost every school.

Also, it's my understanding that the traditional family model is not even the majority in quite a few places where less than 50% of kids are raised in a marriage with both their parents, due to divorces, remarriages, deaths in family and simply single parents; so a kid may have a "mom and two dads" (i.e. the biological dad and mom's husband) or many other family structures; I recall hearing an (tragic?) joke about a particular class observing that there the majority kids were raised by two-woman family, namely, their mother and grandmother; etc. So it is important for teachers to acknowledge the diversity of actual parenting, you can't assume that "a mom and a dad" families are universal because so many families are not like that, those are not rare edge cases or exceptions, and they can't even be treated as deviation from the norm because in current society the nuclear two-parent family is not that dominant to be considered a true norm.

[adriand]

> 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]

> 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?

[remarkEon]

No.

Are we going to pretend that LGBT parents are somehow completely incapable of explaining to their kid(s) that their parenting situation is somewhat unique, and that this must be offloaded to teachers?

[morelisp]

> 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.

If kids don't learn about it from the good adults in their life, they're going to learn about it from the dangerous adults in their life. CSA thrives on the culture of silence imposed by those who think any discussion even obliquely related to sexual relations (and you're the one saying having two moms is "about sex"!) is inherently "creepy and weird".

Kids have a need to learn words to describe things which might be happening to them, and a right to see their self-image, family structure, and any proto-romantic/sexual feelings acknowledged.

[teakettle42]

> 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]

> 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...

[teakettle42]

> 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]

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]

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.

[rayiner]

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/...

> 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.

[rayiner]

> 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-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Fair enough.

[LordDragonfang]

>may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 *or* in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

That "or" is pretty crucial, and any lawyer worth their salt will point out that this will not limit it to K-3. It bans ALL discussion of the topics, "age appropriate" or not, from K-3, AS WELL AS opening the way for private litigation for discussion that some parent decides is inappropriate for ANY grade level.

Per the New York Times:

>The impact is clear enough: Instruction on gender and sexuality would be constrained in all grades. But its language is vague and subject to interpretation.

>The language highlights the youngest students, but the “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate” provision affects all ages. Those terms are highly subjective, and parents, school staff and students are likely to clash over the ambiguities.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/us/what-does-dont-say-gay...

As to whether the topic "is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader" I recall kindergarten discussions on students who might have two mommies or two daddies, which would be banned by a reasonable interpretation of the law.

[throwaway2037]

You wrote:

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

I'm confused. If a child has two parents of the same gender, or a parent that is transitioning gender, or is friends with... or has reletives that... etc.? What if a child wishes to present as a different gender?

Why isn't it appropriate to discuss all of these? Young families that I know now own some children's books with "non-traditional families" (yuck, I don't know a better term -- please suggest!) Of course, the books are age-appropriate.

The point is to normalise gender and sexuality diversity as early as possible. Generations before had to learn much later.

[Clubber]

>If a child has two parents of the same gender, or a parent that is transitioning gender, or is friends with... or has reletives that... etc.? What if a child wishes to present as a different gender?

>Why isn't it appropriate to discuss all of these?

Totally fine with that in the home. This topic is not appropriate for public school teachers instruct to their students in a K-3 setting. If, as a parent, you feel it is appropriate with your children at that age, instruct them at home.

Look at it this way, by allowing it, you are essentially forcing parents with teachers who want to bring up the subject to have their kids instructed on gender topics in K-3; a subject the parents didn't opt-in for either. Not only that, there's no guarantee some Math or English teacher is even qualified to teach the subject. That's definitely not cool.

[shadowgovt]

Is the topic of a child having a biological mother and father at home appropriate for K-3?

[Clubber]

>Is the topic of a child having a biological mother and father at home appropriate for K-3?

No, man. Kids are learning colors and how to spell basic words and basic math and how to interact with each other. Some kids don't have parents, some kids only have grandparents or only aunts and uncles, some kids only have a single parent, some kids have step parents, some kids swap between divorced parents, some kids are adopted and some kids have parents who abandoned them because of drug use, or are dead or in prison. You wanna broach the subject of same sex parents, you gotta cover all that shit and you've opened a can of worms way bigger than you thought. Teachers shouldn't bring that shit up. Allow them a little time in their lives to be innocent and not worry about that shit. Spread your politics to adults, leave the kids alone.

[shadowgovt]

Life doesn't leave the kids alone though. Those families you've described were all my fellow students in kindergarten.

Can't help but wonder how much damage we did to them by reinforcing they were abnormal when we talked about mommies and daddies and they didn't have those. Guess we take talk of nuclear families off the table too, for everyone's safety.

... And then we've made a strange world where kids can't talk about their parents at school.

[Clubber]

>Life doesn't leave the kids alone though.

Not sure your point with this one.

>Those families you've described were all my fellow students in kindergarten.

Yes, it's quite common unfortunately. I've always heard it referred to as "a parent or guardian," by schools which is a pretty good approach in my opinion.

>... And then we've made a strange world where kids can't talk about their parents at school.

No, you're misrepresenting the opposing argument. The law only concerns classroom instructions by school personnel or third parties. In my mind, this would be akin to, "today's lesson is about LGBTQ studies." The law doesn't apply to what kids are allowed or not allowed to discuss amongst themselves.

>Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties

[joshuamorton]

> That's the actual text. I don't see how you could possibly think that is an appropriate subject for a 3rd grader, much less a kindergartner. The partisan hyperbole around it is ridiculous on both sides.

The way it's being enforced is the issue. I don't see any issue with discussion of gender identity with kindergardeners or 3rd graders. If they can understand that mommy and daddy love each other and got married, they can understand that daddy and daddy or mommy and mommy did too. The law's intent is to allow the first, but prevent the second (and we see evidence of this due to age-appropriate books featuring gay characters getting removed, but not age-appropriate books with straight relationships).

> Like Huckleberry Finn? Agree, books shouldn't be banned.

No, Huck Finn shouldn't be banned.

> Well maybe Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries.

No. If they're taught they should be taught in context (and admittedly you're probably not going to read Mein Kampf cover to cover outside of a college course), but if it's relevant to the curricula, sure (and I'm sure there are excerpts in some euro-history textbooks!)

> Maybe some shouldn't be taught in public schools, right? How about the Bible? Should that be excluded from the public school corriculum?

No, there are obvious contexts where the bible should be taught as part of the curriculum! When we discussed world religions came up in my high school history we absolutely read bits of the Bible and Quran, as well as some Vedic verses and more.

> No screening of A Birth of a Nation you'd agree with? It's not like they're removing them from public libraries or the internet. What is taught in public schools vs what is allowed to be said in a public forum are quite different things as well.

I watched clips from Birth of a Nation in my HS history classes, again: as long as it's contextualized well, sure, in fact more than sure! Yes, we should encourage well-contextualized viewership of shameful things from history.

Also as a bit of an addendum, if the worry really is primarily around "grooming" and childhood sexual assault, some age appropriate instruction about sex and specifically how and what is inappropriate for adults to do is one of the most effective things to keep children safe. If a kid doesn't have the words to describe what was done to them, or the understanding that it was inappropriate, they're much less likely to report.

[shadowgovt]

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

My brother was born when I was in kindergarten. When there's about to be a new family member, how that happens and where they come from is a natural topic to discuss. And if you're going to discuss reproduction, the topic of men and women being attracted to each other is already on the table which means that the fact that not everybody has that attraction is also on the table.

My main problem with the law as written is the clause "in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." The science of education is less than 100 years old, and modern child psychology is younger than that. I don't think anybody has any idea what is or is not age appropriate. This law takes something that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis by the parents and teachers who know the students best, puts a cudgel in the hands of one of those parties, and says they should be set against each other. That's profoundly stupid.

[Clubber]

>When there's about to be a new family member, how that happens and where they come from is a natural topic to discuss. And if you're going to discuss reproduction

You should not be teaching reproduction to kindergartners as a public school teacher.

>The science of education is less than 100 years old, and modern child psychology is younger than that. I don't think anybody has any idea what is or is not age appropriate.

I'm pretty sure they do.

[shadowgovt]

> You should not be teaching reproduction to kindergartners as a public school teacher.

As it did no harm to me, I cannot agree. In fact, I have yet to hear one instance of a child coming to harm learning that knowledge in a healthy way at the kindergarten age.

My position is that is a case-by-case question. Does it need to be on the syllabus (what passes for a syllabus in kindergarten)? Maybe not. Should parents be able to sue if the topic comes up organically? No, that's quite disruptive to what should be a collaborative process. And given how little we know of the hard sciences of either child psychology or mass education, bringing force of law down on this topic is severe government overreach.

> I'm pretty sure they do.

I'd have to know who "they" is to respond.