[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.

[shadowgovt]

> The very reason they want to do it is why it’s not a legitimate purpose of instruction in public schools.

The interface between church and state in the US is always friction-filled, because the separation of church and state creates an immediate contradiction: we must separate people's faith-based morality from the conduct of the government, yet we recognize that morality is an inextricable part of every individual.

In this case, these children are growing up in a society with laws that recognize the dignity and value of every one of those families. One parent, two parents, four parents, same-gender parents, different-gender parents... Regardless of the lessons children learn at home, it's the responsibility of the school to teach them that the law and the culture they're living in consider those families all equivalently correct.

So it's clear for the state (via the school) to have a say in this. That leaves the question on the table "is kindergarten too early for that say," and I'd argue it's not because kindergartners already have to interface to the society and sometimes have questions on these topics. My largest concern with this law is it badly ties the hands of educators if such questions come up organically. And that does a disservice to every student in their care, and harms the state's interest in educating its citizens about life in the state.

(To be more clear: when I say "badly ties the hands," I don't mean to imply there should be no constraints. Rather, the enforcement mechanism of opening up private lawsuits creates a situation where what should be a collaborative process, the education of children, is structured adversarially; the law doesn't encourage collaboration, it gives parents a cudgel to try and beat school systems with. That's bad law because it creates perverse incentives counter to the goals of the education process. Parents, too, have a vested interest in their children learning how to live in their society; how well do we imagine that will go if the process is "If I don't like what you're teaching, I will harm you financially?").

[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.