[0xFEEDC0DE]

Why are you omitting the entire sentence? "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."

[autoexec]

That sounds perfectly reasonable as long as the bill goes on to explicitly define in law exactly what is and is not age/developmentally appropriate. I'm going to guess that it does not and that the true point of the law is to criminalize something poorly defined so that it can be used to selectively attack anyone who covers those subjects no matter how they do it.

[wolfgang42]

I cut the second half for brevity: it seems that the bill does in fact prevent the use of the word under at least some circumstances, so I condensed the exceptions since they’re not relevant to addressing the claim that it doesn’t do so at all.

[cronix]

It prevents talking about sexuality with children (up to 3rd grade), whether it's gay, straight, trans, furries, whatever. To say it's about one specific thing when it's about the entire subject is misrepresenting the bill.

[tsimionescu]

Why should it be more acceptable, exactly? This is not even about sexual education, it is literally illegal to explain to those kids that sometimes a man and a woman love each other, and sometimes two men or two women do the same. Of course, the first part will never be enforced, but the second and third clearly will.

There is no age at which it is inappropriate to listen about these extremely basic facts of the world.

[Consultant32452]

When I was in kindergarten I didn't even know my teachers had first names, much less spouses. A kindergartener is not your friend to share your life with. People have terrible boundaries. This is why public schooling must be destroyed.

[michaelmrose]

When I was in kindergarten I knew people you saw in other contexts like school were people like your family who had names and families like your family. I have no idea how one could possibly reach that age and not know that. Extending that with the idea that people's families come in all sizes and combination with some having 2 men or two women seems entirely age appropriate.

In the broader context this topic would be dull as dishwater and boring as toilet training if a certain type didn't make it interesting if only as a measure of their obsession with sex and other people's mere existence transgressing on useless norms that they somehow assume are vital to our society.

Outside of your fantasies teachers aren't violating your kids boundaries by having a same sex partner or a last name nor yet by telling them some households have two mommies or two daddies. What you are actually concerned about is constant exposure to reality may lead your kid to believe that its normal and acceptable for a man to love another man or a woman another woman which is ok because a substantial minority are gay and it is indeed ok for them to love whom they love.

Instead you'd rather in your words "destroy public schooling" one of the most obvious wins of the modern era to avoid... your kid learning about... adam and steve.

[Consultant32452]

Your approval is of no value and your disdain is of no concern. If it helps you to create a fantasy in your mind of what my concerns might be, you are free to do so.

[tsimionescu]

I didn't say anything about the kindergarten teacher's spouse - the simple fact I was mentioning is something kids can obviously see on their own around them, and may well ask their teachers about.

[scarface74]

Well, when I was in kindergarten, I very much knew my teacher had a spouse, had twins, and she was pregnant at the time.

Would it have been inappropriate if she said her and her husband was having a baby? In todays society would it have been in appropriate if she said her and her wife? How do you think these same conservatives would have felt if little Johnny came home and mentioned to their parents that their teacher spoke about her wife?

[UncleMeat]

And when I was in first grade my teacher got married, showed us pictures of the wedding, and changed her last name.

[Consultant32452]

Teachers are service providers. They should have no deeper emotional bond with their students than the cashier at McDonald's has with their regular customers. Students are not friends. While the isolated story of your teacher sharing her wedding pictures is not a big ordeal, it shows an underlying problem of poor boundaries. We have a pervasive problem, at least in the US, of teacher with poor mental health and poor boundaries trying to be friends and pseudo-parents to their students.

[scarface74]

So if “public school should be destroyed” what has the alternative?

[hedora]

Also, since talking about gender identity is also disallowed, I guess the little kids will just use whatever bathrooms they want?

[DiggyJohnson]

How do you reason that whatsoever? Proper bathroom conduct in K-3 has nothing to do with sexual or gender discourse.

[hedora]

Are you claiming boys and girls are the same gender?

[dillondoyle]

There are multiple problems with this, the biggest being defining 'appropriate.'

and by their definition that somehow topics around queer people & gender can be inappropriate; this is not sex education and no, nurses are not handing out hormones to pre-teens.

Many of these laws specifically enable people to sue teachers, governments, officials, women who had an abortion, etc.

That enables conservative & religious fanatics to have the last say and impose their moral worldviews onto the rest of us.

The fact that gay people exist is not 'appropriate' in many of their minds. Which is gross and sad. And therefore these laws give the vocal minority the power to force the rest of us back into the closet.