Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill
-
@2127493739 said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
What, and at what age, should we tell children about sexual orientation?
I reject your conflating or confounding talking about sexual orientation and sexual education/reproduction. They are NOT the same thing. Orientation is a set of sexual, emotional, romantic, or cultural patterns. Hetero-normative behavior is taught to children just as much as homo-normative behavior. Again, I reference you back to the Berenstain Bears book for 4-year olds I linked earlier. It teaches them how heterosexual households and family dynamics work.
Children start learning about sexual orientation long before they start learning about sexual reproduction. Toddlers begin being able to identify things as male/masculine vs. female/feminine as early as 18 months old. In university studies questioning 9-year olds (which would be Grade 3-4), 75%+ of them understood questions about sexual orientation, with approximately 1% of them already self-identifying as LGBT.
The moment children start being exposed to hetero-normative imagery, ideas, mores, norms, etc., that's when they start learning about sexual orientation. There is no way you can create a school curriculum to teach children without some form of sexual orientation material creeping in. How can kindergarteners learn about George and Martha Washington without them picking up on the husband/wife element of that narrative? The level of abstraction that would be required to remove all references to sexual orientation would render the material incomprehensible to children.
-
OK, so Florida is the State that I have lived in for 54 of my 58 years... born & raised here in the Sunshine State (and, sadly, home of everyone's favorite nutball, "Florida Man")...
Most of you are falling into the deliberate trap that is being set for you:
- Banning the "teaching" of LGBTQ issues in K-3 isn't the "crux" of the bill - it's a lightening rod to draw attention away from the other part of the bill... the part that empowers individual parents to sue schools and school personnel over perceived inappropriate instruction.
As to the other crap you've found digging around the intentional rabbit-hole (rabbit-trap?):
- Anti-Grooming implies that LGBTQ issues are "learned" - a very 1950's way of thinking, and provably wrong. You can't teach kids to be gay any more than you can "straight camp" teach them to be straight! BUT by making such preposterous claims, the LGBTQ activists are focused on that statement, instead of the empowerment of the radical, religious right who wants to ensure that our schools "teach Christian values" to our children!
- There are tens of thousands of K-3 teachers in this State, and some of them are BAD at their jobs. What the hell do you expect for a job that requires a college degree and pays only $36k/yr! - You're NOT going to get the "best and brightest", and you're absolutely going to attract people (and hire them - out of desperation!) who have "ulterior motives" to being teachers.... whether that's power-hungry bullies, or child molesters, or other bad intentions... they're there, and at those wages, we're stuck trying to weed them out AFTER they've been hired!
- There is no widespread "curriculum" where teachers are "instructing" K-3 (5-10 y/o kids) in LGBTQ issues... but what is the Kindergarten teacher supposed to do NOW when Billy draws HIS family - like all the other kids in the class, and he has himself, his little sister, the dog, the cat, the goldfish... and his 2 dads?
IMHO, this is a "play on socially divisive issues" campaign (those LGBTQ people are "training" our kids and "recruiting" them so they can be molested by those pedo-loving LGBTQ people later!) that is also hoping to leverage the same tactic the TX religious right is using to attack abortion: kill them with lawsuits from individuals, not the State!
What's more, the language in this bill is so vague, it is sure to be struck down in the courts...
Just my observations... from the front lines
-
-
And ALEC are the well known ghost writers.
-
It is only be educating children about sex and sexuality that they can be fully informed when those situations arise as they grow up.
I had the upbringing where I was never even given 'the talk'. I learned, unofficially, about sex through books and friends/peers and, officially, at aged 13 in school.
I will not subject my children to that ignorance. I never, for example, refer to genitalia as 'willy'. They've known since they could talk that a penis is a penis and a vulva is a vulva. No bullshit. They've known what a condom is since they were about 6/7, and the boys have been taught about periods and what young girls will have to deal with someday.
It is only by educating our children that they can deal with issues as they arise, even up to a worst case scenario where that includes an abuse.
If my children are ever abused they will be able to articulate to an investigator exactly what happened to them, they will not feel odd talking about their experience and will be able to refer to intimate body parts without embarrassment or hesitation.
Education is empowering, suppressing is perpetuating abuse and driving that widespread abuse underground, completely the opposite of this bill's supposed purpose which is to deal with 'groomers'. What fucking bullshit.
-
@bi4smooth said in Florida to Enact "Don't Say Gay" Bill:
What's more, the language in this bill is so vague, it is sure to be struck down in the courts...
Not a chance, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Coney-Barrett will see to it being upheld if it gets that far.
-
@gerggently And I suppose Gorsuch will be the final nail in the LGBT educational coffin.
-
You're more likely to be right than wrong, it could also include Roberts, too.
The thing is, Gorsuch has already written an amazing opinion defending the rights of trans people. The language in it was strident, I was in disbelief reading it as a I recall. Watching the Federalist Society losing their minds in response to it was worth his nomination.
If he does join, it might be on a narrow ruling, which would be welcome, but with their supermajority, and a clear signal of intent to overrule any precedent they see fit, it would not surprise me to see him reverse himself with the court.
-
@gerggently Agreed re: Gorsuch -- and appreciation for reminding me of his (to me, surprising) opinion in this regard.
Hoping that's not a sign of early-onset penile dementia!
-
You misunderstood my grounds for appeal.
I have no illusions that the Fed judiciary (still plump with Trump nominees) will fail to continue the activist intervention that led to the creation of Gay Rights under Federal Court mandate long before any actual laws were passed (much as I agreed with the politics of those rulings, they were "judicial overreach" IMHO).
No, the basis of the appeals in this case will be the vagueness of the law.
There is a principle under US Law that says, for example, you can't write a law that says "Don't do bad thing, or you'll go to jail." and "let the courts figure it out" - which is basically what the real "guts" of this new law attempts to do... No, laws have to be specific!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login