Apple's Tim Cook raises concern over LGBTQ laws in the U.S.

If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.

Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice.

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fir...

Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received.

In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.

I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.

I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc.

The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied.

> If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.

Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary.

> Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.

Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.

> The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that.

So - imagine that little Timmy has religious parents, and thus believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (a not-uncommon belief held in the fundamentalist Christian community). Suppose then that little Susie overhears it and asks the teacher about why her parents told her that life evolved gradually over the course of eons.

In my mind, an appropriate response could be "some people believe that the universe was created by a deity, and their views should be respected." But you've indicated that "some people believe <x> and their views should be respected" is in fact inappropriate.

What would you suggest be done, otherwise?

Here's a diagram of a few: https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png

And that's just a narrow view of sexes through the lens of biology. Social science, anthropology, neurology, medicine, psychology, endocrinology and basically every other science that interfaces with human bodies generally agrees that sex is not binary in humans.

Once you've updated your understanding of what the science says on sex, come back and we can talk about gender, and how science agrees that gender is not only not a binary concept, it's purely a social concept.

Red hair is about 1 to 2 percent of humans. This is roughly the estimate for trans and non binary folks.

Pretty monstrous to teach kids anything other than "respect your neighbor", especially if they are very likely to encounter trans and non binary people.

Ignoring the existence of non binary folks doesn't make them not exist, any more than ignoring red heads does.