Literally no state has passed a law teaching gay people do not exist. You should read the actual bills and take some time off Twitter while you are at it.
First the bill applies to kindergarten to 3rd grade. Very clear who it applies to. If you teach fourth grade or above this does not apply.
Second, the bill basically prevents three things.
1. The withholding of information "affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from a parent. It also requires no prohibitions on parents "accessing any of their student's education and health records created, maintained, or used by the school district".
2. Banning teachers of kindergartens through 3rd grade from "discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
3. Prevents a school from "administering a student well-being questionnaire or health screening form to a student in kindergarten through grade 3" without providing "the questionnaire or health screening form to the parent and obtain[ing] the permission of the parent"
The law also requires the school districts to "notify parents of each healthcare service offered at their student's school and the option to withhold consent or decline any specific service."
It is quite clear and less than 10 pages long. It is not chilling speech to not talk to a 5 year old about sex. Also, this bill also literally would apply to all sexual orientations including straight. If this is a don't say gay bill then it is also don't say straight.
Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves until after onset, including potentially asking their teachers questions privately.
This is of course the least clear part of the bill. I believe I saw one if the Florida representatives supporting this bill basically say the existing sex ed / health classes are fine and students should be in at least middle school.
Very few people are complaining about general sex ed.
>Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves until after onset
I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with a ban on K-2 on this then?
Just because a kid starts puberty does not mean they suddenly have sexual preferences. It takes time to grow so even if they start puberty at 8 they will take a while to understand.
Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the declining age for puberty such as the increase in sexual content at a younger and younger age. I think the average age kids first see porn is now 10 or so. That means quite a few kids are seeing it earlier than that (and probably earlier than puberty). If that is the case then maybe we should try to lower the sexual content instead of increasing it.
Kids also aren't banned from learning about themselves. Not sure where you got that idea from? How would such a thing even be enforced?
>including potentially asking their teachers questions privately.
I am dubious this is banned. The law is explicitly says classroom instruction. Asking a teacher a question privately doesn't seem to fall under it.
Regardless, I don't think English or math teachers or whatever subject should be teaching sex related things. If it is going to be be taught in schools it should be taught by a health teacher. Maybe we should be advocating for health classes in elementary school instead of middle school.
This is far too late in my experience. If you wait this long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on and everyone else has learned how sex works from internet porn.
> I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with a ban on K-2 on this then?
I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a year would solve the issue.
However...
>Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the declining age for puberty
Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just a hypothesis, but even if we accept this, there's another facet to this problem. Gender identity isn't a sexual issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to 3rd grade. There isn't any harm in explaining to children that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories.
A lot of the lefts outrage over this bill is based on the premise that there wasn't harm happening as a result of education before this was proposed, but now there definitely will be, as a result of a lack thereof.
It is not in my experience.
>If you wait this long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on
I think the better thing to do would be to work on fixing bullying overall. Even if kids understood different sexual orientations better they would still make fun of people who are different. If somebody talks different or looks different they will be made fun of.
>everyone else has learned how sex works from internet porn.
I don't think sex ed will fix this. It quite possibly peak kids interest and cause them to view porn even earlier when they look up information about sex.
>I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a year would solve the issue.
You are the one who brought up puberty.
>Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just a hypothesis,
Fully agree. I think the problem is testing this. Introducing porn and other sexual content to a 5 year old doesn't seem like the greatest thing to do.
>Gender identity isn't a sexual issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to 3rd grade.
How many actually are showing signs of this? There is a growing number of people who think if a boy plays with a Barbie or likes pink that means he is showing signs of gender dysphoria.
>There isn't any harm in explaining to children that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories.
There is a harm. 80% of kids who display gender dysphoria at this age grow out of it. Those 80% may become more certain in their incorrect gender identity and start treatments over conversations you are proposing. The longer kids are on medications (and if they get surgery) the harder it is to detransition, which as I mentioned already is at 80%.
No it doesn't. Third graders are 8-9.
The idea of third graders learning about sex and puberty is very strange. We (public school) had health class in 8th and 9th grade where we learned about puberty, sex, and similar topics.
Additionally, it's odd to me that you include mention of "asking teachers questions privately". Why don't 8-9 year olds ask their parents privately? The assumption is that the parents are the enemy. That's exactly what led to this bill.
Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if you were my parent
You wrote:
> puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
That's wrong. Replace "generally" with "very, very rarely" and it's right.
> Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if you were my parent
Why? Why wouldn't you be able to talk to a parent about going through puberty at 8 years old? Any parent is going to notice. Why is it better to talk to a virtual stranger?
[0]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Fil...
A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what teacher is going to risk it?
It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the subject as much as possible.
2. You want to ban gossip?
Both of those are nonsense. And neither address my point. The bill is vague on purpose, and the purpose is to scare teachers into silence.
You said:
>A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and that's okay."
If a teacher is telling other students about Timmy's home life that is very much gossip.
The other students have no reason or right to know what Timmy's home situation is. If Timmy wants to tell other students about his situation he can. The teacher should not be doing that.
Would you hold the same standard if a teacher said Timmy only has one parent if one of his parents died? It is gossip and the teacher should not be talking to other students about it.
If someone is okay with being out (like a married-with-children couple) then it's okay to acknowledge they are gay. Just like saying Timmy's dad is a doctor is okay. A teacher shouldn't risk legal action for saying so.
The fact you think I am trying to say homosexuality is the same as death is quite telling isn't it?
I don't care if somebody is OK with being out. It is not the place of a teacher to tell other students the home life of another student. I don't think a teacher should tell other students what the profession of a student's parents are either.
There is no reason for a teacher to do this.
I didn't say that. I said you compared them. You did so again in this comment, again putting them on the same level as taboo discussion subjects for children, which is just plain wrong. The fact that people of the same gender can love each other is not hard to understand, it's really quite simple to explain, but your last comment attempted to make it sound difficult to explain, seemingly to justify speaking in hushed tones about it or not at all if children are nearby, as if you were talking about their deceased parent. But it's an easy-to-understand, neutral subject, so your point is invalid.
And really? One kid tells another kid that his dad is an architect, the second kid asks the teacher to explain what the first kid's dad does. And the teacher says "No, I can't talk about anyone's parents." That's what you're going with?
This isn't necessarily about a student's parents anyway. That's just one example of where a child might be triggered to ask about it. Kids are curious, they will ask, and with this new legislation teachers will avoid it as if the kid asked about death. And when something gets treated as if it's taboo, it becomes taboo.
Why not let the parents who know the child better explain these things?
In terms of a parent's profession there is nothing age inappropriate about an architect. There is certain age inappropriate things about sex. A teacher does not know if a kid has hit puberty, how mature they are, etc. This is why a parent should be involved with this not teachers.
How many 5 year olds are paying attention to laws being passed? None. The only reason they would know is if their parents or teachers tell them. I think kids should be kids. You shouldn't be telling kids about cultural / legal things that are going on if you can avoid it. I have no idea why so many people want kids to get involved with legal discussions. Just let kids be unaware of the strife, conflict and other things that don't matter to them in the world.
I don't want to talk to 5 year olds about taxes. Does that mean I want conversations about taxes to be taboo? I just think there is a time and place for things like this and teaching 5 year olds about this stuff is too early.
Also, I would note that the law only bans classroom instruction. If a student asks a teacher outside of that context the teacher could answer.
There is no reason why a young kids needs to be instructed about such things. Any author or historical figure who is gay could still be taught.
Second, this only applies to classroom instruction. If a student stays after class they could ask their teacher about sexual orientation if they are wondering why a student has two dads or something. Some may try to extend the law to cover that, but as far as I can tell it wouldn't apply to that.
If the law functionally prevents X without explicitly stating that they are intending to prevent X, does that make a difference to you?
If they were intending to ban X (and presumably promote Y) they shouldn't write a bill that also bans Y. (Y being straight).
If you want to infer some assumptions without answering some basic axioms so we can make sure we’re on the same page and not arguing past each other, I’ll just dive in.
Since I’m seeing many supporters of the bill get incensed at the fact that Y is also functionally banned, and been told that I should know what the bill is “really about”, and that the bill does not define “age appropriate”, I reject your rejection of the premise. There’s a chilling effect of the government saying you could be in legal trouble for this, but they won’t let you know what the line is until you’ve crossed it. That causes people to pull their behavior far back from wherever they think the nebulous line might be.
To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as it would be constitutional / legal if they were to explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to prevent any confusion. If you think this bill functionally blocks talking about gay people existing then it also functionally blocks talking about straight people existing.
I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I don't really mind.
I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or gender identity regardless if they do it in an age appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate portion.
Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation to kids who are too young to be hearing it.
You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies. Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will.
That gets back to my point about the functional blocking in the law, which youve stated you’re fine with if it’s constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself.
>There’s no way to completely excise this sort of topic from conversation even with young children.
Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't think a single teacher told us they were married until we were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do by not talking about it.
>You don’t have to get into sexually explicit conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and children are aware of the fact that they have parents from much younger than third grade
And? Just because children understand they have parents and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean teachers need to talk about it.
>Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida state government is going to enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective enforcement against their political enemies
Not a given.
>Their base expects this too based on my conversations with supporters of the law who don’t think that any discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only homosexual ones will.
I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either. I think they all would be glad if everything related to sexual orientation and gender identity was banned (at least at this age).
>As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can’t be used as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender information which is a protected class, I can’t see how anyone who’s pro constitution is cool with this bill
Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else.
A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom instruction.
Were you actually unaware of people being married until middle school? This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me. People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended. Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs. There's also your own parents or your friends parents. I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality.
>I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do not want teachers talking about heterosexual relationships either.
I literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people
>That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the law itself. >Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is straight, gay or anything else.
If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law, unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue. I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that
Of course I knew about marriage, but I didn't ask my teachers and none of my fellow students asked. My teachers in elementary school didn't tell us if they were married. Maybe they understood kids don't actually care about the social lives of their teachers so they didn't tell us.
>This sounds incredibly bizarre/dystopian to me.
It is dystopian for teachers to not tell students about their personal life?
>People aren't soulless automatons who don't socialize and parents and teachers would be aware of each others social lives at least at an acquaintance level at every school I attended.
This law has nothing to do with parents and teachers knowing about each others lives, but young kids.
>Even in kindergarten we knew that teachers were married or not simply by whether they were called Ms. or Mrs.
Good for you. Many of my teachers just went by Ms even if they were married. I remember when I was in maybe first or second grade one teacher used Mrs but didn't explain the difference. I just assumed it was for older woman since the teacher was quite a bit older than the previous teachers I had. Kids are quite naive and will just assume things. You don't need to explain everything to them.
Even if a student knew the woman was married they wouldn't have to tell their students if they are gay or straight.
It also doesn't work for men so they wouldn't have a reason to bring it up.
>There's also your own parents or your friends parents.
No clue what you are trying to say here.
>I really can't fathom this concept that we've always wanted children to not know about sexuality in any aspect and need to hide it now other than through the lens that people are willing to accept collateral damage to hide homosexuality.
We need things to be age appropriate. If you had a 5 year old kid and he asked about sex would you show him a gang bang video? I would assume not. I don't think 5 year olds should know about such things regardless if it is straight or gay.
>I literally grew up in a uber conservative, Confederate flag waving farm town in the middle of New England. Everyone was always excited to talk about new marriages and involve actual toddlers as part of the wedding ceremonies whenever people got married. Parents were always pushing their kids to give gifts or sign cards congratulating young teachers when they got married. Unless I see vast information to the contrary, all this looks like is a continuation of modern US conservative culture that will lie to your face about their past actions, as long as it hurts the right people
You are talking about decades ago I assume. Regardless, if a parent wants to have their kid celebrate a marriage they can.
This law is saying teachers shouldn't be teaching this stuff.
The law strictly speaking doesn't even ban a teacher telling their students they are gay so it wouldn't even have an impact.
>If a law is created by a group of law makers with open biases, and then only enforced in a discriminatory way, then the problem _is_ with the law
Which law was made by people without open biases? I am going out on a limb and saying none.
The law has never been enforced so how could it be enforced in a discriminatory way?
>unless you thought poll tests under Jim Crow were fine on their own and the enforcement was the only issue.
Of course not.
>I'll reserve the right to be surprised if this law is enforced uniformly, but I have been given no reason by the Florida state government to expect that
You are jumping to a conclusion probably because you didn't like your childhood you described. You think all conservatives are like the ones you grew up with. You think they are filled with hatred and can't move on. Conservatives appear to have become a boogie man for you, where you think the worst of them.
It is clear you hold deep seated biases and it is not going to be a fruitful dialogue.
I grew up conservative. Theyre my family, not boogie men. But you do you. Gonna have to agree to disagree on this all then. You are describing a reality I do not believe exists