1. Acknowledging that a married-with-children couple is gay is "gossip?"
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.
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.