Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida
flgov.com
flgov.com
> The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade...
I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
FWIW, the actual OP title is "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education."
In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
Pedagogical material that references gender identities and sexual pair bonds is very common (and is not “sex education”); this law is not principally in response to sex education but to pedagogical material mentioning non-cisgender gender identities and non-heterosexual relationships and family structures.
> In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
Honestly, I don't know for sure. I didn't go to a public school until 5th grade (10–11). That year we definitely had "family life" for an awkward couple days. And I'm sure the subject was at least covered the prior year if not before. However I recall there was very little about "sex" per se, it was mostly babies, bodies, and biology, etc.
IIRC, my parents had "the talk" with me much earlier. Probably preschool or kindergarten.
> I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
> Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
Honestly? I highly doubt it. From what I can recall of from this subject in a later grade, it was all about babies, bodies, and biology. It didn't cover any kind social or psychological aspects of sex or sex acts.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say...
Do you favor that? Why or why not?
Similarly, that's not in this book, but we teach her it's OK if a family has "two daddies", or frankly any configuration, and so on. That it's less common but it's normal.
I consider that appropriate sex ed for a n-year old, n<=5 or so.
Surely, surely, there is a tier for 5 < n <= 10. Clearly, not "here's how you do doggie style with 4 people while allowing for BDSM tendencies". But the world is so saturated with sex you can barely buy bread without bumping into it. If we're not teaching kids, well, anything in this space, they'll just learn off school corridor banter and any glimpses of porn their older friends will show them.
3rd grade feels a bit young to start with sexual anatomy and puberty tbh
Consent and personal space are separate subjects that probably aren’t prohibited under this new law.
The bill forbids only one of those three things, sexual orientation or gender identity.
There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.
Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities.
So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe.
As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
> Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
The way you state that invites an anachronistic misunderstanding: it appears back then "girl" was a gender-neutral term for child:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/great-misconception/
> Nor have boys always even been called boys. Until the late 15th century the word ‘girl’ simply means a child of either sex. Boys, where they had to be differentiated, were referred to as ‘knave girls’ and girls in the female sense were called ‘gay girls’. Equally a boy could be a ‘knave child’ and a girl a ‘maiden child’.
It is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement on this point (and a desire to impose one view on it by state power with the pretense of neutrality) that is (a major part of) the fundamental motivation for the bill.
You see where people are coming from now?
> It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
Actually, reading the bill text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...), I don't think that's technically correct:
> 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 accordance with state standards.
I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
It was discussed so openly that it probably had something to do with me eventually marrying a straight woman.
I don’t think kindergartners need sex ed, but I do think explaining that some kids have two moms or two dads is worthwhile at that age.
I 100% agree that's reasonable.
What's unreasonable is schools/teachers practicing "gender affirmation" of 5 year olds (or indeed any age) behind parents' backs. If a boy likes playing princess it doesn't mean he's a girl, and to be honest that seems patronising and cruel.
I think you propose agreement on issues where there is none which was partly the motivation of this bill.
This is basically "Mrs. White can no longer explain to the kids what it means that Timmy has two moms and why it's okay for Timmy" bill. Anyone saying "But why do third graders need a sex education?" are missing the obvious, maybe intentionally.
Let children be children. Also, even if one uses the LGBTQIA+ classification for older children, where "A" stands for "asexual", would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?
I don’t believe sex Ed was in the curriculum for those grades. But now if a teacher does something that could possibly fall under this new law they can be sued by the parents. I simply believe this wasn’t an issue and they are trying to “fix” something not broken.
No obviously not, just like how no one is arguing that gay kids shouldn't be taught straight sex ed. The goal should be increasing education, not decreasing it.
Please don't argue against a straw man.
The use of the word "force" here is especially interesting. I doubt you'd use the same word for a subject like Math or English, despite it being the same degree of "force".
Peers of mine were younger than this when they were being abused and could have benefited from knowing about how consent should work, and who they can rely on for help.
If you want people talking to your child about their genitalia, that’s on you.
And the insidious way it goes about solving this allows vigilante witch hunting and even more polarization and hate. There is nothing good about this bill.
...but not really surprised.
The law isn't about saying the word "gay" or all possible references to it. The law doesn't prohibit mentioning a same sex spouse. And it doesn't prohibit a kid from talking about her two moms. It's just about classroom instruction.
The right talks about how this is just about K-3 but the actual law is a complete ban on classroom instruction at this age AND a ban on non-age-appropriate instruction at other grade levels. This second part is often left off in right-leaning news. When people have mentioned it they tend to defend it by saying that it will make teachers rightfully hesitant to speak about LGBTQ issues in the classroom. They think that teachers should leave these issues to parents. But most right-wing commentators do not recognize this part of the law. They pretend it's just about K-3.
It's too bad that both sides misrepresent the law. It leads to further distrust in the media. And it gives the other side an excuse to continue to behave badly.
That this prohibits non-age-appropriate instruction means it will be used as a backdoor attempt to ban sex education.
If you’re not inclined to watch, the tl;dr is “gay teachers are pedos.”
None of this is being done in good faith or for good reasons, and the informed HN crowd would be wise to consider the broader context of this bill - and the historical attempts over the years to paint LGBT folks as pedophiles, particularly in schools. It’s not a new thing, in many ways. It’s just a more drawn-out, gradual way to get there than other attempts over the past 40-50 years.
If you don't like your kids teacher, it seems like you could get them fired just by having your kid say obnoxious things in classroom until the teacher is forced to address it directly.
Mrs. Brown: "Ok, Frankie, you'll need to go to the school psychologist now, they will explain there."
That's the point of laws like this.
And if you're going to, at least check your facts first. Acceptance of SSM is higher among Whites than among Blacks or Hispanics. [1]
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...
Public acceptance doesn’t matter in a Republic, not a Democracy.
I went to a very good public school in the US, and we didn't have sex education until 4th grade, and even then I think we were a bit immature for it at the time. They were still only doing the _very_ basics and I remember the class not being well behaved during it. I think sex education any younger than that is totally unnecessary and kind of inappropriate.
I find it pretty weird that American politics has become really obsessed with the sexual topics around little kids lately.
The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist, it’s just scoring points for Florida politicians, getting in digs at the “woke culture” boogeyman that is an easy win to stoke their base.
They didn’t have a “teaching gay sex to 6 year olds” epidemic in Florida prior to this bill, no matter what politicians tell you.
Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.
It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.
The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
In my framing, the problem being solved was the concern over the future development of the problem that's claimed to not exist.
I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?
Because if the law was actually solving a "problem that doesn't exist," it would be a noop and no one would care. Since people on both sides care, it's obviously not a noop.
Also think about the example I gave before: if the government builds a fallout shelter, what problem was it solving if there's no fallout to shelter from? X doesn't have to be happening right now for people to worry about it, and it's perfectly legitimate for the government to do something within its power to allay those fears. A more contemporary example is climate change: the present-day effects wouldn't justify the kinds of changes that are being demanded. What justifies those changes is the fear of what would happen in 100 years.
And as proof that a handful of crazy teachers exist, you can read testimonials of teachers who are quitting because of this law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/-can...
> 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 accordance with state standards.
http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22
The rationale for the law is also seriously suspect - https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/06/politics/fact-check-desantis-...
Simply put, this law is a solution looking for a problem and being pushed by a politician seeking reelection and ultimately - the presidency.
To my knowledge, this bill makes it so you couldn’t. Which is bad.
The state should not gag educators or anyone else.
All that brings is unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, and scared children.
That's how it was for my spouse, at least.