Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mizza | Hacker News Reader

All right, I guess I'll spend some karma. Unless there's an aspect of this I'm not aware of, I don't think this is so bad.

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.

View on HN

The absence of this law wouldn’t mean we start teaching sex to 6 year olds. My state doesn’t have such a law and I didn’t learn sex ed until I was 11 or so.

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.

> The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist...

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.

> If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.

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.

> ...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.

>Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.

I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?

> 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.

If it's not happening then the law changes nothing and you can let the people you disagree with waste energy tilting at windmills.

The parent claims that the problem does not exist, not that the law has no real [side]effects.

It's a diaper policy. A handful of teachers (metaphorically) shit themselves, so now they all get to wear diapers.

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...

The bill was written to ban discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for any age - not just K-3.

> 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.

This is bad for one main reason: it legitimizes vigilante justice. There is no premise of guilty or innocent, because it’s all through the civil courts, with no onus on the accusers. There’s no downsides for anyone who wants to abuse it.

We’re living in a society where it’s now common enough that a few kids in your class may have two mothers or two fathers. Some kids may not understand why that is, & I’d say as early as kindergarten sounds enough to have a teacher explain why their friends may have a different family structure than their own.

To my knowledge, this bill makes it so you couldn’t. Which is bad.

"Some kids have two fathers and some kids have two mothers." This is all that needs to be said. This law does not prevent them from saying that. What else needs to be said to children?

The law does ban that.

The law arguably bans that, and grade-schools are extremely lawsuit-averse. That ambiguity puts educators under threat over innocent words - having to worry about crossing that line accidentally is a burden and a disrespect placed on people who have a hard time already doing an incredibly important job.

I think what's missed in the discussion is the role of parents. Not everything has to be the teacher's responsibility. That is in the article, they say it's about parental choice. So parents can address the questions, and decide how to raise their kids. Why should it automatically be the role of the state to give a state sanctioned answer?

The state doesn't need to have a sanctioned answer, but this is the opposite: a blanket gag on the educator regardless of context.

The state should not gag educators or anyone else.

But what if, or more realistically, what do we do when the parents do nothing but scold their kids when they dare ask about anything related to sex? Because I’ve seen too much of that myself.

All that brings is unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, and scared children.

We provide a state-sanctioned answer in cases where parents are inadequate — known as sex education.

Which parents are allowed to disallow their children from attending. Partial conjecture, but it's probably the same parents who are unwilling to talk to their children about sex.

That's how it was for my spouse, at least.

It really injects a lot of unnecessary negativity into the conversation when you start with that common snide implication along the lines of "this will get downvoted, but...". It's a hostile attitude, and is dismissive to the replies of your audience before you have even heard them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com