Ah, yes, the new talking point that I’ve seen a lot of lately: “I’ll bet you haven’t even read it. Here, let me…” Yeah, save your patronizing, I read it just fine. And my take-away was, “don’t say gay” is about as accurate a summary as one is likely to get. Sure, those are exact words aren’t in there, but man, is that ever a weak rebuttal.
> 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.
Discussions on gender identity and sexual orientation are the only topics outlined as not allowed.
Actual sex education (whether it's the act itself, topics on puberty, etc.) seems to still be on the table.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...
This seems to pretty straightforwardly say that schools can't talk about the existence of gay or transgender people in K-3, or ever if it's not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate"... according to standards that the state gets to set.
You can’t logically ignore half the reality of a statement to claim victimhood.
Many people don't agree with this stance, both from a conceptual point of view, and that in practice it may lead impressionable children to want to modify their bodies to fit some idea of gender identity they've had instilled.
That's a pretty big claim that I've yet to see evidence for. Is this conjecture?
1. Source 1: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever 2. Source 2: https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/sex-ed-barriers-and...
Like educators are already focused on providing age appropriate education, what is the point of this bill?
The other important distinction is that it is not just primary grade levels impacted, it is all levels (note the "or"s).
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...
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.
Whether this can be reasonably interpreted as “don’t say gay” is an exercise left to the reader
Example, teen pregnancy rates, 7/1000 (New England) to 30/1000 (Louisiana): https://preview.redd.it/hjmbpqpbnkw41.png?width=640&crop=sma...
You'd think conservatives would want the same outcomes? Even abortion rates are higher in the South!
But, no, the only thing that's allowed to be divorced is their policy preferences from reality.
Teaching children that there is another option is not inherently sexual in nature, and the continued push to declare the very existence of non-heteroromantic orientations "sexual", and thus inappropriate, is a big part of the bigotry and oppression queer people of all types face.
No one is advocating that we show kids gay porn. They are advocating that we teach kids that being gay, bi, trans, aromantic, or anywhere else on the various spectra, is all fine and normal.
And it does not define what "sexual education" is.
> and be age appropriate
And it does not define what "age appropriate" is or specify what legislative body is reponsible for creating and maintaining that definition.
> unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.
A chasm I see between people who have differing views of this legislation is around what "sex" means. Conservatives seem to focus very heavily on the idea that this is about teachers talking about sexual intercourse. The physical acts that adults engage in. Liberals interpret the term much more broadly to cover all of the ways that human sexuality affects society and families.
From the conservative perspective, it makes a lot of intuitive sense to prevent teachers from discussing things like foreplay, BDSM, lubrication, fellatio, etc. to small children.
From the liberal perspective, it is entirely impossible to talk about damn near anything related to human family structures and relationships if anything indirectly related to sexuality is off limits. "Why do most families have a mom and a dad?" "Where do babies come from?" "Why do they look like their parents sometimes and not other times?" "What does it mean to be adopted?" "What is the difference between a dad and a stepdad?" According to the literal interpretation of the law, none of these questions can even be hinted at inside a classroom.
So which is right? The text of the law itself is ambiguous, so you have to look at the subtext. I think we could all agree that it would be wrong to ship a live walrus to someone's house without their consent. But, as far as I know, there is no law specifically prohibiting it. Should there be? Probably not.
Legislatures have finite time, so laws are passed at a point in time because those advocating it feel that it solves a particular problem that is more important than other problems that could be solved. Understanding the intent behind those pushing the law is critical to knowing what it means. The text won't give you that. You have to look at the people and their agenda.
No, it doesn't. It says material addressing sexual orientation or gender identity cannot happen before a certain grade level. Applied strictly on its face, it would ban a lot of routine, uncontroversial content that no one (including it's sponsors) would want banned, because lots of material for kids implicitly addresses/displays orientation and gender identity, and pretty much no one cares except that cultural conservatives care if the orientations or identities involved do not fit their norms of exclusively heterosexual orientation and cisgender identity.
This, as well as the overt comments by the sponsors about the specific content they have pointed to as examples of concern, leads too concerns from others that the intent of the party whose base is culturally conservative and that dominates the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of Florida State government is not to apply the law strictly and even-handedly on its face, but selectively to suppress material according to culturally conservative values.