> literal genocide of transgender people
Did I miss something or is this just inflammatory rhetoric? I know about the literal genocide happening in Yemen but I haven't heard anything about transgender genocide.
Did I miss something or is this just inflammatory rhetoric? I know about the literal genocide happening in Yemen but I haven't heard anything about transgender genocide.
1. Moving from simple dehumanization to "trans people are groomers and pedophiles and we must protect our children from them at any cost". This is still only an escalation toward violence, but it certainly is an escalation.
2. Forcible detransitioning of trans people, with the direct aim of eliminating out trans people as a population. It remains to be seen what will be done with people who refuse to detransition, but imprisonment appears to already be on the table. And when you imprison a population for their identity and/or customs, then, well... that's genocide.
What the law actually says is that teaching about sex or gender _in the curriculum_ is not allowed prior to 4th grade. That goes for heterosexuality as well as LGBTQ. No one is exempt or special. Basically, kids at half the age of puberty should not be taught about sex, full-stop. Let them be kids for a few years longer before they learn about sex.
Of course, the law just addresses material in the curriculum, so having a picture on your desk of your same-sex SO is no problem and you can talk about sexuality with young kids as long as it's not curriculum (still gross imo).
The lesson of HB 1557... don't mess with parents.
No, it is not about "sex", it is about "sexual orientation", which is generally understood to be whether one is gay or straight or bisexual or asexual. It's often used in place of the more accurate technical term "romantic orientation", which is about who one is romantically attracted to, but the term isn't in common usage. In any case, it is not related to sexual intercourse. Children can understand it, and it is manifestly appropriate for children of any age. The support for this bill has seemingly overwhelmingly been based on this deliberate conflation between discussing sexual/romantic orientation and discussing sexual intercourse.
If you check the bill's text, it's not just "material in the curriculum", it's "classroom instruction", which would include discussion, which could be argued to include any mention of being gay. And it's not just under 4th grade, it's for any instruction not deemed "age-appropriate", which, in a country that still teaches abstinence-only sex-ed in some states, could mean anything. That these links are tenuous is no comfort; if the exceptions aren't strong enough to get the case thrown out immediately, it still leaves the school open for lawsuits, and the school will self-police to avoid them. And you'd have to be truly naïve to think that this will be applied to straight and gay relationships in equal measure.
Plus, there's all the language about parental access to health records that are pretty clearly aimed at requiring the school help out gay and trans kids to their possibly abusive parents, which nobody ever mentions for some reason.
> Parental Rights in Education; Requires district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying student's parent of specified information; requires such procedures to reinforce fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding upbringing & control of their children; prohibits school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying parent about specified information or that encourage student to withhold from parent such information; prohibits school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification & involvement in critical decisions affecting student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being; prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels; requires school districts to notify parents of healthcare services; authorizes parent to bring action against school district to obtain declaratory judgment; provides for additional award of injunctive relief, damages, & reasonable attorney fees & court costs to certain parents.
The line being discussed here is prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels. The relevant part of the full text linked (in a pdf named PDF.pdf, which made me chuckle) is:
> 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.
That's as far as it goes, and the definitions of what is "age-appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate", among other things, are not given. Hence, it appears to me, that any claims as to what it really means, by either side of this debate (or either of the fringe elements, as the majority in the middle appear to for these rules[2], however vague) are unable to be substantiated either way.
I suggest everyone calms down until the actual details come to light.
[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557
[2] https://floridianpress.com/2022/03/new-poll-52-of-florida-de...
Some children in kindergarten through grade 3 have parents in same sex relationships. Some socially transition. An actual detail of the law is it prohibits even age appropriate discussion at those levels.
Another poll found 62% of Americans oppose legislation that would prohibit classroom lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary school.[1] Are Florida Democrats much more conservative? Do many Americans think grade 4 is the right time? Did the people who said somewhat no in the Florida poll mean yes with limits?
[1] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/10-americans-oppose-laws-pro...
Talking about sexual orientation is at times a subset of "discussions about sex". Hence, given a charitable reading of both your comment and the comment you replied to, you may both be talking about the same thing.
> Some children in kindergarten through grade 3 have parents in same sex relationships.
I fail to see the relevance.
> Some socially transition.
I don't know what that is.
> An actual detail of the law is it prohibits even age appropriate discussion at those levels.
As I pointed out, the law doesn't define what age-appropriate means. If you have information to the contrary, please share it.
> Another poll found 62% of Americans oppose legislation that would prohibit classroom lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary school.
It's not a national law, so again, I don't see how it's relevant.
A search engine can define socially transitioning for you. The relevance of children having same sex parents or socially transitioning is sexual orientation and gender identity are visible to children in age appropriate ways. Not invisible until puberty.
The law not defining age appropriate is irrelevant to the total ban through grade 3.
The national poll casts doubt on the presented interpretation of the Florida poll.
This positions homosexuality as inherently sexual in a way that heterosexuality is not, which is, of course, not true. Sex is of course an implied part of heterosexual relationships, we're just conditioned as adults not to think about that.
``` 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 ```
The one paragraph in the bill is the entirety of the language used here.
1) "instruction" is vaguely defined here This isn't about sex-ed, this isn't about genitals, it is about "orientation or gender identity". I'll note here that being gay and trans isn't just about sex and genitalia. If a student asks the question: "why does sally have two moms?", does answering that question put the teacher at risk? What if Billy asks if being gay is ok? Are teachers allowed to answer?
2) if the teacher is trans and the students ask about it, what is the teacher allowed to say? Is the teacher able to write their name on the board with their preferred title?
3) Is the teacher allowed to mention the existence of their spouse regardless of orientation?
4) if a child is bullied for wearing clothes that don't match their percieved gender (i.e. boys wearing dresses), is a teacher allowed to explain that it is not ok to bully someone because of their gender? Regardless of what you think about a childs ability to make decisions about gender, you surely understand that they have an idea of what gender is and might decide to bully eachother for it.
I will note that this bill is amended from its original language, which shows the true intent of the law:
``` A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age -appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students. ```
source: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/?Tab=BillTex...
I am basing this analysis entirely on the language of the bill and its amendments. I very much encourage you to look at the reasonable amendments that FAILED in committee here, as they speak volumes to the intent of the republican majority.
My previous comment is informed by the documented behaviors and speech of right wing politicians and commentators around the passing of this bill, which do escalate this topic to dangerous levels of right-wing outrage. No there is not language in here that equates sex-education to grooming, but there is ABSOLUTELY discussion on the right that does draw that line.