The "fun" of a vaguely-written law is that there isn't actually a prescription for what an "age-appropriate manner" is. And according to the verbal statements of a lot of the people pushing for these laws, any mention of sexuality is age inappropriate. This sets up a chilling effect where teachers do not have the liberty to teach effectively because they're concerned about blowback: even if they do everything right, a child can mention what happened into class to a parent, which can result in a mis-interpretation being reported to school administration, which comes down on the teacher.

I've read it. It says more than the k-2nd grader bit. The rest is ambiguous bullshit designed to be selectively enforced against lgbtq or just silence anyone by fear.

What does "not age appropriate" mean? Who gets to pick? Are they likely to pick largely based on if the person talking is gay?

Here, in paragraph 3 of the law itself[0]:

> Classroom instruction by school personnel or thirdparties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or [...]

The common interpretation is that telling children that some like boys or girls like girls and some like boys is "instruction on sexual orientation".

[0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...

> 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur ...

So technically you can't talk about a man loving a woman or a man loving a man, practically nobody is going to enforce the first case and only the second case will be enforced.

Which is the gigantic loophole - the bill isn't limited to primary grade levels. A parent suing U of F about their child being exposed to information about "sexual orientation" is perfectly allowed within the letter of that law. It says "primary grade levels" and then throws in a completely unlimited "age-appropriate" clause that allows it to apply to any person at any school receiving state funding.

Whenever these bills use squishy language like "age-appropriate" it's to provide an easy out for politicians at the time while causing a chilling effect over all discussion.

"not age appropriate" is defined nowhere, intentionally. It's meant to be enforced against non-straights, or scare them into not being able to say anything at all.

Let's parse that sentence carefully:

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] .

So no discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation (so don't discuss about families with two mommies) at all in primary grade levels. Then, for all (other) grade levels, no such discussion that is not age-appropriate.