Yes, kids should get some education before puberty, and of course it should be age-appropriate.
I mean, my MIL got no sex education at all, and when she got her first period, she thought she was dying. It was traumatic enough that she was still upset about it when she was in her… 70s, when she told me about it.
One objection I’ve heard (not sure if it was from “progessives” or “moderates”) is that the bill references guidelines which haven’t yet been written, and aren’t going to have been written until after the bill goes into effect. So it will basically be illegal to teach anything touching on sex or gender for a while. And yes, that’s going to leave some girls terrified in the bathroom, believing they are about to die.
I’m not sure menstruation constitutes “gender identity” or “sexual orientation,” which is what’s in the bill. Probably not too many K-3 girls are getting their periods even if it did.
Pussy state (like Texas and their abortion law) letting the karens take over. Obviously, if a parent deems it not age-appropriate for their child, then it not age-appropriate for their child. How does anyone in a court argue against that?
My response, as a judge, would be that since the parent is in charge of what a child is allowed to learn, the child can no longer attend school, as parent is a disrupter of the educational process, but I’m no Florida judge.
As a principal, I’d require a signed form by every parents whether they plan to sue or waive their right to sue. The children of those parents planning to sue would then be escorted out of the room whenever something suable is about to be discussed/taught. Monkey don’t hear, monkey parents don’t sue. (That doesn’t rhyme, but I have no time.)
But I’m no Florida principal.
Suppose a teacher reads a book about how all families are different. Some have a mommy and a daddy, some have two mommies, and some have two daddies. Does this “count” as instruction on gender and orientation?
What about a book that has a mommy and daddy, and a child asks about their family, with two mommies. In that case, can the teacher say that some families have two mommies, and that this is OK too?
Is the teacher going to feel pressured to say “i can’t talk about those kinds of families” because a conservative parent might sue, and create large costs even if they don’t win?
Part of what i think is so divisive about this bill is that it so vague enough that it is a rorschach test. It’s not clear what it means. But historically, this has been used to justify discrimination. For example, “states rights” sounds vague but reasonable, when in reality it was often just cover for discriminatory laws in the south.
While I have no objection to teaching girls about their periods in elementary school… if the above is happening I would place the blame 100.00% on the parents and 0.00% on the school. That goes for your MIL’s parents as well as the parents of today’s kids.
This would qualify as classroom instruction on sexual orientation. It’s illegal by the statute.
Yeah, the law is EXTREMELY broad and rather vague. It’s impossible to predict how the courts will handle it. That’s why it’s such a terrible law. It solves a nonexistent problem and creates dozens of other problems.
But as for “state’s rights”, it was always just a dog whistle for allowing discriminatory laws. It was never actually about “state’s rights”. Hell, when the south seceded, part of what they were angry about was Northern states not fully enforcing the fugitive slave law. So in this situation, they were mad federal laws weren’t being more aggressively forced onto states that wanted more autonomy.
I don’t know how it’s not age appropriate to tell a 3rd grader that some kids have two mommies. However, the law makes that illegal.
Part of the problem is that it’s really hard to predict exactly how this law will play out and how the courts will rule of cases involving this law. That means those on the progressive side have to speculate about the outcomes and that rarely comes off as a “nuanced take”.
Everyone was taught about gender identity. How else would the kids learn which bathrooms to use? They need to understand the difference between a male and female gender identity and how that affects them on a day-to-day basis.
It’s not controversial to you that any gay teacher who teachers K-3 has to live in constant fear of violation of the law simply by making a reference to their personal life?
The law says that a “school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels…”
I’m not sure that any of your examples would constitute encouragement by the school district. Yes, it’s vaguely worded but no need to embellish. I think teachers can address the situations you describe without running afoul of this law which, IMO, seems more intended to ban formal curriculum.
“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.”
Here is the text of the law. It specifically makes “classroom instruction” on “sexual orientation” illegal.
The issue is trying to define “classroom instruction”. From what I could tell, it’s not a well defined legal term for this law, so you have to look at how the justice system has looked at “classroom instruction” in the past. Generally, any of the following can be considered “classroom instruction”: course materials, lesson, activity, presentation, focus of classroom discussion, and anything that provides instruction/information to a student.
So that’s also a rather broad term. I think it’s perfectly fair to look at magillaG’s examples and see how they can all constitute classroom instruction on banned topics.
What specifically in the law do you think would make teachers live in fear about discussing their partner/spouse? The law is linked above. It’s not very long. Telling the kids you went surfing over the weekend with your same sex partner seems very unlikely to fall under scope.
There seems to be a lot of hysteria around this law, including by Disney. A poster above seems to suggest this hysteria may be due to uncertainty in the law’s ultimate interpretation by courts.
“Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur”
This part. Any classroom discussion where the focus on the classroom is on what is being discussed can be considered classroom instruction.
Consider this example: A third grade classroom with a married lesbian teacher. The teacher wears a wedding ring and one of the student’s notices. They then ask their teacher for their spouses name. The teacher then gives the name of their spouse. This conversation has become the focus of the classroom and certainly can be considered classroom instruction. Further, it’s classroom instruction on sexual orientation, specifically it discusses the teacher’s sexual orientation.
This is a clear violation of the law as written. How would the courts handle this situation? I don’t know.
Looks like “school district” did get replaced with your quoted text at some point. Still, the hysteria around not being able to mention your partner/spouse seems like just that. Is it really “classroom instruction?” Not IMO.
Of course, there is a lot of energy around this law. It doesn’t solve any existing problems. It wasn’t like FL was seeing a problem with teachers instructing their students on these topics inappropriately. So the state has gone out of their way to create a law that attacks LGBTQ people. How is that not deserving of attention and concern? Especially when the law was written in such an insanely broad manner?
A better question would be asking why anybody supports such a needless law that targets some of the most vulnerable in society for no reason.
How? It’s clearly classroom discussion about sexual orientation.
That could be your opinion, but that doesn’t jive with what the justice system has considered classroom instruction in the past.
Why does this law need to exist? Why would you want to inject this uncertainty and risk into society by passing a law that isn’t addressing any real problems?
If I were brought to court, I’d attempt to define “instruction” as “any information disseminated in the classroom on which students might be tested.” Any other accidental learning via discussion is thus not “instruction.”
I’d probably lose that argument, though.
It sounds like you yourself oppose the bill, so I guess just imagine that you’re a progressive? And listen to yourself?
Basically: We shouldn’t make something “illegal” until we know there’s a problem, can describe it clearly, and are sure the remedy won’t cause more harm than the “problem”. When we make laws like that, it reeks of government overreach, and just controlling people for the sake of control.
Are you basing your opinion on what qualifies as ‘classroom instruction’ on anything besides your personal feelings? Do you have any reason to believe your instincts on this are correct?