I think the intent is also what it claims to be, to assert the primacy of the parents’ authority over the kids.
And i wonder, if a kid came in with a black eye and a dislocated shoulder, would the school nurse be allowed to question the child without the explicit permission of the parent? Under that language, I’m not certain the nurse has that authority.
I think it’s quite a stretch to assert that the school nurse asking “how did that black eye happen” equates to “encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity”. That’s not a discussion that should happen in the classroom in the first place.
And honestly, anything significantly beyond “how did that black eye happen” is already required to be handled by CPS anyway.
I have a hard time figuring out what this law is supposed to do.
If it really means that a female teacher could not mention what she did last weekend with her female spouse, because that would be discussing her sexual orientation, wouldn’t the same be true if she mentioned her male spouse? Same thing with two moms vs a mom and a dad. Somehow, that does not seem like it is the intention to me.
But, if that is ok, and they really meant to prohibit discussing things more in the “sexual” direction of sexual orientation, then what do they think is being taught K-3 now?
I try hard to give folks the benefit of the doubt and that they are trying to solve some problem they perceive, but this really feels like posturing to me.
Huh, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. The law is more than those two sentences.
It has to do with
Maybe, so long as it’s just the nurse asking questions aloud, and not via a “form” it would be okay. But maybe not. The nurse is doing a “health screening”.
But it isn’t really about teaching kids about sexual orientation, it’s about NOT teaching them that it’s ok to be whoever you are if that thing isn’t straight and gender conforming.
So yes, I do think even introducing kids to the idea that their teacher, who they love and respect, is gay and that maybe that’s not so terrible, is what they’re trying to prevent.
The bill signals that being gay is a bad thing. This appeals to the Republican base.
That it effectively prevents nothing that is currently happening in the classroom while making liberals defend edge cases is another feature.
If you’re trying to give people a benefit of the doubt, I can think of some reasonable examples.
-They’re afraid teachers will choose to inform kids that some people get gay married and that is normal or okay.
-They’re afraid teachers will choose to inform kids that non-cis gender identities are normal or okay.
-They’re afraid a counselor will tell kid they might be gay or trans and tell them that that’s okay, and encourage them to accept/embrace it.
And while your example seems likely, I think the average person isn’t thinking much about that.
They’re thinking: “these are some concepts that are new/untested that I haven’t fully come to accept, that are against my culture or religion…and it’s fine if you believe them, but don’t make my kid believe them.”
And they’re not wrong-- imo-- except in execution.
I just hope that under this bill, teachers will remember to use exclusively they/xe pronouns and the boy/girl signs on bathrooms and locker rooms will be removed. It would be instruction on gender otherwise. We wouldn’t want that.
Man I wish I lived in Florida. I’d be suing left and right over any hint at a cis straight agenda
That may be the intention, but no where does it say not to discuss sexual orientation other than straight or gender identity other than cisgendered, so the intention does not line up with the wording of the law, at least in my reading. I suppose time will tell, and perhaps just nobody will sue because their kids teacher mentioned their opposite sex spouse.
While I agree about the average person, the average person is not the one writing or passing the law. I know we live in a very hetero-normative society, but the fact that straight is an orientation too is not a complicated thought, and one I would expect legislators to consider.
As I just wrote to NA, my point is that if they are trying to do what you lay out, then the law as written does not seem to do that, as it does not differentiate straight/gay/bi, or trans/cis/non-binary.
The risk of being sued is, itself, threatening. When the house next door to me was for sale, a person looking at the place asked me a question, and I gave a benign answer. The builder thought I had discouraged a potential buyer, and sent me a letter threatening to sue if I did it again.
I hadn’t done it. In fact, I desperately wanted the property to sell, to get the builder out of my hair.
It was still pretty chilling. I hired a lawyer to review my risks and options. His advice was to make sure I was never within hailing distance when someone looked at the house. PITA, but something I could do. Not something a teacher can do with their students.
This bill is ridiculous. Aren’t there actual problems to be addressed? It makes me think of the memes of teachers saying that if they could really brainwash kids then there’d be no more issues with not turning in homework and teens would wear deodorant.
While I 100% agree with what you wrote, not sure it addresses what I was attempting to discuss. My reading of the law says that if a gay teacher can be sued for mentioning the gender of their spouse, then so can a straight teacher. Are you agreeing with that and saying all teachers will live in fear of being sued, or saying I am reading the law wrong?
Really feels like an f-ed up situation all around. Intentions that I don’t agree with, and an implementation that do not match those intentions.
I 100% think it would be, but that seems less likely to result in a lawsuit.
It’s just “anti-woke” politics.
You give state legislators WAY too much credit.
From my reading of the law, yes, mentioning a straight cis gendered spouse would be an equal violation of the law as mentioning a trans gay spouse.
I don’t think this will result in all teachers feeling equally at risk of being sued. The prevailing culture is so heteronormative that they supported passing a ridiculous law like this. I think the risks to straight vs gay teachers is very different.
This is 100% about a culture war
“About the Don’t Say Gay law, it was in fact modeled in part on what Hungary did last summer,” Rod Dreher, a senior editor at the American Conservative magazine, said during a panel interview in Budapest. “I was told this by a conservative reporter who … said he talked to the press secretary of Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida and she said, ‘Oh yeah, we were watching the Hungarians, so yay Hungary.’”
Another good quote:
Pushaw [Desantis’ Press Sceretary] described Florida’s law as an “anti-grooming bill” on Twitter, adding that “if you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer”
Yeah, asking “how did that black eye happen” is not related to a form, so I can’t imagine that it applies, or that it was intended to apply or that courts would interpret it to be applicable.
I didn’t think I had seen this mentioned, but absolutely theres an element of trolling with this bill.
Rs: you’re trying to groom children by introducing them to sexual orientation and gender identity in age inappropriate ways.
Ds: that’s ridiculous
Rs: well, then you shouldn’t have any problems with this annoying anti-groomer bill!
Ds: struggle to articulate their actual reasons for opposition besides hating to be trolled
Rs: see? Groomers.
To some extent, Ds brought this upon themselves by repeated inappropriate use of “nazi,” “bigot” and similar. Now they get to inappropriately be called groomers in similar fashion. This doesn’t end anywhere good, I assure you.
Except the bill does absolutely nothing to discourage or stop grooming in anyway.