[miami_fan]

The FL law doesn't prevent you from saying you are gay, it doesn't want you to "instruct" 3rd graders about "sexual orientation or gender identity

Well let's put this one out in the open. I believe that anything that a teacher says in his or her classroom during the school day can be deemed as instruction based on their position of power with the students. As I see it, the distinction between "mention" and "instruction" is based on what the student does with the information that the teacher mentioned.

However, I've provided you examples where gender, age, national origin comes into play and it is normal (in my world at least) for how things can/should be said or not between same level co-workers.

But we are not talking about any of those things. Those things are not in the bill. I am not discussing anything global. I am talking about two teachers in the same school, talking to students in the same grade and in many cases using the same words. I would prefer to stay in this world.

I must say your constant acknowledgements to knowing that it is targeted to the LGBTQ+ community but it is written in a more neutral way is very troubling to me. My interpretation of this is an acknowledgement that the law is Jim Crow but for that community. I am not saying that is your intention, but that is my reading of it. That is why I am trying to keep away from the political intent of the bill. I think it is clear.

From my research, I did not find curriculum for FL and 3rd grade that discussed "sexual orientation or gender identity". However, there is plenty of evidence there is curriculum for middle-school and up in other states and this is what DeSantis is leveraging to support his bill.

Again, you said that middle school was an appropriate time for these discussions. You objected to me saying my belief was the goal was to eliminate any discussion of this sort for all students. That is why I am not focused on anything middle school and above. I am solely focused on details of this law.

I can easily believe NJ finally approved curriculum is I would consider appropriate. However, I can also easily believe there were more activist/progressive (?) groups that wanted more/different curriculum than what was approved as per the Politico comment

Progressives wanted more, Conservatives wanted less. I posted what was approved. I will try to find one of the more conservative SAMPLE lesson plans that were on the resource page. The schools could have been compelled to choose that one as well. Either way, the accusation that you highlight was not true.

The article I linked to had footnote [13] which refers to this article Exposed: Why Austin ISD Must Scrap Radical Sex-Ed Targeted at Young Children | Texas ValuesTexas Values . It does say the curriculum is for 3rd to 8th grade but the examples it shows does not explicitly say what grades they are from.

That article is from 2019. Here is the curriculum for third graders from last year.

3rd Grade Science YAG 2021 -22 - Google Docs

Students learn how to successfully navigate changing relationships among family members and classmates. Students learn about the need for a growing awareness, creation, and maintenance of personal safety. Students learn several fundamental aspects of people’s understanding of who they are. Students learn the physical, social, and emotional development and potential for reproduction of humans. Students learn about how pregnancy happens. Students learn the content and skills necessary to understand sexually transmitted diseases and HIV.

Again, the option to opt out is there for any parent who objects.

The issue is not just fingernail polish. The teach also said below. So yeah, that would worry me some.

When you say it is not just fingernail polish, you are saying that the fingernail polish on a boy is an issue for you. That has nothing to do with the teacher defending the boy. That sounds like an issue you need to take up with the boy's parents. As far as the teacher's enthusiasm for breaking down gender stereotypes, I don't know what to do with that if the example is telling a boy whose parents allowed him to wear that it is okay for a boy to wear nail polish. It would be the same if she told a 4 year girl should could play football if the boys told her that girls should not be playing football. I would have an issue with her forcing boys to paint their nails in class against their will or forcing girls to play football against their will.

My take on it is this is evidence of a activist teacher who is proudly proclaiming below. There is an inference that she is encouraging them (or asking them to explore) being "queer".

Quote:
“A lot of them [students] are queer because I am queer” - 4th grade teacher

Come on now Add in the rest.

“They figured it out, and I became their safe space.”

Seems to infer the opposite.

Now, can we both acknowledge the ridiculousness of discussing two random Tik Tok videos of "real" preschool and 4th grade teachers curated by an obviously bias social media account of unknown credibility as some sort of legitimate evidence in this discussion?

1) Do you believe the FL law "instruct" = "mention". In other words, the FL law does not allow a teacher to say "I am gay and am married to X"?

I addressed that at the beginning of this post.

2) What is your issue with not allowing "instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity" for 3rd graders assuming gay and straight teachers are held to the same standards?

Are you okay with FL bill if held to same standards for gay & straight?

Or you do you think these topics should be discussed by a teacher (gay or straight) teacher in a 3rd grade classroom?

The issue is that you can not teach 3rd grade without discussing sexual orientation or gender identity. Heterosexuality is a sexual orientation. Though not medically sound, male and female are considered acceptable gender identities. If your instruction included husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends, "Heather Has A Mommy and A Daddy", you are discussing sexual orientation and gender identity. If you are selecting blue for boys and pink for girls, you are discussing gender stereotypes. If you discourage a boy from playing with dolls or discouraging a girl from playing football with the boys, that is instructing on a gender stereotype. The fact that we both acknowledge it is not about banning sexual orientation and gender identity in general but discussions about specific sexual orientation and specific identities just an add on. The examples of who it is being taught by were just to make the issues more clear.

3) I've provided you examples in corporate world where there are limitations on what can/should be said to other at a higher/lower and (importantly) same level. Although these restrictions are not legally binding, they are formal/informal corporate rules and employees may be punished/terminated for inappropriate communication. Why not in same setting in schools?

I think I addressed this one but just in case I will do so. First off, I gave you very specific examples that if you were to make a comparison, the closest one in relevance would be worker to client. There are things that teachers cannot say to their students in general. There are specific things that are inappropriate for a male teacher to say to a student compared to a female teacher and vice versa. There are specific things that are inappropriate for a straight teacher to say to a student compared to a gay teacher and vice versa. There are inappropriate things that a religious teacher can say to a student compared to a no religious teacher and vice versa. None of the examples that I provided fit that description unless you are of the belief that who was speaking in each example would influence the child in one way or the other just based on their sexual orientation and not the substance of what was said. If you don't want the gay guy to discuss his husband, tell the straight woman not to do the same or only hire people of a particular sexual orientation and deal with the legal consequences. Problem solved.