The Biden Presidency - 2020

[miked]

Some Texas board of ed folks just tried to change "slavery" to "involuntary relocation"...if that does not tell you what the end goal of anti-CRT bills are, I'm not sure you can be enlightened. You don't make up laws to problems that don't exist and wait for lawsuits to work their way through courts to settle it. That is not how government is supposed to work. My kids have been in GA schools for the better part of 10 years...not once has the topic of gay marriage been discussed at their school, even with a teacher who transitioned when my daughter was in early elementary (the country would not give out a new email address with his new name sadly). My kids understand that slavery and segregation were bad things, and we should still be doing things that help right the wrongs, it did not stop with Brown vs. Board of Ed.

Point being, if your kids feel guilty that their parents and grandparents kept black kids from going to school and drinking the same water fountains, good. They should feel bad and use that to make sure it does not happen again.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

The fact that you put instruction in quotes says it all doesn't it? Anything a teacher says in the classroom can be deemed instruction. The lack of detail allows that to be so.

I can see how you inferred that but honestly, I added it for emphasis. Instruction <> introducing me as husband.

Agree that law can be vague but don't think that is too unusual. The law will be tested in courts and it'll be discarded/finetuned.

Also, this is not a school board call. This is up to me as a parent. If I decide that a human being who identifies as a woman can't describe her heterosexual relationship to a human being who identifies as a man using the term husband in front of the third graders. I can report that in the same way another parent may decide that another teacher who is identifies as a man can't identify their homosexual relationship with a human being who identifies as a man using the term husband.

Fine. Parents complain all the time. If parent report my wife, she gets fired for supposed cause, I'd still call Morgan & Morgan. In this specific situation, I find it very unlikely she'll get fired.

If this was about the sense of "reasonableness", the bill would never have been written much less passed. We have been having discussion with 3rd graders about sexual orientation and gender identity since school was created. 3rd graders and younger know husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends (I am sure my son wasn't the only one who the teacher said had "a little girlfriend" when they were in kindergarten. What was that all about?), men and women, moms and dad, boys and girls and GASP! THE
PRONOUNS. Why have those things suddenly become "woke"?

This may have been true for your school, but it certainly wasn't for my school (but mine was a long time ago and overseas anyway). For my kids that went to school here, I don't remember when or ages, but do remember multiple times that parents were informed whenever there would be discussion about sex (and prob other sensitive matters) and were allowed to excuse their kids from those discussions.

I'm actually okay continuing that way. Want to talk about same sex relationships or about LGBTQ+ or about heterosexuals sexual relationships in school for 3rd graders and below, fine. Just give parents notice ahead of time to opt out. Anyone know if FL public schools do that consistently?

[larrymcg421]

Talking about sex and talking about same sex relationships is not the same thing.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Talking about sex and talking about same sex relationships is not the same thing.

For me and a <= 3rd grader, it falls under the same category.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For me and a <= 3rd grader, it falls under the same category.

that isn't part of the curriculum. What part of your thick fucking skull doesn't grasp that?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

that isn't part of the curriculum. What part of your thick fucking skull doesn't grasp that?

Par for the course ... how's the edibles or your liquor?

until it comes to a natural conclusion (e.g. agree to disagree with likely some name calling & dripping sarcasm)

[JPhillips]

Holy shit. Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe was shot tonight.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Par for the course ... how's the edibles or your liquor?

Its liquor but whatever, keep endorsing hateful, bigoted policies...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

For me and a <= 3rd grader, it falls under the same category.

Both around the same intellect.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Holy shit. Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe was shot tonight.

With a shotgun. Reports sound pretty dire. Wow.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Its liquor but whatever, keep endorsing hateful, bigoted policies...

Let me ask you a question. Is there anything you would not want your 3rd grader to learn in school as a 3rd grader?

I understand you don't think our topic is being discussed in school. But is there anything you do not want your 3rd grader to be "instructed" in school about?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Both around the same intellect.

Absolutely thinking about you and a couple of your other bros when I predicted below.

... until it comes to a natural conclusion (e.g. agree to disagree with likely some name calling & dripping sarcasm)

[JPhillips]

One of my daughter's kindergarten friends had two dads. She was told that some families have a mommy and a daddy, some have two daddies, some have two mommies, and some have a single parent.

She's 17 and showing no signs of abuse.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

One of my daughter's kindergarten friends had two dads. She was told that some families have a mommy and a daddy, some have two daddies, some have two mommies, and some have a single parent.

She's 17 and showing no signs of abuse.

I'll ask you the same question as above.

Let me ask you a question. Is there anything you would not want your 3rd grader to learn in school as a 3rd grader?

I understand you don't think our topic is being discussed in school. But is there anything you do not want your 3rd grader to be "instructed" in school about?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This may have been true for your school, but it certainly wasn't for my school (but mine was a long time ago and overseas anyway). For my kids that went to school here, I don't remember when or ages, but do remember multiple times that parents were informed whenever there would be discussion about sex (and prob other sensitive matters) and were allowed to excuse their kids from those discussions.

Yes parents were and still are informed when students are having a discussion about sexual intercourse. Well not really sexual intercourse they don't discuss that. It is more like a discussion about sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. And yes when there is a discussion of that manner, yes the parents can opt out. Either way, I am positive there are no discussion about sexual intercourse or STIs in those younger classrooms. I am pretty sure no one on the board is advocating for those kind of discussions in those younger classrooms There is definitely discussion about pregnancies aka a possible result of a heterosexual sexual relationship when the teacher is someone who can and does get pregnant. I have not heard anyone say anything about the stork recently Surprisingly, most kids are not corrupted by knowing that the teacher is going to have a baby, are sometimes allowed to touch the pregnant belly to feel the baby move and even hear about the baby's sex* when they ask if the teacher knows whether it's a boy or a girl. Again, it does not seem to be an issue for anyone.

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Definition 1a


Of all people, you know better than anyone. Words matter. I gave you very specific examples where classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identities has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur. Those are the terms in the law. The law is not meant to protect those children from those instructions. Again, by third grade, students have learned about using the appropriate pronouns for the appropriate people for example. Why is that an issue now?

I'm actually okay continuing that way. Want to talk about same sex relationships or about LGBTQ+ or about heterosexuals sexual relationships in school for all students through college, fine. Just give parents notice ahead of time to opt out. Anyone know if FL public schools do that consistently?

Fixed that for ya! I would actually respect DeSantis more if this is what he put in the law. This is what he is trying to achieve. Maybe we can add some other things that parents can opt their children out of. Can a parent who does not believe in the new way they do math opt out of that? What about an opt out of history because it does not fit the parent's view of that history?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'll ask you the same question as above.

Let me ask you a question. Is there anything you would not want your 3rd grader to learn in school as a 3rd grader?

I understand you don't think our topic is being discussed in school. But is there anything you do not want your 3rd grader to be "instructed" in school about?

That is an easy one. I would not want my third grader to be instructed that members of the LGBTQ+ community are less deserving of fair and equal treatment under the law anywhere in the world but especially in the United States of America.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Yes parents were and still are informed when students are having a discussion about sexual intercourse. Well not really sexual intercourse they don't discuss that. It is more like a discussion about sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. And yes when there is a discussion of that manner, yes the parents can opt out. Either way, I am positive there are no discussion about sexual intercourse or STIs in those younger classrooms. I am pretty sure no one on the board is advocating for those kind of discussions in those younger classrooms There is definitely discussion about pregnancies aka a possible result of a heterosexual sexual relationship when the teacher is someone who can and does get pregnant. I have not heard anyone say anything about the stork recently Surprisingly, most kids are not corrupted by knowing that the teacher is going to have a baby, are sometimes allowed to touch the pregnant belly to feel the baby move and even hear about the baby's sex* when they ask if the teacher knows whether it's a boy or a girl. Again, it does not seem to be an issue for anyone.

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Definition 1a

I'm not sure why you have provided the definition of sex? The FL law says below? Let's use your example of the stork. I don't see the law as stopping teacher from say "yes, I'm going to have a baby with my husband/wife/significant other" and stop there (e.g. no instruction)? If I'm mistaken, quote me a passage in the FL law.

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.

Of all people, you know better than anyone. Words matter. I gave you very specific examples where classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identities has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur. Those are the terms in the law. The law is not meant to protect those children from those instructions. Again, by third grade, students have learned about using the appropriate pronouns for the appropriate people for example. Why is that an issue now?

Definitely words & definitions matter (and so does context, degree/scale). I've already conceded the law can be interpreted in different ways and scenarios will come up where it will be fought/challenged in a court of law (which is not uncommon).

Sure by third grade kids know pronouns. You are saying by teachers teaching kids I/me/they/them/he/she etc. they have been "instructed" on "gender identity"? I don't think so and don't think any court would agree with that as the intent of the law. But hey, someone wants to bring it up, let's get a ruling and get it on the books.

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.

Fixed that for ya! I would actually respect DeSantis more if this is what he put in the law. This is what he is trying to achieve. Maybe we can add some other things that parents can opt their children out of. Can a parent who does not believe in the new way they do math opt out of that? What about an opt out of history because it does not fit the parent's view of that history?

I'm not sure why you added & highlighted above. I'm really talking about 3rd graders and below. I will concede I haven't quite pinpointed when is the appropriate time for "instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity". I had earlier said middle school which is 11-13 (vs 3rd grader at 8-9) and this seems right to me.

[Flasch186]

Ed

The reason the laws are passed is not because they’re afraid of upcoming wokeness. That’sBS

It’s political marketing to drum up anger so that their base votes on the back of their anger which just so happens to be the very best way to motivate people to get off of their coaches and vote.

It’s the same thing that’s been going on for 20 years.

The crime their looking to law isn’t happening… the vote incentive for storing the pt and keeping your tribe angry at the other one is happening.

End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

That is an easy one. I would not want my third grader to be instructed that members of the LGBTQ+ community are less deserving of fair and equal treatment under the law anywhere in the world but especially in the United States of America.

I would not want my 3rd grader to be instructed on that either. So punt to the parents who can provide their beliefs, their experiences, can spend the amount of time they believe is needed etc. to discuss with their 3rd grader.

And if the parents don't get to it or it never comes up, then go ahead and have schools start instructing it in 4th grade (or middle school).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ed

The reason the laws are passed is not because they’re afraid of upcoming wokeness. That’sBS

It’s political marketing to drum up anger so that their base votes on the back of their anger which just so happens to be the very best way to motivate people to get off of their coaches and vote.

It’s the same thing that’s been going on for 20 years.

The crime their looking to law isn’t happening… the vote incentive for storing the pt and keeping your tribe angry at the other one is happening.

End of discussion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is no doubt it is for political gain. Absolutely no doubt. Part of that is for DeSantis to show he is fighting back (imaginary or not) against the wokeness which plays to his (and Trump's) base.

It still does not belie the fact (IMO) that some topics are better left for parents to discuss with a 3rd grader vs some public school teacher.

[JPhillips]

Of course there are subjects that aren't appropriate for third graders. The fact that homosexuals exist is not one of those subjects.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Of course there are subjects that aren't appropriate for third graders. The fact that homosexuals exist is not one of those subjects.

The law isn't for a teacher to deny that LGBTQ exists. I'm thinking the key word here is "instruction"

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The law isn't for a teacher to deny that LGBTQ exists. I'm thinking the key word here is "instruction"

and the problem is there is no definition of what that would entail.

How you can not see this for what it is absolutely blows my mind.

[Lathum]

dola- and if you don't think the entire purpose of this law is to deny LGBTQ exists you are one naïve MFer....

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

and the problem is there is no definition of what that would entail.

How you can not see this for what it is absolutely blows my mind.

I'm pretty sure I answered your question/rebuttal already. It's just that you aren't accepting my answer.

I definitely see "instruction" (and other terms) can be subject to interpretation.

Definitely words & definitions matter (and so does context, degree/scale). I've already conceded the law can be interpreted in different ways and scenarios will come up where it will be fought/challenged in a court of law (which is not uncommon).

I can easily concede the bill is not detailed enough or factors in all the possibilities but there's is a sense of "reasonableness" where no school board is going to fire my wife because she introduced me as such. And BTW, I sure as heck hope they do, because I'll call Morgan & Morgan (or like) and pretty sure we'll win a nice lawsuit and set us up for life.

I don't see why you don't think some topics is better left for parents to discuss with their 3rd grader.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- and if you don't think the entire purpose of this law is to deny LGBTQ exists you are one naïve MFer....

I really don't see how this law is to deny LGBTQ exists. IMO it's really more like below ...

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.

[Flasch186]

Ed

By them making the law so ambiguous they’ve in essence frozen all teachers to completely excise anything that might even remotely be considered by any one citizen offensive so ostensibly they’ve frozen out 1000% further than the line you’re trying to throw out there. You understand that right?

You may be talking systematically but what you’re failing to admit to is that due to the planned ambiguities they’ve in essence threatened all teachers to stay out of anything even remotely possibly controversial at all in the smallest corners of any consideration or what they can lose their profession so they need to just stfu on anything close to anything close to anything close to these topics

Cuz teachers are liberals and liberals should die And the base needs to hate them and thus vote against teachers and science and gays….

You get it right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Ed

By thenm making the law so ambiguous they’ve in essence frozen all teachers to completely excuse anything that might even remotely be considered by any one citizen offensive so ostensibly they’ve frozen out 1000% further than the line you’re trying to throw out there. You understand that right?

You may be taking rationally but what you’re failing to admit to is that due to the planned ambiguities they’ve in essence threatened all teachers to stay out of anything even remotely possibly controversial at all in the smallest corners of any consideration or what they can lose their profession so they need to just stfu on anything close to anything close to anything close to these topics

Cuz teachers are liberals and liberals should die I the base needs to hate them and thus vote against teachers and science and gays….

You get it right?

I believe I understand what you are saying. No, I do not agree on bolded section above.

There will definitely be a period of transition for sure where teachers are uncertain on what is possible or not. And its for those teaching 3rd grade and below. "Boundaries" will be tested, lawsuits will be initiated (or not), and the definitions will get more clear.

Using the example in prior posts, go ahead and terminate my wife because she introduced me as her husband to 3rd graders. It'll be a welcome windfall (albeit after the 2-3 years of legal back and forth).

I do agree there is a strategy in making the wording ambiguous. Its for maximum flexibility to act or not and it is for DeSantis/GOP's benefit.

[Flasch186]

A $30k/yr teacher can’t afford the suit so they bolted comment is what has happened

Ty for recognizing what we’ve been pointing out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

A $30k/yr teacher can’t afford the suit so they bolted comment is what has happened

Ty for recognizing what we’ve been pointing out

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hah, I'm pretty sure Morgan & Morgan will do contingency fee basis (or at least that's what their radio ads say).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe I understand what you are saying. No, I do not agree on bolded section above.

I'm sure all these teachers unions speaking out against it are wrong and your correct. Oh, and disney...

for the record I do think there are things I don't want my 3rd grader learning, like how to make meth. there any laws against that?

My cousin is gay, my kids are super close with her and her wife. So far no therapy has been needed for them...

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I really don't see how this law is to deny LGBTQ exists. IMO it's really more like below ...

The law is literally designed to remove any and all mention of LGBTQ from the classroom. How is that not in essence denying the existence?

What do you think it's real purpose is? Do you think teachers are pulling pronhub up on the projector and showing tranny pron?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I'm sure all these teachers unions speaking out against it are wrong and your correct. Oh, and disney...

There is no doubt at all they could be wrong.

for the record I do think there are things I don't want my 3rd grader learning, like how to make meth. there any laws against that?

Probably not a law specific to that. But I'm pretty sure there would be some sort of system in place to escalate the teaching of that syllabus.

My cousin is gay, my kids are super close with her and her wife. So far no therapy has been needed for them...

I hope your cousin had supportive parents and didn't need to feel he had to have a teacher/classroom discussion about his sexuality as a 3rd grader.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I hope your cousin had supportive parents and didn't need to feel he had to have a teacher/classroom discussion about his sexuality as a 3rd grader.

you literally could not be missing the point of this law more....

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The law is literally designed to remove any and all mention of LGBTQ from the classroom. How is that not in essence denying the existence?

The FL law states below. It does not remove "any and all mention of LGBTQ". It does remove "instruction of (LGBTQ) sexual orientation or gender identity".

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.

In my prior response to you I said below. If you believe "instruction" = "mention" then we'll agree to disagree and the courts will ultimate arbitrate what that means.

I definitely see "instruction" (and other terms) can be subject to interpretation.

What do you think it's real purpose is? Do you think teachers are pulling pronhub up on the projector and showing tranny pron?

I've already mentioned what I believe the purpose was. I'll pull them together for you. See below quotes.

I do agree there is a strategy in making the wording ambiguous. Its for maximum flexibility to act or not and it is for DeSantis/GOP's benefit.

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.

There is no doubt it is for political gain. Absolutely no doubt. Part of that is for DeSantis to show he is fighting back (imaginary or not) against the wokeness which plays to his (and Trump's) base.

It still does not belie the fact (IMO) that some topics are better left for parents to discuss with a 3rd grader vs some public school teacher.

Question for you. You believe the law's use of "instruction" is equal to your definition of "mention" as per how you used it above?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you literally could not be missing the point of this law more....

I feel the same. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Question for you. You believe the law's use of "instruction" is equal to your definition of "mention"?

I believe the state purposely left it vague and yes, they intend on instruction and mention being the same thing.

The point being it isn't taught, there was no need for this law. If a teacher went rogue and decided to teach this, THEN there should be lawsuits and legislation. Not the other way around.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I feel the same. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.

apparently me, everyone else who has chimed in, teachers all over the US, and Floridas largest employer, but I am sure you're on the right side of this one...

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I hope your cousin had supportive parents and didn't need to feel he had to have a teacher/classroom discussion about his sexuality as a 3rd grader.

r/SelfAwarewolves

It's either one heck of concern trolling performance art (I kindof doubt it) or this is the reservoir of naivety that these sort of laws are designed to perfectly target.

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I believe the state purposely left it vague and yes, they intend on instruction and mention being the same thing.

Let's leave that as the crux of why we disagree. I certainly do not think "instruction" is same as "mention".

The point being it isn't taught, there was no need for this law. If a teacher went rogue and decided to teach this, THEN there should be lawsuits and legislation. Not the other way around.

So if I can find one example of a FL teacher that went rogue and taught (instructed) LGBTQ, you will concede (but not agree) this law was okay to be brought up?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

r/SelfAwarewolves

It's either one heck of concern trolling performance art (I kindof doubt it) or this is the reservoir of naivety that these sort of laws are designed to perfectly target.

SI

Just responding to sarcasm in same manner. Didn't you say context matters?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

apparently me, everyone else who has chimed in, teachers all over the US, and Floridas largest employer, but I am sure you're on the right side of this one...

So let's finish this (we're getting redundant but glad to continue if you really want to) ... and I'll call your hand with below (note the source, assume these are pretty legit polling nos). So yeah, I'll take the polls below over teachers and Disney.

Parents Mixed on 'Don't Say Gay' Laws, According to New Poll

The poll found that 68 percent of all respondents strongly or somewhat supported sexual education being taught in K-12 schools, with only 23 percent of those polled opposed. Those numbers include both Democrat and Republican respondents.

There was far less support for teaching the history of the LGBTQ+ civil rights movement in K-12 schools. A plurality of 46 percent supported the idea, while 39 percent opposed it.

On the topic of teaching sexual and gender identity in K-12 settings, a plurality of 45 percent opposed the idea, with 41 percent supporting it.

An earlier poll found a majority of respondents supported the new Florida law, which banned the discussion of sexual limit lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity through third grade, and limited discussions to “age-appropriate” materials for the remaining grades.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So if I can find one example of a FL teacher that went rogue and taught (instructed) LGBTQ, you will concede (but not agree) this law was okay to be brought up?

lol. no, because the problem is the way the law is written. I think we all agree for the most part this shouldn't be part of a 3rd grade curriculum and lower, at least the specifics.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

So let's finish this (we're getting redundant but glad to continue if you really want to) ... and I'll call your hand with below (note the source, assume these are pretty legit polling nos). So yeah, I'll take the polls below over teachers and Disney.

Parents Mixed on 'Don't Say Gay' Laws, According to New Poll

Perhaps if we taught it we would stop churning out generation of intolerant bigots...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

lol. no, because the problem is the way the law is written. I think we all agree for the most part this shouldn't be part of a 3rd grade curriculum and lower, at least the specifics.

Oh, I misunderstood. You are not against the intent of the law (or at least my definition of it with "instruction"). You are against how the law was worded.

I have absolutely no issues or criticism with this. (Or did I get you wrong?)

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Perhaps if we taught it we would stop churning out generation of intolerant bigots...

Sure. Teach it at grade 4+ (or my preference, middle school).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Oh, I misunderstood. You are not against the intent of the law (or at least my definition of it with "instruction"). You are against how the law was worded.

I have absolutely no issues or criticism with this. (Or did I get you wrong?)

you got me wrong. I am against the law. Just because you may find one vague example of it happening doesn't mean the law is needed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you got me wrong. I am against the law. Just because you may find one vague example of it happening doesn't mean the law is needed.

This contradicts what you posted above.

The point being it isn't taught, there was no need for this law. If a teacher went rogue and decided to teach this, THEN there should be lawsuits and legislation. Not the other way around.

Just checking, is this still an accurate statement from you?

I think we all agree for the most part this shouldn't be part of a 3rd grade curriculum and lower, at least the specifics.

[JPhillips]

Schools are being instructed by their lawyers to do things like remove rainbow stickers because the law is so vague and the punishment so extreme.

We're seeing this with the anti-CRT laws, too. I just saw a governor start an investigation into a school district because of one anonymous complaint about the content of a teacher training.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Sure. Teach it at grade 4+ (or my preference, middle school).

Do you believe that's the preferred dividing line for FL lawmakers? That all this is to protect that very specific demographic?

I do not. It's a toehold for future legislation.