Discussion on FL "Don't Say Gay" bill

[Edward64]

For the past couple days, miami_fan and I (and several others) have had a pretty good exchange/discussions on the FL "Don't Say Gay" bill in the Biden thread (starting on #5829 on pg 115-117). Although definitely involving politics and tangential to the 2022/24 elections, thought it best to create its own separate thread.

Additionally, the CRT controversy (?) was brought up. As stated in my reply, I would prefer the "Don't Say Gay" come to a natural conclusion first before starting on CRT.

I'll read up on it (I honestly don't have an opinion on it) but do want to finish the discussion on "Don't say Gay" bill until it comes to a natural conclusion (e.g. agree to disagree with likely some name calling & dripping sarcasm). Glad to do a deeper dive with you then if you are still willing.

I thought each topic needed focus and research (from me at least) as I was pretty sure it would generate good participation and discussion.

So creating this thread and setting some placeholders for my replies to the FL bill (and possibly CRT discussion).

[Edward64]

Before I respond to miami_fan's post Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - The Biden Presidency - 2020, I want to level set and restate my beliefs & assumptions in this post so we (hopefully) minimize going back and forth to the Biden thread (and any reading comprehension issues).

1) What the FL law states. Obviously there are more details but I've used this paragraph as a condensed summary. If you do not believe this is sufficient for our discussion, feel free to quote other passages.

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.

2) Not being an attorney, what I've read is the law is written vaguely and open to different interpretations. I've been asked by some of you why that is and my responses have been

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.

For DeSantis, it's really for DeSantis to score political points for sure. There are likely other reasons but definitely primarily to score political points in anticipation of him being an alternative to Trump.

Yes, I can see its a toehold for more stuff to come especially if he is going to run for the GOP nomination.

Although I do believe political leaders who support it are doing it primarily for their own political gains, I did say and believe

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.

Maybe there is a nuance I don't understand, but it seems pretty simple to me. Don't get into these type of discussions in public schools for those kids under 3rd grade. I'm not sure what age is appropriate but say maybe middle school.

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.

3) There were some discussion on 2 similar points.

How this law would prevent "any and all mention of LGBTQ from the classroom" (3rd grade and below).

There was another comment about "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"

I do not believe the first. And I can sympathize with second but do believe the highlighted section overstates the intent of the legislation.

For the first paragraph, I stated below. If you believe instruction = mention, there is really nothing more to discuss as I don't see how we can even try reconciliate our positions.

If you believe "instruction" = "mention" then we'll agree to disagree and the courts will ultimate arbitrate what that means.

And for the second, I stated

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).

4) There are 2 sets of questions posed by others in the Biden thread that I plan to answer

A couple people mentioned there is no curriculum for "sexual orientation or gender identity" and therefore why is the law is needed.

Or stated another way "What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents?"

I've been doing some research and trying to understand this myself. I will answer in a post below however my initial answer was

This is a fair question and agree that I've not answered it well. I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage.

I assume this law came to be because DeSantis & supporters are anticipating the growing "problem in society" of wokeness.

Also another question I'll answer/share my thoughts on are the comparative use cases between Mr. & Mrs. White that miami_fan brought up

I have given you numerous examples of age appropriate discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity that have been a part of teacher-student interactions forever and will continue to happen without some sudden need for parental consent. The fact those interactions involved LGBTQ+ people should not make them illegal. Why can't Mr. White can't tell his third graders what he and his husband did over the summer without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White say that he is married to his husband without parental consent but Mrs. White can? Why can't Mr. White have his husband come in and discuss the meaning of Father's Day or Veteran's Day to him without parental consent but Mrs. White can? How is it that when Mr. White does those things, it is grooming but when Mrs. White does the same things using the exact same words it is not? It was and is fine for Mrs White to go into great depth on all those things but Mr. White is supposed to have a stunted one sentence response and stop right there? And if he does not, he runs the risk of being brought up on disciplinary charges? Yeah no thanks.

5) Because I used the term woke(ness) in my answers (like in #2 & #4 above), the question was asked what is my definition.

I'll go with the wiki definition Woke - Wikipedia

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/ WOHK) is an English adjective meaning "alert to racial prejudice and discrimination" that originated in African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). Beginning in the 2010s, it came to encompass a broader awareness of social inequalities such as sexism, and has also been used as shorthand for American Left ideas involving identity politics and social justice, such as the notion of white privilege and slavery reparations for African Americans.

The phrase stay woke had emerged in AAVE by the 1930s, in some contexts referring to an awareness of the social and political issues affecting African Americans. The phrase was uttered in a recording by Lead Belly and later by Erykah Badu. Following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the phrase was popularised by Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists seeking to raise awareness about police shootings of African Americans. After seeing use on Black Twitter, the term woke became an Internet meme and was increasingly used by white people, often to signal their support for BLM, which some commentators have criticised as cultural appropriation. Mainly associated with the millennial generation, the term spread internationally and was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2017.

[Edward64]

Per post #2.4 above, a key question posed is why is this law is even needed.

A couple people mentioned there is no curriculum for "sexual orientation or gender identity" and therefore why is the law is needed.

Or stated another way "What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents?"

I answered on a high-level

This is a fair question and agree that I've not answered it well. I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage.

I assume this law came to be because DeSantis & supporters are anticipating the growing "problem in society" of wokeness.

I did do some research and here's my answer. I'll start with what I found and then summarize my thoughts at the bottom.

A quick caveat. I read a lot of links and, as you can imagine, most of them were from the more right wing, fringe groups. However, I concede that I did not research the veracity of all of their examples (or if taken out of context) but this does not mean they did not happen or are not true. So take it for what its worth

1) Specifically for FL and < 3rd grade, I did not find any incidents. The closest I found in FL was Casey Scott Teacher Says She Was Fired After Talking to Students About Sexuality but that was with middle school student (okay with that) and this was after the bill was signed

2) There have been other cases < 3rd grade. Copying and pasting multiple paragraphs won't be productive so just going to provide links for you/others to validate, provide context respond to

It’s Not a 'Don’t Say Gay' Law. It's an Anti-Indoctrination Law.

Starting in September, New Jersey’s first graders will be required to learn about gender identities, and how boys can be girls if they want.

https://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF20E22.pdf

New curriculum in Austin, Texas encourages even pre-pubescent children to consider “vaginal intercourse,” “oral intercourse,” and “anal intercourse.”13

6 Crazy School Responses To Parents Mad About LGBT Indoctrination

These preschoolers were told they can be “just like” a transgender teen celebrity named Jazz Jennings, and that transgender means having one sex’s body but a different sex’s brain (which is not backed by one iota of medical science). They were taught “We are all allowed to choose what gender we are.” They were shown this video:

Parental outrage over LGBT indoctrination is organic, not whipped up by Republican politiciansÂ* - LifeSite

Here’s a video of a preschool teacher explaining how she loves to “take every opportunity” to discuss breaking the gender binary and telling a four-year-old boy he can wear nail polish if he wants to:

One fourth (close enough) grade teacher confirmed that her example is being followed by her young students. “A lot of them are queer because I am queer,” she said. “They figured it out, and I became their safe space.” The kids, she said, are so open about LGBT issues that it shocks even her.

3) There are more links/examples what the more extreme right wing would call indoctrination & grooming for middle-school and up in general.


My thoughts:

4) Although there are not a lot of evidence for < 3rd grader nationwide examples (and those subject to validation) that I could find, there are many more cases for middle-school+ being exposed & taught about LGBTQ. I am okay with this. There are likely many differing (and contradictory) studies on what age is appropriate but middle-school passes the sniff-test for me personally based on what I've experience myself and seen with my kids.

5) On the question of "not on the curriculum", it is true I've not been able to find it for FL and < 3rd graders but it is on the curriculum for middle-school and up in other places in the country

6) I believe my initial assessment on why this bill came to be is still correct.

I do believe it is a reaction of (real or not) wokeness that DeSantis wants to leverage (for political gain).

I assume this law came to be because DeSantis & supporters are anticipating the growing "problem in society"
of wokeness.

7) So specifically on why I still support this law even though there are very limited examples of < 3rd graders, there are 2 main reasons

It is because I believe there are fair odds that it will eventually migrated down to 3rd graders. Just like I believe DeSantis is using this FL and < 3rd grade platform for "Yes, I can see its a toehold for more stuff to come especially if he is going to run for the GOP nomination.", I can easily see advocates testing boundaries from middle-school to lower and lower grades. And if it doesn't happen, then no harm, no foul.

Also, the substance (not the political intent) of the bill seems right to me. As I stated previously

I know not all parents will want to have those discussions. And some will likely do more harm than good. But yeah, I think most caring parents will want to have first crack in setting the stage and letting the 3rd grader know what they believe (and how to cope with it if it's a personal situation)

[Edward64]

miami_fan also provided some scenarios/use cases that I want to share my thoughts on

I have given you numerous examples of age appropriate discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity that have been a part of teacher-student interactions forever and will continue to happen without some sudden need for parental consent. The fact those interactions involved LGBTQ+ people should not make them illegal.

Let me restate that I do believe there is a "reasonableness" factor here that administrators and, if it escalates, juries will take into account since the law is vague and open to interpretation. Also, I do not believe the word "instruction" in the bill is equal to "mention", I see those as 2 very different things.

Why can't Mr. White can't tell his third graders what he and his husband did over the summer without parental consent but Mrs. White can?

Why can't Mr. White say that he is married to his husband without parental consent but Mrs. White can?

For both of the above, I believe Mr. White share whatever would be appropriate for Mrs. White to share. And if Mr. White gets terminated, reach out to Morgan & Morgan Lawyers | America's Largest Personal Injury Law Firm and retire early (after 2-3 years of litigation)

Why can't Mr. White have his husband come in and discuss the meaning of Father's Day or Veteran's Day to him without parental consent but Mrs. White can?

For Father's Day, this is likely problematic because of the word "instruct". I can see discussing meaning of Father's Day being instruction. I don't see an issue with Veteran's Day?

How is it that when Mr. White does those things, it is grooming but when Mrs. White does the same things using the exact same words it is not?

The radical/extreme right may call it indoctrination & grooming (read that in some of the links) and certainly disagree with them. I think the majority of people that support the bill would not use those terms.

It was and is fine for Mrs White to go into great depth on all those things but Mr. White is supposed to have a stunted one sentence response and stop right there?

I can see how 3rd graders will ask questions and if the teacher answers them, it would be problematic. So yes, if those situations come up, then answer as neutrally as possible and then punt to parents. Similar to a prior answer to another scenario

But how I would respond to the effect "thanks Jonny for letting us know. Class, if you have any questions, can you please ask your mom & dad (or any combination thereof)"

And if he does not, he runs the risk of being brought up on disciplinary charges? Yeah no thanks.

There is no doubt there is a level of unfairness here. You provided a list of scenarios with Mr. White vs Mrs. White and I get it. There are countless other scenarios where Mr. White will not be as free to discuss personal life vs Mrs. White.

In my world, there are a ton of situations where I cannot say what I really want to say to clients, co-workers and my manager. Goes with my job. I don't have a law that will punish me if I go out of bounds, but my employer will definitely punish me. So not 100% same as this situation, but it goes with the job.

[miami_fan]

My response to Post #3

It’s Not a 'Don’t Say Gay' Law. It's an Anti-Indoctrination Law.
Quote:
Starting in September, New Jersey’s first graders will be required to learn about gender identities, and how boys can be girls if they want.

This one is actually an important one to start with. Here is a Politico article about this that is a bit more balanced.

How Republicans in blue New Jersey are fueling a new debate over sex ed - POLITICO

I went to the NJ Board of Education website. There is no requirement for first graders. The requirements are for the end of 2nd grade. You are more that welcome to look at all of them yourself. Here is the one I think is most applicable for this discussion.

Core Idea
Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.

Performance Expectations

• 2.1.2.SSH.1: Discuss how individuals make their own choices about how to express themselves.
• 2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender-role stereotypes may limit behavior.

New curriculum in Austin, Texas encourages even pre-pubescent children to consider “vaginal intercourse,” “oral intercourse,” and “anal intercourse.”13

Counter point

PolitiFact | No, a Texas school district did not adopt pornographic sex ed curriculum

These preschoolers were told they can be “just like” a transgender teen celebrity named Jazz Jennings, and that transgender means having one sex’s body but a different sex’s brain (which is not backed by one iota of medical science). They were taught “We are all allowed to choose what gender we are.” They were shown this video:

I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to represent. They could be like Jazz , they could not be like Jazz. The link that in that paragraph seems to contradict the premise of the article.

There's no such thing as a single "gay gene" that drives a person's sexual behavior, concludes the largest genetic study ever conducted on the issue. Instead, a person's attraction to those of the same sex is shaped by a complex mix of genetic and environmental influences, similar to what's seen in most other human traits, researchers report.

The one concern I have with this one is that unlike the first two articles, the authorities do not offer parents the option of opting out of the class. That is just as bad as banning the education altogether.

Here’s a video of a preschool teacher explaining how she loves to “take every opportunity” to discuss breaking the gender binary and telling a four-year-old boy he can wear nail polish if he wants to:

Again I am not sure what the issue is. The little boy was already wearing fingernail polish. I am assuming the boy's parents were aware that he had fingernail polish. The teacher did not put it on him as far as we know. The teacher stepped in to protect the boy from possible bullying. Good on the teacher.

One fourth (close enough) grade teacher confirmed that her example is being followed by her young students. “A lot of them are queer because I am queer,” she said. “They figured it out, and I became their safe space.” The kids, she said, are so open about LGBT issues that it shocks even her.

Same thing as above. What is the issue? LGBT students are following the example of LGBT teacher. In elementary school, one of the teachers I looked up to was the only Black male, non P.E. teacher in my school because he wore a tie to school every day just like my dad. That is kind of what kids do. I did not follow the dressing example of any of my teachers who were women.

I am going to skip to 7 since we are discussing 3rd grade and under.

It is because I believe there are fair odds that it will eventually migrated down to 3rd graders.

I ask again. What will migrate down to third graders. The existence of LGBTQ+ community?

I know not all parents will want to have those discussions.

What are the discussions that teachers are having with third graders that parents are not getting a chance to set the stage for?

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Let me restate that I do believe there is a "reasonableness" factor here that administrators and, if it escalates, juries will take into account since the law is vague and open to interpretation. Also, I do not believe the word "instruction" in the bill is equal to "mention", I see those as 2 very different things.

Based on the way you answered the scenarios, I am not convinced you actually believe the distinctions you are claiming here.

For Father's Day, this is likely problematic because of the word "instruct". I can see discussing meaning of Father's Day being instruction. I don't see an issue with Veteran's Day?

So a gay guy discussing fatherhood is instruction but a straight guy doing it is not?

I can see how 3rd graders will ask questions and if the teacher answers them, it would be problematic. So yes, if those situations come up, then answer as neutrally as possible and then punt to parents. Similar to a prior answer to another scenario

Both teachers or just the gay guy?

There is no doubt there is a level of unfairness here. You provided a list of scenarios with Mr. White vs Mrs. White and I get it. There are countless other scenarios where Mr. White will not be as free to discuss personal life vs Mrs. White.

In my world, there are a ton of situations where I cannot say what I really want to say to clients, co-workers and my manager. Goes with my job. I don't have a law that will punish me if I go out of bounds, but my employer will definitely punish me. So not 100% same as this situation, but it goes with the job.

The point is that it does not go with the job. You have made that clear because Mrs White has more freedom than Mr. White. I am sure in your world, you are not alone in not being able to say what you want to clients, co-workers and your manager. But you can say the same exact things that your co-workers can say to each other, to clients and your manager.

What you are describing is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the classroom. The military lost a lot of great people to that policy. Given that the state of Florida is down about 9,500 teachers and support staff and about 450,000 students may not have a certified teacher in the classroom for the start of the year, it probably does not make a whole lot of sense to lose more teachers because some people are afraid of "it".

[Edward64]

I'll respond to post #6 first as it'll take less research. I will respond to the other one today.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Based on the way you answered the scenarios, I am not convinced you actually believe the distinctions you are claiming here.

I believe I do. You highlighted the examples below and I'll respond to each on what I mean by "reasonableness".

So a gay guy discussing fatherhood is instruction but a straight guy doing it is not?

I can see how a gay teacher can get called out on this but a straight teacher will not. However, the FL law is neutral on gender, sexual preference etc. I do believe the intent of the supporters of the FL law is targeted towards LGBTQ but as it's written, it is not written that way.

Therefore, even if a gay teacher gets called out by (let's say) a parent who takes offense at this and teacher gets terminated, I would hire Morgan & Morgan (or like) on contingency, take it to trial, show that straight teacher didn't get terminated for doing same, and settle for a nice windfall.

Therefore, when I said reasonableness, it refers to (hopefully) the school administrators but if not, ultimately the court of law/jury.

Both teachers or just the gay guy?

As the law is written, both. But I do believe there will be situations where gay teacher will be called out but a straight one will not. Then see answer to above question.

If FL really wants to keep this law, they better make sure it's applied as written & consistent (and amend as needed). Otherwise, there will be a ton of lawsuits challenging different standards on gay vs straight (as there should be).

I do support the FL law. And I do want it applied equally between gay & straight. And yes, I do know the politicians that wrote the bill was really thinking about LGBTQ, wokeness etc. but knew they had to use neutral wording in the bill. So the political intent is definitely wrong, but I'm okay with the substance.

The point is that it does not go with the job. You have made that clear because Mrs White has more freedom than Mr. White. I am sure in your world, you are not alone in not being able to say what you want to clients, co-workers and your manager. But you can say the same exact things that your co-workers can say to each other, to clients and your manager.

It's obvious that my manager can say some things to clients, my co-workers that I cannot say to them, that is normal and accepted business as usual. That is because of differing levels (e.g. consultant vs manager level).

But actually, there are also differences on what can be said by my same-level co-workers. A couple examples ...

My projects are global. My Indian or Filipino/a same-level counterpart would not say things to my onshore staff or my client. I would not do the same to their staff or counterpart.

A younger manager vs older manager, same level. A younger manager would probably adapt how he would address issues with an older consultant reporting to him. An older manager addressing same older consultant has a little more flexibility in language, tone etc.

(This also applies to male manager to female consultant. Female manager to male consultant)

Bottom line. I believe you are pointing out specifically straight vs gay. And you are right that I cannot think (or at least right now) of situations in my world where a same-level straight vs gay would/should be different in saying things.

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.

What you are describing is a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the classroom. The military lost a lot of great people to that policy. Given that the state of Florida is down about 9,500 teachers and support staff and about 450,000 students may not have a certified teacher in the classroom for the start of the year, it probably does not make a whole lot of sense to lose more teachers because some people are afraid of "it".

I don't see the equivalence to that policy. I do not believe that "instruct" = "mention".

IMO a gay male teacher is free to say "I'm married to Mr. Smith" to 3rd graders. If brought up and terminated, I think the "reasonable" jury will provide an easy windfall

IMO a gay male teacher is free to say "I'm married to Mr. Smith and here's some pictures of our summer vacation". If brought up and terminated, same as above.

IMO a gay male teacher who says "I'm married to Mr. Smith. We adopted a child" is okay but if further elaborates like "We are raising child and we encounter X, Y, Z challenges", I can see this as a more challenging legal arbitration.

So no, I do not see it as equal to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". My recollection, that law basically says, if you say you are "gay" you are processed out of the military. 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".

[Flasch186]

I do believe that’s what the authors of the legislation are going for and in some ways statute agrees. If a teacher has an inappropriate relationship with a student they do tack on “position of authority” charges when I would argue the teacher wasn’t ‘instructing’ the student in their car they’re still in the position of authority. Point being, they are instructing as positions of authority and as such the authors of the bill made it so ambiguous that they actually can say mentioning is instructing.

We know that they simply want to make sure that sex isn’t talked about to 3rd graders and below and I think we all agree with that

But

They’re already not doing that. If any teacher talked about that at those ages they’d be blasted because it’s not curriculum at that age.

That’s Rally not what it’s about though. It’s about white washing out any mention of anything that’s not biblical (MF) from being seen or heard because said instruction/position of authority of such deviancy can’t be had there.

Many kids look up to their great teachers, so much so that many say that they want to be a teacher themselves after experiencing a great teacher. So god forbid said great teacher is exposed or the kids are to it.

But

You know all of this and are just Swartzing us. We see it. We know it. But you’re going to 🥨 and that’s ok.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Ed- you keep going back the this "hire an attorney" like it is an easy thing to just find a law firm to take on the state, win, get enough money to retire, all the while losing your career in the process while becoming the target of the insane far right mob.

[Edward64]

This section is in response to post #5.

As mentioned earlier ...

A quick caveat. I read a lot of links and, as you can imagine, most of them were from the more right wing, fringe groups. However, I concede that I did not research the veracity of all of their examples (or if taken out of context) but this does not mean they did not happen or are not true. So take it for what its worth

With that said, one of the central questions asked is:

A couple people mentioned "there is no curriculum for "sexual orientation or gender identity and therefore why is the law is needed" or stated another way "What discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents?"

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.

Originally Posted by miami_fan

This one is actually an important one to start with. Here is a Politico article about this that is a bit more balanced.

How Republicans in blue New Jersey are fueling a new debate over sex ed - POLITICO

I went to the NJ Board of Education website. There is no requirement for first graders. The requirements are for the end of 2nd grade. You are more that welcome to look at all of them yourself. Here is the one I think is most applicable for this discussion.

In your politico link, it has this quote

...By fifth grade, teachers should “explain common human sexual development and the role of hormones (e.g., romantic and sexual feelings, masturbation, mood swings, timing of pubertal onset)” and second graders should be able to “discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender-role stereotypes may limit behavior.”

The Republican uproar was caused less by those standards than the sample lesson plans that are available to help school districts meet the state guidelines. There is some truth at the molten-hot core of Republicans’ argument. The proposed lesson plans that sparked the controversy came from an advocacy group, Advocates for Youth, with a stated left-leaning progressive mission to “shift the current cultural paradigm in which we live from one that too often stigmatizes youth and youth sexual development to one that embraces youth as partners and recognizes sexuality as normal and healthy.”

Schepisi pointed out on Twitter that there are relatively few sample lesson plans offered by advocacy groups that comply with the state standard requirements. Schools, she said, may “feel compelled to pick from the limited menu of options that are currently available.”

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.

Counter point

PolitiFact | No, a Texas school district did not adopt pornographic sex ed curriculum

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. If those shown examples were being taught to 3rd graders, yeah I'd say it was inappropriate.

I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to represent. They could be like Jazz , they could not be like Jazz. The link that in that paragraph seems to contradict the premise of the article.

That article had a link around the Jazz paragraph that led to How Illinois Schools Teach Preschoolers To Celebrate Transgenderism.

To get a sense of of what this public school district is teaching the children in its care, and what the new LGBT curriculum in all Illinois public schools will look like starting next school year, let’s look at a few selections from their preschool and kindergarten curriculum for this week. This is for children ages 3 to 5.

Teachers were given a lesson plan on slides that include movies and a teaching script to show and say to the children each day of the week. The children are shown, among other things, a video of someone reading aloud the book “Heather Has Two Mommies,” famous transgender teen Jazz Jenning reading his picture book “I Am Jazz,” a book read aloud on video called “My Princess Boy,” and the apparently highly awarded video below. The script tells teachers to use materials like these throughout the year, not just during LGBTQ+ Equity Week.

I've not read the 3 books mentioned below but looked up in Amazon (could only see the previews and will extrapolate from there). If these are actually being read to children 3 to 5, yeah, I would personally have an issue with this. Punt to the parents (give them the books if needed) to have these discussions.

I am Jazz. The story of a transgender child based on the real-life experience of Jazz Jennings, who has become a spokesperson for transkids everywhere

My Princess Boy. A heartwarming book about unconditional love and one remarkable family.

Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear his princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He’s a Princess Boy.

The one concern I have with this one is that unlike the first two articles, the authorities do not offer parents the option of opting out of the class. That is just as bad as banning the education altogether.

I do agree that parents should be able to opt out. So in a world without DeSantis and the FL Bill, maybe the reasonable compromise is all instructions on "sexual orientation or gender identity" should be clearly scheduled ahead of time where parents will be informed and can opt out.

Again I am not sure what the issue is. The little boy was already wearing fingernail polish. I am assuming the boy's parents were aware that he had fingernail polish. The teacher did not put it on him as far as we know. The teacher stepped in to protect the boy from possible bullying. Good on the teacher.

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

Preschool teacher says she “loves taking every opportunity” to break down gender stereotypes and discuss all the genders including nonbinary

Same thing as above. What is the issue? LGBT students are following the example of LGBT teacher. In elementary school, one of the teachers I looked up to was the only Black male, non P.E. teacher in my school because he wore a tie to school every day just like my dad. That is kind of what kids do. I did not follow the dressing example of any of my teachers who were women.

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".

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

I ask again. What will migrate down to third graders. The existence of LGBTQ+ community?

I think it's been asked and answered. No, not the existence of LGBTQ community because I do not believe "instruct" = "mention".

I've also provided you with samplings (e.g. not saying "evidence" because I really haven't done a deep dive) of supposed curriculum/sample teachings that occur in 3rd grade (okay one example was 4th grade) albeit not in FL.

For middle-school, there is definitely more evidence of LGBTQ curriculum awareness & topics (and I have no problem with this because I do think it's age appropriate). If you want, I can google and find you these middle-school curriculum. And I'm pretty sure that while they are appropriate for middle-school, many are unlikely to be appropriate for 3rd graders.

What are the discussions that teachers are having with third graders that parents are not getting a chance to set the stage for?

Assuming my links & commentary above are accurate ... I'll just copy from above.

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.

I am Jazz. The story of a transgender child based on the real-life experience of Jazz Jennings, who has become a spokesperson for transkids everywhere

My Princess Boy. A heartwarming book about unconditional love and one remarkable family.

Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear his princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He’s a Princess Boy.

Preschool teacher says she “loves taking every opportunity” to break down gender stereotypes and discuss all the genders including nonbinary

“A lot of them [students] are queer because I am queer” - 4th grade teacher (There is an inference that she is encouraging them (or asking them to explore) being "queer".)

I have 3 questions for you.

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"?

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 (regardless of sexual orientation) in a 3rd grade classroom?

3) I've provided you examples in the corporate world where there are limitations on what can/should be said to others 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?

[GrantDawg]

I believe most teachers are in their position to, you know, teach. Not spend years in courts to try to be able to teach. People say this law and others like it is trying to erase gay people, but I don't think that is rhe real target. I think they are playing to common bigotry to end public schools all together.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

To non-miami_fan commentators. Appreciate your comments and feedback but going to keep my exchanges to miami_fan for now.

I think we've got a good and respectful dialog going (hope he feels the same) and I don't want to distract from it.

Therefore, don't accuse me of avoiding responding to your comments & questions, as others have done in other conversations.

[Flasch186]

The thing is Ed your opinion (or mine) doesn’t matter

The internet is too blue the line and make it that yes, mentioning from a person of authority can be interpreted by this statute as teaching.

Then the teacher loses their career, gets moved by right wing nuts and has to hope some day , while working at the quikmart that some court will give them a parachute off caysh.

It’s ridiculous to think otherwise considering this isn’t a vacuum. It’s in line with all of the statements regarding ‘pedophilia, grooming, & gays.’ Perhaps they ought to turn their pitchforks on the churches that are… well never mind.

Please don’t respond

For

If you wanted to keep the discussion private you could exchange phone numbers, emails or simply PM but naw why not let everyone else witness it while also staying “stay out of my thread.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Please don’t respond

For

If you wanted to keep the discussion private you could exchange phone numbers, emails or simply PM but naw why not let everyone else witness it while also staying “stay out of my thread.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to ignore responding but then you added last paragraph.

I did not say "stay out of my thread"? I just said I was not going to respond to non miami_fan "for now" and asked for your understanding.

And the reason why I setup this thread was so others in the Biden thread wouldn't need to be bogged down if they didn't want to.

Sorry if you are offended, it was not intentional.

[Flasch186]

Not offended but if you’re setting up a thread and don’t want discussion then why not PM or email each other or pick up the phone… make a friend

This seems awfully like look at me but don’t call me out

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whatever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Not offended but if you’re setting up a thread and don’t want discussion then why not PM or email each other or pick up the phone… make a friend

This seems awfully like look at me but don’t call me out

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Whatever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I do want discussion with you guys and not just miami_fan. My comment said below, note highlighted.

Appreciate your comments and feedback but going to keep my exchanges to miami_fan for now.

and when have you known me to shy away from a discussion anyway ... but yes, whatever.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To non-miami_fan commentators. Appreciate your comments and feedback but going to keep my exchanges to miami_fan for now.

I think we've got a good and respectful dialog going (hope he feels the same) and I don't want to distract from it.

Therefore, don't accuse me of avoiding responding to your comments & questions, as others have done in other conversations.

I mean, you kind of are doing that...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I mean, you kind of are doing that...

So in the entire context of my 3 sentences that you quoted, the "for now" doesn't count?

Tell you what. If Lathum, Grantdawg and miami_fan believes I meant to say "stay out of my thread" (where it's just miami_fan and me), let me know and I'll issue apologies.

[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.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Ed- you keep going back the this "hire an attorney" like it is an easy thing to just find a law firm to take on the state, win, get enough money to retire, all the while losing your career in the process while becoming the target of the insane far right mob.

This .

Here is a copy of the bill for reference.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil...illText/er/PDF

Here is how this will actually go.

7. Each school district shall adopt procedures for a
parent to notify the principal, or his or her designee, regarding concerns under this paragraph at his or her student's school and the process for resolving those concerns within 7 calendar days after notification by the parent.

a. At a minimum, the procedures must require that within 30 days after notification by the parent that the concern remains unresolved, the school district must either resolve the concern or provide a statement of the reasons for not resolving the concern.

b. If a concern is not resolved by the school district, a
parent may:

(I) Request the Commissioner of Education to appoint a
special magistrate who is a member of The Florida Bar in good
standing and who has at least 5 years' experience in
administrative law. The special magistrate shall determine facts
relating to the dispute over the school district procedure or
practice, consider information provided by the school district,
and render a recommended decision for resolution to the State
Board of Education within 30 days after receipt of the request
by the parent. The State Board of Education must approve or
reject the recommended decision at its next regularly scheduled
meeting that is more than 7 calendar days and no more than 30
days after the date the recommended decision is transmitted. The
costs of the special magistrate shall be borne by the school
district. The State Board of Education shall adopt rules,
including forms, necessary to implement this subparagraph
.
(II) Bring an action against the school district to obtain
a declaratory judgment that the school district procedure or
practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A
court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees
and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief.

That reads like the equivalent of the players have being charged for rules infractions by Troy Vincent, appealing to Rog Goodell and then having the final appeal go to ... Rog Goodell.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

People say this law and others like it is trying to erase gay people, but I don't think that is rhe real target. I think they are playing to common bigotry to end public schools all together.

This, plus it's an easy way to get the GOP base riled up and out to vote.

The last few years I've done a bunch of volunteering for our local K-8 school district, sitting on committees mostly. It's pretty astonishing the number of well-funded national groups out there that will routinely fund an astroturf campaign to attack anything the school district does.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

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.

See response in next post.

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.

Sure, I concede and understand its not 100% analogy. Where am I going to get something 100% comparable to your scenario unless I use your scenario itself? Therefore the best I can do is to show you jobs restrict what people can say and do - I've given you examples of this by sex, age and national origin.

I certainly think jobs have the right (and is normal) to restrict what a person can say while on the job. You believe this is discriminatory based on sexual preference, but it's not based on how the law is written ... and hence my constant acknowledgement there will be (and should be) legal challenges as situations come up.

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.

I've said I believe the political intent was primarily against LGBTQ and therefore bad. However, I support the substance of the law as its written ... it is written in a neutral manner meaning it applies to both gay & straight.

My understanding of Jim Crow laws that laws enforced racial segregation. As the law is written, there is no racial aka sexual preference segregation.

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.

Yes, I do believe middle-school is age appropriate. I bring up middle school because (1) I found less-than-solid examples of curriculum for 3rd grades but did find curriculum for middle-school (2) help answer the question, if its not in the curriculum, why create a law? It's because DeSantis see this is evidence of wokeness and can use it as an example for support of his law.

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.

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

3rd Grade Science YAG 2021 -22 - Google Docs

There certainly is that push-pull-give&take from different interested parties. It results of NJ may be appropriate now. That politico article shows there were obvious contesting on both sides. This falls back to the reason why if not in the curriculum, why create a law. I'm thinking DeSantis saw this, wants to use it for his political advantage (e.g. "see, this is what the activists want to put in their curriculum") and we now have the FL bill.

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.

I think finger polish on a boy is debatable for me. Taken in isolation and single event, probably not a big deal.

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.

You are referring back to nail polish and per my statement above, I think taken in isolation, probably not a big deal. However, from the quote of "Preschool teacher says she “loves taking every opportunity” to break down gender stereotypes and discuss all the genders including nonbinary", it seems much more widespread than just fingernail 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.

Yes, it could be that about playing re: football. However, seeing her excitement (? not sure if right description), I inferred more TBH.

Come on now Add in the rest.

Seems to infer the opposite.

I copied and pasted from the heading of the video and did not mean to leave that out. Regardless, if what I said was accurate below, even with your added phrase, it still belongs with the parents and not teacher for a 3rd grader.

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".

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?

Let me summarize this "section" of our discussion.

I was asked for (1) 3rd grade curriculum that discussed sexual orientation or gender identity and (2) what discussions do you think teachers are having with the third graders that should be left to the parents?

I did not find FL samples but have provided samplings (I'm not going to say evidence) from other states.

I understand these samplings may not stand up to deep dives but there was enough out there for De Santis to manipulate the narrative. And we now have the FL bill.

[Edward64]

I have 3 questions for you.
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"?

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.

As I stated to Lathum in an earlier post, if you do believe "instruct" = "mention", that is the crux of our disagreement and why you believe it is a "don't say gay" bill and I don't. Hopefully it will be resolved soon through school administration (? but probably unlikely) or by the FL courts.

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 (regardless of sexual orientation) 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.

I do believe gay and straight teachers can teach 3rd grade without "overstepping the intent/substance" of the FL bill. It comes back to "instruct" = "mention" which you/Lathum and I have a significant difference of opinion on.

3) I've provided you examples in the corporate world where there are limitations on what can/should be said to others 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.

The FL law, as written is neutral. In theory, the gay and straight teachers will be allowed to say the same things and restricted in saying the same things.

In practice, we know there will be lawsuits on how the law will be inconsistently applied. I earlier said below and believe ...

If FL really wants to keep this law, they better make sure it's applied as written & consistent (and amend as needed). Otherwise, there will be a ton of lawsuits challenging different standards on gay vs straight (as there should be).

[Izulde]

transgender means having one sex’s body but a different sex’s brain (which is not backed by one iota of medical science).

ACTUALLY.... there's considerable research that suggests that yes, transgender individuals *do* have certain parts of brain structures that align to their expressed gender. Is it *definitively* proven? No. But neither can we say the concept is "not backed up by one iota of medical science". There's noticeable trends and patterns.

[miami_fan]

Edward,

I am going to try to move this forward by getting rid of some chewed on bones and try to bring us back to the point of the thread.

1. Believe me, I promise you, I do not need you to explain or to present the possible reasons why DeSantis put this into law. He has made it perfectly clear why he did it. He presented evidence as to why he believes it was correct. His evidence does not stand up to the scrutiny in a similar manner as the information you provided here. I have presented what I believe to be solid evidence that showed the inaccuracies of most of that evidence and in some cases the evidence of what actually occurred. If you believe the law is required as written based on its substance, please present whatever you believe to be solid evidence and/or reasoning that it is needed.

2. Yes, there may or may not be court cases to define what classifies as instruction means in this law. If and when that happens we can have another discussion after that decision is made. In the mean time, can you please tell me what you consider to be instruction of sexual orientation and gender identities as of today? Please keep in mind that heterosexuality and male/female need to be included in your considerations because we are banning all of it. So whatever you attempt to allow for heterosexuality and male/female dynamics, you are also allowing for homosexual, pansexual, non binary, genderqueer etc. Note that the law as written does not make a distinction between a mention and an instruction. Obviously, the Governor did not want to allow a mention to be up for such a consideration. So please only discuss instruction.

3. The discussion is about third graders and younger. If you want to have a discussion about 4th graders and older, that is for when there is a bill for those age groups. The curriculum for those age groups are for those age groups only and should not be given consideration when discussing the younger age groups. It is disingenuous to suggest that because "they" are using a certain line of instruction for middle school students, there is a possibility that "they" may bring that exact line of instruction to the the 3rd graders. Because of the uproar on this issue, most states have placed at the very minimum their standards for these subjects online and many states have included the curriculum. I would much rather scrutinize and if need criticize what the authorities have actually put into place as opposed to speculation of what might be or worse.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Edward,

I am going to try to move this forward by getting rid of some chewed on bones and try to bring us back to the point of the thread.

Agreed.

1. Believe me, I promise you, I do not need you to explain or to present the possible reasons why DeSantis put this into law. He has made it perfectly clear why he did it. He presented evidence as to why he believes it was correct. His evidence does not stand up to the scrutiny in a similar manner as the information you provided here. I have presented what I believe to be solid evidence that showed the inaccuracies of most of that evidence and in some cases the evidence of what actually occurred. If you believe the law is required as written based on its substance, please present whatever you believe to be solid evidence and/or reasoning that it is needed.

Sure, here's my reasoning.

1) There are certain topics, discussions, instructions etc. that should be deferred to parents vs teachers especially to 3rd graders and younger
2) Teachers, as a whole, are no better able/prepared to teach some of these topics, discussions, instructions than parents to their own 3rd graders
3) There is obviously a push to get more sexual awareness (including LGBTQ but not exclusively so) into high-middle school. This is okay as I would consider these instructions age appropriate
4) There is obviously a push to get more sexual awareness (including LGBTQ) into elementary/3rd grade
5) The FL bill (and other similar state bills that have passed or in progress) proactively addresses this by restricting what teachers can "instruct" at 3rd grade
6) As a parent, I support this under the key assumption it is applied consistently

2. Yes, there may or may not be court cases to define what classifies as instruction means in this law. If and when that happens we can have another discussion after that decision is made. In the mean time, can you please tell me what you consider to be instruction of sexual orientation and gender identities as of today? Please keep in mind that heterosexuality and male/female need to be included in your considerations because we are banning all of it. So whatever you attempt to allow for heterosexuality and male/female dynamics, you are also allowing for homosexual, pansexual, non binary, genderqueer etc. Note that the law as written does not make a distinction between a mention and an instruction. Obviously, the Governor did not want to allow a mention to be up for such a consideration. So please only discuss instruction.

I'm not sure I can encapsulate in a nice clear sentence the definition of highlighted in your paragraph. So let's use the samplings I provided to illustrate what I consider clear cut difference between "instruct" vs "mention".

As quoted in prior post ...

To get a sense of of what this public school district is teaching the children in its care, and what the new LGBT curriculum in all Illinois public schools will look like starting next school year, let’s look at a [b]few selections from their preschool and kindergarten curriculum for this week. This is for children ages 3 to 5.

Teachers were given a lesson plan on slides that include movies and a teaching script to show and say to the children each day of the week. The children are shown, among other things, a video of someone reading aloud the book “Heather Has Two Mommies,” famous transgender teen Jazz Jenning reading his picture book “I Am Jazz,” a book read aloud on video called “My Princess Boy,” and the apparently highly awarded video below. The script tells teachers to use materials like these throughout the year, not just during LGBTQ+ Equity Week.

I am Jazz. The story of a transgender child based on the real-life experience of Jazz Jennings, who has become a spokesperson for transkids everywhere

My Princess Boy. A heartwarming book about unconditional love and one remarkable family.

Dyson loves pink, sparkly things. Sometimes he wears dresses. Sometimes he wears jeans. He likes to wear his princess tiara, even when climbing trees. He’s a Princess Boy.

If the above narrative is accurate and kids 3-5 were shown videos in class of someone reading those 2 books, I would call that "instruction" of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Question - do you agree this is an example of "instruct"?

3. The discussion is about third graders and younger. If you want to have a discussion about 4th graders and older, that is for when there is a bill for those age groups. The curriculum for those age groups are for those age groups only and should not be given consideration when discussing the younger age groups. It is disingenuous to suggest that because "they" are using a certain line of instruction for middle school students, there is a possibility that "they" may bring that exact line of instruction to the the 3rd graders. Because of the uproar on this issue, most states have placed at the very minimum their standards for these subjects online and many states have included the curriculum. I would much rather scrutinize and if need criticize what the authorities have actually put into place as opposed to speculation of what might be or worse.

I was asked why I thought DeSantis created this bill. LGBTQ curriculum in middle-high school is very likely something he saw as evidence of wokeness which he thought he could leverage. I'm sure that's a key rationale and not disingenuous in me bringing it up as I answered the question.

[Edward64]

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.

Question - Based on your highlighted statement, the delineation between "mention" and "instruct" is based solely on what student does with the info and NOT how the teacher presented (e.g. level of detail) the information? Is this correct?

(I view it more as how the teacher presented the materials than how student receives/acts on it)

Quote:
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.

I assume all grades have curriculum on Health or like for 3rd graders (mine does). I can see how this section can delve into "sexual orientation or gender identity" grey area discussions aka instructions.

Question - If this is correct for FL, why can't a teacher teach what is in the curriculum and, if there are more detailed questions, defer to parents?

By teaching the curriculum (I assume there are preapproved books, videos, handouts), the teacher has a good level of protection from negative consequences.

[miami_fan]

So since you insists on providing me with general talking points as opposed to specifics. I am going to tell you what I am comprehending from what you have posted in the last two posts and you can clarify when I am correct and where I am wrong. As per my previous post, I am not addressing the middle/high school portion.

1) There are certain topics, discussions, instructions etc. that should be deferred to parents vs teachers especially to 3rd graders and younger

Based on what you wrote, you do not believe that teachers should be allowed to instruct on any transgender people in general, lesbian who have children, and specifically boys being allowed to clothes that are traditionally supposed to be girls' clothing. Those topics should be deferred to parents.

My response If you are agree with this law as written, you also believe that teachers should not instruct on heterosexual people in general, heterosexual people who have children and girls wearing a three pieced suit.

2) Teachers, as a whole, are no better able/prepared to teach some of these topics, discussions, instructions than parents to their own 3rd graders

What are you basing this on? I don't know if you are right or wrong. I am just wondering what qualifications you believe that the parents have that the teachers don't have on the topics above.

4) There is obviously a push to get more sexual awareness (including LGBTQ) into elementary/3rd grade

Do you agree with this push or not? If you do not agree, would you agree if it did not include LGBTQ?

I am going to deal with 5 and 6 together with the rest of my response.

Question - do you agree this is an example of "instruct"?

Question - Based on your highlighted statement, the delineation between "mention" and "instruct" is based solely on what student does with the info and NOT how the teacher presented (e.g. level of detail) the information? Is this correct?

Again, I have said it is all instruction. That second part was me trying to figure out what delineation you were making. I don't understand the concept of a teacher mentioning something as opposed to instructing. If someone is reading a book titled "Heather Has A Mommy and a Daddy". that is instruction. If a non trans person is reading a book that is titled "I am Miley" or "I am Zendaya" about their real life experiences as a non trans teen, that is instruction. I am not the one who is trying to make the distinction between the sexual orientations and gender identities. If you agree with the law provided it is applied equally, then all of it is banned.

I assume all grades have curriculum on Health or like for 3rd graders (mine does). I can see how this section can delve into "sexual orientation or gender identity" grey area discussions aka instructions.

Question - If this is correct for FL, why can't a teacher teach what is in the curriculum and, if there are more detailed questions, defer to parents?

By teaching the curriculum (I assume there are preapproved books, videos, handouts), the teacher has a good level of protection from negative consequences.

Ahhhhhhh! Now I think we can get somewhere. This goes back to whatever your answer is for question 4. I went and looked at the Georgia Health Curriculum for 3rd graders. It does not delve into sexual orientation at all because well it does not delve into sex. It does not delve into gender identity because it does not use any gendered terminology outside of a few weird exceptions (Business men and women, Boys' Club). There are no mentions about husbands, wives, mommies and daddies. Just parents/guardians. No mentions of boys,girls, brothers or sisters. Just students or children. Anyone else in the family are only known as family members. I did not see a pronoun other than "they".

If that is the way teachers are to teach, I take back everything I said and I will give my full support to the bill. That is inclusiveness at its finest. I don't know how that works for a sex ed class or frankly an language arts class, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

[miami_fan]

It is probably also a good time to address the obvious elephant in the room.

In order to give parents control over what instruction their children were getting in school, the government took away the parent's ability to consent to what instruction the parents wanted their children to receive in school and instead took it upon itself to restrict the instruction that children would receive in spite of what the parents may or may not think.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Based on what you wrote, you do not believe that teachers should be allowed to instruct on any transgender people in general, lesbian who have children, and specifically boys being allowed to clothes that are traditionally supposed to be girls' clothing. Those topics should be deferred to parents.

My response If you are agree with this law as written, you also believe that teachers should not instruct on heterosexual people in general, heterosexual people who have children and girls wearing a three pieced suit.

I'm not exactly sure I understand your first paragraph.

"Instruct on (or about?) any transgender people" or did you mean "Instruct any transgender people"

I'm going to assume its "instruct about any transgender people, lesbian who have children". If so, that is correct. Sure mention it, sure acknowledge it but if kids want to ask more detailed questions, punt to parents (or wait till middle-school). Yes, applies also on instructing about heterosexual mom & dad.

On "boys being allowed to (wear) clothes". Yes. The scenario I see would be a boy comes into class wearing a dress unexpectedly. The others are confused and/or snickers and teases.

If I was the teacher, I would tell the class to shush and not be rude, remind them the golden rule, and carry on (possibly other actions if needed).

I would then send email to parents and let them know this occurred in class. I would reach out to parents of the boy and let them know also. If I felt the need, I would also consult with school admin on best way to avoid overstepping the FL law, document the conversation, and make sure I'm covered. I maybe would ask the school admin (or other specialists) to join me in a conversation with parents so we can level set what I can or cannot do to support, or what the child should do (e.g. bring in school admin for backing and document)

My wife experiences many different situations. Some she has to make sure all parents & admin are aware. Simple example is young boy shows he wee-wee to girls and urinates (some of her kids still wear diapers). She essentially goes through above basic steps.

What are you basing this on? I don't know if you are right or wrong. I am just wondering what qualifications you believe that the parents have that the teachers don't have on the topics above.

In general, parent's care more and is invested more for their child's well being than a public school teacher. There are clearly exceptions but let's use the 80-20 rule. They may not say the right thing at the right time, but they are invested long term for their well being. Public school teachers come and go.

I'd ask you the same question.

Question - what qualifications do teachers have to "instruct" outside of the provided curriculum on those topics. Most additional instructions that I've seen my wife get are the 1 day continuing ed (?) classes where most (she says) don't pay attention anyway. Now if the 3rd grade teacher has a specific degree/qualification to teach these subjects, then sure. But suspect they are few and far between.

Do you agree with this push or not? If you do not agree, would you agree if it did not include LGBTQ?

It does come back if "instruct" = "mention". If it means "instruct" (the more detailed discussions), the answer is no, punt to parents. LGBTQ specifics isn't a criteria.

With that said, in GA there are curriculums to discuss sexual abuse (K-12 with opt out). I've got no problem with it as long as its an establish syllabus which I assume has been peer reviewed and approved (and ability to opt out).

Again, I have said it is all instruction. That second part was me trying to figure out what delineation you were making. I don't understand the concept of a teacher mentioning something as opposed to instructing. If someone is reading a book titled "Heather Has A Mommy and a Daddy". that is instruction. If a non trans person is reading a book that is titled "I am Miley" or "I am Zendaya" about their real life experiences as a non trans teen, that is instruction. I am not the one who is trying to make the distinction between the sexual orientations and gender identities. If you agree with the law provided it is applied equally, then all of it is banned.

Okay, I understand your position that everything a teacher may say in a classroom setting is instruction. We'll agree to disagree on this (e.g. "hey kids, that's my husband in that picture" is not instruction IMO).

If a teacher is reading those books (or making it an assignment) to a 3rd grader, yes that would fall under instruction to me.

And yes, the FL bill has to be consistently applied regardless of sexual orientation of the books.

Ahhhhhhh! Now I think we can get somewhere. This goes back to whatever your answer is for question 4. I went and looked at the Georgia Health Curriculum for 3rd graders. It does not delve into sexual orientation at all because well it does not delve into sex. It does not delve into gender identity because it does not use any gendered terminology outside of a few weird exceptions (Business men and women, Boys' Club). There are no mentions about husbands, wives, mommies and daddies. Just parents/guardians. No mentions of boys,girls, brothers or sisters. Just students or children. Anyone else in the family are only known as family members. I did not see a pronoun other than "they".

If that is the way teachers are to teach, I take back everything I said and I will give my full support to the bill. That is inclusiveness at its finest. I don't know how that works for a sex ed class or frankly an language arts class, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it.

It comes back to the job one has accepted. Teach the curriculum that is provided, that provides you cover. As the law is written, it applies and is consistent to both gay & straight teachers (and subjects). If it is not applied consistently, then there will be lawsuits to make it be consistent (or repealed).

Question - you did research on GA and responded on GA but did not answer the question below?

Question - Why can't a teacher teach what is in the curriculum and, if there are more detailed questions, defer to parents?

By teaching the curriculum (I assume there are preapproved books, videos, handouts), the teacher has a good level of protection from negative consequences.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

It is probably also a good time to address the obvious elephant in the room.

In order to give parents control over what instruction their children were getting in school, the government took away the parent's ability to consent to what instruction the parents wanted their children to receive in school and instead took it upon itself to restrict the instruction that children would receive in spite of what the parents may or may not think.

Sure. I believe the bill has majority support. So I'd assume the majority of parents are okay with this and are willing to wait till 4th grade.

[Edward64]

miami_fan. I think we are close (if not already) jumped the shark on this topic. I believe I have a good understanding on your POV and you have on mine, and unlikely to change each others mind on this (which is almost never the case here anyway).

I appreciate the constructive discussion.

I've asked all my questions. You may have some outstanding ones for me and I'll be glad to answer them. Let me know.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not exactly sure I understand your first paragraph.

"Instruct on (or about?) any transgender people" or did you mean "Instruct any transgender people"

I'm going to assume its "instruct about any transgender people, lesbian who have children". If so, that is correct. Sure mention it, sure acknowledge it but if kids want to ask more detailed questions, punt to parents (or wait till middle-school). Yes, applies also on instructing about heterosexual mom & dad.

As long as this is included, it works for me.

On "boys being allowed to (wear) clothes". Yes. The scenario I see would be a boy comes into class wearing a dress unexpectedly. The others are confused and/or snickers and teases.

I was actually talking about the Princess Boy book.

In general, parent's care more and is invested more for their child's well being than a public school teacher. There are clearly exceptions but let's use the 80-20 rule. They may not say the right thing at the right time, but they are invested long term for their well being.

As a person who write and talks about human sexuality, saying the wrong thing at the wrong time can have long tern effects. That being said, I do not have any objections to a parent deciding they want to take the responsibility instead of allowing the teacher to do so. in this area. I also don't have any objections to parents deciding they don't feel equipped to have that conversation and prefer that the teacher handles it for them. That first group still have their option. The second group no longer does.

Question - what qualifications do teachers have to "instruct" outside of the provided curriculum on those topics. Most additional instructions that I've seen my wife get are the 1 day continuing ed (?) classes where most (she says) don't pay attention anyway. Now if the 3rd grade teacher has a specific degree/qualification to teach these subjects, then sure. But suspect they are few and far between.

Last year, the school brought in a nurse practitioner who according to her bio which we received from the school has been working with the county for at least 10 years in this area.

Question - Why can't a teacher teach what is in the curriculum and, if there are more detailed questions, defer to parents?

By teaching the curriculum (I assume there are preapproved books, videos, handouts), the teacher has a good level of protection from negative consequences.

I did. It is why it all made sense to me at the end. If the curriculum, lesson plans and the teacher's presentation all match what was in the standards, I am enthusiastically fine with it. Let me give you some examples of what I am talking about straight from the GA 3rd grade health standards. The highlighting is mine for emphasis.

Recognize the role that a parent or guardian plays in caring for a child.
List family members, school personnel, and community leaders (e.g., health
experts, legal and medical professionals, business men and women, volunteer and
service agencies and civic groups) that are good resources of valid health
information
Discuss how adults can help an individual avoid tobacco
Describe the health implications of students after school activity choices.
Share with family members suggestions for conserving water in their daily
practices.
Share with family members suggestions for conserving water in their daily
practices.

See what I mean. None of those elements of the standards have any sexual orientation or gender identity attached to it with the exception of business men and women. That is what it actually looks like. If a teacher can teach any subject in this style much less a health and/or sex ed class, we should probably pay them way more money we already believe they should be paid.

[Flasch186]

Weird

I can’t find where anything referencing heterosexual stuff in the local student councils behaviors surrounding the statute. I must be missing it….

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/...ghPbLCUL1Nnkbo




I guess I’ll just go find some obscure thing on a website somewhere regarding ages that aren’t what we’re talking about because legislation creep and law and windfalls. 🤦‍♂️.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Weird

I can’t find where anything referencing heterosexual stuff in the local student councils behaviors surrounding the statute. I must be missing it….

Duval School Board OKs new policy to line up with controversial state law critics say could harm LGBTQ+ students

Because referencing only heterosexuals stuff would be discriminatory?

I guess I’ll just go find some obscure thing on a website somewhere regarding ages that aren’t what we’re talking about because legislation creep and law and windfalls. ��‍♂️.

Nah, spend the time to let us know why you are against this statute? I've reposted from the article, if there are more relevant passages, post them.

“The State of Florida has determined that it is a fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their minor children. The State has further determined that certain information relating to a minor child should not be withheld, either inadvertently or purposefully, from their parent, including information relating to the minor child’s health, well-being, and education, while the minor child is in the custody of the school district.”

“Further, district personnel are required to encourage students to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to try and facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent,”

[Flasch186]

I’ve explained it ad nauseam time and again in multiple threads and haven’t moved my goal posts once.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Maybe on related matters but certainly not on this statute itself since the article is from Jul 11-12. But whatever.

[Flasch186]

Again

The bill is aiming to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and is simply a bogeyman in extreme fearing homophobic, transphobic, conspiracy adherents and written in a nebulous way that affords so much liability to a teacher in saying anything that might set off one of those mentioned above that the pall cast (and many people will believe it’s all instructing when it threatens their own ignorant totems) will keep teachers on egg shells and attempting to avoid anything remotely close to anything that will closely touch on anything that could be construed as offending the snowflakes that call others Snowflakes (sound familiar to when I explained this to you last time?). Now your counter is they’ll sue and get a windfall but someone else pointed out that 99.9% of teachers won’t be able to their career, mental health, and physical safety fighting it but you’ve literally ignored all of these things on your way to the sand.


It’ll be hilarious when someone Sues a teacher for mentioning their hetero partner same as when a Muslim football coach unfolds their prayer rug on the 50.

In 3rd grade they mention body odor in health class… guess what? That falls under the categories mentioned on the statute because it’s written so purposely as to catch literally any fish in the net so that teachers actually don’t want to teach.

Just another way for those claiming that they don’t want to be controlled to control others that aren’t just like them.

But whatever, go grab an article from one county in one place in time that might’ve had one teacher say something sticky and justify the isms captured in the statute and intentions of the gop/Q/Tucker Karen’s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[flere-imsaho]

This bill is exactly the kind of thing where people look back years later and say "yeah, I guess that really was a warning of an impending theocratic fascist state".

[sterlingice]

I always wonder what percentage of people are genuinely naive and how many are tacitly (if not openly) ok with the downstream implications. Like, how many will look back at this with surprised Pikachu face and how many just know they're not supposed to say the quiet part loud to get the first group to go along with them and enjoy the sports aspect of arguing in bad faith to "win".

SI

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Again

The bill is aiming to fix a problem that doesn’t exist and is simply a bogeyman in extreme fearing homophobic, transphobic, conspiracy adherents and written in a nebulous way that affords so much liability to a teacher in saying anything that might set off one of those mentioned above that the pall cast (and many people will believe it’s all instructing when it threatens their own ignorant totems) will keep teachers on egg shells and attempting to avoid anything remotely close to anything that will closely touch on anything that could be construed as offending the snowflakes that call others Snowflakes (sound familiar to when I explained this to you last time?). Now your counter is they’ll sue and get a windfall but someone else pointed out that 99.9% of teachers won’t be able to their career, mental health, and physical safety fighting it but you’ve literally ignored all of these things on your way to the sand.


It’ll be hilarious when someone Sues a teacher for mentioning their hetero partner same as when a Muslim football coach unfolds their prayer rug on the 50.

In 3rd grade they mention body odor in health class… guess what? That falls under the categories mentioned on the statute because it’s written so purposely as to catch literally any fish in the net so that teachers actually don’t want to teach.

Just another way for those claiming that they don’t want to be controlled to control others that aren’t just like them.

But whatever, go grab an article from one county in one place in time that might’ve had one teacher say something sticky and justify the isms captured in the statute and intentions of the gop/Q/Tucker Karen’s.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think you see these issues primarily from the lens of a LGBTQ advocate.

I see these issues primarily from the lens of a parent.

I'll leave it at that unless you do want to have further discussions.

[Flasch186]

I see this things through a viewpoint of equal rights for all

Anything but you can couch any way you want but you weren’t raising a stink when people mention/instruct their spouse as their spouse when bringing the teacher their lunch they forgot to class when Hetero

But

You are failing to recognize that the same introduction from someone that is not Hetero runs the risk of the things I mentioned above

I’m a parent too so that argument is doa

I’m just not asll of the isms couched in unrealistic fears that have been propagated by the right that teachers are libs and therefore groomers

I’m not even kidding that is what they are doing and you’re defending and you’ve almost admitted it but you just can’t get there because admiring it finally, actually saying the words, would be a bridge too far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Okay, assume you do want to have a discussion.

The article with the statute says this. If there is more that you think is relevant, please post.

“The State of Florida has determined that it is a fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their minor children. The State has further determined that certain information relating to a minor child should not be withheld, either inadvertently or purposefully, from their parent, including information relating to the minor child’s health, well-being, and education, while the minor child is in the custody of the school district.”

“Further, district personnel are required to encourage students to discuss issues relating to his or her well-being with his or her parent or to try and facilitate discussion of the issue with the parent,”

As with the "Don't Say Gay" bill, the above is neutral and not pointed explicitly towards LGBTQ or heterosexuals. Me, as a parent, would want to know everything the school personnel knows about my child's "health, well-being, and education" and would definitely appreciate school personnel to "try and facilitate discussions of the issue with the parent".

What is wrong with this?

I'm assuming you'll provide some scenarios about LGBTQ kids not wanting to share their their challenges with school personnel if they know the school will need to inform the parents about this?

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, suicidal, approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

[Flasch186]

You’re conflating the article and the statute

The article is simply showing you the reality of the bill cascading over the state

You admitted the statute was created for this exact purpose of playing to the exact category and feelings of the fearful right previously, yet now you’re playing the “they’re not specifically mentioning lgbtq+?” If that’s not disingenuous and moving goal posts I don’t know what is.

No one is talking about the feelings of the kids in the statute

We’re talking about mention/instruction and you parsed the heck out of that and teachers have to steer clear of anything close to touching on anything to do with sex, sexuality, gender, etc for fear that a snowflake that calls others snowflakes will sue because someone introduced the same sex lunch bringer as their husband or wife.

If a kids suicidal and a teacher know it or suspects it there’s protocols in place

You’re just throwing spaghetti against a wall to make up for the fact that you’re afraid that a teacher, in a position of mentorship, might have a lifestyle or acceptance if lifestyles that are anything but the expected.

That’s not what’s in the statute and you admitted that it will be cleaned up in the courts and the argument of that is just crap because on the way to the court house the teacher lost their career, lost their privacy and possibly lost their life.

All because the pol played to the base that can’t stop being scared of everything that isn’t exactly like them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

You’re conflating the article and the statute

The article is simply showing you the reality of the bill cascading over the state

Okay, I think I understand. You really don't want to talk about the merits of the Duval School Board policy per the article you linked. My bad, I thought you did want to talk specifically about Duval.

But understand you are just using it as an example of how the "Don't Say Gay" bill cascades/has repercussions over the state.

I'll pivot my discussions specifically back to the "Don't Say Gay" bill. Please let me know if I'm mistaken again.

You admitted the statute was created for this exact purpose of playing to the exact category and feelings of the fearful right previously, yet now you’re playing the “they’re not specifically mentioning lgbtq+?” If that’s not disingenuous and moving goal posts I don’t know what is.

Honestly, I don't know what you are saying. When you say the highlighted, I've consistently said the FL bill specifically is neutral and does not say LGBTQ or heterosexual. This is because it would not have passed if it called out LGBTQ (which is correct). So why is that disingenuous and moving goal posts?

No one is talking about the feelings of the kids in the statute

If we are still talking about 3rd graders, I think the assumption is the parents will know best for the kids and will know best how to deal with their feelings.

We’re talking about mention/instruction and you parsed the heck out of that and teachers have to steer clear of anything close to touching on anything to do with sex, sexuality, gender, etc for fear that a snowflake that calls others snowflakes will sue because someone introduced the same sex lunch bringer as their husband or wife.

I've said

1) There is a difference between "instruct" and "mention" (so do not agree with your characterization of "close to touching on anything". A gay teacher can introduce his/her gay spouse to kids with no repercussions)
2) Teachers should teach what is in the approved curriculum
3) Teachers will likely get some questions from kids, where if they answered, they would be overstepping the FL law. Therefore, I've said defer to parents

If a kids suicidal and a teacher know it or suspects it there’s protocols in place

That's great (and I mean that). How about rest of my sentence

My scenario is if my child was feeling depressed, bullied, suicidal, approached school nurse about being pregnant etc. I would want the school to inform the parents.

You’re just throwing spaghetti against a wall to make up for the fact that you’re afraid that a teacher, in a position of mentorship, might have a lifestyle or acceptance if lifestyles that are anything but the expected.

You're entitled to your opinions but I'll just copy-and-paste the relevant sections on my discussion with miami_fan

In general, parent's care more and is invested more for their child's well being than a public school teacher. There are clearly exceptions but let's use the 80-20 rule. They may not say the right thing at the right time, but they are invested long term for their well being. Public school teachers come and go.

what qualifications do teachers have to "instruct" outside of the provided curriculum on those topics. Most additional instructions that I've seen my wife get are the 1 day continuing ed (?) classes where most (she says) don't pay attention anyway. Now if the 3rd grade teacher has a specific degree/qualification to teach these subjects, then sure. But suspect they are few and far between.

That’s not what’s in the statute and you admitted that it will be cleaned up in the courts and the argument of that is just crap because on the way to the court house the teacher lost their career, lost their privacy and possibly lost their life.

That is true but my response was to Duval Board policy (which does have mentioned per my quotes on it) which I thought you wanted to talk about since you linked it.

All because the pol played to the base that can’t stop being scared of everything that isn’t exactly like them

Scared is too strong of a word. But yes, I am concerned about what a teacher will teach or say to a 3rd grader regarding "sexual orientation or gender identity".

Miami_fan has shared his credentials and I can easily accept he is qualified to discuss these things with the 3rd grader. But how many teachers have near the credentials he has?

[Flasch186]

Spoiler

It’s disingenuous because you lend credence to the idea that the contrived neutrality is the authentic part and not the attempt to wash out the lgbtq+ and then continue to drag out the drivel of equivalency and then spend hours defending the indefensible as if the legislation is anything but *phobic propaganda.

It isn’t

People are going to die because of it and there was never any true problem other then the crap one can drum up on the obscure one off article to scare the tribe into a a feeding frenzy.

It’s disingenuous of you. You’ve played both coins in subsequent arguments that you know the legislation was *phobic legislation, you support it on the one hand then want it to be cleaned up by the victims of the ridiculous grays in the areas and expense, risk, and pay, for a lawyer subsidized windfall all the while claiming to be misunderstood.

It’s gaslighting at it’s finest, goal post moving du jour, and it’ll queue up the next ☯️ post of being misunderstood, talking about something we aren’t talking about, not understanding what’s being said, and conflating a mix match off the buffet instead of just trying to the bottom of it and your feelings about those groomers.

Dont want to be suspended so I put this behind a Viewers choice html so you had to actually want to see it by clicking versus me putting it in your face

Sent from my iPhone using

[Edward64]

It’s disingenuous because you lend credence to the idea that the contrived neutrality is the authentic part and not the attempt to wash out the lgbtq+ and then continue to drag out the drivel of equivalency and then spend hours defending the indefensible as if the legislation is anything but *phobic propaganda.

It isn’t

Yes, I have said the politicians' intent of the Don't Say Gay bill was directed towards LGBTQ but the substance of the final version of the Parental Rights in Education bill is fine with me as legally, it applies to both LGBTQ and heterosexuals.

So think of it this way. Proposed bill was bad --> Lots of discussions & negotiations --> final bill is pretty good.

People are going to die because of it and there was never any true problem other then the crap one can drum up on the obscure one off article to scare the tribe into a a feeding frenzy.

A 3rd grader is going to die because of this? Can you explain how this will happen from this bill specifically?

It’s disingenuous of you. You’ve played both coins in subsequent arguments that you know the legislation was *phobic legislation, you support it on the one hand then want it to be cleaned up by the victims of the ridiculous grays in the areas and expense, risk, and pay, for a lawyer subsidized windfall all the while claiming to be misunderstood.

I personally don't think it's disingenuous when I've been transparent. I'll just repost above.

Yes, I have said the politicians' intent of the Don't Say Gay bill was directed towards LGBTQ but the substance of the final version of the Parental Rights in Education bill is fine with me as legally, it applies to both LGBTQ and heterosexuals.

So think of it this way. Proposed bill was bad --> Lots of discussions & negotiations --> final bill is pretty good (and not discriminatory).

It’s gaslighting at it’s finest, goal post moving du jour, and it’ll queue up the next ☯️ post of being misunderstood, talking about something we aren’t talking about, not understanding what’s being said, and conflating a mix match off the buffet instead of just trying to the bottom of it and your feelings about those groomers.

Okay, we'll discuss when you get time to write it up.

Dont want to be suspended so I put this behind a Viewers choice html so you had to actually want to see it by clicking versus me putting it in your face

Spoiler tag to avoid being suspended? You've articulated your points and I believe the criteria for suspension is to personally attack but from what I remember reading, that is somewhat ambiguous nowadays and open to the mods interpretation.

But as always (and in anticipation of someone calling my responses trolling), I reserve the right to return sarcasm for sarcasm, and insult for insult.

[Edward64]

2 questions for you -

1) Do you believe that "instruct" = "mention". An example is a gay teacher introduces his gay spouse as his husband and you believe can get reprimanded/fired. I'm pretty sure from your posts above the answer is yes, but want to establish a clear baseline now.

2) The bill deals with 3rd graders and below. Why do you believe teachers are better than parents in discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" topics with their 3rd grader?

[Flasch186]

Spoiler

I’ve already described how people will die

When a teacher goes to court and is attacked by a loon

When an lgbtq+ person is attacked involving the tangent of their kid or another under the new focus on removing any reference to their identity at all

Instruction v mention is going to be in the eye of the ‘attacker/plaintiff’ and yes I think that anything remotely close to *off* to them will be viewed as instruction (which is the point of the opaque code of words) so that that can be attacked. So yes, in this exact prism it is the point that they are going to be the same in the thousands of rooms that you won’t be sitting in to pass your judgment on. Going to court won’t be an option for 99.999999999999% of this so cleaning it up at risk cost and fear is not going to happen (and you’ve been told this over and over and over) but you refuse to even acknowledge it even though you admit to all of the pieces of the wall but just that there’s no wall, only pieces.

Just me having to respond to that is exactly what I’m saying. You act like it’s new info and hasn’t been talked about to you in threads you’re heavily active in and in ones you create yourself solely for one specific topic. Clearly you’re not dumb so that is disingenuous as well when you act like you have blinders on and can’t look out one ripple from where the rock splashed in.

Yes I was suspended once for having a similar discussion that was some how interpreted as No value I guess so I’m not sure what is too pointed and what isn’t when the other party to the discussion was doing exactly what we were saying he was doing. I don’t want to get suspended so I’m glad you said in writing you invite the discussion, friction and all. Perhaps the mods will read it and be ok with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I’ve already described how people will die

Huh? please provide your quote where you have previously told me this? I honestly don't see it in prior posts

When a teacher goes to court and is attacked by a loon

You are referring to the teacher and not the 3rd grader. You are extrapolating that this may happen ...

1) A teacher "instructs" a 3rd grader on "sexual orientation or gender identity"
2) A parent/student complains about it and the teacher is reprimanded or fired
3) The teacher takes the state of FL to court
4) The teacher is killed/murdered (lets not change your orig wording from "die" to "attacked") by a loon because he/she brought this lawsuit

Wonder what the odds of this happening is. Can you provide a similar example in recent times (let's since 2000's) of a gay 3rd grade teacher who was murdered because of teaching/instructing a child?

When an lgbtq+ person is attacked involving the tangent of their kid or another under the new focus on removing any reference to their identity at all

I see you are moving the goal posts some here. What is "removing any reference to their (I assume the 3rd graders) identity" have anything to do with the bill? The bill is asking the teacher to teach the approved curriculum and if there are questions outside of it re: sexual orientation or gender identity, to let the parents handle it.

Instruction v mention is going to be in the eye of the ‘attacker/plaintiff’ and yes I think that anything remotely close to *off* to them will be viewed as instruction (which is the point of the opaque code of words) so that that can be attacked. So yes, in this exact prism it is the point that they are going to be the same in the thousands of rooms that you won’t be sitting in to pass your judgment on. Going to court won’t be an option for 99.999999999999% of this so cleaning it up at risk cost and fear is not going to happen (and you’ve been told this over and over and over) but you refuse to even acknowledge it even though you admit to all of the pieces of the wall but just that there’s no wall, only pieces.

Yup definitely a fundamental difference of opinion.

Just me having to respond to that is exactly what I’m saying. You act like it’s new info and hasn’t been talked about to you in threads you’re heavily active in and in ones you create yourself solely for one specific topic. Clearly you’re not dumb so that is disingenuous as well when you act like you have blinders on and can’t look out one ripple from where the rock splashed in.

The FL law is new (at least to me). No I do not remember being involved prior discussions here at FOFC re: "talked about to you in threads you're heavily active in". If I am wrong, please quote me somewhere and I'll concede the point.

Yes I was suspended once for having a similar discussion that was some how interpreted as No value I guess so I’m not sure what is too pointed and what isn’t when the other party to the discussion was doing exactly what we were saying he was doing. I don’t want to get suspended so I’m glad you said in writing you invite the discussion, friction and all. Perhaps the mods will read it and be ok with it.

Okay, no context. Did you personally insult someone? I've always heard that was the red line.

I would still appreciate answers to my questions:

1) Do you believe that "instruct" = "mention". An example is a gay teacher introduces his gay spouse as his husband and you believe can get reprimanded/fired. I'm pretty sure from your posts above the answer is yes, but want to establish a clear baseline now. - Ans: Yes

2) The bill deals with 3rd graders and below. Why do you believe teachers are better than parents in discussing "sexual orientation or gender identity" topics with their 3rd grader?

3) I can extrapolate what you mean by gaslighting. But still waiting on goal post moving

It’s gaslighting at it’s finest, goal post moving du jour, and it’ll queue up the next ☯️ post of being misunderstood, talking about something we aren’t talking about, not understanding what’s being said, and conflating a mix match off the buffet instead of just trying to the bottom of it and your feelings about those groomers.