Apple's Tim Cook raises concern over LGBTQ laws in the U.S.(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Apple's Tim Cook raises concern over LGBTQ laws in the U.S.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/apples-tim-cook-raises-concern-over-lgbtq-laws-us-2022-03-11/
72 comments
> seem incredibly common sense
The word “or” in 1001.42 § 8(c)(3) [1], which bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate,” looks problematic. (Emphasis mine.)
Nix that word and the statute is fine. With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. They can’t read a storybook about two married men or women doing dishes. That seems excessive.
[1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... top of page 3
The word “or” in 1001.42 § 8(c)(3) [1], which bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate,” looks problematic. (Emphasis mine.)
Nix that word and the statute is fine. With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. They can’t read a storybook about two married men or women doing dishes. That seems excessive.
[1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... top of page 3
> With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay.
I would expect them to say nothing other than "ask your parents" and I don't know why anyone would think anything else makes sense.
I would expect them to say nothing other than "ask your parents" and I don't know why anyone would think anything else makes sense.
I have a problem with it being taboo. It's not a talk about the birds and the bees and can absolutely be addressed in an age-appropriate manner.
You conveniently left out the part that says : "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."
And that parents may sue a school over it.
I did not.
If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable then we fundamentally disagree at a moral level.
If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable then we fundamentally disagree at a moral level.
It's not clear if you're intentionally trying to conflate kindergartners, with all school children.
There's a lot of things in life that are not suitable for kindergartners, but are suitable and appropriate for other school age children, I believe driving trucks is one such thing in America. If your only argument against those things is "well its not appropriate for kindergarten" when the law is not only covering kindergarten, then it feels like you're confused about what this law you support says.
Maybe thats why you can't understand people's reactions to it?
There's a lot of things in life that are not suitable for kindergartners, but are suitable and appropriate for other school age children, I believe driving trucks is one such thing in America. If your only argument against those things is "well its not appropriate for kindergarten" when the law is not only covering kindergarten, then it feels like you're confused about what this law you support says.
Maybe thats why you can't understand people's reactions to it?
Not conflating anything.
The bill specifically only relates to primary grades, which includes kindergarten, and doesn't include older students, such as anyone of truck driving age, as you conflated.
I'm not confused. It seems totally practical. If parents disagree on the appropriateness of a topic for young children the most amenable response is to not discuss that topic in the classroom. It's a can of worms best left unopened for young kids.
Parents saying let's focus on Art, Reading, STEM skills in school is reasonable.
The bill specifically only relates to primary grades, which includes kindergarten, and doesn't include older students, such as anyone of truck driving age, as you conflated.
I'm not confused. It seems totally practical. If parents disagree on the appropriateness of a topic for young children the most amenable response is to not discuss that topic in the classroom. It's a can of worms best left unopened for young kids.
Parents saying let's focus on Art, Reading, STEM skills in school is reasonable.
Why does the bill refer to school boards being forced to give access to all education records of "minor children" (which in Florida is anyone under the age of 18). Either the bill is really poorly drafted, or you have no idea what it says.
I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.
I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.
> may not
prohibit a parent from accessing any of his or her minor child's education records created, maintained, or used by the school
district.
How is this controversial?
Are you saying parents should not have access to their child's public school records?
How is this controversial?
Are you saying parents should not have access to their child's public school records?
Well, according to you they won't have that ability once they leave primary since this bill doesn't apply to older kids.
Why are the Florida Republicans saying that parents should not have unrestricted access to their child's public school records in their teenage years? Doesn't really seem like something they would say but you seem quite adamant on this point so I'm going to cave and accept your interpretation.
Why are the Florida Republicans saying that parents should not have unrestricted access to their child's public school records in their teenage years? Doesn't really seem like something they would say but you seem quite adamant on this point so I'm going to cave and accept your interpretation.
> conflate kindergartners, with all school children
It appears the bill is concerned with K through 2 and has the caveat of age and developmental appropriateness.
I don’t think it bans a teacher reading a storybook with a gay couple doing dishes together. (EDIT: never mind, it bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” [1].)
[1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... 1001.42 § 8(c)(3)
It appears the bill is concerned with K through 2 and has the caveat of age and developmental appropriateness.
I don’t think it bans a teacher reading a storybook with a gay couple doing dishes together. (EDIT: never mind, it bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” [1].)
[1] https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/filed... 1001.42 § 8(c)(3)
It doesn't explicitly. But in practice it would. If a kid asks "Why are there two daddies in the book?", a huge can of worms is opened. It'll be selectively applied by people with political motivations and administrators fearing (or facing) backlash and violent threats from parents.
Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fir...
Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assistant-principal-fir...
Why do you think it wouldn't ban that? What if a kid says, "why are there two daddies in that story?" Or goes home to their parents and says, "my teacher read us a story about two daddies".
Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received.
In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.
Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received.
In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.
The bill specifically says no mention of sex or gender in primary 'or' no age inappropriateness with no year specified.
If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.
If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.
You’re right. Thank you.
Kindergartners discuss sexual orientation all the time; it's extremely common for them to "play house" with an imaginary spouse or to read about married couples in books or to see them portrayed in movies or TV shows. Not all of the fantasy life of kindergartners revolves around sexual orientation—much of it is instead built around fantastic monsters, sports, animals that actually exist, killing people, and driving large earthmoving machines—but it's very common for it to center on sexual orientation in these ways. Moreover, many of them live with married adult couples, so they are exposed to their sexual orientation on a daily basis, and they talk about it with each other.
What would you do if you saw two kindergartners playing house, either as husband and wife or with one of them referring to her imaginary husband? Would you really tell them it was "completely unacceptable" because it involves heterosexuality?
What would you do if you saw two kindergartners playing house, either as husband and wife or with one of them referring to her imaginary husband? Would you really tell them it was "completely unacceptable" because it involves heterosexuality?
> I did not.
You selectively quoted from the law. From your original post: "Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2." However, the actual text of the law is: "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
> If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable
This is a huge part of the problem - you're presuming it's just about "sexual" content when it's also about gender identity (they are not related). But the broader point you miss is that "Johnny has two daddies" is inappropriately considered "sexual" by the right-wing in America. And that is a huge issue.
Take a personal example, if you will: my husband is a teacher (and I am a man). If a similar law were to pass in our state, the law as-written would likely preclude him from mentioning anything about me at all to the students, while straight teachers would face no such limitations regarding their relationships. Because some people think any discussion of LGBT people in any capacity is inherently "sexual."
You selectively quoted from the law. From your original post: "Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2." However, the actual text of the law is: "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
> If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable
This is a huge part of the problem - you're presuming it's just about "sexual" content when it's also about gender identity (they are not related). But the broader point you miss is that "Johnny has two daddies" is inappropriately considered "sexual" by the right-wing in America. And that is a huge issue.
Take a personal example, if you will: my husband is a teacher (and I am a man). If a similar law were to pass in our state, the law as-written would likely preclude him from mentioning anything about me at all to the students, while straight teachers would face no such limitations regarding their relationships. Because some people think any discussion of LGBT people in any capacity is inherently "sexual."
> A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students
> sexual orientation: a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted;
Perhaps everything, even text, is a form of Rorschach test that we personally interpret.
Sexual attraction discussion just seems inappropriate for primary school regardless of orientation.
When I read the bill's text it seems to me that it's saying:
A teacher shouldn't bring up the topics of sexual orientation, regardless of that orientation, be it straight, gay, or otherwise for a classroom discussion.
Such as, "Hello class, Today we are going to discuss sexual orientation."
Discouraging that seems reasonable if parents are uncomfortable with it for their young children.
I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Taken from the opposite angle. Would you like to have a teacher provide their personal perspective on sexual orientation? What if that teacher was homophobic?
Sexual orientation seems like a personal choice that's best just left out of the classroom entirely.
Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
> sexual orientation: a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted;
Perhaps everything, even text, is a form of Rorschach test that we personally interpret.
Sexual attraction discussion just seems inappropriate for primary school regardless of orientation.
When I read the bill's text it seems to me that it's saying:
A teacher shouldn't bring up the topics of sexual orientation, regardless of that orientation, be it straight, gay, or otherwise for a classroom discussion.
Such as, "Hello class, Today we are going to discuss sexual orientation."
Discouraging that seems reasonable if parents are uncomfortable with it for their young children.
I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Taken from the opposite angle. Would you like to have a teacher provide their personal perspective on sexual orientation? What if that teacher was homophobic?
Sexual orientation seems like a personal choice that's best just left out of the classroom entirely.
Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
> I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse.
I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc.
The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied.
> If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary.
> Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.
I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc.
The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied.
> If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary.
> Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.
Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
> e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
I'm fascinated by what you mean here.
> Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"?
There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual.
However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right.
There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.
I'm fascinated by what you mean here.
> Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"?
There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual.
However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right.
There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.
> The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law
Well, straight couples were the first to get their affectionate relationships recognized and regulated under the law. They've been "normalized", as you say, for millennia. Same-sex marriage is still a very novel concept, only a few years old in the U.S. and most of the Western world. It's not surprising that people are confused by it. So, it's not surprising that same-sex people might have to clarify that they're talking about something (legal marriage) that is, functionally, entirely akin to sworn brotherhood.
Well, straight couples were the first to get their affectionate relationships recognized and regulated under the law. They've been "normalized", as you say, for millennia. Same-sex marriage is still a very novel concept, only a few years old in the U.S. and most of the Western world. It's not surprising that people are confused by it. So, it's not surprising that same-sex people might have to clarify that they're talking about something (legal marriage) that is, functionally, entirely akin to sworn brotherhood.
Your phrase “discussing sexual content” strikes me as really odd. If you discuss a “traditional” relationship with a 5 year old, you’re already discussing sexual content on the same level & terms that you would use if you were talking about sexual orientation and gender identity.
seems good to me. kids at that age are too young for those kinds of discussions, and could be mentally warped by them.
[deleted]
That rule seems common sense too. I’d want that at my kids school.
As a non American I don’t understand your collective love of suing, what would a better recourse here be?
As a non American I don’t understand your collective love of suing, what would a better recourse here be?
[deleted]
> that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students
You're quoting it like it's an issue, but I'm not seeing one.
Teaching sexuality to young children is tantamount to abuse, in my opinion. Obviously that sentiment is not shared by everyone, but that's why it shouldn't be forced on kids without their parent's consent.
You're quoting it like it's an issue, but I'm not seeing one.
Teaching sexuality to young children is tantamount to abuse, in my opinion. Obviously that sentiment is not shared by everyone, but that's why it shouldn't be forced on kids without their parent's consent.
That's ridiculous. Kids start asking questions about sex as soon as they or one of their friends mother gets pregnant and they deserve honest answers and they can handle it, probably better than many grown-ups.
That doesn't mean they need to know about all or even most aspects of sexuality, but some basic and factual knowledge doesn't hurt.
What does "Teaching sexuality to children" mean to you? Is talking about marriage "teaching sexuality"?
WTF do you think they teach? Sexuality at that age group is mostly stuff like "if somebody touches you there or takes pictures of you without your clothes on, tell somebody".
and you're conveniently leaving out the ages of the students this is targeting: 3rd grade and below. 8 years or younger.
There's no reason students that age should be taught about sexuality's and gender by anyone other than their parents and I'm continually creeped out by the ever-larger contingent of teachers who _insist they must_ be able to talk to my 5 year old nephew about sex.
There's no reason students that age should be taught about sexuality's and gender by anyone other than their parents and I'm continually creeped out by the ever-larger contingent of teachers who _insist they must_ be able to talk to my 5 year old nephew about sex.
Gender? If a kid has a friend who is non binary, or has a trans friend, and asks their teachers about it you think it's inappropriate for the teacher to say, "well, some people are boys, some people are girls, some people are neither, and we try to make sure we respect each other."
No, not all parents would be OK with you teaching their children that, and that is their absolute right.
Would you be uncomfortable with your school teaching that we should respect redheads, even though they aren't common?
Red hair is about 1 to 2 percent of humans. This is roughly the estimate for trans and non binary folks.
Pretty monstrous to teach kids anything other than "respect your neighbor", especially if they are very likely to encounter trans and non binary people.
Ignoring the existence of non binary folks doesn't make them not exist, any more than ignoring red heads does.
Red hair is about 1 to 2 percent of humans. This is roughly the estimate for trans and non binary folks.
Pretty monstrous to teach kids anything other than "respect your neighbor", especially if they are very likely to encounter trans and non binary people.
Ignoring the existence of non binary folks doesn't make them not exist, any more than ignoring red heads does.
[deleted]
The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that.
Unpacking the accurate phrase "some people feel they are neither and their views should be respected" for a five year old or even an eight year old is not reasonable territory for a primary school teacher whose only training on the matter is political.
Unpacking the accurate phrase "some people feel they are neither and their views should be respected" for a five year old or even an eight year old is not reasonable territory for a primary school teacher whose only training on the matter is political.
It's not science denial. Biology has all sorts of instances of more than two sexes. Humans have at least a dozen different genetic configurations that affect their sex organs and hormonal development in a visible way.
Here's a diagram of a few: https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png
And that's just a narrow view of sexes through the lens of biology. Social science, anthropology, neurology, medicine, psychology, endocrinology and basically every other science that interfaces with human bodies generally agrees that sex is not binary in humans.
Once you've updated your understanding of what the science says on sex, come back and we can talk about gender, and how science agrees that gender is not only not a binary concept, it's purely a social concept.
Here's a diagram of a few: https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png
And that's just a narrow view of sexes through the lens of biology. Social science, anthropology, neurology, medicine, psychology, endocrinology and basically every other science that interfaces with human bodies generally agrees that sex is not binary in humans.
Once you've updated your understanding of what the science says on sex, come back and we can talk about gender, and how science agrees that gender is not only not a binary concept, it's purely a social concept.
Teaching children to respect other's views is very much something that I want schools to do. What's the legitimate alternative? What should the teacher say there?
> The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that.
So - imagine that little Timmy has religious parents, and thus believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (a not-uncommon belief held in the fundamentalist Christian community). Suppose then that little Susie overhears it and asks the teacher about why her parents told her that life evolved gradually over the course of eons.
In my mind, an appropriate response could be "some people believe that the universe was created by a deity, and their views should be respected." But you've indicated that "some people believe <x> and their views should be respected" is in fact inappropriate.
What would you suggest be done, otherwise?
> The problem is, that's science-denial, so yes, it would be inappropriate for the teacher to say that.
So - imagine that little Timmy has religious parents, and thus believes that God created the heavens and the earth in six literal days (a not-uncommon belief held in the fundamentalist Christian community). Suppose then that little Susie overhears it and asks the teacher about why her parents told her that life evolved gradually over the course of eons.
In my mind, an appropriate response could be "some people believe that the universe was created by a deity, and their views should be respected." But you've indicated that "some people believe <x> and their views should be respected" is in fact inappropriate.
What would you suggest be done, otherwise?
> discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate
> or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate
That conditional - that "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate" means the law isn't actually just targeting 3rd grade and below. It's targeting whatever "is not age-appropriate" means, which conveniently isn't defined in the law.
It's a huge hole in the law, and absolutely leaves it open to be applied at any grade-level. And remember, "Johnny has two daddies" and nothing else is frequently termed as "sexual" by people with an axe to grind.
Case in point: in my own life, my aunt told me that she didn't want me to be around her children if I ever had a boyfriend, and that if I brought the boyfriend home to a holiday then her kids couldn't be there. Just ... existing! That's the problematic mindset that a lot of people still have, and this law gives them a huge window to attack LGBTQ+ people in schools with it.
> or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate
That conditional - that "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate" means the law isn't actually just targeting 3rd grade and below. It's targeting whatever "is not age-appropriate" means, which conveniently isn't defined in the law.
It's a huge hole in the law, and absolutely leaves it open to be applied at any grade-level. And remember, "Johnny has two daddies" and nothing else is frequently termed as "sexual" by people with an axe to grind.
Case in point: in my own life, my aunt told me that she didn't want me to be around her children if I ever had a boyfriend, and that if I brought the boyfriend home to a holiday then her kids couldn't be there. Just ... existing! That's the problematic mindset that a lot of people still have, and this law gives them a huge window to attack LGBTQ+ people in schools with it.
[deleted]
Leaving out the ambiguous and vague language seems to be a huge GOP talking point. K-2 "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate". It's purposely and needlessly vague. If it applied to ONLY K-2 that would be an entirely different story.
The same thing was done with the GA voter laws. Reality left the building...
Primary grade in the US isn't K-2, it could mean anything from K-4, or even K-7. Not sure why the bill isn't more specific.
it might have a specific meaning in Florida, where the bill will take effect?
You're right, it's through grade 3 per this site: https://www.fldoe.org/teaching/certification/certificate-sub...
I know nothing about this issue, but can tell from a quick read through, that that's a bad summary.
It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy.
I'm going to go with 'its a bad law' as my prior on this.
It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy.
I'm going to go with 'its a bad law' as my prior on this.
>It's fairly unusual for CEOs to get involved like this which suggests it's a bad law or the whole world has gone crazy.
Or all the people briefing the CEO live in the same filter bubble and have advised them that this is a fight worth picking. Cook has kept his mouth shut on a lot of adjacent, sometimes even more egregious, issues over the past few years so I think it's a bit foolish to think that the advice these guys are getting plays no role.
Or all the people briefing the CEO live in the same filter bubble and have advised them that this is a fight worth picking. Cook has kept his mouth shut on a lot of adjacent, sometimes even more egregious, issues over the past few years so I think it's a bit foolish to think that the advice these guys are getting plays no role.
I did mention the "world has gone crazy" option that the person I replied to seems to believe.
I'd file "CEOs of both Apple and Disney wading into a Florida political battle about sexuality and education by mistake because they didn't bother to read the text of the law they're protesting about" under that same "world has gone crazy" heading. Luckily for us, it seems that it's just Republicans being intentionally vague in order to pass laws that wouldn't pass if they spelled out what they actually mean.
I'd file "CEOs of both Apple and Disney wading into a Florida political battle about sexuality and education by mistake because they didn't bother to read the text of the law they're protesting about" under that same "world has gone crazy" heading. Luckily for us, it seems that it's just Republicans being intentionally vague in order to pass laws that wouldn't pass if they spelled out what they actually mean.
It also forbids discussing gender identity in primary school, which is completely reactionary. Discussing gender is fine for kids, and it's totally developmentally appropriate for primary school kids to know that there are boys, girls, and non binary people.
It also requires disclosing any emotional or mental health changes to parents. If a kid tells a teacher, "I've realized I'm gay, and that is making me depressed/hard to concentrate" the school needs to inform the parents. That's a huge problem in some parts of the country where being gay can result in neglect, abuse, abandonment, being sent to conversion therapy, or more subtle discrimination and outing.
You've really given this law a very surface reading, and not thought about, "how could this be used adversarially to hurt people."
(I'm about as lefty as they come, but I'm generally against gun control laws, for instance, because I believe they will be enforced in a way that hurts people.)
It also requires disclosing any emotional or mental health changes to parents. If a kid tells a teacher, "I've realized I'm gay, and that is making me depressed/hard to concentrate" the school needs to inform the parents. That's a huge problem in some parts of the country where being gay can result in neglect, abuse, abandonment, being sent to conversion therapy, or more subtle discrimination and outing.
You've really given this law a very surface reading, and not thought about, "how could this be used adversarially to hurt people."
(I'm about as lefty as they come, but I'm generally against gun control laws, for instance, because I believe they will be enforced in a way that hurts people.)
I'm disappointed that this story is already flagged - while it may not be immediately relevant to the tech industry in some ways, consider that many of your LGBTQ+ colleagues in the US are deeply, deeply worried about these anti-LGBTQ laws popping up all over the US.
It's difficult to focus on your job when you're being slowly legislated into a second-class citizen in much of the country. These things are on our minds constantly, and deserve discussion in our field. We, as an industry, wield enormous power in the US economy - and what we do or do not say as a field has tremendous impact on the way these events unfold.
It should be relevant for discussion here, even if it's uncomfortable for some.
It's difficult to focus on your job when you're being slowly legislated into a second-class citizen in much of the country. These things are on our minds constantly, and deserve discussion in our field. We, as an industry, wield enormous power in the US economy - and what we do or do not say as a field has tremendous impact on the way these events unfold.
It should be relevant for discussion here, even if it's uncomfortable for some.
Never mentions his concern. Devolves into identity politic opinion piece.
Neat, he's cool with the situation in his suppliers countries still right? Until these people grow spines and start to advocate where there is actually risk for doing so they can stfu.
The responses in this thread are deeply disappointing. Every law we have, just like every piece of tech we have, needs to be considered not only in the context of what words are on the paper but also how could it be deployed maliciously.
How could this law be used to hurt or discriminate should be on someone's mind, just like we ask how could this API be misused.
Seeing so many reactionary comments from folks who jump in to defend them because it aligns with their (in this case, right wing) political tribe is antithetical to the rational, deep thinking nature this place usually shows.
How could this law be used to hurt or discriminate should be on someone's mind, just like we ask how could this API be misused.
Seeing so many reactionary comments from folks who jump in to defend them because it aligns with their (in this case, right wing) political tribe is antithetical to the rational, deep thinking nature this place usually shows.
I'm curious why you chose to reply throughout the comments here using a burner account, rather than your main. Are you at risk of retaliation? Genuinely curious.
I don't have a main. No risk of retaliation. Just a topic I'm informed on and it drives me up the wall to have people claim "reason" and "science" and then ignore the fact that science and reason widely agree with the idea that gender and sex aren't binary.
Use of "widely" suggests bias, so I'd recommend being careful with that use. There is definitely a concensus among many scientists of that hypothesis, but it's disingenuous to pretend that there isn't the presence of a significant number of scientists that argue the opposite. Objectivity is incredibly important in science, and it breeds credibility. This topic has social and ideological components, both of which cloud objectivity when speaking of the science. If you believe that science evolves, it's paramount that we treat hypotheses objectively rather than through the lens of absolutism
I'm suggesting it's the majority opinion. Yes, there exist minority opinions as well, but generally we don't consider agreeing with the majority/consensus to be "ignoring the science".
That seems qualitative, rather than quantitative. Similar to how we use voter sample polling. Objectively speaking, I believe you'd have a hard time quantifying that assertion. Most people seems to take that position based on the loudest voices and personally held convictions rather than raw numbers. Quantifying the majority would require polling every single scientist that works in the field, which is likely not possible. I continue to consider the arguments of the many camps in that field, as the science is not settled and is constantly changing as we gain understanding of our own genetic makeup.
Take this diagram, https://i.redd.it/s44am9nqwes11.png
I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.
I doubt you'd find much support that it's wrong, and there's plenty of evidence to suggest it's considered the accepted standard.
This is a very wholesome comment and it made me smile. It has the same vibe as someone noticing a hacker planting a backdoor in their companies code and giving then a gentle telling off because "that kind of security faux pas can have serious security implications!". I'm imagining a Mr Rogers type character saying it.
pensatoio(3)
This bill basically says:
Those seem incredibly common sense!
You can see House Bill 1557 here [1]
[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Fil...