Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida(flgov.com)
flgov.com
Sex and gender education banned for K-3 in Florida
https://flgov.com/2022/03/28/governor-ron-desantis-signs-historic-bill-to-protect-parental-rights-in-education/
105 comments
Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US??
In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
> Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US??
Pedagogical material that references gender identities and sexual pair bonds is very common (and is not “sex education”); this law is not principally in response to sex education but to pedagogical material mentioning non-cisgender gender identities and non-heterosexual relationships and family structures.
Pedagogical material that references gender identities and sexual pair bonds is very common (and is not “sex education”); this law is not principally in response to sex education but to pedagogical material mentioning non-cisgender gender identities and non-heterosexual relationships and family structures.
> Is it normal to have sex education at 8 years old in the US??
> In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
Honestly, I don't know for sure. I didn't go to a public school until 5th grade (10–11). That year we definitely had "family life" for an awkward couple days. And I'm sure the subject was at least covered the prior year if not before. However I recall there was very little about "sex" per se, it was mostly babies, bodies, and biology, etc.
IIRC, my parents had "the talk" with me much earlier. Probably preschool or kindergarten.
> In the UK the first sex education we had was maybe one or two lessons at 10-11 years old (all I remember is a video of hairy naked people... and likely there was some discussion of sex/procreation...).
Honestly, I don't know for sure. I didn't go to a public school until 5th grade (10–11). That year we definitely had "family life" for an awkward couple days. And I'm sure the subject was at least covered the prior year if not before. However I recall there was very little about "sex" per se, it was mostly babies, bodies, and biology, etc.
IIRC, my parents had "the talk" with me much earlier. Probably preschool or kindergarten.
I didn't have sex education until middle school.
It should be. Historically, children started working the farm much younger than 8. Sex Ed comes pretty naturally with that, especially if you have… horses.
> > The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade
> I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
> I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
>> I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
> Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
Honestly? I highly doubt it. From what I can recall of from this subject in a later grade, it was all about babies, bodies, and biology. It didn't cover any kind social or psychological aspects of sex or sex acts.
> Wouldn't that involve a sexual orientation?
Honestly? I highly doubt it. From what I can recall of from this subject in a later grade, it was all about babies, bodies, and biology. It didn't cover any kind social or psychological aspects of sex or sex acts.
This is also being referred to as the "Don't Say Gay" bill, and it's expected to be the first of many similar bills across the country, just like Texas's vigilante anti-abortion bill.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say...
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/10/1091543359/15-states-dont-say...
Surely some sex/gender education is required and appropriate for this age group. Things like consent/personal space etc are useful and important for kids of any age. Would be much more logical to have some kind of standard education program for the topic.
My daughter has a great book, "Dear Girl" - phrased like a sort-of sequence of mini-letters to my "dear girl" with various little nuggets: it's great to ask questions, it's ok to be different, be brave and so on. One of the pages says, "if something feels wrong, just say no, that's OK".
Similarly, that's not in this book, but we teach her it's OK if a family has "two daddies", or frankly any configuration, and so on. That it's less common but it's normal.
I consider that appropriate sex ed for a n-year old, n<=5 or so.
Surely, surely, there is a tier for 5 < n <= 10. Clearly, not "here's how you do doggie style with 4 people while allowing for BDSM tendencies". But the world is so saturated with sex you can barely buy bread without bumping into it. If we're not teaching kids, well, anything in this space, they'll just learn off school corridor banter and any glimpses of porn their older friends will show them.
Similarly, that's not in this book, but we teach her it's OK if a family has "two daddies", or frankly any configuration, and so on. That it's less common but it's normal.
I consider that appropriate sex ed for a n-year old, n<=5 or so.
Surely, surely, there is a tier for 5 < n <= 10. Clearly, not "here's how you do doggie style with 4 people while allowing for BDSM tendencies". But the world is so saturated with sex you can barely buy bread without bumping into it. If we're not teaching kids, well, anything in this space, they'll just learn off school corridor banter and any glimpses of porn their older friends will show them.
You are obviously and logically correct. The obviousness is exactly the point of the law because it creates vagueness. It’s just another right wing attack on public schools.
There is no reason for you or anyone else to talk about my 6 year old’s genitalia with him. Our desire to keep you from talking to our kids about their junk is a right wing attack?
It’s very strange that people want to conflate genitalia and you know…like pronouns?
There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.
There’s actually lots of good reasons, including proper hygiene, helping children understand consent, privacy, boundaries. But you’ve made a choice in how to frame the conversation that is designed to eliminate any need to learn…I can’t help you there but demands of ignorance shouldn’t be how we legislate.
FWIW, my school provided basic sexual anatomy and puberty eduction (basic biology stuff) in 5th grade. We then had a “health class” in middle school (grades 6-8), which explored sexual orientation and safe sex practice. This all felt very appropriate.
3rd grade feels a bit young to start with sexual anatomy and puberty tbh
Consent and personal space are separate subjects that probably aren’t prohibited under this new law.
3rd grade feels a bit young to start with sexual anatomy and puberty tbh
Consent and personal space are separate subjects that probably aren’t prohibited under this new law.
You are conflating three related but different things: sex education, gender education, and consent/personal space.
The bill forbids only one of those three things, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The bill forbids only one of those three things, sexual orientation or gender identity.
That's aspects of two of the three things you listed, not only one.
The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom.
It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
>> The best response I have seen to this thus far is Florida teachers who plan to stop referring to anyone by gender in the classroom.
> It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
Actually, reading the bill text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...), I don't think that's technically correct:
> 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.
I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
> It is also technically the correct response. The best kind of correct.
Actually, reading the bill text (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...), I don't think that's technically correct:
> 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.
I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
This bill is created to be vague. If it wasn't vague it would most likely be shot down instantaneously in courts.
And the reaction is telling… the vagueness and the double meaning is the point not an accidental side effect
This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.
Or just let the kids be kids, stop mandating at a state level who they have to be.
I think objective sexual education is not only under attack by religious reservations anymore, there are also ideological elements.
Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities.
So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities.
So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
> This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday.
It is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement on this point (and a desire to impose one view on it by state power with the pretense of neutrality) that is (a major part of) the fundamental motivation for the bill.
It is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement on this point (and a desire to impose one view on it by state power with the pretense of neutrality) that is (a major part of) the fundamental motivation for the bill.
"This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what gay people where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone."
You see where people are coming from now?
You see where people are coming from now?
It's more just an advancement on English really. Gendered terms aren't really useful. Especially with most written English being online now where no gender is known, it just becomes natural to use a non gendered term in all cases.
> We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday.
Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe.
As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe.
As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
>> This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.
> Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
The way you state that invites an anachronistic misunderstanding: it appears back then "girl" was a gender-neutral term for child:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/great-misconception/
> Nor have boys always even been called boys. Until the late 15th century the word ‘girl’ simply means a child of either sex. Boys, where they had to be differentiated, were referred to as ‘knave girls’ and girls in the female sense were called ‘gay girls’. Equally a boy could be a ‘knave child’ and a girl a ‘maiden child’.
> Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
The way you state that invites an anachronistic misunderstanding: it appears back then "girl" was a gender-neutral term for child:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/great-misconception/
> Nor have boys always even been called boys. Until the late 15th century the word ‘girl’ simply means a child of either sex. Boys, where they had to be differentiated, were referred to as ‘knave girls’ and girls in the female sense were called ‘gay girls’. Equally a boy could be a ‘knave child’ and a girl a ‘maiden child’.
Just posting to agree, and in the real world I think most people do. I don't agree with the bill because this kind of heavy handed approach is just and escalation and doesn't solve anything. But it is an escalation, it's not like the bill has come out of nowhere, and I can understand why there would be immense public pressure to shield young kids from the ideological battle (and mostly trolling as I've said many times) that is going on.
When I was in high school, the straight English teacher married the straight gym teacher.
It was discussed so openly that it probably had something to do with me eventually marrying a straight woman.
It was discussed so openly that it probably had something to do with me eventually marrying a straight woman.
Referring to children by gender is not instructional content. It's working within their level of development.
They can just call everybody "comrade". Problem solved. "Comrade" is gender-neutral.
If you're thinking this would be a win for the D's then you're not thinking about the PR win it would give to the R's. Especially with Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine.
People saying "let kids be kids." Kids don't make a big deal out of something until their parents make a big deal out of something. America has such a weird relationship with sex education or sex in general.
The bill doesn't forbid sex education in general.
There is nothing in this bill that prevents a school psychologist or guidance counselor from working with individual children to address their personal needs. The bill's text is hardly remarkable at all. 20 years ago, no one would have batted an eye if you said that sex ed should not be taught below a certain grade level.
My understanding is this bill is more focused on sexual orientation and gender than it is sex ed. Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years.
I don’t think kindergartners need sex ed, but I do think explaining that some kids have two moms or two dads is worthwhile at that age.
I don’t think kindergartners need sex ed, but I do think explaining that some kids have two moms or two dads is worthwhile at that age.
> some kids have two moms or two dads
I 100% agree that's reasonable.
What's unreasonable is schools/teachers practicing "gender affirmation" of 5 year olds (or indeed any age) behind parents' backs. If a boy likes playing princess it doesn't mean he's a girl, and to be honest that seems patronising and cruel.
I 100% agree that's reasonable.
What's unreasonable is schools/teachers practicing "gender affirmation" of 5 year olds (or indeed any age) behind parents' backs. If a boy likes playing princess it doesn't mean he's a girl, and to be honest that seems patronising and cruel.
> Both of which are topics we’ve evolved on as a culture over the last 20 years.
I think you propose agreement on issues where there is none which was partly the motivation of this bill.
I think you propose agreement on issues where there is none which was partly the motivation of this bill.
This isn't a "don't teach sex to third graders" bill. If Florida teachers were spending too much time talking about sex to third graders, it would have been a totally uncontroversial decision at each district level to tone it down to an age-appropriate level. We don't have a "Don't teach integrals to third graders" law, after all.
This is basically "Mrs. White can no longer explain to the kids what it means that Timmy has two moms and why it's okay for Timmy" bill. Anyone saying "But why do third graders need a sex education?" are missing the obvious, maybe intentionally.
This is basically "Mrs. White can no longer explain to the kids what it means that Timmy has two moms and why it's okay for Timmy" bill. Anyone saying "But why do third graders need a sex education?" are missing the obvious, maybe intentionally.
As a parent of a toddler, I have read plenty of books where gay or lesbian parents are mentioned in the story in passing. In context it's a nice way to acknowledge that different types of families exist without drawing attention to them. My understanding is that these books would no longer be allowed in a Florida classroom. And even if they're technically allowed the chilling effect of a law that may lead to lawsuits will probably effectively ban them anyway. And for what? For maybe one or two children in the class to never see a representation of their family in a classroom? Seems kind of sad to me.
[deleted]
A teacher should not explain to kids that age "what it means" that Timmy has two moms, nor "what it means" that Tammy has a mom and a dad. Not appropriate. Leave the conversation about where babies come from to a sex education class.
It's possible to explain what it means without getting into the mechanics of sex. Just like Bobby has a daddy, who is a boy, and a mommy, who is a girl, and they love each other; so does Timmy have two mommies, who are both girls, and who also love each other.
According to the website, banned up to 3rd grade, which apparently is 8-9 years old. I do not recall being interested on knowing anything about sex until 11-12.
Let children be children. Also, even if one uses the LGBTQIA+ classification for older children, where "A" stands for "asexual", would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?
Let children be children. Also, even if one uses the LGBTQIA+ classification for older children, where "A" stands for "asexual", would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?
I don't think having adults I trust inform me that it's okay to be entirely disinterested in sex and to be myself would make me uncomfortable.
If it is a school subject the 8 year old would be forced to listen to the LGBTQI parts as well.
I don't immediately take offense to hearing about things that don't apply to me, and maybe hearing about things that my classmates or their parents or whomever is going through might help me get a better understanding of them and their lives.
The use of the word "force" here is especially interesting. I doubt you'd use the same word for a subject like Math or English, despite it being the same degree of "force".
The use of the word "force" here is especially interesting. I doubt you'd use the same word for a subject like Math or English, despite it being the same degree of "force".
Did they really solve a problem or was it just chest pounding?
I don’t believe sex Ed was in the curriculum for those grades. But now if a teacher does something that could possibly fall under this new law they can be sued by the parents. I simply believe this wasn’t an issue and they are trying to “fix” something not broken.
I don’t believe sex Ed was in the curriculum for those grades. But now if a teacher does something that could possibly fall under this new law they can be sued by the parents. I simply believe this wasn’t an issue and they are trying to “fix” something not broken.
There are many videos of teachers and kids books that are... pretty crazy. I too expected these teachers were so few/extreme that they'd be losing their jobs when their shenanigans are exposed (but that's not what's happening, seemingly it really is systemic).
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/
[deleted]
We all knew about straight marriage long before being interested on knowing anything about sex. The problem is people think acknowledging that gay people exist is discussing sex, is it?
I was younger than this when I realized gender was a thing, but one I didn't understand very well and had trouble with, and could have benefited from people explaining gender and gender expression to me.
Peers of mine were younger than this when they were being abused and could have benefited from knowing about how consent should work, and who they can rely on for help.
Peers of mine were younger than this when they were being abused and could have benefited from knowing about how consent should work, and who they can rely on for help.
It doesn't seem that the law bans any sex education. Specifically, it bans discussion on "sexual orientation or gender identity", not discussion on sex, puberty, or anything else like that.
> would sexual education not discriminate against the "A" part, who will feel uncomfortable?
No obviously not, just like how no one is arguing that gay kids shouldn't be taught straight sex ed. The goal should be increasing education, not decreasing it.
Please don't argue against a straw man.
No obviously not, just like how no one is arguing that gay kids shouldn't be taught straight sex ed. The goal should be increasing education, not decreasing it.
Please don't argue against a straw man.
I don’t understand why these people want to talk to my 6 year about his pee-pee. This was never normal, accepted, or even a topic of debate. I don’t want anyone discuss my child’s genitals with them or with anyone else.
If you want people talking to your child about their genitalia, that’s on you.
If you want people talking to your child about their genitalia, that’s on you.
The bill opens up the possibility for being sued for acknowledging in any way that gay people exist, e.g. acknowledging that somebody has two same-gender parents - even as a corollary fact on a topic that is unrelated to sex education.
Ok but I still don’t want you or a random teacher talking to my 6-year old kid about his weiner and what he can do with it. It would seem that many parents feel the same way.
No one really was. This bill exists just to score political outrage points in order to "solve" a non-existent problem.
And the insidious way it goes about solving this allows vigilante witch hunting and even more polarization and hate. There is nothing good about this bill.
And the insidious way it goes about solving this allows vigilante witch hunting and even more polarization and hate. There is nothing good about this bill.
Meta comment: I find it pretty amusing that the usual "No to the government! There should be no more regulations because it leads to more government power, corruption, and tyranny!" crowd is conspicuously absent this time.
...but not really surprised.
...but not really surprised.
They're not absent. They're literally in this comment thread preaching the opposite now.
Both the right and the left have misrepresented this law. The left calls it the "don't say gay" law. The right says it's just about K-3. neither is accurate.
The law isn't about saying the word "gay" or all possible references to it. The law doesn't prohibit mentioning a same sex spouse. And it doesn't prohibit a kid from talking about her two moms. It's just about classroom instruction.
The right talks about how this is just about K-3 but the actual law is a complete ban on classroom instruction at this age AND a ban on non-age-appropriate instruction at other grade levels. This second part is often left off in right-leaning news. When people have mentioned it they tend to defend it by saying that it will make teachers rightfully hesitant to speak about LGBTQ issues in the classroom. They think that teachers should leave these issues to parents. But most right-wing commentators do not recognize this part of the law. They pretend it's just about K-3.
It's too bad that both sides misrepresent the law. It leads to further distrust in the media. And it gives the other side an excuse to continue to behave badly.
The law isn't about saying the word "gay" or all possible references to it. The law doesn't prohibit mentioning a same sex spouse. And it doesn't prohibit a kid from talking about her two moms. It's just about classroom instruction.
The right talks about how this is just about K-3 but the actual law is a complete ban on classroom instruction at this age AND a ban on non-age-appropriate instruction at other grade levels. This second part is often left off in right-leaning news. When people have mentioned it they tend to defend it by saying that it will make teachers rightfully hesitant to speak about LGBTQ issues in the classroom. They think that teachers should leave these issues to parents. But most right-wing commentators do not recognize this part of the law. They pretend it's just about K-3.
It's too bad that both sides misrepresent the law. It leads to further distrust in the media. And it gives the other side an excuse to continue to behave badly.
Remember these same groups fought teaching straight sex education at any grade level.
That this prohibits non-age-appropriate instruction means it will be used as a backdoor attempt to ban sex education.
That this prohibits non-age-appropriate instruction means it will be used as a backdoor attempt to ban sex education.
Is there evidence of this? If not, seems like a weak syllogism.
Yeah the conservative movement’s history of actions against sex education (and contraceptives)
Eager for this law to be vigorously enforced against all content referencing cisgender identities and heterosexual relationships, which are quite common in material aimed at K-3.
If you’re at all interested in where this is all going next, here’s a clip from Fox News that makes it clear: https://mobile.twitter.com/peltzmadeline/status/151351619561...
If you’re not inclined to watch, the tl;dr is “gay teachers are pedos.”
None of this is being done in good faith or for good reasons, and the informed HN crowd would be wise to consider the broader context of this bill - and the historical attempts over the years to paint LGBT folks as pedophiles, particularly in schools. It’s not a new thing, in many ways. It’s just a more drawn-out, gradual way to get there than other attempts over the past 40-50 years.
If you’re not inclined to watch, the tl;dr is “gay teachers are pedos.”
None of this is being done in good faith or for good reasons, and the informed HN crowd would be wise to consider the broader context of this bill - and the historical attempts over the years to paint LGBT folks as pedophiles, particularly in schools. It’s not a new thing, in many ways. It’s just a more drawn-out, gradual way to get there than other attempts over the past 40-50 years.
What do teachers say if a kid asks them something about it?
If you don't like your kids teacher, it seems like you could get them fired just by having your kid say obnoxious things in classroom until the teacher is forced to address it directly.
If you don't like your kids teacher, it seems like you could get them fired just by having your kid say obnoxious things in classroom until the teacher is forced to address it directly.
School principal sets policy here. Usually a referral to school psych. or guidance counselor given some conditions (e.g. persistent asking, paired with mental distress, etc.)
Frankie: "Mrs. Brown, Timmy called me gay, what does that mean?"
Mrs. Brown: "Ok, Frankie, you'll need to go to the school psychologist now, they will explain there."
Mrs. Brown: "Ok, Frankie, you'll need to go to the school psychologist now, they will explain there."
They just won't find evidence to terminate in accusations against the straight white teachers.
That's the point of laws like this.
That's the point of laws like this.
Let's not inject race unnecessarily.
And if you're going to, at least check your facts first. Acceptance of SSM is higher among Whites than among Blacks or Hispanics. [1]
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...
And if you're going to, at least check your facts first. Acceptance of SSM is higher among Whites than among Blacks or Hispanics. [1]
1: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-att...
Let’s be real here, Republicans passed the law.
Public acceptance doesn’t matter in a Republic, not a Democracy.
Public acceptance doesn’t matter in a Republic, not a Democracy.
All right, I guess I'll spend some karma. Unless there's an aspect of this I'm not aware of, I don't think this is so bad.
I went to a very good public school in the US, and we didn't have sex education until 4th grade, and even then I think we were a bit immature for it at the time. They were still only doing the _very_ basics and I remember the class not being well behaved during it. I think sex education any younger than that is totally unnecessary and kind of inappropriate.
I find it pretty weird that American politics has become really obsessed with the sexual topics around little kids lately.
I went to a very good public school in the US, and we didn't have sex education until 4th grade, and even then I think we were a bit immature for it at the time. They were still only doing the _very_ basics and I remember the class not being well behaved during it. I think sex education any younger than that is totally unnecessary and kind of inappropriate.
I find it pretty weird that American politics has become really obsessed with the sexual topics around little kids lately.
The bill was written to ban discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for any age - not just K-3.
> 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.
http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22
The rationale for the law is also seriously suspect - https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/06/politics/fact-check-desantis-...
Simply put, this law is a solution looking for a problem and being pushed by a politician seeking reelection and ultimately - the presidency.
> 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.
http://laws.flrules.org/2022/22
The rationale for the law is also seriously suspect - https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/06/politics/fact-check-desantis-...
Simply put, this law is a solution looking for a problem and being pushed by a politician seeking reelection and ultimately - the presidency.
This is bad for one main reason: it legitimizes vigilante justice. There is no premise of guilty or innocent, because it’s all through the civil courts, with no onus on the accusers. There’s no downsides for anyone who wants to abuse it.
It really injects a lot of unnecessary negativity into the conversation when you start with that common snide implication along the lines of "this will get downvoted, but...". It's a hostile attitude, and is dismissive to the replies of your audience before you have even heard them.
The absence of this law wouldn’t mean we start teaching sex to 6 year olds. My state doesn’t have such a law and I didn’t learn sex ed until I was 11 or so.
The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist, it’s just scoring points for Florida politicians, getting in digs at the “woke culture” boogeyman that is an easy win to stoke their base.
They didn’t have a “teaching gay sex to 6 year olds” epidemic in Florida prior to this bill, no matter what politicians tell you.
The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist, it’s just scoring points for Florida politicians, getting in digs at the “woke culture” boogeyman that is an easy win to stoke their base.
They didn’t have a “teaching gay sex to 6 year olds” epidemic in Florida prior to this bill, no matter what politicians tell you.
> The law is solving a problem that didn’t exist...
Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.
It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.
Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.
It's perfectly legitimate for a legislature to address concerns that have not actually been realized (e.g. fund the construction of fallout shelters when there hasn't been a nuclear war yet). IIRC, it's only the courts that are required to be reactive.
> If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.
The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
The right believes the problem exists, the left believes that the policy will do something besides what it is proponents highlights, both of which beliefs are possible without the problem it nominally seeks to correct actually being real, so, no, the fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
> ...fact that people care does not mean that the problem it overtly addresses exists.
In my framing, the problem being solved was the concern over the future development of the problem that's claimed to not exist.
In my framing, the problem being solved was the concern over the future development of the problem that's claimed to not exist.
>Obviously not. If that were really true, no one (left or right) would be making a fuss about this law.
I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?
I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?
> I don't follow this at all. How can "making a fuss" legitimize a perceived problem into objective reality?
Because if the law was actually solving a "problem that doesn't exist," it would be a noop and no one would care. Since people on both sides care, it's obviously not a noop.
Also think about the example I gave before: if the government builds a fallout shelter, what problem was it solving if there's no fallout to shelter from? X doesn't have to be happening right now for people to worry about it, and it's perfectly legitimate for the government to do something within its power to allay those fears. A more contemporary example is climate change: the present-day effects wouldn't justify the kinds of changes that are being demanded. What justifies those changes is the fear of what would happen in 100 years.
Because if the law was actually solving a "problem that doesn't exist," it would be a noop and no one would care. Since people on both sides care, it's obviously not a noop.
Also think about the example I gave before: if the government builds a fallout shelter, what problem was it solving if there's no fallout to shelter from? X doesn't have to be happening right now for people to worry about it, and it's perfectly legitimate for the government to do something within its power to allay those fears. A more contemporary example is climate change: the present-day effects wouldn't justify the kinds of changes that are being demanded. What justifies those changes is the fear of what would happen in 100 years.
If it's not happening then the law changes nothing and you can let the people you disagree with waste energy tilting at windmills.
The parent claims that the problem does not exist, not that the law has no real [side]effects.
It's a diaper policy. A handful of teachers (metaphorically) shit themselves, so now they all get to wear diapers.
And as proof that a handful of crazy teachers exist, you can read testimonials of teachers who are quitting because of this law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/-can...
And as proof that a handful of crazy teachers exist, you can read testimonials of teachers who are quitting because of this law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/-can...
We’re living in a society where it’s now common enough that a few kids in your class may have two mothers or two fathers. Some kids may not understand why that is, & I’d say as early as kindergarten sounds enough to have a teacher explain why their friends may have a different family structure than their own.
To my knowledge, this bill makes it so you couldn’t. Which is bad.
To my knowledge, this bill makes it so you couldn’t. Which is bad.
I think what's missed in the discussion is the role of parents. Not everything has to be the teacher's responsibility. That is in the article, they say it's about parental choice. So parents can address the questions, and decide how to raise their kids. Why should it automatically be the role of the state to give a state sanctioned answer?
The state doesn't need to have a sanctioned answer, but this is the opposite: a blanket gag on the educator regardless of context.
The state should not gag educators or anyone else.
The state should not gag educators or anyone else.
But what if, or more realistically, what do we do when the parents do nothing but scold their kids when they dare ask about anything related to sex? Because I’ve seen too much of that myself.
All that brings is unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, and scared children.
All that brings is unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, and scared children.
We provide a state-sanctioned answer in cases where parents are inadequate — known as sex education.
Which parents are allowed to disallow their children from attending. Partial conjecture, but it's probably the same parents who are unwilling to talk to their children about sex.
That's how it was for my spouse, at least.
That's how it was for my spouse, at least.
"Some kids have two fathers and some kids have two mothers." This is all that needs to be said. This law does not prevent them from saying that. What else needs to be said to children?
The law arguably bans that, and grade-schools are extremely lawsuit-averse. That ambiguity puts educators under threat over innocent words - having to worry about crossing that line accidentally is a burden and a disrespect placed on people who have a hard time already doing an incredibly important job.
The law does ban that.
lesgobrandon(1)
> The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade...
I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
FWIW, the actual OP title is "Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Historic Bill to Protect Parental Rights in Education."