ADVERTISEMENT

‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill - Florida

Would like to know what evidence the state legislators discovered which led them to believe schools were teaching children anything in regards to sex, sexuality, gender identification, or sexual preference.

The passing of a law prohibiting the teaching of the above sends a message to parents that teachers are engaged in teaching these subjects.

Finally, anyone who questions the passage of the law is then subject to being accused of not wanting parents to have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children, as per Gov. DeSantis who stated the following,

We will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children,"
 
Yes, you state your misunderstandings as facts. That affects your credibility negatively. Your defensive response to goat doesn’t help, which leads any honest reader of your posts to wonder about any facts you assert.
Facts are easy. Judgments, viewpoints and arguments are hard.
 
Would like to know what evidence the state legislators discovered which led them to believe schools were teaching children anything in regards to sex, sexuality, gender identification, or sexual preference.

The passing of a law prohibiting the teaching of the above sends a message to parents that teachers are engaged in teaching these subjects.

Finally, anyone who questions the passage of the law is then subject to being accused of not wanting parents to have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children, as per Gov. DeSantis who stated the following,

We will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children,"
Hoot read the case that I guess served as the predicate for it. Pretty interesting
 
Would like to know what evidence the state legislators discovered which led them to believe schools were teaching children anything in regards to sex, sexuality, gender identification, or sexual preference.

The passing of a law prohibiting the teaching of the above sends a message to parents that teachers are engaged in teaching these subjects.

Finally, anyone who questions the passage of the law is then subject to being accused of not wanting parents to have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children, as per Gov. DeSantis who stated the following,

We will continue to recognize that in the state of Florida, parents have a fundamental role in the education, healthcare and well being of their children,"
Visit the child section of a woke bookstore. Surprising stuff.
 
Facts are easy. Judgments, viewpoints and arguments are hard.
Let me elaborate on my credibility point. IANAL. Reading Slovenian law using Slovenian as my second language is easier than reading laws written here in United States. Furthermore having no training in law, I’m bound to miss the finer points. On the water cooler I’m dependent on lawyers for interpretation. I would rather get multiple viewpoints than only one viewpoint from rockfish or goat, for example. I assume that all of the lawyers here are able to read the statute and at least get the facts of the statute straight. If you guys can’t agree on the facts of the statute, then we all know there’s no hope of any constructive dialogue.

Now that I have actually looked at the text of this bill I can see that Goat is correct, your statement about the bill was almost completely wrong. In fact only one section of the entire bill specifies or limits to third grade and under (unless I missed something).
 
So if your screw up your facts what does that say about your judgments, viewpoints and arguments?
Some facts are more relevant than others. Whether we are talking about K-2 or K-3 for the Florida statute doesn’t change the argument.
 
Now that I have actually looked at the text of this bill I can see that Goat is correct, your statement about the bill was almost completely wrong. In fact only one section of the entire bill specifies or limits to third grade and under (unless I missed something).
You are not wrong. Yes the statute, like most, is divided into sections. The material part of “don’t say gay” is as I said. Other parts deal with other issues.
 
The bill only applies to second grade and under. The school system has no business trying to be, as you say, an alternative parent at that age. There are sound reasons why Florida has different rules for 3rd grade and up. If it were up to me, and make the cut-off at a higher age. One fourth grade teacher reported that over 50% of her class claimed sex identity issues. No way to verify since she tweeted it. But if true, that shows a big problem for young kids. A problem that can only be created by adults. The power of suggestion has a lot of power at that age. The birds and the bees talk comes at a higher age. So should all the sexual identity talk which I believe has become a fashion statement and well beyond a legitimate sex confusion situation. The sad part is that legislation is necessary to deal with this. The sadder part is the political bullshit the Democrats, media, Mickey Mouse, and celebrities have created about it.

Abuse is a different matter. All states have mandatory reporting laws
So if I have the latest version this is the text:

————————
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.
—————————

So it seems there is to be zero “instruction” before fourth grade and from then on only according to age- and developmentally appropriate state standards.

To me the relevant issue is what constitutes instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity? Clearly liberals advocate instruction making multitudinous genders normal whereas conservatives want instruction on gender as binary, male/female.

Complicating this is that all sorts of factors in addition to sexual orientation and gender identity can cause confusion, upset, and distress in people of any age. Teachers are not qualified to sort all these factors out on an individual basis or teach about them in a helpful way for pupils.

What teachers can do is teach about tolerating individual differences and not bullying others for any reason.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Wow, Florida Republicans do love the administrative state when it benefits their continued wedge driving on social issues.

Also, there's a pretty egregious grammatical error on line 30 (waive not wave). Come on Florida.

This bill is junk to provoke court cases.

DeSantis is running for president in 2024 and his platform will be dominated by shit like this. Do better.
The Dems had one platform, and one only, in 2020. "We are not Trump". Look where that got us.
 
Well, it did get us away from DJT, but win win is a stretch.

It's a win as far as the election goes. Biden wasn't my first choice but when it was down to 2, he was the only choice.

If Republicans wanted to keep the White House, then they should have nominated someone else.
 
One athlete who won the national championship. It's a big deal because it happened and because it's illustrative of the difference between men and women. Like there are bad crazy cops there are bad crazy teachers. Some teacher going too far is inevitable. But in my mind that's less important than the protection teachers could have from a bill that's actually a good bill. Not this mess of a bill.

The general public is insane. Insane! Having to deal with parents on such a delicate issue as this sounds like a nightmare. Even when they come to you at first as a "partner" in the process, like in the underlying case, it can turn. It's the public. Teachers should want protection/guidance
Good comment. Teachers need protection, plus they need clearly expressed policies on what they can teach or even say.

But I doubt that attitudes of "parents" and "the public" are the same. I keep thinking about all those demonstration photos of young kids forced to carry signs supposedly expressing the kids' own controversial political/ social opinions about things little kids never really think about (both left and right issues). Those images distort the true extent of public support for [fill in the blank] left and right issues and are actually nothing more than the opinions of the parents of those kids forced to carry the signs.

And, I have fundamental doubts about the usefulness of polls altogether in today's world. People hang up on telephone pollsters. Hillary was surprised by how much the election results in 2016 differed from her polls and, of course, Trump was surprised by how much the election results in 2020 differed from his polls.

The best poll is the actual election.
 
The lion's share of the bill makes it incumbent upon the school to keep parents informed. There's never anything wrong with that.

This is what people find offensive, to the extent they've bothered to read it: "prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels." 1) in certain grade levels why would those topics be appropriate to discuss, and 2) how would they be relevant to the subjects being taught at that grade level?

I'm all for acceptance and making everyone comfortable. I don't understand why this bill is so triggering when it's restricted to certain grade levels
The main reason the bill is so triggering might be that some people think 3- and 4-year-olds should definitely be taught that it's OK to have a bonus mom, even when they personally know their biologically male dad, but find themselves living with two women (that they know are women) are in the same bed.

That notion pretty much expands both traditional and non-traditional sex education to all cognizant children starting at age 3. Kids that age aren't stupid, blind or otherwise unable to understaand.

Then, there are now an endless number of alternative alphabet living arrangements, but any bill, panel discussion, post, blog, or other verbalization that actually (or just allegedly) disparages or contradicts or forgets to mention or leaves out or diminishes or just who-knows-what one of these other living arrangements becomes demonized.

Previous notions that private living arrangements are outside politics have gone out the window.
 
I wonder how people would feel about the bill if it was in another state and not Desantis. The bill primarily directs districts to keep parents notified and to keep sexual orientation discussions out of the classrooms of little kids. I would venture to guess most support those directives. We want a society that's accepting of everyone; we just don't want to foist this discussion on minds that are too young to process and understand the issues. The practical components of the bill are a mess because it's so poorly drafted
Problem too is that it doesn’t define when it is age appropriate to speak of anything sexual. So a high school seniors parents could file a lawsuit for mentioning and health related sex topic in that students presence. I think we can all agree that those types of discussions r not appropriate for k-3 kids. I’m not sure what is the appropriate age. But I do know this. My sister was an assistant principal in middle school and had a girl or two every year or two who got pregnant. So what the answer is I don’t know. But parents who want to hide their kids heads in the sand and hope it goes away r fooling themselves. Grew up next to a Church of Jesus Christ minister and his family. Very conservative denomination. The two daughters were sexually active early in high school. So clearly their approach wasn’t working. No easy answers but this Florida law is nothing but a political ploy by the extreme right of the GOP. And the extreme left is painting it as something more than it is. Unfortunately common sense has left the stage.
 
Problem too is that it doesn’t define when it is age appropriate to speak of anything sexual. So a high school seniors parents could file a lawsuit for mentioning and health related sex topic in that students presence. I think we can all agree that those types of discussions r not appropriate for k-3 kids. I’m not sure what is the appropriate age. But I do know this. My sister was an assistant principal in middle school and had a girl or two every year or two who got pregnant. So what the answer is I don’t know. But parents who want to hide their kids heads in the sand and hope it goes away r fooling themselves. Grew up next to a Church of Jesus Christ minister and his family. Very conservative denomination. The two daughters were sexually active early in high school. So clearly their approach wasn’t working. No easy answers but this Florida law is nothing but a political ploy by the extreme right of the GOP. And the extreme left is painting it as something more than it is. Unfortunately common sense has left the stage.
Common sense had indeed left the stage. Sex education in public school was never brought into the classroom in K-3. But sexual confusion is? Kids that age and for several years beyond 3rd grade don’t need to be educated about that.

When addictions, domestic abuse, gangs, smash and grabs, and random acts of violence are such a problem in many young lives, we have much more serious challenges for elementary students than trans-issues.
 
Littlejohn vs School Board of Leon County
4:21-CV-00415
Thanks MM66. This is indeed an interesting case especially if it led to a state law regarding school administrators and teachers being sued by parents because they don't notify parents about a child's sexual orientation.

Admittedly I could be misreading the Littlejohn case along with the Florida law being discussed in this thread.
 
Thanks MM66. This is indeed an interesting case especially if it led to a state law regarding school administrators and teachers being sued by parents because they don't notify parents about a child's sexual orientation.

Admittedly I could be misreading the Littlejohn case along with the Florida law being discussed in this thread.
You bet. I only skimmed it. Again this law is a disaster, but a "good" law could be useful in providing guidance and protecting teachers
 
You bet. I only skimmed it. Again this law is a disaster, but a "good" law could be useful in providing guidance and protecting teachers
Why is it a disaster?


If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

And for all the idea that these laws are based on just anecdotal things here and there, there sure seems to he A)a shitload of anecdotes available on a regular basis and B) a whole bunch of teachers losing their shit about not being able to have conversations they supposedly are not having.

If a child is not being abused and put in danger by the parent, a school has no business getting involved in this stuff. Zero. We send our kids to school to learn academic subjects. If this stuff is not needed and is just made up by the right, how do any of the people commenting on this board explain all this?
 
Why is it a disaster?


If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

And for all the idea that these laws are based on just anecdotal things here and there, there sure seems to he A)a shitload of anecdotes available on a regular basis and B) a whole bunch of teachers losing their shit about not being able to have conversations they supposedly are not having.

If a child is not being abused and put in danger by the parent, a school has no business getting involved in this stuff. Zero. We send our kids to school to learn academic subjects. If this stuff is not needed and is just made up by the right, how do any of the people commenting on this board explain all this?
It's too vague.
 
Thanks MM66. This is indeed an interesting case especially if it led to a state law regarding school administrators and teachers being sued by parents because they don't notify parents about a child's sexual orientation.

Admittedly I could be misreading the Littlejohn case along with the Florida law being discussed in this thread.
People don’t understand the ramifications of express or implied government approval of speech. If the authorities tacitly approve instruction about transgenders, asuxuals, pansexuals etc. in kindergarten, government will be unable to restrict instruction about female obedience to brothers and husbands , arranged marriages, maybe polygamy, and a host of other activites that we frown on or don’t practice. Government can’t pick and choose. The only way to stop it is to clearly stop all of it. This is how Florida wrote its law.. Thise who claim the law is about gays only want to bring attention to themselves while ostracizing others. That’s called virtue signaling.

As I said elsewhere, it’s really too bad that we have gotten to the point of needing this legislation. But here we are because zealots must be zealots.
 
It's too vague.
It kind of has to be. From what CoH posted just above down to the idea that just when you think the teaching world (and the left...but I repeat myself) cannot step any further out of their lane, they find a way to.

They ran religion out of the schools for the exact reasons we don't want this being covered in school. Progressivism is a secular cult. It should be treated as such.
 
It kind of has to be. From what CoH posted just above down to the idea that just when you think the teaching world (and the left...but I repeat myself) cannot step any further out of their lane, they find a way to.

They ran religion out of the schools for the exact reasons we don't want this being covered in school. Progressivism is a secular cult. It should be treated as such.
It shouldn't be vague when it creates a cause of action
 
Why is it a disaster?


If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

And for all the idea that these laws are based on just anecdotal things here and there, there sure seems to he A)a shitload of anecdotes available on a regular basis and B) a whole bunch of teachers losing their shit about not being able to have conversations they supposedly are not having.

If a child is not being abused and put in danger by the parent, a school has no business getting involved in this stuff. Zero. We send our kids to school to learn academic subjects. If this stuff is not needed and is just made up by the right, how do any of the people commenting on this board explain all this?
CoH, curious as to which states allow children to take puberty blockers without parents consent. Hard to imagine a school counselor giving a child blockers in a state requiring parental consent.
 
CoH, curious as to which states allow children to take puberty blockers without parents consent. Hard to imagine a school counselor giving a child blockers in a state requiring parental consent.
I don’t know of any. I would never advise a school district client that was okay with or without parental consent. The liability exposure is enormous.

Whether a licensed physician prescribes puberty blockers without parental consent is a different matter. But a school shouldn’t be involved.

In some cases I think dispensing such medications could be prosecuted as child abuse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hoot1
Well, if a student has a problem that they don't feel they can go to their parents for, the school is the obvious alternative. Say, a kid suffering low self-esteem that is compounded by abusive parenting. School administrators and guidance counselors are there for many reasons, but surely one of them is when the parents are the potential adversaries, right?

One of my concerns with this bill is the possibility that school officials won't be able to fill this role when the problem the student is experiencing somehow encompasses sexuality or other health and identity issues. For example, let's say a kid feels like he might be gay. His father has made it clear in old-fashioned ways that no nancy boys are accepted in their house. Such a kid might want to go to the adults at school for advice/guidance. This law might make those adults feel the need to restrict their guidance.
Oh, it's such a small minority you're worried about.

The bill is for the greater good. It's patriotic to be for the greater good, isn't it? Don't we all need to just go along with it for the greater good?
 
Why is it a disaster?


If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

And for all the idea that these laws are based on just anecdotal things here and there, there sure seems to he A)a shitload of anecdotes available on a regular basis and B) a whole bunch of teachers losing their shit about not being able to have conversations they supposedly are not having.

If a child is not being abused and put in danger by the parent, a school has no business getting involved in this stuff. Zero. We send our kids to school to learn academic subjects. If this stuff is not needed and is just made up by the right, how do any of the people commenting on this board explain all this?
If u read the attached article u will c that the school is not providing the puberty blockers. Hell they can’t even give an aspirin unless the parents r notified at least that’s the case in Indiana. Trust me. As a parent, my wife and I received many calls from the school nurse asking if they could give r son a Tylenol for a headache. We have multiple teachers and a former principal in r family. U probably have no idea what they put up with from kids and r not allowed to do a thing or say a thing. And btw a lot of parents will not believe their child does anything wrong at school until they c the video. There r always going to b teachers that cross the line one way or another on both sides of the political spectrum. If u don’t believe me google the video of the teacher asking her preschool class who the president is. They say Biden. Then she asks what do we want? They respond just as she taught them. We want him gone. So it goes both ways. Should she b disciplined? What if it was a liberal teacher teaching that about Trump?
 
People don’t understand the ramifications of express or implied government approval of speech. If the authorities tacitly approve instruction about transgenders, asuxuals, pansexuals etc. in kindergarten, government will be unable to restrict instruction about female obedience to brothers and husbands , arranged marriages, maybe polygamy, and a host of other activites that we frown on or don’t practice. Government can’t pick and choose. The only way to stop it is to clearly stop all of it. This is how Florida wrote its law.. Thise who claim the law is about gays only want to bring attention to themselves while ostracizing others. That’s called virtue signaling.

As I said elsewhere, it’s really too bad that we have gotten to the point of needing this legislation. But here we are because zealots must be zealots.
Zealots on both sides. I lived in Georgia not long ago and the prosecuted a gay couple for having sex in the privacy of their home. Because that was against the state law. Who do u think wrote that law. Same people who want government to stay out of things unless it’s their particular thing.
 
Why is it a disaster?


If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

And for all the idea that these laws are based on just anecdotal things here and there, there sure seems to he A)a shitload of anecdotes available on a regular basis and B) a whole bunch of teachers losing their shit about not being able to have conversations they supposedly are not having.

If a child is not being abused and put in danger by the parent, a school has no business getting involved in this stuff. Zero. We send our kids to school to learn academic subjects. If this stuff is not needed and is just made up by the right, how do any of the people commenting on this board explain all this?
C'mon Crazy, the daily mail? You know the mail is a clickbait factory business. It is rated a 1 out of 5 for accuracy. It's basically the British national enquirer.

Secondly I gave this the minimal amount of attention but, putting this chick's name into the twatter verse gets you around 3 posts and 6 mentions.

So I'd dare say this story is fabricated to get you pissed off and to click.

Plus I didn't see anywhere in this fake story that said the school was providing the blockers like what seems to be accused.

This law serves one, maybe two purposes. To embolden a culture war....to virtue signal to that war and 2 (and much more sinister) to plant the seeds in law for more restrictive and autocratic legislation coming after it....hence why it's vague (the whole 'or until deemed appropriate' verbiage).

It's the same shit as the CRT nonsense but I have to admit in the spirit of gamesmanship, it works.

What's next, anti-woke laws? Another thing that can't be defined? Oh wait, yup, Desantis again.

Do we need to combat this shit with anti-conservative white male laws... I'm sorry, 'toxic masculinity' laws?

That's where parents can call out and sue teachers and coaches for displaying 'toxic masculinity' when coaching?

I mean we ALREADY have specific laws that cover specific abuses but... there's an epidemic of vague 'toxic masculinity' and it's getting worse and damaging our children so we need to not only crusade against it, we need laws so parents can report on how coaches are treating their athletes. We need to be able to make and convict based on vague accusations.

If I can rile up enough liberal social justice warriors than I'm sure the Daily Mail will contribute with stories to generate those clicks.
 
If your 11 year old daughter was being given puberty blockers by the school, with the help of "social workers" or to a lesser extent, if they were even having conversations about this with your child, would you want to know?

Did you read the article? That wasn't the case here.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT