The underlying case that (ostensibly) serves as the predicate for the Fla bill is an interesting read. What matters most is context. Children in school are sacrosanct. Any deviation from approved, traditional, for lack of a better word, instruction/guidance is met with skepticism/opposition. It's not what society is doing that's material, it's what teachers are/aren't doing that's salient. The boundaries and roles of schools/parents are also implicated. It's definitely interesting.
‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bill - Florida
- Thread starter IUclover
- Start date
Yeah, I mean most of us realized the differences around 7 or 8, but no idea why what went where.
You're working really hard to not answer my questions. 🤣 Well done, counselor!
This is a tricky issue to analyze. Even if there is no explicit intent to otherize LGBTQ lives, the survival necessity for the species to procreate is bound to lead to a heterosexual-dominant society, which can be seen as otherizing to non-heterosexuals.
Maybe the best way to approach the question is to flip it. How should a necessarily heterosexual-dominant society Address the raising of children that maintains heterosexual dominance while accommodating the possibility of non-heterosexual children?
Imo, rejecting the notion of heterosexual dominance for the species is a nonstarter.
What’s cisgender? (Don’t answer “straight”. There must be a reason to invent a new word).
I’ll also argue that society does not “fairly strongly” otherwise LBGQ lives. The dispute centers at round how to treat kids. Nobody gives a rip anymore about adults. I think LBGQ’s add T because T’s are a source of disagreement at least in sports. Some LBGQ’s need the T to keep up he turmoil. Ongoing turmoil is important for a few people.
"Teach them how to read instead of teaching them how to go to hell." Amen.
Last edited:
Similar threads
