SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
How is that misleading? You also can’t say lesbian or bisexual or transgender, according to the bill, which bans instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity.
Florida Republicans Pass Bill Banning The Word ‘Gay’ In Schools
- Thread starter fooferdoggie
- Start date
- Posts
- 4,496
- Reaction score
- 8,011
So your argument is with a headline and not what florida is doing? be sure to contact them and complain about it.
Exactly, this is in essence where Russia is today regarding what you can’t say, and look who is emulating them.Why stop at schools? We should stop everyone from ever saying anything that might make us haz a sad. Not even where we cannot hear it.
It’s not just ‘Don’t Say Gay.” Florida also ordered Disney to alter its diversity training | Commentary
For decades, Disney and Florida politicians have had a symbiotic relationship — kind of like dung beetles and skunk cabbage. Much like the beetles pollinate the foul-smelling plants, Disney w…www.orlandosentinel.com
I mean Disney FFS. That notorious bastion of the far left.
Come on Herd, so your position is you can say “Gay“, but you just can’t discuss anything about LGBT issues, so that makes the title misleading, as in what do you actually understand about the intent of this bill, to instead focus on well they didn’t say you could not say gay.
And you might as well say how you feel about this law. That would be and is the important aspect of this thread, not that you are being misled, because as soon as someone says “gay” in a Florida school, the response will be, can’t talk about that, or you, or your issues.
Yoused
up
Bullshit. The fact that the text of the measure does not contain "Don't Say 'Gay'!!1!1!!!" verbatim et literatim is vapid pedantry.
D
Deleted member 215
Guest
Of course it's not literally "don't say gay", but it effectively eliminates any discussion of same-sex relationships. The bill is like the "bathroom bill" in that it targets a fictional issue (sexuality being taught in K-3, which it invariably isn't. Sex education is usually not taught until puberty, which in most cases means 5th or 6th grade. It began in 5th grade for me). But what it means is that a kid raised by gay parents couldn't mention it, a non-sexual book about a same-sex relationship wouldn't be allowed, and an early proposal included a provision to require teachers to out gay kids to their parents, something so odious it makes me physically angry (and just because it was withdrawn does not make me think we've seen the last of it).
As I said it before, this is an attempt to legislate LGBT people out of existence. The fact that DeSantis calls it an "anti-grooming bill" is proof. They think that teachers cause kids to be gay by discussing LGBT issues. They conflate LGBT people with sex traffickers and child molesters; they're one and the same to them. This law will supposedly result in fewer LGBT people. That is the ultimate goal. They think if LGBT people are stigmatized enough, they will go away.
It's also (as I've been stressing in many of my recent posts) part of the larger conservative project to destroy the public school system. The less power teachers have, the more parents have control over curriculum, the ability to sue teachers, cameras in classrooms, the weaker public schools are, which is the goal.
As I said it before, this is an attempt to legislate LGBT people out of existence. The fact that DeSantis calls it an "anti-grooming bill" is proof. They think that teachers cause kids to be gay by discussing LGBT issues. They conflate LGBT people with sex traffickers and child molesters; they're one and the same to them. This law will supposedly result in fewer LGBT people. That is the ultimate goal. They think if LGBT people are stigmatized enough, they will go away.
It's also (as I've been stressing in many of my recent posts) part of the larger conservative project to destroy the public school system. The less power teachers have, the more parents have control over curriculum, the ability to sue teachers, cameras in classrooms, the weaker public schools are, which is the goal.
Last edited by a moderator:
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
I swear to God everything the Rs do these days to distract from the USA's existential problems (that keep getting kicked down the road like an empty soda can) should be treated by the media far differently than is being done.
The journos should report each latest reiteration of this year's Republican "culture war" talking points in one paragraph, and then follow it up with a second para that starts out "Meanwhile, as previously noted in this and other newspapers / news programs, the main issues facing Americans as they head to the polls now during primary season and then in November are as follows...."
-- and then tack on as many paragraphs as needed to summarize each issue and options for the appalling lag in the USA's attention to WHAT WE NEED: better infrastructure (including affordable housing and amenities like parks and venues for public libraries, arts and culture, sports fields ), affordable health care, job development (across categories of work, geographical and career-laddering considerations) and yes, to affordable education including job incentives for future teachers.
WTF is wrong with the media letting themselves being led around by public relations flacks for the two major political parties, as if every journo either has a nose ring or should be groomed and then fitted for one. And what's wrong with us that we don't bother calling them out on it. I reaized the other day that it's been about five years since I even bothered to phone the local paper never mind write a letter to the editor. I guess I gave up when the USA elected Trump. Wrong time to fold...
Yoused
up
The thing that is wrong with the media is conglomeratization (if that is a word). Both parties support big biz, and all the non-fringe media is owned and operated by, beholden to, massive conglomerates. It is classic pickpocketry: keeping us distracted and at each other's throats gives them the cover they need to continue to pillage and sodomize us under te guise of, eh, that is normal, just how things are.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,777
- Reaction score
- 3,674
Then it should be a non-issue. If it isn't being done, why does it matter if it is banned?
And it isn't about what is in the curriculum, but instead having teachers broach a subject that should be a parent's purview.
And before you even think teachers don't do things like this:
Private School Apologizes For Teacher Who Led Preschoolers In Anti-Biden Chant
I love that they called it a misunderstanding. The video obtained by ABC 7 News in Los Angeles shows the unnamed teacher at Turning Point Christian School in Norco asking the 4- and 5-year-olds, “Who’s our president?” When they answer in unison, “Biden,” the teacher then asks, “What do we...
talkedabout.com
Granted this on the other side, but teachers can have agendas and they are wrong no matter which side they are coming from.
D
Deleted member 215
Guest
Yes, teachers should not be teaching sex ed before puberty, nor should they be teaching kids obvious political or religious bias. I don't think that's controversial.
But banning any mention of a same-sex relationship (in a non-sexual context) is problematic. And when they say that it's about "grooming" they give up the game. It's a bill born out of a mindset that all LGBT people are pedophiles. That tells me what this bill is really about.
But banning any mention of a same-sex relationship (in a non-sexual context) is problematic. And when they say that it's about "grooming" they give up the game. It's a bill born out of a mindset that all LGBT people are pedophiles. That tells me what this bill is really about.
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Then it should be a non-issue. If it isn't being done, why does it matter if it is banned?
And it isn't about what is in the curriculum, but instead having teachers broach a subject that should be a parent's purview.
And before you even think teachers don't do things like this:
Private School Apologizes For Teacher Who Led Preschoolers In Anti-Biden Chant
I love that they called it a misunderstanding. The video obtained by ABC 7 News in Los Angeles shows the unnamed teacher at Turning Point Christian School in Norco asking the 4- and 5-year-olds, “Who’s our president?” When they answer in unison, “Biden,” the teacher then asks, “What do we...
Granted this on the other side, but teachers can have agendas and they are wrong no matter which side they are coming from.
But the effect of the law, the way it is written, can get a teacher into huge trouble for doing something as simply as answering a question that could very easily come up. All it would take is some curious kid asking why their classmate has 2 moms, and now the teacher has to decide to ostracize that child or risk their job and financial future due to lawsuits.
Talking about sexual orientation or gender identity is VERY different than “Sex ed” that would generally be taught in higher grades. Kids have LGBTQ family members, and banning teachers from talking about it isn’t going to change that. Imagine a teacher having to tell a kid they can’t talk about their family. THAT is what this bill does.
Please note, the bill does NOT ban any other kind of sex education. So you can still teach kids all sorts of sex stuff as long as you don’t mention gender identity or sexual orientation. So what exactly is the bill protecting against? I guess you can teach kids all about every sex act and sexual position you want, as long as it’s heterosexual. How about this for a great kindergarten lesson plan: The Kama Sutra.
Herdfan
Resident Redneck
- Posts
- 4,777
- Reaction score
- 3,674
This is what it is designed to prevent:
This is from a teacher's FB page. It is not their job to try to influence kids one way or another.
I am pretty sure most of you don't want teacher teaching your kids conservative ideals either. Right now it is about this, but what if a teacher wanted to teach that abortion, although legal is basically killing babies. School is not the appropriate place, at least not in the K-3 age group.
No they can't. Have you actually read the bill?
It says no instruction or classroom discussion. It does not say a teacher can't answer a direct question.
It also is very clear that any lawsuits will be against the district, not the teacher.
This is from a teacher's FB page. It is not their job to try to influence kids one way or another.
I am pretty sure most of you don't want teacher teaching your kids conservative ideals either. Right now it is about this, but what if a teacher wanted to teach that abortion, although legal is basically killing babies. School is not the appropriate place, at least not in the K-3 age group.
No they can't. Have you actually read the bill?
It says no instruction or classroom discussion. It does not say a teacher can't answer a direct question.
It also is very clear that any lawsuits will be against the district, not the teacher.
D
Deleted member 215
Guest
How does a teacher answering a student's question differ from classroom discussion?
Last edited by a moderator:
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Posts
- 7,862
- Reaction score
- 15,004
Not only did I read the bill, I quoted from it in this forum. And answering a question no longer counts as “instruction” anymore? Really? Please tell me how answering a student’s question is anything other than “instruction” in a classroom setting. YOU are making an assumption which the bill does not - that answering a student’s question “doesn’t count” as instruction. That is not only incorrect from a basic understanding of what teaching is, but the bill says no such thing, and left things as vague as possible on purpose.
And I believe a lawsuit actually can affect the teacher, because it states "Nothing contained in this subparagraph shall be construed to abridge or alter rights of action or remedies in equity already existing under the common law or general law.” - that means although it specifically mentions that one can sue the school district (and get legal fees covered), it does not prohibit suing the teacher, although presumably you’d have to cover your own fees if you do that.
Also, while “instruction” is addressed specifically in the statute, the “classroom discussion” is in the preamble of the bill, so not actually legally binding... but again, please tell me who read the bill and who didn’t....
This is straight-up censorship targeting LGBTQ people, period. I thought you were against cancel culture and censorship. I guess not. Gotta punish LGBTQ people, even if it means burning the First Amendment to get there. Bigotry at its finest.
Funny, the image you posted I assume is supposed to indicate the idea that this bill will prevent teachers from trying to “turn kids gay” or something. Well, opposition lawmakers said if you want to ban that, then change the words of the law to do so:
"In a tearful address to the Senate on Monday, Democrat Shevrin Jones, the first openly gay Florida state senator, urged his colleagues to narrow the bill’s language to say instruction should not be “intended to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”"
But they refused, because this bill is NOT about what they claim it’s about.
I cannot tell if the rank-and-file GOP folks don’t realize that the bill doesn’t do what it claims to, or if they DO realize it, and pretend not to for plausible deniability of their own bigotry.
PS - Can you please provide the source for your image.. something much more specific than “a teacher’s Facebook page” that is.
Last edited:
- Posts
- 7,559
- Reaction score
- 11,811
It reminds me of "Everybody is obsessed with" titled articles where I don't know anybody obsessed with whatever it is or even interested in it. Watched a snippet from a recent Jon Stewart show where the topic is basically WTF is wrong with news media, and an insider guest said that news organizations are basically mining social media to come up with what they think the biggest issues of the day are. And to couple with your statement, and they didn't mention it on the show, but it's almost always something that doesn't upset the economic status quo at the top. CRT is the perfect example of a nonissue getting elevated to top concerns.
Yoused
up
This is what it is designed to prevent:
This is from a teacher's FB page. It is not their job to try to influence kids one way or another.
Do you see that penultimate word in the user's comment there? Do you understand what that word means?
lizkat
Watching March roll out real winter
If that excerpted post is real, the teacher who made the artwork and posted it on Facebook noted that IT WAS SNARK. And deservedly so, just because it's a distortion of reality for the Rs to make a potential apocalypse over anything that speaks to acquisition of an education designed to help rather than prevent kids from learning about the world they live in.
Kids aren't born with red or blue politics in them and they're curious about everything, but not in a political way. The brain is wired to ask "what the heck is this?" as a matter of self preservation, but after a few more detailed inquiries (can I breathe? is my heart beating?) then that uber-parental brain often decides "ok, not life threatening" and then it's up to the kid to explore more about whatever has prompted a question, or move on to the next compelling mystery in today's landscape.
Ever heard some kid ask an elder on a train or bus, "So is that lady gonna have a baby or she's just really fat?" It's a kid's question, probably based on recent acquisition of the information that pregnant women develop big bellies for awhile before a new sibling will show up.
It's no different (to the kid, anyway) to asking why lemon curdles milk but sugar doesn't.
You're a parent, you get it. Kids are a trip and a half every day, and they're not the only ones learning things by the seat of their pants either. Teachers and librarians get 20 times the education about kids compared to any parent, for every hour that they run a classroom.
In the best of all situations, the educators and librarians have been afforded a good education themselves, including teaching to encourage, not close down, a kid's curiosity. We're better off working to ensure that kids grow up with inquiring minds, rather than messing around with lesson plans to constrain discussion to politically filtered ideas of suitable topics or methods of presentation.
I think Florida's legislators do the kids in their state a really big disservice with this bill.
I'm pretty sure that teacher is just making a joke because people assume teachers are turning their kids gay.
Conservatives always need a boogie man.
Yoused
up
There is an interpretation gap between RWers and everyone else. The RWers appear to view humor as a weapon, to be deployed against people that need to be punished. It is not clear whether they can grasp the concept of humor that does not have a victim. Hence, sarcasm eludes them. How often have we heard a RWer say something disgusting and then try to backpedal with "it was a joke", thinking that is how sarcasm works. One must be careful how one uses snark around these people because they fail to get it.
Similar threads
