ADVERTISEMENT

Can Someone Explain

S

shu09

All Universe
Gold Member
Jan 6, 2006
27,211
20,547
113
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SHallguy2, Section112 and SHUSA
  • Like
Reactions: Section112
shu09 said:
Why this is controversial? The law prohibits instruction on sexual orientation from K-3rd grade. Why would we be teaching children that young about this topic to begin with?

www.cnbc.com

Disney CEO says company opposes 'Don't Say Gay' bill in Florida, seeks meeting with DeSantis

The Walt Disney Company is now publicly opposing Florida's controversial "Don't Say Gay" bill.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...

It's not like kids are getting sex-ed in that age group. This law solves a "theoretical" problem that really isn't a problem at all, and it creates more issues for no reason.

Assume for a moment that a child is being bullied in school because they have two dads. Or maybe there is a boy being bullied because he is into stuff that girls are into.

They are codifying into law that a teacher can not intervene to help them and at least acknowledge that people are different.
 
shu09 said:
That is a stretch and not what the law is about.
Click to expand...

What is the law about?
No curriculum for k-3 includes anything about sexual orientation and gender.
We need a law to block teachers from including things in their curriculums that aren't there?
 
The article says the law prohibits instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools from K-3rd grade.
 
shu09 said:
The article says the law prohibits instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in public schools from K-3rd grade.
Click to expand...

Right, but that wasn't something that was on any curriculum in the first place.

In any case, you're asking what the issue is with the law.
The law is a little ambiguous regarding if a teacher can acknowledge gay people exist.
Not if they should build lesson plans around sexual and gender preference. We would all agree they shouldn't (and don't)

Based on the law, can a teacher discourage bullying against a child who has gay parents? Can they say that it is ok for some kids to have 2 dads? Or should those teachers be afraid they might lose their jobs if they do?

We can't really answer those questions yet because it will be a new law that hasn't been tested yet.
 
shu09 said:
The law says instruction. Period.
Click to expand...

"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."

Define "instruction"
Define "or in a matter that is not age appropriate"
Define "developmentally appropriate"

Again, the law is ambiguous. We don't really know what it does outside of preventing teachers from instructing kids on things they weren't instructing them anyway.

You're sure there will be no unintended consequences of a law like that. That's fine.
Others disagree with you. That's fine too.
No one knows yet. Some are concerned you are wrong and what that means.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
I find it truly bizarre how anyone could be so vehemently against this bill.
 
Pirata said:
Best to read the actual Bill before commenting.
Click to expand...

Best to post the bill in question before commenting.
That's the wrong bill.

1834 was withdrawn. 1557 was advanced. The language is different.
 
shu09 said:
I find it truly bizarre how anyone could be so vehemently against this bill.
Click to expand...

The loudest mouths are relying on news articles and other loud mouths to understand what is in the bill.

If someone tells you it is the "don't say gay" Bill and you start shouting, "DeSantis wants to make it illegal to say the word 'gay'!", I suspect you would have a following (of idiots) fairly quickly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abbo71, shu09 and HALL85
shu09 said:
I find it truly bizarre how anyone could be so vehemently against this bill.
Click to expand...

The language is too ambiguous. We will have to wait for the lawsuits and the courts to decide what the actual impact is.

Again, unless you know how to define the items I noted above

"instruction"
"or in a matter that is not age appropriate"
"developmentally appropriate"

You are just guessing on the impact.
 
I'd like to see someone who opposes the Bill sit down with kindergarten child and have a discussion about non-binary sexuality.

That is...assuming they could actually recognize a kindergarten age child.
 
Pirata said:
I'd like to see someone who opposes the Bill sit down with kindergarten child and have a discussion about non-binary sexuality.

That is...assuming they could actually recognize a kindergarten age child.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that is a thing that is or even should be happening though.

As a parent of a first grader, I wouldn't want the teacher to explain non-binary genders or anything about sexuality. BUT, I would also want that teacher to be able to step in if a kid is being bullied for having two dads or two moms etc..

Not to say they need a lesson plan on gender and sex. But a teacher should be able to acknowledge that some kids will have two moms or dads and that's ok. I'm not sure if the Florida law allows that.
 
shu09 said:
The bill has nothing to do with bullying!
Click to expand...

I understand you're convinced of that. I'm not.
But if you're not going to attempt to define the language I asked about earlier, you have to realize that you are just guessing on the impact of the law... as is everyone because the law is too ambiguous and none of us understand how a court will view the law.
 
Merge said:
I understand you're convinced of that. I'm not.
But if you're not going to attempt to define the language I asked about earlier, you have to realize that you are just guessing on the impact of the law... as is everyone because the law is too ambiguous and none of us understand how a court will view the law.
Click to expand...
Your take seems political, not rational. Every bill is ambiguous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
SPK145 said:
Your take seems political, not rational. Every bill is ambiguous.
Click to expand...

But attempts to amend and clarify some of the language failed. Everyone who believes they know what this bill will do (on both sides) is guessing.

All I am saying is that based on the way it is written, there are going to be frivolous lawsuits coming.
The bill is in the spotlight with a debate on what it does and doesn't do. Why not just clarify the intent of the bill?
 
Merge said:
Best to post the bill in question before commenting.
That's the wrong bill.

1834 was withdrawn. 1557 was advanced. The language is different.
Click to expand...

Thank you for pointing that out.

The new language does not change the underlying intent of the Bill.

Merge said:
Define "instruction"
Define "or in a matter that is not age appropriate"
Define "developmentally appropriate"
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

The word "instruction" is ambiguous???

I think it has something to do with the teacher standing in front of the classroom and talking to the students in conjunction with a lesson plan? What do I know?


age-appropriate

adjective

  1. suitable for a particular age or age group.
    "some of her outfits should be more age-appropriate"
I'm fine with jury judging that one.

For Developmentally Appropriate, here is some light reading.

www.naeyc.org

DAP: Defining Developmentally Appropriate Practice

NAEYC defines “developmentally appropriate practice” as methods that promote each child’s optimal development and learning through a strengths-based, play-based approach to joyful, engaged learning.
www.naeyc.org www.naeyc.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
Merge said:
But attempts to amend and clarify some of the language failed. Everyone who believes they know what this bill will do (on both sides) is guessing.

All I am saying is that based on the way it is written, there are going to be frivolous lawsuits coming.
The bill is in the spotlight with a debate on what it does and doesn't do. Why not just clarify the intent of the bill?
Click to expand...
Or maybe not misrepresent what the bill is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shu09
Pirata said:
The word "instruction" is ambiguous???

I think it has something to do with the teacher standing in front of the classroom and talking to the students in conjunction with a lesson plan? What do I know?
Click to expand...

Does it mean anything the teacher says in a classroom setting? Or is it referring to lessons specifically?


Pirata said:
age-appropriate

adjective

  1. suitable for a particular age or age group.
    "some of her outfits should be more age-appropriate"
I'm fine with jury judging that one.
Click to expand...

Funny that you didn't even attempt to state what that would mean in regards to this law though.
 
The fact that you don't know what instruction means in an educational setting is not a good look for you. I don't really think you're that dumb, you're just pretending to be in order to mold this discussion into one of your patented pretzels.
 
Merge said:
Does it mean anything the teacher says in a classroom setting? Or is it referring to lessons specifically?




Funny that you didn't even attempt to state what that would mean in regards to this law though.
Click to expand...

I sure did.

I said I'd be comfortable with a jury interpreting it.

You call it ambiguity. I call it common sense.
 
Merge said:
Does it mean anything the teacher says in a classroom setting? Or is it referring to lessons specifically?
Click to expand...

So are you suggesting that a 1st grade teacher can say, "Ok class, that wraps it with the formal instruction for today. Before you leave I'd like to spend a few minutes talking off the record about the female reproductive cycle."
 
Pirata said:
So are you suggesting that a 1st grade teacher can say, "Ok class, that wraps it with the formal instruction for today. Before you leave I'd like to spend a few minutes talking off the record about the female reproductive cycle."
Click to expand...

Assume a first grade teacher asks students to draw a picture of their family and one student draws two dads and the other kids make fun of them. What can the teacher legally say in response?

You're guessing if you think you know the answer to that.

If it is specifically about classroom curriculum, then they should just define that these topics are not allowed to be included in any curriculum or lesson plans.
 
Merge said:
Assume a first grade teacher asks students to draw a picture of their family and one student draws two dads and the other kids make fun of them. What can the teacher legally say in response?
Click to expand...

How about, "Johnny, stop making fun of Billy"?

Merge said:
You're guessing if you think you know the answer to that.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Are you seriously going to serve up every possible scenario and test the law?

“Suppose that you didn’t make your Easter duty and it’s Pentecost Sunday, the last day, and you’re on a ship at sea. And the chaplain goes into a coma! But you wanted to receive. And then it’s Monday, too late… But then you cross the International Date Line! Would that then be a sin then, Father?”

― George Carlin
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PiratePride
shu09 said:
Why this is controversial? The law prohibits instruction on sexual orientation from K-3rd grade. Why would we be teaching children that young about this topic to begin with?

www.cnbc.com

Disney CEO says company opposes 'Don't Say Gay' bill in Florida, seeks meeting with DeSantis

The Walt Disney Company is now publicly opposing Florida's controversial "Don't Say Gay" bill.
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com
Click to expand...
Seriously… my twins are in first grade and they’re just learning that they can’t marry each other. Let kids be kids, this will all work itself out before middle school. Not a 5-8/9 y/o conversation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Abbo71, dehere23, SPK145 and 1 other person
sami said:
Seriously… my twins are in first grade and they’re just learning that they can’t marry each other. Let kids be kids, this will all work itself out before middle school. Not a 5-8/9 y/o conversation.
Click to expand...

I have a daughter in first grade as well.
She did actually come home one day a few months ago and was talking about people getting married and that a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl and that’s ok.

Turned out it was because she liked JoJo Siwa and other kids in her class started talking about how JoJo was gay and made fun of that. Prompted a discussion from the teacher to say that it just means she wants to marry a woman, and that boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls and that’s ok.

That was it.
Would that be legally allowed in Florida? Was that classroom “instruction”? I don’t know.
 
Merge said:
I have a daughter in first grade as well.
She did actually come home one day a few months ago and was talking about people getting married and that a boy can marry a boy and a girl can marry a girl and that’s ok.

Turned out it was because she liked JoJo Siwa and other kids in her class started talking about how JoJo was gay and made fun of that. Prompted a discussion from the teacher to say that it just means she wants to marry a woman, and that boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls and that’s ok.

That was it.
Would that be legally allowed in Florida? Was that classroom “instruction”? I don’t know.
Click to expand...
We’ll pardon my naivety on the bill, but I think sexuality should not be taught in K-3, not necessarily a ban on discussion as you put it above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merge
sami said:
We’ll pardon my naivety on the bill, but I think sexuality should not be taught in K-3, not necessarily a ban on discussion as you put it above.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think we can all agree on that.

If anyone here happens to know a teacher in Florida, ask them what the bill will and will not allow for K-3 and for grades above that as well. I only know one and they weren't sure what it does yet.

I just feel like with the national spotlight on this bill, I think they should want to clarify what is and isn't allowed.
 
Any adult who discusses sex and sexuality with a child in grades K-3 is a pedophile....plain and simple
 
jmt6762 said:
Any adult who discusses sex and sexuality with a child in grades K-3 is a pedophile....plain and simple
Click to expand...
But at that age kids aren’t really discussing sex in that conversation. It’s much more innocent, like my twins wondering if they can marry each other like mom and dad. Merge’s example was pretty innocent.

Don’t have a problem with and I’ve explained to my kids that we have friends in a same sex marriage.

The words love and marriage come up, not sex and scissoring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Merge said:
Would that be legally allowed in Florida? Was that classroom “instruction”?
Click to expand...

IMO, it would not constitute instruction. Instruction would need to be formalized and documented in a lesson plan. Clearly, your example does not fit that criteria.

As a parent, I'd be concerned about the depth of the "discussion" in that situation. I'd prefer the teacher use their skills to diffuse those situations quickly and move on to other things. If there is a systemic issue on the matter, then the parents should be consulted. I would not want the teacher to engage in an impromptu lesson on same sex marriage and sexual orientation.

I personally would not want to see a book like the one below formally brought into the curriculum. Note the target grade level of pre-K thru 3rd Grade. I just don't see the need to explain LBGQT to a 3 year-old. If a parent want to do that in their home, that is their choice.

When I was very young, we used to visit "Ruth and Mary Ann", two women in an apartment down the hall from my grandmother. To us, they were simply Ruth and Maryann. The gave us candy. hugs, and were always happy to see us. Many years later we through back on them and realize the were gay. Also looking back I am glad my parents did not explain to us in depth what being gay was. The candy and smiles were fine just as is.


Amazon product ASIN 1433830876
 
Pirata said:
IMO, it would not constitute instruction. Instruction would need to be formalized and documented in a lesson plan. Clearly, your example does not fit that criteria.

As a parent, I'd be concerned about the depth of the "discussion" in that situation. I'd prefer the teacher use their skills to diffuse those situations quickly and move on to other things. If there is a systemic issue on the matter, then the parents should be consulted. I would not want the teacher to engage in an impromptu lesson on same sex marriage and sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

I agree that kids k-3 should not have that in their lesson plans or curriculum. Though I don’t really think that was happening.

I just think there are valid concerns regarding what the law does and does not do.


Pirata said:
When I was very young, we used to visit "Ruth and Mary Ann", two women in an apartment down the hall from my grandmother. To us, they were simply Ruth and Maryann. The gave us candy. hugs, and were always happy to see us. Many years later we through back on them and realize the were gay. Also looking back I am glad my parents did not explain to us in depth what being gay was. The candy and smiles were fine just as is.
Click to expand...

A little more difficult to brush off the topic now though since it’s far more common for people to be openly gay. Like Jojo Siwa. My kids were obsessed with her for years and she came out as gay at like 15 or 16. That really wasn’t something parents had to think about when I was growing up.
 
I agree that times have changed and the conversations my parents had with me are different than the conversations I had with my daughter and my daughter's conversations with her child will be different.

I do believe it's a parent's responsibility to assess what those conversations are and when they should be had.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back