Meanwhile, in Florida...

[L'Emmerdeur]

The scenario needn't be so innocuous--the child states that the teacher told him in response to the question about Jeb that some women marry other women, and that they have children and become families just like any other families. To me that sounds like a potential problem under this law, recalling the vigor with which more zealous Christians have pursued their agenda in court.

The obvious remedy is that teachers answer all such questions with 'You will have to ask your parents about that.' A relatively anodyne situation, except that it might tend to create a sort of stigma--Jeb's family's difference is not something a teacher can discuss in a matter of fact way--an aura of otherness is imposed. By law.

[Brian Peacock]

Why have DeSantis' team gone full Q on this, saying that opponents of the bill are child sex abusers? I've wondered about this before. Why does that kind of narrative stick (Q-ers add 'Satanic' for good measure of course)? That kind of thing seems to becoming an everyday, reflexive political response to criticism or opposition in some quarters. I cant be the only one who finds that noteworthy; troubling, that opponents can be so casually and routinely branded as lasciviously reprehensible, criminally-minded child molesters? Why are some people so quick to adopt this kind of thing as fact, or at least as a working hypothesis, and assimilate it into their world views - at least into world views that are already receptive to accepting it?

There's something about it which seems to go beyond mere vilification, beyond the kind of regular moral opprobrium dished out as political affectation. Is it just a matter of deliberately inculcating the baddest feelings possible towards other viewpoints by spinning a convenient, dehumanising yarn? Just a matter of PR? Or does it perhaps express some real and visceral revulsion for the existence of opposing viewpoints, or at the thought that the views of other might hold sway over one's own? Is it, "I have to believe this as hard and as extremely as I can, because the consequences of being wrong are just too appalling to contemplate"?

As a charge it's really serious, as serious and condemning as claiming opponents are probably serial killers itching to kill your granny so they can dance around in her skin after sucking the warm marrow from her bones. It's outrageous, literally and figuratively, and at the same time kinda par for the course; normal; unsurprising, even unremarkable. Is this what politics is now?

There's probably a book or two in answering that, but I'm not going to be the one to write them that's for sure.

[laklak]

It's the GOP equivalent of the Dems screeching "racism" at everything.

[Sean Hayden]

I think we're talking at cross purposes. To me the law could be used to prevent schools from adopting unproven gender instruction. There are many people and corporations --apparently there is money to be made-- seeking access to public schools. You probably couldn't find an experienced teacher who doesn't have a horror story about the time their district adopted such and such new curriculum/program, and that will be for the core subjects! --never mind electives, specials and other extracurricular programs peddling their wares to schools... Did anyone else gather in the auditorium to learn why you shouldn't drink and drive was because if you died, you died in sin... Of course it can be much worse too.

--//--

@Brian

1st, because we should be optimist. These people have been at odds with trends for decades now.

2nd, it's beyond me, but I might be convinced it's our way of living what's done it.

[Tero]

Soon they will ban gay teachers. Then there is only the priests left to abuse kids.

[Sean Hayden]

I went ahead and read the bill, and on "discussing" issues it says:

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.

This appears to confirm my thoughts about the bill.
I don't see an easy means of using this bill to censor ordinary discussions around gender and sexuality as they might arise at these grade levels e.g. acknowledging the normalcy of non-traditional roles and relationships, Stanley is married to George!?

But I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure lemmy is right that people will try.

[Brian Peacock]

Do you know state standards on what constitutes 'age appropriate or developmentally appropriate' discussion?

[Sean Hayden]

The bill is talking about classroom instruction for gender and sexuality, not any and all classroom discussion around those topics. The idea I have here is that a teacher can use non-traditional characters and stories to develop any number of age-appropriate skills without providing lessons on gender or sexuality.

When discussing developmentally appropriate here you're largely talking about age related expectations e.g. some age-appropriate expectations for 2nd grade oral language development in Texas

(A) listen actively, ask relevant questions to clarify information, and answer questions using multi-word responses;
(B) follow, restate, and give oral instructions that involve short, related sequence of actions;
(C) share information and ideas that focus on the topic under discussion, speaking clearly at an appropriate pace and using the
conventions of language;

So, a story with gay parents used to assess whether Texas 2nd graders are asking relevant questions to clarify information needn't be any more about homosexuality than a traditional story would be about heterosexuality for the students. The instructional quality of those factors in both cases being solely to bolster inclusion.

[Brian Peacock]

That all seems very sensible and straightforward - but these things have a wider context don't they. I guess the 'drama' lies elsewhere, perhaps with "gay media like CNN" or "childless gay activists" or BLM etc...

[Sean Hayden]

Yes, and the problem with what I've said so far is just how likely are Florida teachers to use non-traditional characters in their instruction; how about now that this bill has passed?

Nobody would be surprised to learn that this bill was written to suppress the gains made by LGBTQ. In fact, it's clear from what some of the bill's backers have said that they are fighting to keep othering these groups. And they're likely to succeed in slowing down the adoption of materials and activities in schools that could be used to make kids happier.

So, while this bill brings up problems I want to acknowledge, the intentions of its backers and the real harm it will do kill it for me.

--//--

Hopefully Florida teachers will test the bill by using non-traditional characters. It's not obvious to me how the law --used as opponents fear it will be-- passes such tests given things like gay marriage are a reality...

[Brian Peacock]

It's regrettable that society isn't given the space to have wide-ranging, nuanced discussions around issues like these. Mouthpieces like Carlson are syndicated anti-nuance generating machines designed to reduce all social, political and economic issues (basically all moral and ethical issues) to a few highly emotive sentences they hope will inculcate the most amount of dread in the most amount of people. And in doing that they frame the issues as 'controversy' and set the bounds of the debate as a conflict between good-and-evil. While everyone is arguing over that very few people even question the premise of the argument - which in this case seems to be that one's gender and sexual orientation are things you're taught to be at school, which we all know is a complete bucket of dingos kidneys.


...and relax

[Woodbutcher]

It's like Russian state censorship.

[Sean Hayden]

few people even question the premise of the argument - which in this case seems to be that one's gender and sexual orientation are things you're taught to be at school

I see you're feeling inspired, that's quite an insight.

[Brian Peacock]

It's strawpersons all the way down.

[Hermit]

It's the GOP equivalent of the Dems screeching "racism" at everything.

It's such a relief to know that screeching "you're a paedophile" is equivalent to screeching "you're a racist".