Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

LowGradePlayer t1_ix43upa wrote

I think the law is to not say gay below a certain age.

It does not “prevent education about sexuality and gender in classrooms” per say.

I think it is a stupid law, but when it comes to politics, it’s important to be as honest as possible.

−75

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix47vwr wrote

It is specific about the "absolutely none up until 3rd grade" and then says "in an age appropriate manner" beyond that. It is purposefully ambiguous so that pretty much any discussion in any grade can be challenged and shut down.

That is being honest about it.

49

Insight42 t1_ix4lr6b wrote

Exactly. "Absolutely no sex education before 3rd grade" is a pointless law - who exactly is teaching kindergartners about sex? - but that's a reasonable stance.

Unfortunately that is not what the law actually states: "[c]lassroom 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."

This, of course, is overly vague.

What constitutes instruction - answering a student question? A discussion of a topic? A full lesson?

What kind of specific content are we addressing - the existence of LGBTQ people? What that term means? Gender roles and place in culture? Sex education?

Who decides what's age or developmentally appropriate? How do we decide this for an entire class of kids in later grades?

Nothing here is nailed down at all, and attempts to do so were quickly shot down to intentionally keep the language vague. This gives the bill the quality of having equally viable interpretations: one can correctly say that it prevents discussion of safe sex with kindergartners (good!) as well as discussions of historical figures such as Joan of Arc (who have defied gender roles of their time - which may or may not be part of the banned instruction) straight up to graduation.

It is true that the law does not specifically state that you can't say gay. It's also true that it's vague enough that this is an entirely reasonable interpretation of the restrictions placed upon teachers in any grade; since any arbitrary breach will result in penalty, it is indeed safer to simply never come close to any topic even tangentially related to sex or gender in any way.

3

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix4ou97 wrote

I generally agree, with all of this, though still think it's funny how squicky people get about discussing sex with kids in general. Like, yes, nobody is teaching kindergarteners about safe sex or sex toys or positions or anything explicit about the act. But kids from a pretty young age are completely capable of learning about the fact that it's a thing, it's (usually) how they came to be, and that it's a very personal subject that they themselves have control over regarding their own bodies. The more educated kids are about sex, the less likely they are to make risky decisions or allow someone to "groom" or otherwise take advantage of them. Actual "groomers" love it when young people are uneducated in the matter. And as for the whole "why would an unrelated adult want to talk to kids about sex, that's the parent's job" argument, most sexual abuse of children is perpetrated by family members, not teachers. The teachers are more likely to stop it than family is.

It's weird how there is this major, almost ubiquitous, often risky factor in life that we often attempt to completely hide from children until they stumble through it themselves unprepared. All because people are either so afraid of being seen as the "creep" or "groomer" or so afraid of the idea that their children will be doing it themselves someday, which ironically, is something they also pray for in the form of grandchildren.

2

Insight42 t1_ix6e0px wrote

In fact - we used to. Not in great detail, but we used to; it's pretty much what you said. I grew up in the 80s, which was this time everyone seems to look back on with crazy nostalgia. And some of the other similarly old people out there might remember this whole thing we had back then called an AIDS epidemic.

We had assemblies at school to talk about it. Videos in the classroom. All sorts of stories all over the media explaining that if you have sex, you have to be safe. Songs on the radio. Famous athletes, musicians - hell, your favorite cartoon characters were out there telling you about it. This led to a huge bump in sex ed all through the 90s (at least in blue states) which were well thought out and highly regarded. This was replaced during Dubya's reign in most places for abstinence only, but it very much existed prior to the backlash.

2

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4881v wrote

Do you suppose age appropriate discussion of heterosexual stuff?

Or do you think age is irrelevant it any topic about sex?

−36

ogfusername t1_ix4a4bw wrote

Do you support the government determining what is and isn’t age appropriate discussions about heterosexuality/homosexuality?

Do you realize there are an infinite amount topics regarding homosexuality/heterosexuality that have nothing to do with sex itself?

28

fnordal t1_ix4gk23 wrote

I support any government setting an age for appropriate discourse about sex, as long as it's before 4th grade.

But since heterosexuality and homosexuality are not necessarily about sex, but also affection, that part of the discussion should definitely be "free" at all ages.

4

Where_Da_Cheese_At t1_ix4n2km wrote

There are infinite topics but none of them have to do with reading or math. There is no need to be talking about homosexuality outside of age appropriate sex Ed class - anything else is interjecting opinions onto impressionable kids when they should be learning core subjects.

−2

ogfusername t1_ix4nigo wrote

An infinite amount of topics but none of them having anything to do with READING?? What the fuck are you talking about?

3

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4d5g4 wrote

Governments determine school curriculum across the country.

Parents can do what they want.

−19

ogfusername t1_ix4gkjo wrote

Lol if you support the law just say that. State sponsored erasure of gay people has nothing to do with school curriculum.

Parents have always been able to do what they want.

6

LowGradePlayer t1_ix4reug wrote

I say I did not support the law.

I also do not support disinformation

1

MoonageDayscream t1_ix4j8oi wrote

Barring a second grade teacher from being able to even mention their legal marriage is not about education, it's about erasure.

5

PM_ur_Rump t1_ix4lh71 wrote

I mean, they can mention their marriage if they are straight, or read stories about straight characters, or do all sorts of things that reference heterosexual relationships and traditional gender roles, that's just conveniently not "discussing gender/sex."

Really, it's about protecting the parents, not the kids. They are afraid of having to discuss these issues with their kids because they are not mature enough for the conversation, not the kids.

4

TKHunsaker t1_ix4gnao wrote

Then what are all those parental committees for? Surely not because parents care about what their children are taught.

3

super_sayanything t1_ix47yv3 wrote

Honest? Honest is that these people want gay people silenced. They want them not to be able to raise children, marry or feel like full people.

Cut the bullshit. This is pure "signaling" that inches itself to abuse against an entire population that deserve love and equality. Inalienable rights.

It's not just about what the law says, it's what it means.

GAY. GAY. GAY.

28

Absolute_Crap_Comics t1_ix4nz5x wrote

You do realize that most gay people just like most straight people don't want to involve children in any way, shape, or form, when they talk about their sexuality, right? Homosexuality is not on par with pedophilia, and the fact you don't seem to understand this is very disturbing.

2

LowGradePlayer t1_ix48drl wrote

So say that.

But don’t say is stops sex education in school, because it does not.

−17

PaulClarkLoadletter t1_ix4ifqv wrote

It absolutely does and seeks specifically to combine topics relating to gender and sexuality to intercourse. The purpose is to marginalize a specific societal group.

Make no mistake. There is a substantial difference between the manner in which two people of the same gender have intercourse and whether or not those people exist. The latter is what’s important here. They exist and it’s perfectly normal. It’s way more damaging for a teacher to decline acknowledging Susie’s two moms than it is for Jenny to hear that Susie has two moms.

The fact that the first thing the GOP thinks of at the mention of two men in love is how they have sex is disturbing.

8