The Don't Say Gay bill

the point is that hetero or cis "irrelevant personal crap" won't get you sued. Gay/trans "personal crap" WILL

Yup. That's pure unfiltered bigotry all right.

here's a simple question: how is it that no law or policy on the face of the earth requires anyone to acknowledge any of the bullshit hypotheticals you fuckers pull out of your ass (cat, Napoleon, attack helicopter, alien, fire truck) and yet y'all STILL can't speak plainly but try to camouflage your hatefulness with ridiculous examples?

Say what you mean, Mr. Straight-talker.

it's not stupidity, it's malice

how is it an imposition on YOU if I expect you to be respectful enough to call me "she" but it's NOT an imposition on me for you to use "he" in spite of my identity?

Such behavior, in the wrong setting, can and does out trans people to bystanders who would otherwise not have known and thereby put then at risk of violence. Better a trans person gets their ass beat than for your snowflake ass to be burdened with modifying one word in your sentence. Right?

And this is not at all hypothetical. A new kid transfers to the school and their trans status is not disclosed to students to protect her privacy, but by and by their "Christian" teacher refuses to use female pronouns and now the whole school knows. Most kids are accepting and supportive but what of those who are not?

We're supposed to put the child at risk because one theoretically grown-ass adult is too self absorbed to slightly modify their language?

And of course, this goes beyond the school. What if I'm at work and someone comes in who knows my past and deadnames me and calls me sir and outs me to all my co-workers and my boss...and it happens to be a "Christian" boss who can't abide such sin in his presence? How's that going to end?
In a way that makes the bigots happy and the trans person's life more difficult. But hey, better a trans person lose their job and/or their home or even their life than that a bigot should be considerate.

Last year, before this passed, a Florida teacher acknowledged (when asked) his marriage to his husband over the summer and some parents complained that his disclosure of his sexuality was inappropriate. In that case the administration backed him and declined to discipline him.

Should that happen now, the school could be sued and most administrators would rather ditch the teacher than risk losing in court.

Because it's hetero-normative and the cishet crowd can reinforce their own traditions until forever and that's considered "normal" while we have to make special laws to designate the LGBT people as unworthy of respect.

Again, refusing to let a trans person "impose their will" on you is 100% an act of you imposing your will on them. Why is your preference privileged over theirs?

Particularly when it is entirely in keeping with what actually happens in our culture. There's literally no one who has a poster of Marion Morrison on their wall, no one in 40 plus years has said "Fuck off with the 'Bono' bullshit Paul"
No one in any setting refuses to use a married woman's new name because they refuse to be imposed on.
Dude says of his Camero "she's a sweet ride" you don't get fired up about how inanimate objects don't have pronouns

But the ONE name/pronoun matter that's too heavy a burden for cis bigots to bear is in the context of trans people. Which means it's not about being imposed on, it's about being hateful because you don't think they are worthy of the same respect you are.

ETA: asking you to respect our pronouns and name IS an imposition - an incredibly mild one that only the most fragile snowflake could be bothered by. By contrast, your imposition on them can in some circumstance be putting them at actual risk of violence or loss or even death.

a man constantly in need of a safe space.

Indeed.
I keep mistaking his not-give-a-shittery for naivete.
He'd watch an LGBT kid commit suicide, and victim blame as it happened.

First, the class shouldn't be consuming media that broaches topics that are age inappropriate.

Second, if the question does arise, the teacher can answer it forthrightly or refer the child to their parents for an explanation.

Define age inappropriate.

When I was little, we had storybooks with Disney level kissing.

Can two boys Disney-kiss in a book?
Or does that suddenly become gay porn?

May I introduce you to the entire goddamn Republican party

Depends on the question, but I think the teacher can say "Please be respectful of Betty" and refer any deeper questions to the parents.

Beauty and the Beast.

The Little Mermaid.

Young kids have been consuming media with romance narratives for-freaking-ever.

And anybody who never so much as said "boo" about Belle's fucking Stockholm Syndrome can shut up about Heather's two mommies being age-inappropriate.

If your law prevents things like classes putting on movies like The Little Mermaid on the last day of class as a treat then it's probably a bad law.

Also I assume you haven't read any childrens books for a long time, because an overwhelmingly number of them include families.

Unless you're trying to say it's just gay families that aren't age appropriate?

Materials with any kind of romantic or sexual themes should probably be eschewed for younger students.

While I had some vague awareness of romance, etc. by the time I was a young middle schooler, I can't remember any school materials that had it. All the "Janet and Mark" stories we read were quite sexless.

Define brainwash.

Teach a kid literally anything besides language and math and someone somewhere out there will claim there's indoctrination going on - and they're right, because you CANNOT teach a child anything else without indoctrination. Hell, that's all a fucking church - or any associated activity - is: indoctrination centers.

Pledge of Allegiance? Indoctrination. Salute the flag? Indoctrination. American exceptionalism? Indoctrination.The Lost Cause? VERY indoctrination.
The idea that Western culture is superior? Yup. The list goes on forever. THAT is what you are referring to, brainwashing is an entirely different thing.

Kids aren't stupid. When you can explain some things but not others kids will pick up on that as meaning "this thing is normal and ok, and this thing isn't"

It's such a lazy cop out because it pretends to be against exposing kids to views when all it does is expose them the the view that it's naughty.

See posts 275 and 276.

Again, the point of the bill is that no one will ever question a cishet teacher **IF** they do so, but a trans or gay teacher will have hell to pay, or a cishet teacher that acknowledges any one elses gay or trans status.

The law SAYS it's about sexuality and gender identity but it's NOT or else it would be enforced in regards to any discussion or implication about being cis/het

It's about distinguishing LGBT people as less-than, unworthy of your respect.

Thankfully, kids today have way more access to the world around them that's not filtered through the school, so the ones not actively being taught bigotry at home will come to realize this law is bigoted bullshit. But this discussion isn't about what my teacher or your teacher did or should have done, it's about the intended outcome of the law - which goes beyond the text.

As long as the stories don't venture into sexuality, they're probably fine. And, again, if they do prompt questions in that area, the teacher refers the child to their parents.

I don't object to stories with families, even, say, families with two same sex parents. Of course, stories should never venture anywhere near sexuality.

sounds a lot like a retcon to me.

Certainly that's far from universal. But again, *IF* they do, and the info revealed is cis/het conforming, then NO ONE WILL OBJECT which is the point of this tangent. Non-conforming teachers OTOH incur a huge amount of risk if THEY do

Either @Paladin has had a stroke or he is being intentionally obtuse. He is not this stupid, and he should be shamed for even trying to play this game. It is a lie and intellectually dishonest. It is also a distraction that tries to give validity to the obvious attempt to make discussing homosexuality penalized so children will think it is wrong because it is hushed.

How long have we had sex hushed in classrooms and discussion. Psychologically it has lead to association with taboo and has done huge mental damage to people. It is harmful to treat basic biology like a fucking sin. It causes things like the perversion of basic sexual attraction and leads to things like rape fantasies, porn addiction, and sexual dysfunction of all sorts. It leads to sexism and the denegration of women as dirty and perverse.

This is the point that Paladin and the right love because they are sick fucks. They know it does this, and they like fucking people up.

I honestly don't know if you're being dishonest, or are naïve on the level of a prequel-era Jedi.

I don't think it's complicated: if a teacher can't discuss something without venturing into sexuality or gender identity, then they just shouldn't talk about it. If asked a question that would lead to that, they should refer the child to the parent.

Yes, I understand that this may be more limiting for a trans or alternative teacher, but parents aren't going to open the floodgates for that corner case.

That very idea needs to be eliminated as it is clear the way we treat basic sexuality perverts the minds of people into sexual dysfunction of all sorts. The making of basic biological sex evil as in a sin is fucking people up. It is psychologically damaging to make people afraid of their body parts from a young age.

I'm not dishonest and I don't think I'm naive.

It seems like we're trying to make something simple and long understood into something complicated.

I can say for myself, I was never exposed to any material of a sexual nature in school until sex ed late in grade school.

Let me ask you this: what would YOU consider inappropriate for a second grader?

A Disney-kiss is sexuality.
I'd be against these laws for the puritanism alone, but as Nova keeps pointing out, it's not going to be used for puritanism, it will only impact LGBT people.
The side-effect is the intent.

Wavey-hand.

As I said, I'd eschew content with romantic elements for younger schoolchildren.

Frank discussions of sexuality are inappropriate for children of K-3 age. If restrictions on that are more constraining on LGBT teachers, sorry, but so be it. Education exists for the benefit of the students.