DeSantis Authoritarian "Don't say Gay" ban.

It's not at a K-3 level. It's a discussion about gender identity, but mostly about LOVE.

No! There is no "right" to teach factual falsehoods. And it's the schools obligation to correct them if a homophobe parent decides to tell that to their child. Especially when that falsehood can lead to bullying or to low self-esteem.

Anybody who wants to teach their children falsehoods can home-school them (and I'm not sure that's a valid alternative). But a school is a place where you should only learn FACTS.

The purpose of this law is simply to gain votes among the homophobe community.

 

Sorry, but that's the parents.

 

That's pretty sick. Seek help!

 

Your exact words were...."Sexual orientation has NEVER been taught in K-3. What is mentioned sometimes, when the circumstances demand it, is that people who are attracted to others of their own sex is perfectly normal."

Are you now saying that your concurrent sentences are NOT saying that sometimes in K-3 when the circumstances demand it..."? If that was not your intent, then your choice of wording is poor because that is certainly the logical inference. If it is your position that circumstances do NOT sometimes warrant that discussion by 3rd grade, I am not so sure that you speak for the totality of all teachers. You simply do not. For any teacher that may think that sometimes circumstances warrant that discussion in grades 3 and under, now this law clarifies that they are not to do so. If it does not ever occur as you contend ( and could not possibly know), then what is the harm?

Parents have a right to teach their kids whatever they want, even if YOU see it as a factual falsehood. They can teach them about Santa Claus, the stork, Jesus, that being gay will damn you to hell, and any other thing they please. It is none of your ******* business. Somehow you have drawn the mistaken impression that you are the arbiter of such. Are you wanting to blackball religion as well? Why should people listen to you?

You are a shining example of why this law is needed. Sincerely, I wasnt so sure it was needed until I saw your arrogant and misguided attitude in this thread. Parents absolutely have a right to control when their children are taught adult topics, ESPECIALLY in grades 3 and under. Your arrogance is astounding.

 

Kids at that age may be taught not to bully others. They may be taught to follow rules. They may be taught to treat others respectfully.

At that age, that is enough.

 

Odd. The pot that wanted to throw people in prison for refusing to consume an ineffective pharma product is calling the kettle authoritarian. It is more than reasonable to object to sexuality being taught in school.

 

You sir are the one needing help

 

Good thing that's not being taught.

 

Did you read what you quoted? Because I'm not seeing an issue in the quote or the practice as to not bringing up sexual identities or preferences between the grades k-3

 

Oh God! Sexual orientation refers to sexual attraction. K-3 are unlikely to understand that. But they DO understand attraction, like a mom and a dad, or two moms or two dads love each other. They also understand gender identification.

Looks like there was a "Don't say gay" policy when YOU attended K-3

Parents have a right to teach whatever they want, and teachers are obligated to correct whatever is not based on facts and can create bullying or feelings of low self-esteem on others.

, even if YOU see it as a factual falsehood. They can teach them about Santa Claus, the stork, Jesus, that being gay will damn you to hell, and any other thing they please. It is none of your ******* business. Somehow you have drawn the mistaken impression that you are the arbiter of such. Are you wanting to blackball religion as well? Why should people listen to you?

You are a shining example of why this law is needed. Sincerely, I wasnt so sure it was needed until I saw your arrogant and misguided attitude in this thread. Parents absolutely have a right to control when their children are taught adult topics, ESPECIALLY in grades 3 and under. Your arrogance is astounding.[/QUOTE]

 

Did somebody stupid say the word "grooming" on camera? This is like the 4th or 5th time that's been used and I don't get the impression these people know what that means. It doesn't fit the argument at all.

 

sexual orientation
noun

1. The direction of a person's sexual interest, as towards people of the opposite sex, the same sex, or both sexes.

Yes, the discussion of "people being attracted to others of their own sex" ( your words), DOES in fact constitute a discussion about sexual orientation. I have seen you enough that I do not expect you to admit this even when its right there in front of your face, but it is there for any reader to see which supports my point.

I can only expect now that you will likely mumble some nonsense about an appeal to dictionary fallacy because well, obviously we would all be better off if we used your incorrect definition of the term right?

We are talking about 3rd grade and under.

Teachers at this level are NOT supposed to correct notions such as Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or even any religious based teaching from their parents regardless if the teacher agrees or not. On what planet do you live? Why do you think it is OK to force your views upon the young children of others? Your position is downright frightening.

You calling DeSantis authoritarian is ironic while you spout your authoritarian pipe dreams.

 

So, at least your honest that you want government to teach the intolerance of your victimhood. You may not have just come out and said that, but your post here certainly reveals that to the rest of us. I will remind you that no where in the power of the government do you find this power that you claim. No where. And even that doesn't dissuade you in advocating for it. Put the other shoe on for a second. If, suddenly, schools went on a "correct evil liberal/progressive" bent, and actually started teaching the morality that you so fear, then what? Would you suddenly claim that your immorality was protectable? And under what legal underpinning would you attempt that with?

Face it, you're out there on a limb, no net, and you're trying to asset a power that frankly despots and dictators assume. This isn't a constitutional position you're espousing for here. It's a fabrication or your own victimhood culture that demands that "teachers' whoever those folks are, will be obligated to force feed your immorality and view of life to kids. If you don't find that evil, I understand why you continue to advocate for it.

 

Oh, for heaven's sake... read what you quote! "Sexual interest" is NOT discussed with K-3 kids.

There is something wrong with right-wingers (I'm talking about DeSantis so as not to violate forum rules) who think that discussion about people feeling attraction for others HAS to be about "sexual interest". But it becomes outright disgusting when those same people (DeSantis, remember?) apply this depraved notion to young kids.

 

Especially, to kids who don't even know what sex is yet.

Yes it is...

 

Wrong again.

 

No its not.

 

Yes. Intolerance to teaching that 2+2=5. You wanna teach that to your kids? Go ahead. Let's see what happens when they have to pass a state assessment test. You think assessment tests are nanny government overreach? I'm sure there are many islands in the Pacific you can move to where they allow you to keep your kids ignorant.

Not in this country. Here children have, not only a RIGHT...but an OBLIGATION to learn FACTS!

 

LOL... Yup, you got caught in the hubris of your own narrative. Facts? Since your position is talking about tolerance for feelz, none of this are facts, are they. So, your straw man failed you here. Math is math even though your team seem to feel like it's racist or something... It just can't be understated just how dishonest your commentary is. I suppose next you'll actually offer a definition of what a woman is.... LMAO...

 

No see that’s where you’re wrong. You don’t get to decide what a child is taught about right and wrong on subjective matters of morality. That is not your purview.

 

Putting aside that DeSantis threatened to take Disney's special tax status away as a political vendetta, there's this dangerous lunacy..........
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s (R) longtime press secretary Christina Pushaw over the weekend tweeted that she believed educating children about sex leaves them vulnerable to abuse and likened opponents to the so-called Don’t Say Gay bill moving through the state legislature to pedophiles.

“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Pushaw wrote Friday on Twitter.

“If you’re against the Anti-Grooming bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children,” she wrote in another tweet. “Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules.”
https://thehill.com/changing-americ...spokesperson-says-dont-say-gay-opponents-are/

.........equating opponents to the bill with pedophiles. It's the kind of ludicrous, offensive comment that should have resulted in her firing.

Once again a Repub tries to substitute a culture war issue for policy.

 

I don’t understand the outrage. There is absolutely zero justification for a teacher speaking to a child about sexuality in any way shape or form of the teachers own accord. If the child asks an uncomfortable question on sexuality, the teacher is more than capable of telling them to speak with their parents about it.

What’s the problem?

 

It doesn't look like a substitute to me. It looks like a policy aimed at attacking the culture war.

 

Wrong.

 

Actually it aimed at specific left wing policy. There would be no culture war if leftist weren't constantly trying to change it.