It's not clear if you're intentionally trying to conflate kindergartners, with all school children.
There's a lot of things in life that are not suitable for kindergartners, but are suitable and appropriate for other school age children, I believe driving trucks is one such thing in America. If your only argument against those things is "well its not appropriate for kindergarten" when the law is not only covering kindergarten, then it feels like you're confused about what this law you support says.
Maybe thats why you can't understand people's reactions to it?
> conflate kindergartners, with all school children
It appears the bill is concerned with K through 2 and has the caveat of age and developmental appropriateness.
I don’t think it bans a teacher reading a storybook with a gay couple doing dishes together. (EDIT: never mind, it bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate” [1].)
It doesn't explicitly. But in practice it would. If a kid asks "Why are there two daddies in the book?", a huge can of worms is opened. It'll be selectively applied by people with political motivations and administrators fearing (or facing) backlash and violent threats from parents.
Just recently a person was fired for reading a silly book about buttcracks to 2nd graders. [1] I have no hope that people who seek to be offended won't be offended and use it to further spread mob justice.
Why do you think it wouldn't ban that? What if a kid says, "why are there two daddies in that story?" Or goes home to their parents and says, "my teacher read us a story about two daddies".
Look at the vitriol children's books like "And Tango Makes Three", a book that does zero moralizing and just tells the real life story of a mating pair of male penguins raising a chick, received.
In america, at least, this law would absolutely punish what you described.
The bill specifically says no mention of sex or gender in primary 'or' no age inappropriateness with no year specified.
If you're not allowed to talk about it at all K-2 then the next sentence would be redundant unless it applies more widely. My reading is that they want this vague ban to apply to older kids.
The bill specifically only relates to primary grades, which includes kindergarten, and doesn't include older students, such as anyone of truck driving age, as you conflated.
I'm not confused. It seems totally practical. If parents disagree on the appropriateness of a topic for young children the most amenable response is to not discuss that topic in the classroom. It's a can of worms best left unopened for young kids.
Parents saying let's focus on Art, Reading, STEM skills in school is reasonable.
Why does the bill refer to school boards being forced to give access to all education records of "minor children" (which in Florida is anyone under the age of 18). Either the bill is really poorly drafted, or you have no idea what it says.
I only know this is what the bill says because you linked to it, so not sure if that was an elaborate double bluff or you just hadn't read it.
Well, according to you they won't have that ability once they leave primary since this bill doesn't apply to older kids.
Why are the Florida Republicans saying that parents should not have unrestricted access to their child's public school records in their teenage years? Doesn't really seem like something they would say but you seem quite adamant on this point so I'm going to cave and accept your interpretation.
Kindergartners discuss sexual orientation all the time; it's extremely common for them to "play house" with an imaginary spouse or to read about married couples in books or to see them portrayed in movies or TV shows. Not all of the fantasy life of kindergartners revolves around sexual orientation—much of it is instead built around fantastic monsters, sports, animals that actually exist, killing people, and driving large earthmoving machines—but it's very common for it to center on sexual orientation in these ways. Moreover, many of them live with married adult couples, so they are exposed to their sexual orientation on a daily basis, and they talk about it with each other.
What would you do if you saw two kindergartners playing house, either as husband and wife or with one of them referring to her imaginary husband? Would you really tell them it was "completely unacceptable" because it involves heterosexuality?
You selectively quoted from the law. From your original post: "Classes shouldn't be discussing sexual content in grades K-2." However, the actual text of the law is: "A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students"
> If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable
This is a huge part of the problem - you're presuming it's just about "sexual" content when it's also about gender identity (they are not related). But the broader point you miss is that "Johnny has two daddies" is inappropriately considered "sexual" by the right-wing in America. And that is a huge issue.
Take a personal example, if you will: my husband is a teacher (and I am a man). If a similar law were to pass in our state, the law as-written would likely preclude him from mentioning anything about me at all to the students, while straight teachers would face no such limitations regarding their relationships. Because some people think any discussion of LGBT people in any capacity is inherently "sexual."
> A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students
> sexual orientation: a person's identity in relation to the gender or genders to which they are sexually attracted;
Perhaps everything, even text, is a form of Rorschach test that we personally interpret.
Sexual attraction discussion just seems inappropriate for primary school regardless of orientation.
When I read the bill's text it seems to me that it's saying:
A teacher shouldn't bring up the topics of sexual orientation, regardless of that orientation, be it straight, gay, or otherwise for a classroom discussion.
Such as, "Hello class, Today we are going to discuss sexual orientation."
Discouraging that seems reasonable if parents are uncomfortable with it for their young children.
I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse. If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Taken from the opposite angle. Would you like to have a teacher provide their personal perspective on sexual orientation? What if that teacher was homophobic?
Sexual orientation seems like a personal choice that's best just left out of the classroom entirely.
Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
> I don't think that precludes discussion of ones spouse.
I agree that a reasonable read of these laws should be as you say - that it doesn't preclude discussion of one's spouse, or same-sex parents, etc.
The unfortunate reality that I wish people understood is that LGBTQ identities - including the existence of their spousal relationships - is often seen as inherently sexual by their very nature. Or put differently saying "my husband" is seen as sexual, but "my wife" is not. This is because straight relationships are socially normalized - leading to double standards being applied.
> If questions come up then they come up. But that's different than the school district encouraging discussion about spousal relationships in a classroom setting.
Unfortunately "classroom discussion" is often where these questions come up: kids ask questions and talk before, during and after classes. There's no clean way to draw that boundary.
> Put simply, marriage and sex are not appropriate topics for primary grade classroom discussion for many parents.
Remember: "marriage" is absolutely something that straight parents would not forbid discussion of (in any capacity) when it's about straight couples. It's a double standard.
Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"? This would nicely include both traditional marriage across sexes and, e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
> e.g. sworn brotherhood, which is the form that same-sex affectionate relationships usually take in traditional societies.
I'm fascinated by what you mean here.
> Since same sex marriage is not inherently sexual, what's wrong with just saying "my sworn life partner and legal spouse"?
There's nothing wrong, per se, with the phrasing you outlined. The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law, because heterosexual relationships are normalized and not seen as inherently sexual.
However, same-sex relationships are sexualized by default in the minds of many people, and mentioning their existence (regardless of the lingo!) is tantamount to "talking about sex" in the minds of the conservative, religious right.
There aren't any specific words that are being banned in this law, despite the "don't say gay" nomenclature the media and some others use. But it is a de-facto ban on acknowledging that LGBTQ+ people and/or relationships exist; the terminology used isn't actually the issue at hand.
> The problem is the double-standard: straight couples can talk about their marriages without fear of repercussion under this law
Well, straight couples were the first to get their affectionate relationships recognized and regulated under the law. They've been "normalized", as you say, for millennia. Same-sex marriage is still a very novel concept, only a few years old in the U.S. and most of the Western world. It's not surprising that people are confused by it. So, it's not surprising that same-sex people might have to clarify that they're talking about something (legal marriage) that is, functionally, entirely akin to sworn brotherhood.
Your phrase “discussing sexual content” strikes me as really odd. If you discuss a “traditional” relationship with a 5 year old, you’re already discussing sexual content on the same level & terms that you would use if you were talking about sexual orientation and gender identity.
If you believe discussing sexual content to kindergarteners is acceptable then we fundamentally disagree at a moral level.