> An act relating to parental rights in education; amending s. 1001.42, F.S. ... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner [0]
This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense.
> 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.
Discussions on gender identity and sexual orientation are the only topics outlined as not allowed.
Actual sex education (whether it's the act itself, topics on puberty, etc.) seems to still be on the table.
> 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.
> > The bill prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through 3rd grade
> I'd imagine whatever has been traditionally included in "sex education" in these grades (aka "Family Life", meaning "how babies are made"), would still be allowed.
The word “or” in 1001.42 § 8(c)(3) [1], which bans “discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate,” looks problematic. (Emphasis mine.)
Nix that word and the statute is fine. With it, a teacher can’t say anything if a 2nd grader, a 7 or 8 year old, asks what it means to be gay. They can’t read a storybook about two married men or women doing dishes. That seems excessive.
> "prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
I'm not 100% sure what that means though. What if a kid draws a picture of his two dads or two moms; does the teacher just not allow him to present to the class because that might lead to a discussion of sexuality? It's not clear, and as a result it will probably lead to "othering" of gay parents.
> I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
Yes, but then (I believe) it's up to the school to actively countersue to retrieve legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit. Again, it's not really clear.
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
> discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate
> or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate
That conditional - that "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate" means the law isn't actually just targeting 3rd grade and below. It's targeting whatever "is not age-appropriate" means, which conveniently isn't defined in the law.
It's a huge hole in the law, and absolutely leaves it open to be applied at any grade-level. And remember, "Johnny has two daddies" and nothing else is frequently termed as "sexual" by people with an axe to grind.
Case in point: in my own life, my aunt told me that she didn't want me to be around her children if I ever had a boyfriend, and that if I brought the boyfriend home to a holiday then her kids couldn't be there. Just ... existing! That's the problematic mindset that a lot of people still have, and this law gives them a huge window to attack LGBTQ+ people in schools with it.
And in turn, your comment is a pretty common disingenuous representation of the bill from its supporters.
No, it is not about "sex", it is about "sexual orientation", which is generally understood to be whether one is gay or straight or bisexual or asexual. It's often used in place of the more accurate technical term "romantic orientation", which is about who one is romantically attracted to, but the term isn't in common usage. In any case, it is not related to sexual intercourse. Children can understand it, and it is manifestly appropriate for children of any age. The support for this bill has seemingly overwhelmingly been based on this deliberate conflation between discussing sexual/romantic orientation and discussing sexual intercourse.
If you check the bill's text, it's not just "material in the curriculum", it's "classroom instruction", which would include discussion, which could be argued to include any mention of being gay. And it's not just under 4th grade, it's for any instruction not deemed "age-appropriate", which, in a country that still teaches abstinence-only sex-ed in some states, could mean anything. That these links are tenuous is no comfort; if the exceptions aren't strong enough to get the case thrown out immediately, it still leaves the school open for lawsuits, and the school will self-police to avoid them. And you'd have to be truly naïve to think that this will be applied to straight and gay relationships in equal measure.
Plus, there's all the language about parental access to health records that are pretty clearly aimed at requiring the school help out gay and trans kids to their possibly abusive parents, which nobody ever mentions for some reason.
The bill was written to ban discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity for any age - not just K-3.
> 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.
> 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.
I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
As you both seem to disagree about the actual text (though, in truth, probably agree as "sex" and "sexual orientation" are sometimes synonyms), I had to look it up. From [1], a summary:
> Parental Rights in Education; Requires district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law for notifying student's parent of specified information; requires such procedures to reinforce fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding upbringing & control of their children; prohibits school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying parent about specified information or that encourage student to withhold from parent such information; prohibits school district personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental notification & involvement in critical decisions affecting student's mental, emotional, or physical well-being; prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels; requires school districts to notify parents of healthcare services; authorizes parent to bring action against school district to obtain declaratory judgment; provides for additional award of injunctive relief, damages, & reasonable attorney fees & court costs to certain parents.
The line being discussed here is prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels. The relevant part of the full text linked (in a pdf named PDF.pdf, which made me chuckle) is:
> 3. 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.
That's as far as it goes, and the definitions of what is "age-appropriate" or "developmentally appropriate", among other things, are not given. Hence, it appears to me, that any claims as to what it really means, by either side of this debate (or either of the fringe elements, as the majority in the middle appear to for these rules[2], however vague) are unable to be substantiated either way.
I suggest everyone calms down until the actual details come to light.
> An act relating to parental rights in education requiring district school boards to adopt procedures that comport with certain provisions of law... prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
It very explicitly states that the bill prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels.
There are plenty of parents, politicians and government employees who think that acknowledging that LGBT people exist, and should be respected as people, is not age appropriate. There are parents that are convinced that acknowledging their kids' trans peers' existence will convince them to be trans, too, and that "Timmy has two mommies" isn't age appropriate, either.
I've heard from supporters of the legislation claim that it's meant to prevent kids from being taught about sex, despite it already being illegal in Florida to teach kids in that age group about it.
Inspired by Florida's bill, HB 800 was introduced in Tennessee, which is very explicit about prohibiting educators from using any materials or lessons that normalize or support LGBT issues and lifestyles[2]:
> The state board is prohibited from approving for local adoption or granting a waiver for, and LEAs and public charter schools are prohibited from locally adopting or using in the public schools of this state, textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promote, normalize, support, or address lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.
Nearly a dozen states have proposed similar legislation that aren't afraid of saying the quiet part out loud.
It appears you may not have read the bill either. It does not prevent sexual education to kids (if it stated that, it wouldn't have been that overly controversial). But that isn't what it says. It states it prohibits "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". That is a very important distinction from what you are saying. Sexual education is not prohibited, as long as it avoids discussing those two topics.
The other important distinction is that it is not just primary grade levels impacted, it is all levels (note the "or"s).
1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!).
2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day?
You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex.
Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.
> 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 says sexual education to kids should not happen before a certain grade
And it does not define what "sexual education" is.
> and be age appropriate
And it does not define what "age appropriate" is or specify what legislative body is reponsible for creating and maintaining that definition.
> unless you have some weird notion that a 7 year old needs to be taught about sex.
A chasm I see between people who have differing views of this legislation is around what "sex" means. Conservatives seem to focus very heavily on the idea that this is about teachers talking about sexual intercourse. The physical acts that adults engage in. Liberals interpret the term much more broadly to cover all of the ways that human sexuality affects society and families.
From the conservative perspective, it makes a lot of intuitive sense to prevent teachers from discussing things like foreplay, BDSM, lubrication, fellatio, etc. to small children.
From the liberal perspective, it is entirely impossible to talk about damn near anything related to human family structures and relationships if anything indirectly related to sexuality is off limits. "Why do most families have a mom and a dad?" "Where do babies come from?" "Why do they look like their parents sometimes and not other times?" "What does it mean to be adopted?" "What is the difference between a dad and a stepdad?" According to the literal interpretation of the law, none of these questions can even be hinted at inside a classroom.
So which is right? The text of the law itself is ambiguous, so you have to look at the subtext. I think we could all agree that it would be wrong to ship a live walrus to someone's house without their consent. But, as far as I know, there is no law specifically prohibiting it. Should there be? Probably not.
Legislatures have finite time, so laws are passed at a point in time because those advocating it feel that it solves a particular problem that is more important than other problems that could be solved. Understanding the intent behind those pushing the law is critical to knowing what it means. The text won't give you that. You have to look at the people and their agenda.
> The law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten to grade 3 in Florida public school districts, or instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students". It also allows parents and teachers to sue any school district if they believe this policy is violated. The bill additionally prevents school districts from withholding information about a child’s "mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from their parents.
> Due to the "Don't Say Gay" nickname some commentators and social media users thought the bill banned mentioning the word "gay" in school classrooms, though the bill does not actually mention the word "gay" or explicitly prohibit its use.
Regardless of your opinion of the "subversive" nature of such a word problem, it becomes exceedingly clear that the bill is about more than "presentations about sex (straight or otherwise) to a classroom of 5-10 year olds", as the parent claims.
```
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
```
The one paragraph in the bill is the entirety of the language used here.
1) "instruction" is vaguely defined here This isn't about sex-ed, this isn't about genitals, it is about "orientation or gender identity". I'll note here that being gay and trans isn't just about sex and genitalia. If a student asks the question: "why does sally have two moms?", does answering that question put the teacher at risk? What if Billy asks if being gay is ok? Are teachers allowed to answer?
2) if the teacher is trans and the students ask about it, what is the teacher allowed to say? Is the teacher able to write their name on the board with their preferred title?
3) Is the teacher allowed to mention the existence of their spouse regardless of orientation?
4) if a child is bullied for wearing clothes that don't match their percieved gender (i.e. boys wearing dresses), is a teacher allowed to explain that it is not ok to bully someone because of their gender? Regardless of what you think about a childs ability to make decisions about gender, you surely understand that they have an idea of what gender is and might decide to bully eachother for it.
I will note that this bill is amended from its original language, which shows the true intent of the law:
```
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.
```
I am basing this analysis entirely on the language of the bill and its amendments. I very much encourage you to look at the reasonable amendments that FAILED in committee here, as they speak volumes to the intent of the republican majority.
My previous comment is informed by the documented behaviors and speech of right wing politicians and commentators around the passing of this bill, which do escalate this topic to dangerous levels of right-wing outrage. No there is not language in here that equates sex-education to grooming, but there is ABSOLUTELY discussion on the right that does draw that line.
This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense.
[0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... (warning, PDF)
reply