5 ms·

Florida's HB 1557 doesn't go that far, but the rhetoric that people use to support it has echoes of fascism. All of the right-wing talking points around trans i

Florida's HB 1557 doesn't go that far, but the rhetoric that people use to support it has echoes of fascism. All of the right-wing talking points around trans issues equate teaching kids about lgbt issues to pedophilia. For many supporters, even walking around as trans is seen as sexual deviant and dangerous. When a bill is passed that enshrines into law that "it is bad to tell kids about this person", and the supporters casually say "breaking this law is pedophilia", what do you think is going to happen to trans people trying to live their lives in Florida?

banannaise 4y ago
Pretty much. I try not to go down the "dehumanizing language = genocide" path, because dehumanizing language has sadly become par for the course, but there has been a rapid escalation on two fronts, reflected directly in state laws: 1. Moving from simple dehumanization to "trans people are groomers and pedophiles and we must protect our children from them at any cost". This is still only an escalation toward violence, but it certainly is an escalation. 2. Forcible detransitioning of trans people, with the direct aim of eliminating out trans people as a population. It remains to be seen what will be done with people who refuse to detransition, but imprisonment appears to already be on the table. And when you imprison a population for their identity and/or customs, then, well... that's genocide.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Exactly where and how are trans people being forcibly detransitioned?
  - banannaise 4y ago
    By making trans healthcare, including hormones, illegal. They're already attempting to extend this to adults (up to age 25).
    - brigandish 4y ago
      Where is the upper limit now?
      - banannaise 4y ago
        In most places, there isn't one. In the few where there is, it's very recently created, and sits at 18.
bavell 4y ago
Unfortunately your comment is a pretty common disingenuous representation of the arguments being made from the other side along with some misinformation scattered throughout. Please broaden your news sources so you aren't so easily swayed by the partisan rhetoric. In your defense, the propaganda on this topic has been overwhelmingly strong. What the law actually says is that teaching about sex or gender _in the curriculum_ is not allowed prior to 4th grade. That goes for heterosexuality as well as LGBTQ. No one is exempt or special. Basically, kids at half the age of puberty should not be taught about sex, full-stop. Let them be kids for a few years longer before they learn about sex. Of course, the law just addresses material in the curriculum, so having a picture on your desk of your same-sex SO is no problem and you can talk about sexuality with young kids as long as it's not curriculum (still gross imo). The lesson of HB 1557... don't mess with parents.
- banannaise 4y ago
  The problem is that this equates "relationships" and "love" with "sex". The literal text of the law says "don't teach children about sex". The explicit reasoning behind this law is that this means not teaching children about homosexuality. This positions homosexuality as inherently sexual in a way that heterosexuality is not, which is, of course, not true. Sex is of course an implied part of heterosexual relationships, we're just conditioned as adults not to think about that.
  - breadbreadbread 4y ago
    do you define "sex" as the act of intercourse, or as the anthropological category to which "male" and "female" belong?
- a_shovel 4y ago
  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.

banannaise 4y ago

Pretty much. I try not to go down the "dehumanizing language = genocide" path, because dehumanizing language has sadly become par for the course, but there has been a rapid escalation on two fronts, reflected directly in state laws: 1. Moving from simple dehumanization to "trans people are groomers and pedophiles and we must protect our children from them at any cost". This is still only an escalation toward violence, but it certainly is an escalation. 2. Forcible detransitioning of trans people, with the direct aim of eliminating out trans people as a population. It remains to be seen what will be done with people who refuse to detransition, but imprisonment appears to already be on the table. And when you imprison a population for their identity and/or customs, then, well... that's genocide.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Exactly where and how are trans people being forcibly detransitioned?
- banannaise 4y ago
  By making trans healthcare, including hormones, illegal. They're already attempting to extend this to adults (up to age 25).
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Where is the upper limit now?
    - banannaise 4y ago
      In most places, there isn't one. In the few where there is, it's very recently created, and sits at 18.

bavell 4y ago

Unfortunately your comment is a pretty common disingenuous representation of the arguments being made from the other side along with some misinformation scattered throughout. Please broaden your news sources so you aren't so easily swayed by the partisan rhetoric. In your defense, the propaganda on this topic has been overwhelmingly strong. What the law actually says is that teaching about sex or gender _in the curriculum_ is not allowed prior to 4th grade. That goes for heterosexuality as well as LGBTQ. No one is exempt or special. Basically, kids at half the age of puberty should not be taught about sex, full-stop. Let them be kids for a few years longer before they learn about sex. Of course, the law just addresses material in the curriculum, so having a picture on your desk of your same-sex SO is no problem and you can talk about sexuality with young kids as long as it's not curriculum (still gross imo). The lesson of HB 1557... don't mess with parents.

banannaise 4y ago
The problem is that this equates "relationships" and "love" with "sex". The literal text of the law says "don't teach children about sex". The explicit reasoning behind this law is that this means not teaching children about homosexuality. This positions homosexuality as inherently sexual in a way that heterosexuality is not, which is, of course, not true. Sex is of course an implied part of heterosexual relationships, we're just conditioned as adults not to think about that.
- breadbreadbread 4y ago
  do you define "sex" as the act of intercourse, or as the anthropological category to which "male" and "female" belong?
a_shovel 4y ago
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.