5 ms·

And if their teacher is gay and is asked about who they are married to? Or if one of the students have gay parents, can they draw a picture of them? Etc...

0xFEEDC0DE 4y ago
Yes they can as long as it's age appropriate. "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."....next
- munk-a 4y ago
  Which is the gigantic loophole - the bill isn't limited to primary grade levels. A parent suing U of F about their child being exposed to information about "sexual orientation" is perfectly allowed within the letter of that law. It says "primary grade levels" and then throws in a completely unlimited "age-appropriate" clause that allows it to apply to any person at any school receiving state funding. Whenever these bills use squishy language like "age-appropriate" it's to provide an easy out for politicians at the time while causing a chilling effect over all discussion.
- kadoban 4y ago
  "not age appropriate" is defined nowhere, intentionally. It's meant to be enforced against non-straights, or scare them into not being able to say anything at all.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  Let's parse that sentence carefully: 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] . So no discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation (so don't discuss about families with two mommies) at all in primary grade levels. Then, for all (other) grade levels, no such discussion that is not age-appropriate.
parkingrift 4y ago
Yes, and yes. It doesn’t prohibit natural classroom discussion at those younger ages. It doesn’t prohibit classroom instruction at all if it’s age appropriate.

0xFEEDC0DE 4y ago

Yes they can as long as it's age appropriate. "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."....next

munk-a 4y ago
Which is the gigantic loophole - the bill isn't limited to primary grade levels. A parent suing U of F about their child being exposed to information about "sexual orientation" is perfectly allowed within the letter of that law. It says "primary grade levels" and then throws in a completely unlimited "age-appropriate" clause that allows it to apply to any person at any school receiving state funding. Whenever these bills use squishy language like "age-appropriate" it's to provide an easy out for politicians at the time while causing a chilling effect over all discussion.
kadoban 4y ago
"not age appropriate" is defined nowhere, intentionally. It's meant to be enforced against non-straights, or scare them into not being able to say anything at all.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Let's parse that sentence carefully: 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] . So no discussion about gender identity or sexual orientation (so don't discuss about families with two mommies) at all in primary grade levels. Then, for all (other) grade levels, no such discussion that is not age-appropriate.

parkingrift 4y ago

Yes, and yes. It doesn’t prohibit natural classroom discussion at those younger ages. It doesn’t prohibit classroom instruction at all if it’s age appropriate.