Our a$$hole legislature will probably pass this because they have nothing better to do and don't care about what Ohioans want from them...

 

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

Our a$$hole legislature will probably pass this because they have nothing better to do and don't care about what Ohioans want from them...

 

 

 

Republicans have yet to meet an issue they don't want to be on the wrong side of history on.  Just terrible, cruel people.  

8 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

Republicans have yet to meet an issue they don't want to be on the wrong side of history on.  Just terrible, cruel people.  

 

 

Engaging in some actual fascism.  Just a normal Tuesday for Republicans.

9 hours ago, KJP said:

Our a$$hole legislature will probably pass this because they have nothing better to do and don't care about what Ohioans want from them...

 

 

Makes me wonder if there’s a chance to get a big player like, say, Intel to throw their weight around with stupid bills like this one. After all, such regressive legislation isn’t going to make it any easier for them to attract the young, out of state talent they’ll need for their new facilities…

20 minutes ago, amped91 said:

Makes me wonder if there’s a chance to get a big player like, say, Intel to throw their weight around with stupid bills like this one. After all, such regressive legislation isn’t going to make it any easier for them to attract the young, out of state talent they’ll need for their new facilities…

 

They'll then just take another Florida lead by trying to punish them in some way.  

10 minutes ago, jonoh81 said:

 

They'll then just take another Florida lead by trying to punish them in some way.  

Possibly. Difference is that FL knows Disney isn’t going to pick up and leave over this. Were I Intel, however, with nothing to lose, this would give me serious pause over whether this is the type of state I want to invest in and try to attract talent to. 

https://search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/solarapi/v1/general_assembly_134/bills/hb616/IN/00/hb616_00_IN?format=pdf

 

Not sure if/when it makes sense to move this to its own thread, but here's a quick readthrough of HB 616 (known as the "Don't Say Gay" bill):

 

Here is page 1 of the bill:

 

"The board of education of each school district shall be the sole authority in determining and selecting all of the ... textbooks, instructional materials, academic curriculum" in schools under its control.  Sure, totally normal.  Even a bit of flair for the "limited government" conservatives used to support.  Now, let's go to page 2 where they immediately (in the very next line, even!) eviscerate this idea:

 

Oh wow, the list of things that boards of education won't have "sole authority" over - in fact, are banned from selecting - just happen to be a bunch of right-wing buzzwords, designed to rile up the GOP base while having no real bearing on what is being taught in, I don't know, elementary curricula.

 

Not only do the great hits make the list - "CRT" and the "1619 Project" - but the GOP wants to legally codify that those are "inherently racist and divisive."  By whose definition, exactly?

 

Btw, why are those things divisive?  Because right wing lunatic politicians and pundits have spent 18 months *MAKING THEM DIVISIVE.*  https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-inquiry/how-a-conservative-activist-invented-the-conflict-over-critical-race-theory

 

Now, we get to the next part, which is right wingers latest wet dream...citizen enforcement.

 

That's right, the state won't even enforce HB 616, it'll be up to the citizens (not just parents...any individual).  Any parent could lodge a complaint against any teacher.  What could go wrong?

 

Here is where they cram in the "Don't Say Gay" language:

 

In regards to letter (a) - where are the examples that any of this is happening currently in those grades?  If it's such a pervasive issue, I'm guessing there are at least a few dozen examples of this in the text of the bill.  Spoiler: there are zero.  Any words on who will determine what is no "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate?"  Spoiler: zero, again.

 

All of this begs the question...what is the point of the bill?  What are Republicans trying to accomplish?  On its face, the bill reads, generously, as a solution to a problem that does not exist.  Taken literally, it is a political party one-sidedly deciding what is considered "racist" and what can or cannot be taught in schools.  That's extremely dangerous.

 

But it's not just the "Don't Say Gay" language.  The GOP also wants to codify an alternative history because it offends their white fragility.  That's not patriotic.  It's expressly authoritarian.

 

And this is coming from the political party that has constantly referred to anyone left of them on the political spectrum as "snowflakes."  They are the ones who now are offended by actual historians pointing out actual history - to the point they want to make it *ILLEGAL* to even talk about in public education.  It's the most snowflakey think you could imagine.

 

The fact that conservatives are trying to make illegal to discuss systemic racism in school should tell you something about the reality of systemic racism.  The party of "less government in your life" (a lie then, but has since been disproven over and over) is trying really, really hard to insert itself into your life - this time, into public schools.

Edited April 6, 20223 yr by DarkandStormy

“Don’t Say Gay” HB 616 Introduced to the Ohio House of Representatives

 

On Monday, Republicans introduced HB 616 in the Ohio House of Representatives, legislation with broad, vague, and barely defined language designed to ban the promotion and teaching of “divisive and inherently racist concepts.”

 

The bill contains specific bans on acknowledging or discussing LGBTQ+ identity.

 

Sponsored by Representatives Mike Loychick (R-Bazetta) and Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland), the bill would ban school districts from selecting “any textbook, instructional material, or academic curriculum that promotes any divisive or inherently racist concepts” including:

• Critical race theory
• Intersectional theory
• The 1619 project
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes
• Inherited racial guilt
• Any other concept that the state board of education defines as divisive or inherently racist

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/dont-say-gay-hb-616-introduced-to-the-ohio-house-of-representatives-bf1/

 

The bad guys do seem to get a lot of wins these days. 

 

Ohio needs an image change badly to compete in 2022. This is the last thing a flyover, boring, backward state like Ohio needs to change its image. Columbus is pretty damn gay too. I hate Ohio, I wish I didn't, but this is not the Ohio I grew up in.

 

I wish Intel would pull out, maybe the leadership might finally realize how stupid they are in preparing Ohio to compete in the future. Might turn Ohio back into an actual swing state, although Trump calling for a boycott on Goodyear didn't swing these people...so it might be hopeless at this point. 

Edited April 10, 20223 yr by metrocity

On 4/7/2022 at 3:12 PM, ColDayMan said:

“Don’t Say Gay” HB 616 Introduced to the Ohio House of Representatives

 

On Monday, Republicans introduced HB 616 in the Ohio House of Representatives, legislation with broad, vague, and barely defined language designed to ban the promotion and teaching of “divisive and inherently racist concepts.”

 

The bill contains specific bans on acknowledging or discussing LGBTQ+ identity.

 

Sponsored by Representatives Mike Loychick (R-Bazetta) and Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland), the bill would ban school districts from selecting “any textbook, instructional material, or academic curriculum that promotes any divisive or inherently racist concepts” including:

• Critical race theory
• Intersectional theory
• The 1619 project
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes
• Inherited racial guilt
• Any other concept that the state board of education defines as divisive or inherently racist

More below:

https://columbusunderground.com/dont-say-gay-hb-616-introduced-to-the-ohio-house-of-representatives-bf1/

 

I'm sure I'm like most Americans in that I have not had an opportunity to read the FL bill nor this latest OH bill.  I am, however, frustrated that seemingly ever topic these days pits American against American unnecessarily.  My view, which I think most American's would share, is that there are subjects, of which sexuality would be one, that shouldn't be taught to young children (the FL bill, as I understood it, prohibited instruction on certain topics from K-3rd grade).  While inappropriate to teach these, I teachers should be given some discretion to discuss certain topics in the context of ensuring that no child should be made to feel different, less-worthy or be bullied based on their family situation (that discretion would apply to religion, race, gender, wealth, etc).  For example, you don't have to teacher a 1st grader about the horrors of the Holocaust or of slavery to ensure hat their Jewish students or their students of color are treated fairly but we should allow teachers some latitude if it helps ensure this.  

 

I hope this makes sense.  No an expert - just someone who doesn't like seeing his countrymen work to find common ground.  

 

 

 

2 hours ago, metrocity said:

Ohio needs an image change badly to compete in 2022. This is the last thing a flyover, boring, backward state like Ohio needs to change its image. Columbus is pretty damn gay too. I hate Ohio, I wish I didn't, but this is not the Ohio I grew up in.

 

I wish Intel would pull out, maybe the leadership might finally realize how stupid they are in preparing Ohio to compete in the future. Might turn Ohio back into an actual swing state, although Trump calling for a boycott on Goodyear didn't swing these people...so it might be hopeless at this point. 

 

I'm rooting for the opposite, for more companies like Intel to come to the state and start putting pressure on the legislature to tone down the BS.  Also, it would help pull in younger workers from other places.  Rural counties are dying.  They're too old, they don't have economic opportunities, etc., so the more potential young, diverse voters the state gets, the better long term.  The state will just continue down this gross path otherwise.

 

 

This is another solution for a problem that didn't exist. Its not only this issue, the Ohio GOP will keep following lockstep with whatever other conservative cause du jour that states like TX, FL are pushing. Its become a pattern. 

 

50 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I'm sure I'm like most Americans in that I have not had an opportunity to read the FL bill nor this latest OH bill.  I am, however, frustrated that seemingly ever topic these days pits American against American unnecessarily.  My view, which I think most American's would share, is that there are subjects, of which sexuality would be one, that shouldn't be taught to young children (the FL bill, as I understood it, prohibited instruction on certain topics from K-3rd grade).  While inappropriate to teach these, I teachers should be given some discretion to discuss certain topics in the context of ensuring that no child should be made to feel different, less-worthy or be bullied based on their family situation (that discretion would apply to religion, race, gender, wealth, etc).  For example, you don't have to teacher a 1st grader about the horrors of the Holocaust or of slavery to ensure hat their Jewish students or their students of color are treated fairly but we should allow teachers some latitude if it helps ensure this.  

 

I hope this makes sense.  No an expert - just someone who doesn't like seeing his countrymen work to find common ground.  

 

 

 

 

The problem with bills like this is that their existance makes the public assume that schools are teaching sex and sexuality to 1st graders when it's not happening, just as the public now seems to believe that CRT was a widespread class in most public schools when it was taught virtually nowhere outside of being somewhat of a generic framework in some college courses.  As you said, people don't know what's in these bills.  They don't read them.  They just hear about it and think "Wow, I can't believe schools are teaching toddlers sex.  Thank god Ohio's addressing this" when none of that was ever happening.

 

Furthermore, the wording of the bills are problematic from the standpoint of who they target.  Legislatures could've made the language all-encompassing and neutral, such as "Discussion of an explicit sexual nature is not permitted", but they didn't.  They specified dicussions on gender identity and sexual orientation.  Since heterosexuals don't really worry about or discuss either of those in the context of their own lives- because they don't have to- it was pretty obvious that it was about LGBTQ and not a neutral ban.  Which makes the whole thing intentionally discriminatory on multiple fronts.  So not only are the bills a waste of everyone's time and taxpayer dollars, they further divide the public and further stigmatize non-cis, non-straight demographics all for the sake of riling up the base.

Edited April 10, 20223 yr by jonoh81

I still think something big needs to happen (like Intel pulling out) to actually shake up the Statehouse, which coincidentally sits smack dab in the middle of a city with a large gay poulation that has the largest Pride festival in the midwest after Chicago.

 

Its the failure to fix gerrymandering, abortion restrictions, hateful legislation...not just this. 

On 4/7/2022 at 12:12 PM, ColDayMan said:

“Don’t Say Gay” HB 616 Introduced to the Ohio House of Representatives

 

On Monday, Republicans introduced HB 616 in the Ohio House of Representatives, legislation with broad, vague, and barely defined language designed to ban the promotion and teaching of “divisive and inherently racist concepts.”

 

With respect to a student in any of grades four through twelve, schools may not teach, use, or provide any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity in any manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

 

Wow, talk about big government. 

2 hours ago, metrocity said:

I still think something big needs to happen (like Intel pulling out) to actually shake up the Statehouse, which coincidentally sits smack dab in the middle of a city with a large gay poulation that has the largest Pride festival in the midwest after Chicago.

 

Its the failure to fix gerrymandering, abortion restrictions, hateful legislation...not just this. 

 

The only thing that's going to change anything is demographics.  Republicans aren't changing for the better anytime soon, and will simply make excuses if Intel pulls out.  Not a Disney (company) fan, but look how Florida is threatening them now with Disney barely expressing modest concern about their version of the bill.  And we've also seen how far corporate pullouts and stuff go.  Look at what happened in Georgia, and how it didn't really change anything.  

Republicans pull this gross crap because they believe they can get away with it, and more often than not, they've been correct.  The general public is filled with people who support this.

 

Edited April 11, 20223 yr by jonoh81

16 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I'm sure I'm like most Americans in that I have not had an opportunity to read the FL bill nor this latest OH bill.  I am, however, frustrated that seemingly ever topic these days pits American against American unnecessarily.  My view, which I think most American's would share, is that there are subjects, of which sexuality would be one, that shouldn't be taught to young children (the FL bill, as I understood it, prohibited instruction on certain topics from K-3rd grade).  While inappropriate to teach these, I teachers should be given some discretion to discuss certain topics in the context of ensuring that no child should be made to feel different, less-worthy or be bullied based on their family situation (that discretion would apply to religion, race, gender, wealth, etc).  For example, you don't have to teacher a 1st grader about the horrors of the Holocaust or of slavery to ensure hat their Jewish students or their students of color are treated fairly but we should allow teachers some latitude if it helps ensure this.  

 

Do you, unlike the authors of these bills, have any examples of such "inappropriate subjects" being taught to students K-3?  Or are you just buying the boogeyman hook, line, and sinker?  As I said above, the bill is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and, in fact, in doing so is creating problems that don't exist and now many people are falling for them.

 

 

Here is a thread on a seemingly innocent book from the late 80s.  It's a children's book, teaches nothing about sexual or identity, it just shows that not all families are the same (some kids have two moms, some might have two dads, etc.). 

 

Would a teacher be banned from (or prosecuted for) reading this book to 2nd graders in Ohio or Florida under these bills?  In Ohio, at least, parents could lodge a formal complaint against a teacher who does so.

20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Do you, unlike the authors of these bills, have any examples of such "inappropriate subjects" being taught to students K-3?  Or are you just buying the boogeyman hook, line, and sinker?  As I said above, the bill is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist and, in fact, in doing so is creating problems that don't exist and now many people are falling for them.

 

 

Here is a thread on a seemingly innocent book from the late 80s.  It's a children's book, teaches nothing about sexual or identity, it just shows that not all families are the same (some kids have two moms, some might have two dads, etc.). 

 

Would a teacher be banned from (or prosecuted for) reading this book to 2nd graders in Ohio or Florida under these bills?  In Ohio, at least, parents could lodge a formal complaint against a teacher who does so.

I do not have any concrete examples.  As I freely admit, I am not familiar with the details of either the FL or the OH.  

Two quick responses:

-Regarding Heather Has Two Mommies - I would not have a problem with a teacher reading that book to my child in the 2nd grade (especially if it was in support of a child in that class that may have two mommies or two daddies);  Having said that, I am not all parents.  Why, out of all of the millions of books that are available, would a teacher choose to read that book unless it was in response to a specific situation and/or approved first by the administration and the parents?  

-If the bill provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, why the uproar?  Why not let the bill die on the trash heap of history with a resounding "who cares"?  It seems to me that by turning everything into an all out battle against the other side ("the right"), we only embolden them to dig their heals in and persist with their stupidity.

 

Again, I'm not an expert on either bill - so if there really is a problem where we are limiting a teacher or a school's ability to address an issue or to support a student who's family may be slightly different than the majority of his/her students, I would steadfastly be against the bill.

But, as you freely admit, it sounds like the bills address nothing.  

4 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

-If the bill provides a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, why the uproar?  Why not let the bill die on the trash heap of history with a resounding "who cares"? 

 

The problem does not exist, but the "solution" is a weaponizing of the general citizenry to attack teachers and school districts for mentioning same-sex couples, and prohibiting any instruction that promotes diversity, inclusion, and equity. These are inherently good things, and ideas that should be reinforced as good for our children to learn. The Republican party is weaponizing our schools in an effort to cause a moral panic to win elections, at the detriment to children across the states that enact these laws.

It's such hideous, intentionally vague legislation. My god so much of this country truly, at a genetic level, did not want a black president, and are desperately seeking new national scapegoats in retaliation.

 

Well, the deplorables certainly found them, and their traitor-leaders are clever and patient enough to pass such insidious bills. Bin Laden must be laughing in his water grave.

 

Edited April 12, 20223 yr by TBideon

On 4/11/2022 at 11:07 AM, ryanlammi said:

 

The problem does not exist, but the "solution" is a weaponizing of the general citizenry to attack teachers and school districts for mentioning same-sex couples, and prohibiting any instruction that promotes diversity, inclusion, and equity. These are inherently good things, and ideas that should be reinforced as good for our children to learn. The Republican party is weaponizing our schools in an effort to cause a moral panic to win elections, at the detriment to children across the states that enact these laws.

Perhaps you are right, I'm no expert.  It just seems to me that meeting these laws (which in your view seem like an attack on the LBGTQ community) with an attack in response only further emboldens those that feel these laws are necessary.

Would we not, as Americans, be better served by a response that simply says that this is wasted legislation that addresses no actual issues.

There are Americans, right or wrong, that are concerned about the extent to which information about different sexualities/genders are visible to young people.  I think I might be one of them - and I consider myself to be fairly liberal/progressive.

If schools/teachers aren't teaching K-3 students about sexuality/gender - then why harsh protests?  To quote Hamlet "the lady doth protest too much, me thinks"

 

The overaction in response, in my view, is what causes the moral panic you mention.

This seems like something that a local school principal or school board can handle without interference from the state.  (Wasn't local control a conservative position?  You would think that conservative schools would be protesting this as well if they understood the potential consequences.)

 

State legislators apparently are paid too well and have too much time on their hands that they need to invent crises.  If this passes, I expect it will dramatically decrease the desirability of being a teacher -- now not only will you have parents raging at you for giving their precious a B- but now those angry parents are going to be suing you.

5 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

It just seems to me that meeting these laws (which in your view seem like an attack on the LBGTQ community) with an attack in response only further emboldens those that feel these laws are necessary.

Would we not, as Americans, be better served by a response that simply says that this is wasted legislation that addresses no actual issues.

There are Americans, right or wrong, that are concerned about the extent to which information about different sexualities/genders are visible to young people.  I think I might be one of them - and I consider myself to be fairly liberal/progressive.

If schools/teachers aren't teaching K-3 students about sexuality/gender - then why harsh protests?  To quote Hamlet "the lady doth protest too much, me thinks"

 

The overaction in response, in my view, is what causes the moral panic you mention.

 

 

This is about limiting kids access to information about the LGBTQ in the misguided notion that knowledge of gay people will make their kids gay. Which is true to some extent, if an LGBTQ kid doesn't know people like them exist and that what they're feeling normal, they assume everyone feels they way they do and goes along with social norms because that's what's expected of them. The efforts to limit teen access to trans health care will result in deaths. The GOP knows they are on the losing side and are doing everything they can in a last ditch effort to turn back the clock to before gay people could marry and were accepted as part of society.

"When pronouns were respected by all of the people trans and nonbinary youth lived with, they reported they attempted suicide at half the rate of those who did not have their pronouns respected by anyone with whom they lived. That’s a reduction of 50%.

Trans and nonbinary youth who were able to change their name and/or gender marker on legal documents, such as driver’s licenses and birth certificates, reported lower rates of attempting suicide: 11% compared to 25% who were not able to make those changes.

LGBTQ youth who had access to spaces that affirmed their sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of attempting suicide."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/05/19/terrible-time-for-trans-youth-new-survey-spotlights-suicide-spike---and-hope/?sh=548b4d43716e

Edited April 13, 20223 yr by Henryefry

12 hours ago, Henryefry said:

 

 

This is about limiting kids access to information about the LGBTQ in the misguided notion that knowledge of gay people will make their kids gay. Which is true to some extent, if an LGBTQ kid doesn't know people like them exist and that what they're feeling normal, they assume everyone feels they way they do and goes along with social norms because that's what's expected of them. The efforts to limit teen access to trans health care will result in deaths. The GOP knows they are on the losing side and are doing everything they can in a last ditch effort to turn back the clock to before gay people could marry and were accepted as part of society.

"When pronouns were respected by all of the people trans and nonbinary youth lived with, they reported they attempted suicide at half the rate of those who did not have their pronouns respected by anyone with whom they lived. That’s a reduction of 50%.

Trans and nonbinary youth who were able to change their name and/or gender marker on legal documents, such as driver’s licenses and birth certificates, reported lower rates of attempting suicide: 11% compared to 25% who were not able to make those changes.

LGBTQ youth who had access to spaces that affirmed their sexual orientation and gender identity reported lower rates of attempting suicide."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dawnstaceyennis/2021/05/19/terrible-time-for-trans-youth-new-survey-spotlights-suicide-spike---and-hope/?sh=548b4d43716e

I think your points are valid but I suspect they apply to older children.  As you mention, this is potentially a different issue with teenagers.

-I thought the FL law was targeted at very young children (K-3rd grade);  It's been a long while since I was in 3rd grade but I do not remember gender, sex and sexuality were ever topics that were discussed or relevant for children that age.

-Again, I would want teachers to have the flexibility to explain differences between their students (race, religion, gender) when necessary - but I think most people would agree those topics are inappropriate for K-3 as part of a cirriculum

 

 

2 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

-I thought the FL law was targeted at very young children (K-3rd grade);  It's been a long while since I was in 3rd grade but I do not remember gender, sex and sexuality were ever topics that were discussed or relevant for children that age.

 

Like Republicans, you are conflating sex with gender identity and sexual orientation.  The book I mentioned about "two mommies" would be banned in FL, OH, and any other state that adopts this bill as law, despite never talking about sex.

 

This could go in this thread and/or others in the Current Events: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/

 

Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden

 

Quote

“Grooming” has become the most recent scare tactic of choice for the right. Fox News host Laura Ingraham included a segment on her show last month where she claimed public schools have become “grooming centers” where “sexual brainwashing” takes place. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently tweeted that the Democrats are the party of “grooming and transitioning children.” Last week, One America News host Chanel Rion even called President Joe Biden “the groomer-in-chief.”

 

For the unfamiliar, “grooming” is a term typically reserved to describe the type of behavior that child sexual abusers use to coerce potential victims without being caught. But now some Republicans are using it against any Democrat (or company)1 who disagrees with them on certain policy issues. This is a deliberate tactic that was promoted as early as last summer by Christopher Rufo, the same conservative activist who helped muddle the language around critical race theory. “Grooming” is a term that neatly draws together both modern conspiracy theories and old homophobic stereotypes, while comfortably shielding itself under the guise of protecting children. Who, after all, can argue against the safety of kids? But by adopting this language to bolster their latest political pursuits, the right is both giving a nod to fringe conspiracy theorists and using an age-old tactic to dismantle LGBTQ rights. 

 

This most recent round of high-profile “grooming” warnings seems to have started in early March, as Democrats attacked Florida’s law limiting what can be taught in schools. Republican defenders turned to “grooming” as a way to push back.

 

“The bill that liberals inaccurately call ‘Don’t Say Gay’ would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill,” Christina Pushaw, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, tweeted on March 4. “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.”

 

Except there’s no mention of grooming in the law. Instead, it prohibits “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade, “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

 

So if casting those who oppose this law as “pro-grooming” is not rooted in evidence, what is it rooted in? In part, it’s a dog whistle to the party’s most extreme, conspiracy-minded base. The foundation of the QAnon conspiracy theory is that there is a mass, secret, underground ring of Satanic pedophiles whose members consist of Democratic leaders and Hollywood elites. Painting anyone who opposes Florida’s law (i.e., mainly Democrats) as being pro-grooming fits neatly into that narrative and winks at QAnon adherents without requiring politicians on the right to actually endorse the outlandish theory.

 

But this rhetoric also harkens back to age-old attacks on the LGBTQ community. Casting LGBTQ people as child predators and their very existence as something inherently sexual was a tactic used by anti-LGBTQ activists since the 1970s in their efforts to stifle or roll back LGBTQ legal protections, according to Marie-Amélie George, a law professor at Wake Forest University who specializes in LGBTQ rights. George said that for a long time, many people believed that being gay was the result of child sexual abuse.

 

But what’s being normalized here isn’t grooming; it’s the use of homophobic rhetoric and conspiracy theory language. And it’s intended not to protect children but to advance political causes and slander political enemies.

 

Make no mistake - Republicans don't care about the curriculum being taught in public elementary schools.

Just putting it out there as a Conservative:

 

1. I'm not necessarily comfortable with sexuality being taught to kids prior to 4th/5th grade. (though I don't think that's happening in most classrooms). Having said that... 

 

2. If a book or teacher can "turn" your child gay... your child probably is gay. As a hetero boy, I would've never looked at a book that discusses homosexuality or bisexuality and been like "oh damn, I better start crushing on guys".... 

50 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Like Republicans, you are conflating sex with gender identity and sexual orientation.  The book I mentioned about "two mommies" would be banned in FL, OH, and any other state that adopts this bill as law, despite never talking about sex.

 

This could go in this thread and/or others in the Current Events: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-so-many-conservatives-are-talking-about-grooming-all-of-a-sudden/

 

Why So Many Conservatives Are Talking About ‘Grooming’ All Of A Sudden

 

 

Make no mistake - Republicans don't care about the curriculum being taught in public elementary schools.

Since you seem we'll informed on this topic, when you say the book about "two mommies" is banned, is it banned in the sense that it cannot be used as part of the curriculum in K-3rd grade?  If that is the case, I think most Americans are fine with that.  I don't think gender, sexuality, religion, war, race, etc have any place in the standard curriculum for K-3 graders.

-Having said that, if there was a student that had two mothers in a class and a teacher wanted to utilize/read this book to a class to help his/her students understand the situation, I think they should be able to (after getting approval from the administration and after alerting the parents).

 

The ideas about gender identity and sexual orientation being discussed today (e.g., using different pronouns, etc) is a new concept that many people are unfamiliar and therefore aren't yet comfortable with.  It will take time.  I'm fairly liberal and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with these ideas.

 

I'm sure there are Republicans that are bonkers but most Republicans I know are good, hard-working people that just want to make a better life for themselves and their family.

We have to stop perpetuating this us vs. them mentality.

We need to understand that not everyone is going to adopt progressive ideals at the same pace as others.  

 

41 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

Since you seem we'll informed on this topic, when you say the book about "two mommies" is banned, is it banned in the sense that it cannot be used as part of the curriculum in K-3rd grade?  If that is the case, I think most Americans are fine with that.  I don't think gender, sexuality, religion, war, race, etc have any place in the standard curriculum for K-3 graders.

-Having said that, if there was a student that had two mothers in a class and a teacher wanted to utilize/read this book to a class to help his/her students understand the situation, I think they should be able to (after getting approval from the administration and after alerting the parents).

 

The ideas about gender identity and sexual orientation being discussed today (e.g., using different pronouns, etc) is a new concept that many people are unfamiliar and therefore aren't yet comfortable with.  It will take time.  I'm fairly liberal and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with these ideas.

 

I'm sure there are Republicans that are bonkers but most Republicans I know are good, hard-working people that just want to make a better life for themselves and their family.

We have to stop perpetuating this us vs. them mentality.

We need to understand that not everyone is going to adopt progressive ideals at the same pace as others.  

 

 

I'll give you another example. What if a third grader wants to bring the book for show and tell? A teacher would not be permitted to allow that, for fear of legal action. What if a third grader has two moms or two dads? The teacher would need to prevent them from even talking about that fact to other children. What if a book or TV show just casually has a same sex couple? Not allowed. And even beyond third grade, for older kids the law vaguely says that discussions of gender orientation should be "age appropriate" but it doesn't define that. So what if a parent thinks that it isn't age appropriate for their 7th grader to know that gay people even exist? It sounds crazy but I grew up in a rural Ohio town where many people don't actually believe that it is possible to be gay. So no discussion of a gay person even existing would be age appropriate to those parents. 

11 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I'll give you another example. What if a third grader wants to bring the book for show and tell? A teacher would not be permitted to allow that, for fear of legal action. What if a third grader has two moms or two dads? The teacher would need to prevent them from even talking about that fact to other children. What if a book or TV show just casually has a same sex couple? Not allowed. And even beyond third grade, for older kids the law vaguely says that discussions of gender orientation should be "age appropriate" but it doesn't define that. So what if a parent thinks that it isn't age appropriate for their 7th grader to know that gay people even exist? It sounds crazy but I grew up in a rural Ohio town where many people don't actually believe that it is possible to be gay. So no discussion of a gay person even existing would be age appropriate to those parents. 

DEPACincy - very helpful information, thank you.  As I freely admit, I am not familiar with the details of the laws for FL or OH.   My point is that there is a difference between gender identity and sexual orientation being part of a teaching curriculum and the examples that you provide.

I would hope/believe that most American's would never want any child to feel unequal because of their family (race, religion or identity) and I would hope that they agree that a teacher should be allowed to discuss a child's situation (e.g., a show and tell book or his/her parents) without fear of legal action.

Two different things in my mind, a teacher supporting a student vs required learning as part of the teaching curriculum.  

 

I think a big part of the issue also is that there's this assumption that kids of this age group, K-3rd Grade, don't know ANYTHING about their own sexuality. As a gay man, I can tell you for certain that for as long as I have memories, I knew I liked boys. I knew it that entire grade range, in some form or another.

 

The topic of having parents of the same gender identity did come up in school at that grade, mostly as a response to bullying. It was the mid 90s for me during that period, and using "you're gay" as an insult was extremely common. The response by teachers was to explain why that's insulting and that not everyone is the same.

 

That response, one that helped ME as a person better understand who I was, growing up in a heteronormative suburb in which I knew I wasn't the same as what I was seeing around me, wouldn't be allowed under this bill.

 

It's harmful to kids to treat them as unaware of sexuality. Identity isn't something you only start to develop and understand as you get older. It's always there, and should be able to be talked about at any age. How you specifically talk about things like sexuality should adjust with age, but not the entire idea of it. 

19 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I think a big part of the issue also is that there's this assumption that kids of this age group, K-3rd Grade, don't know ANYTHING about their own sexuality. As a gay man, I can tell you for certain that for as long as I have memories, I knew I liked boys. I knew it that entire grade range, in some form or another.

 

The topic of having parents of the same gender identity did come up in school at that grade, mostly as a response to bullying. It was the mid 90s for me during that period, and using "you're gay" as an insult was extremely common. The response by teachers was to explain why that's insulting and that not everyone is the same.

 

That response, one that helped ME as a person better understand who I was, growing up in a heteronormative suburb in which I knew I wasn't the same as what I was seeing around me, wouldn't be allowed under this bill.

 

It's harmful to kids to treat them as unaware of sexuality. Identity isn't something you only start to develop and understand as you get older. It's always there, and should be able to be talked about at any age. How you specifically talk about things like sexuality should adjust with age, but not the entire idea of it. 

Thank you for sharing that.  There is a child in my son's preschool that is 5 years old and is biologically male but is identifying as a girl. I was unaware that gender identity begins at such a young age myself. I think of this sweet child whenever these hateful measures are introduced. These children are just trying to navigate life like the rest of us and it is detestable to me that people will treat them as pawns in the culture outrage of the day.  

19 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I think a big part of the issue also is that there's this assumption that kids of this age group, K-3rd Grade, don't know ANYTHING about their own sexuality. As a gay man, I can tell you for certain that for as long as I have memories, I knew I liked boys. I knew it that entire grade range, in some form or another.

 

The topic of having parents of the same gender identity did come up in school at that grade, mostly as a response to bullying. It was the mid 90s for me during that period, and using "you're gay" as an insult was extremely common. The response by teachers was to explain why that's insulting and that not everyone is the same.

 

That response, one that helped ME as a person better understand who I was, growing up in a heteronormative suburb in which I knew I wasn't the same as what I was seeing around me, wouldn't be allowed under this bill.

 

It's harmful to kids to treat them as unaware of sexuality. Identity isn't something you only start to develop and understand as you get older. It's always there, and should be able to be talked about at any age. How you specifically talk about things like sexuality should adjust with age, but not the entire idea of it. 

If you can remember what you were thinking about in K-3, congratulations.  I cannot.  

Having said that, we are again talking about two different things.  Teachers should always feel empowered to support student that may be different for whatever the reason vs. required learning as part of a curriculum.  

 

 

27 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

If you can remember what you were thinking about in K-3, congratulations.  I cannot.  

Having said that, we are again talking about two different things.  Teachers should always feel empowered to support student that may be different for whatever the reason vs. required learning as part of a curriculum.  

 

 

I don't think we are though. That was just one example. I never once had a single actual lesson on sexuality that even so much as mentioned same sex partners until college. That is an issue. Yes, my specific example was about a teacher feeling empowered to support students, but the other side of the coin is that by NOT mentioning and talking about things that are actively happening as part of the curriculum, it has a negative effect on making kids feel like outsiders. This has a way of making at risk kids be even more at risk. It SHOULD be part of the curriculum in some way or another. The point of school is to teach kids about the world and give them the knowledge to navigate it. This is part of the world. Even a simple mention of a same sex couple in a story would have gone a long ways in my youth to allowing me to understand that what I am was normal. My family is thankfully fully supportive, but it never came up until I chose to bring it up, so it would have been really valuable to have it come up in an academic setting.

Edited April 13, 20223 yr by jmicha

35 minutes ago, jmicha said:

I don't think we are though. That was just one example. I never once had a single actual lesson on sexuality that even so much as mentioned same sex partners until college. That is an issue. Yes, my specific example was about a teacher feeling empowered to support students, but the other side of the coin is that by NOT mentioning and talking about things that are actively happening as part of the curriculum, it has a negative effect on making kids feel like outsiders. This has a way of making at risk kids be even more at risk. It SHOULD be part of the curriculum in some way or another. The point of school is to teach kids about the world and give them the knowledge to navigate it. This is part of the world. Even a simple mention of a same sex couple in a story would have gone a long ways in my youth to allowing me to understand that what I am was normal. My family is thankfully fully supportive, but it never came up until I chose to bring it up, so it would have been really valuable to have it come up in an academic setting.

@jmicha I think most people would agree that gender identity could/should be part of a curriculum but NOT for K-3rd grade.

I did not learn anything about sexuality or human reproduction until much later in life (I think 7th or 8th grade).  Some could argue that was too late or too early - but it feels WAY more right than K-3.

I don't know about K-3 but I DO know that we learned about sexuality and human reproduction before 7th grade.  Hell, I knew two girls that had babies IN 7th grade and condoms/AIDS/sex was discussed (as far as I recall) in 4th grade.  Ya know, late 80's/early 90's scare tactics during the height of the "sex is bad" years.  Meanwhile, their grandparents got married at 14-16 years old. 

 

All that to say, a 2nd grader can certainly comprehend human sexuality (gay, straight, bi, etc).  

Yeah we had our first lesson in 4th grade. And frankly given some of the things that had happened at that point amongst some students (mostly out of curiosity) it should have absolutely been started earlier.

 

Again, the idea that kids of this age have no idea what's going on is ridiculous. By the end of 3rd grade, a large portion of kids have started to go through puberty already. Even a simple lesson in what's coming to prepare kids for that and what will start happening would be really valuable. Again, it can be really simple and doesn't need to be super in depth, but a series of simple lessons would go a long way towards helping kids understand the things that are absolutely already happening to them.

 

This idea that kids are "innocent" and should be fully separated from sexuality is such a weird American idea. Other countries start teaching earlier in life and as a result have a healthier relationship with sexuality as adults than we as a culture do.

2 hours ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

DEPACincy - very helpful information, thank you.  As I freely admit, I am not familiar with the details of the laws for FL or OH.   My point is that there is a difference between gender identity and sexual orientation being part of a teaching curriculum and the examples that you provide.

I would hope/believe that most American's would never want any child to feel unequal because of their family (race, religion or identity) and I would hope that they agree that a teacher should be allowed to discuss a child's situation (e.g., a show and tell book or his/her parents) without fear of legal action.

Two different things in my mind, a teacher supporting a student vs required learning as part of the teaching curriculum.  

 

 

So, two things. First, I also would hope that most Americans would never want a child to feel unequal because of their family. But I think the evidence, sadly, shows that is not the case. 

 

Second, I agree that discuss vs. curriculum are two different things. But these bills are purposely vague on purpose and it would lead to any discussion of these issues being out of bounds for fear of legal actions.

 

 

In NJ every class in my district watched this program at the beginning of the schoolyear in around 1st-4th grade. This was FIFTY YEARS AGO.  I'm curious as to whether this would even be allowed in FL or Ohio under the new laws. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Be..._You_and_Me

 

Free to Be... You and Me is a children's entertainment project, conceived, created and executive-produced by actress and author Marlo Thomas. Produced in collaboration with the Ms. Foundation for Women, it was a record album and illustrated book first released in November 1972 featuring songs and stories sung or told by celebrities of the day including Alan Alda, Rosey Grier, Cicely Tyson, Carol Channing, Michael Jackson, Roberta Flack, Shirley Jones, Jack Cassidy, and Diana Ross. The basic concept was to encourage post-1960s gender neutrality, saluting values such as individuality, tolerance, and comfort with one's identity. A major thematic message is that anyone—whether a boy or a girl—can achieve anything.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

If you can remember what you were thinking about in K-3, congratulations.  I cannot.  

Having said that, we are again talking about two different things.  Teachers should always feel empowered to support student that may be different for whatever the reason vs. required learning as part of a curriculum.  

 

 

 

Can you really not? I'm not sure I believe that. I absolutely remember specific crushes on girls I had as far back as Kindergarten. I also remember family members asking me if I had a girlfriend at that age. 

15 minutes ago, jmicha said:

Yeah we had our first lesson in 4th grade. And frankly given some of the things that had happened at that point amongst some students (mostly out of curiosity) it should have absolutely been started earlier.

 

Again, the idea that kids of this age have no idea what's going on is ridiculous. By the end of 3rd grade, a large portion of kids have started to go through puberty already. Even a simple lesson in what's coming to prepare kids for that and what will start happening would be really valuable. Again, it can be really simple and doesn't need to be super in depth, but a series of simple lessons would go a long way towards helping kids understand the things that are absolutely already happening to them.

 

This idea that kids are "innocent" and should be fully separated from sexuality is such a weird American idea. Other countries start teaching earlier in life and as a result have a healthier relationship with sexuality as adults than we as a culture do.

I thought kids started going through puberty around 10-13 years old (that's 5-8th grade).  Sorry, most K-3 graders are innocent and the idea of introducing them to sexuality or gender identity is a concept I believe most Americas would prefer happen later.

2 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Can you really not? I'm not sure I believe that. I absolutely remember specific crushes on girls I had as far back as Kindergarten. I also remember family members asking me if I had a girlfriend at that age. 

I remember very vague bits and pieces - like my teacher's name - but little else.  I do not remember having a crush on a girl in K-3 nor my family asking me if I had a girlfriend at that age (perhaps in a joking sense only)

1 minute ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I thought kids started going through puberty around 10-13 years old (that's 5-8th grade).  Sorry, most K-3 graders are innocent and the idea of introducing them to sexuality or gender identity is a concept I believe most Americas would prefer happen later.

Well what about the ones who are not "innocent"(as if one is than they must be "not innocent" and somehow "tainted"?)

 

I knew I was gay at 6 years old. I had a crush on two boys in my first and second grade classes(hope you don't see this Lynn Smith or Mike Cottrill lol).

 

Having knowledge that some people have two mommies or two daddies and that gender identity is a thing does not male someone no longer "innocent".

11 minutes ago, surfohio said:

In NJ every class in my district watched this program at the beginning of the schoolyear in around 1st-4th grade. This was FIFTY YEARS AGO.  I'm curious as to whether this would even be allowed in FL or Ohio under the new laws. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_to_Be..._You_and_Me

 

Free to Be... You and Me is a children's entertainment project, conceived, created and executive-produced by actress and author Marlo Thomas. Produced in collaboration with the Ms. Foundation for Women, it was a record album and illustrated book first released in November 1972 featuring songs and stories sung or told by celebrities of the day including Alan Alda, Rosey Grier, Cicely Tyson, Carol Channing, Michael Jackson, Roberta Flack, Shirley Jones, Jack Cassidy, and Diana Ross. The basic concept was to encourage post-1960s gender neutrality, saluting values such as individuality, tolerance, and comfort with one's identity. A major thematic message is that anyone—whether a boy or a girl—can achieve anything.

 

 

I never saw anything like this*edit-unfortunately. Not in school at any time including High School. And the latter time was 40 years ago.

Edited April 13, 20223 yr by Toddguy

8 minutes ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I remember very vague bits and pieces - like my teacher's name - but little else.  I do not remember having a crush on a girl in K-3 nor my family asking me if I had a girlfriend at that age (perhaps in a joking sense only)

 

Yes, it was jokingly. But it still definitely happened. And I hear people say it to young kids all the time to this day. It makes me cringe, but it is considered normal to joke with young kids about having a boyfriend or girlfriend or crush or whatever. Of course, it is done in a heteronormative way. 

3 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

I never saw anything like this. Not in school at any time including High School. And the latter time was 40 years ago.

 

You sure missed out my friend! For as long as I can remember the lyrics and melody to William wants a doll have been rolling around in the back my mind hahaha. 

 

In all seriousness I remember everyone loved this program. 

6 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

You sure missed out my friend! For as long as I can remember the lyrics and melody to William wants a doll have been rolling around in the back my mind hahaha. 

 

In all seriousness I remember everyone loved this program. 

LOL! I am going to search for it now...maybe youtube? Which Pinko/Commie sang this among the list of famous Pinko/Commies listed like Cicely Tyson, Roberta Flack, Rosey Grier and Carol Channing? lol

 

Off to search. BTW it was sneak-reading my mother's Cosmopolitan magazine that made me realize what I was. And here people have been thinking that playing with Barbies is the gateway to homosexuality!(I never played with them unless my little girlfriend wanted to destroy hers-we usually melted them lol)

 

Here ya go! I want all of UO to fall under the spell.... 

FWIW - We watched that at my Catholic grade school circa 1998

1 hour ago, Chazz Michael Michaels said:

I thought kids started going through puberty around 10-13 years old (that's 5-8th grade).  Sorry, most K-3 graders are innocent and the idea of introducing them to sexuality or gender identity is a concept I believe most Americas would prefer happen later.

 

I had a crush on a girl in kindergarten that I still remember to this day.  Her name was Krista, and I wanted to buy her a blue dress- that was it.  No other plans beyond that.  You see, I was innocent- but still knew my sexual orientation at that young age.

 

My first grade best friend Matt had a crush on me.  I am sure his crush on me was every bit as innocent as mine was towards Krista, and he knew his sexual orientation at that young age, too. 

 

Perhaps a little compassionate discussion by an adult would have helped us all process this.  On the other hand, it was the 80's, and maybe the less the adults of the time knew and said, the better.