Looks like the bill passed the Senate today and the internet is really mad about it. I've skimmed like 8 news stories about it, and as far as I can tell not one of them provides a link to read what the bill actually says. Surely that's just an oversight by these writers and editors, and has nothing to do with the possibility that they're misrepresenting what's actually in the bill and just hoping no one will read it and make up their own mind.
Looks like the bill passed the Senate today and the internet is really mad about it. I've skimmed like 8 news stories about it, and as far as I can tell not one of them provides a link to read what the bill actually says. Surely that's just an oversight by these writers and editors, and has nothing to do with the possibility that they're misrepresenting what's actually in the bill and just hoping no one will read it and make up their own mind.
Looks like the bill passed the Senate today and the internet is really mad about it. I've skimmed like 8 news stories about it, and as far as I can tell not one of them provides a link to read what the bill actually says. Surely that's just an oversight by these writers and editors, and has nothing to do with the possibility that they're misrepresenting what's actually in the bill and just hoping no one will read it and make up their own mind.
I enjoyed this exchange posted on twitter:
He is such a boss. He is always so calm when he dunks on 79. Kayleigh was like that also.
I think today is the first time I've actually seen the other part of the bill that people are fake mad about. Most of the comments I've come across have been about the "don't include discussions of sexuality and gender identity in K-3 curriculum" part, which is probably not a necessary bill but also should not be a remotely controversial statement.
So this morning I stumbled across this Twitter thread, where someone brought up "#2" in the bill:
The lady complaining about it relayed an anecdote about a gay kid who OD'd after his boyfriend of 1.5 years broke up with him. Apparently the kids' parents didn't know he was gay before that, and this person's take was "With this bill, the parents could now sue the school for not telling them the kid was gay." Fucking... what?
Am I missing something here? Unless my reading comprehension is way off, this bill says, "Schools can't make it against the rules for teachers to tell parents about their kids' mental health problems." And your takeaway is, "If a teacher doesn't tell the parents that a kid is gay, the parents can sue the school if the kid tries to kill himself." Every word of this section says that you can't have a policy that PROHIBITS telling the parents. I realize people are always going to look for a loophole in every bill, but is there any reasonable legal interpretnation of this that would make someone thing it REQUIRES a teacher to tell a parent anything?
I truly don't understand the logic that's making people think this bill is going to prevent gay/trans kids from confiding in their teachers and end up killing themselves because they had no one to talk to, or whatever they're pretending to be mad about. Make it make sense. /Balls
It's a garbage law but not for that reason in particular. I agree that that doesn't make much sense.
Can you elaborate? It strikes me as an unnecessary law, but what makes it garbage IYO?
I don't agree with the substance of the law, as you might imagine, but the bigger issue to me is that it's vague and overbroad. That makes for a terrible law.
The K-3 grade stuff is as you said unnecessary because it's not a part of the curriculum. So, much like our transgender athletes law here, you're searching for a problem. Also, given the public comments made by the legislators, I don't exactly buy the discussion of "student led discussion of things will still be allowed." So, kids have gay parents, gay siblings, trans siblings, whatever, and if it gets brought up in school as part of something that the teacher assigns, then at the very least the school is going to have to go through unnecessary time and expenditure to defend it.
"Age appropriate" for the rest of the grades is a completely subjective standard. The legislature, when it sets the standards for age-appropriate topics (I don't think that's included in the current bill), can very likely in my opinion exclude any discussion of gay or trans issues basically all the way through high school. That is where I'd have concerns about closeted kids dealing with mental health issues becoming an issue.
Another thing I completely agree with--the hysteria over the law is largely unhinged and it's almost impossible to find the actual language of the bill.
Can you elaborate? It strikes me as an unnecessary law, but what makes it garbage IYO?
It seems unnecessary because I can’t imagine teachers are talking to 3rd graders and younger about transitioning, but maybe they are. I don’t know
There are 2 parts of the bill being discussed:
One says no sex stuff in K-3 curriculum. There should be no need of such a law, but if anyone is actually making that part of their teaching for kids that young, no non-pedophile should have a problem with this part of the bill. It says "Don't teach about sexuality in K-3 because no one that young has any reason to be taught about these adult subjects." But people are pretending it says "If a kid mentions they have 2 moms, you have to immediately shut down all conversation about that kid's family because it's not a state-approved topic."
The other one is what I posted a pic of above. This is not specific to K-3, but applies to all schools. IMO it says "Schools cannot have rules prohibiting teachers from telling parents about kids' mental health issues." I'm not entirely sure why this part of it is necessary either, but people seem to be interpreting it as "Teachers are required to report students' sexuality to their parents," which is just some crazy mental gymnastics that I can't follow at all.
Reasonable folks can debate whether these are good or even necessary laws, but no one arguing against them is being remotely honest about what they actually say IMHO.
ETA: TY, dong. The "vague and overbroad" description definitely makes sense. I'm obviously not a lawyer or anything, but there doesn't seem to be anything here that would actually "stick" if a parent tried to sue a school for answring a kid's question about a gay family or whatever. But I can see how it just unnecessarily opens the door to having to spend time/money dealing with such complaints.
Last Edit: Mar 11, 2022 12:05:56 GMT -5 by TheWolf
The schools don't have to shut it down. But they can potentially be sued about it. So does that effectively shut it down because the schools are worried about litigation?
Can you elaborate? It strikes me as an unnecessary law, but what makes it garbage IYO?
I don't agree with the substance of the law, as you might imagine, but the bigger issue to me is that it's vague and overbroad. That makes for a terrible law.
The K-3 grade stuff is as you said unnecessary because it's not a part of the curriculum. So, much like our transgender athletes law here, you're searching for a problem. Also, given the public comments made by the legislators, I don't exactly buy the discussion of "student led discussion of things will still be allowed." So, kids have gay parents, gay siblings, trans siblings, whatever, and if it gets brought up in school as part of something that the teacher assigns, then at the very least the school is going to have to go through unnecessary time and expenditure to defend it.
"Age appropriate" for the rest of the grades is a completely subjective standard. The legislature, when it sets the standards for age-appropriate topics (I don't think that's included in the current bill), can very likely in my opinion exclude any discussion of gay or trans issues basically all the way through high school. That is where I'd have concerns about closeted kids dealing with mental health issues becoming an issue.
Another thing I completely agree with--the hysteria over the law is largely unhinged and it's almost impossible to find the actual language of the bill.
I think I asked you this before, but do you think allowing that Penn swimmer to compete as a woman is a problem, or is it fine IYO?