House committee in Florida passes 'Don't Say Gay' bill

Uhhh,

House committee in Florida passes 'Don't Say Gay' bill

House committee in Florida passes 'Don't Say Gay' bill | TheHill

• A House committee in Florida on Thursday passed a bill which aims to ban discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

• The bill would bar educators from talking about LGBTQ+ topics that are not “age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” An identical bill has also been introduced in Florida’s state Senate.

• According to a recent report from the Trevor Project, LGBTQ+ youth who learned about LGBTQ+ people or issues in school had 23 percent lower odds of reporting a suicide attempt in the last year than those who did not.

Man Floriduh really killing it with these vital Murica' saving bills. I'm glad they are going for the real issues in solving America's problems, like CRT which no school in FL teaches, evil capitalist corporations training anti-racism (despicable), muh Gays, and the mass 2020 Election fraud which didn't happen. Oh and making all the wrong moves on Covid laws for 2 years now going by entire fields of science.

Florida man strikes again.

The bill specifically mentions primary grade levels which is elementary school. Is it appropriate to teach sexual orientation in elementary school?

@Stevo_the_gamer: it is not appropriate to teach grade school kids gender identity or sexual orientation. It's also not appropriate to teach them CRT ideology. Good on FL to nip this in the bud before it takes root.

Teach them math, science, english, history, not weird leftist social ideology fringe shit

@zaryia: Great job once again, not reading or understanding what is in the bill.

Here you go:

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557

It's more like a "Dont say gay, straight, bi, or discuss sexual orientation PERIOD, and only applies to elementary school."

Also do not hide things from parents/keep secrets with kids.

Good grief, no wonder parents are concerned with so many groomers out there trying to blatantly misrepresent what goes on.

@appariti0n: they want to be able to bypass the parents to push thier indoctrination on their children.

@sargentd: Yup. And right now, the ACLU us literally fighting AGAINST curriculum transparency. Clown world.

@appariti0n: yup, it is very unfortunate. It's not the majority that want the state to be allowed to teach thier 5-12yo children about gender identity, "anti-racism", cultural appropriation, white privilege, non-binary, this is all fringe leftist modern theory, a minority of leftists that endorse this stuff, none of it based in any hard science, literally all subjective psudoscience theory.

And they want to push it on 1st graders without letting parents know... 🤡 🤡 🤡

No different than the state making kids read the bible for curriculum. Same thing.

What did I say that was incorrect?

Is there a study showing harm in this, or this just culture wars garbage for votes?

Also how many schools in FL do this?

Sounds like a law for a nothing burger.

@zaryia: do you want this taught in elementary school? Yes or no?

So a teacher can't describe the factual sexual orientation of a historical figure from grades k-7? Especially those higher grades. Because? Who the hell cares lol, how is this even on people's minds. Sounds low IQ.

How about worrying about real issues for a change? Or is culture wars for non issues going to the main point of the party now?

@zaryia: Not what you said, it’s what you didn’t say. You made it appear as if a Bill was passed that specifically banned schools talking about Gay orientation exclusively.

Btw, I’m not American…how old are kids in elementary school?

No I didn't. The article explains and I posted it,

• A House committee in Florida on Thursday passed a bill which aims to ban discussions of sexual orientation

What are your thoughts on teaching children in Elementary school about sexual orientation?

I don't see the problem of stating that a historical figure was gay. Or stating sexual orientation definitions in sexual education class.

Sounds like this is a solution looking for a problem. But this is what the party is about now I guess, fake issues.

Interesting move, further reading makes it out to be less far right, more just traditional conservative.

Not that bad, though you gotta teach kids these things at some point. Abstinence does not work.

I was taught in 5th grade (elementary school) by my 60-year old teacher, which is too early and awkward...

...and the second time I was taught was in junior year (11th grade) by my football/gym coach, which is too late and awkward.

I think the "too early" camp freaks out because their kids are hitting puberty soon and they're like they have to know something! and the "too late" camp is like they're graduating school soon what if they don't know anything!".

Idunno, maybe just show kids a porno in 7th grade? 😜

I don't think it is quite so sinister--parents just want their kids to have the information they need to be successful and safe in life--but I understand why one might have an equally ridiculous reaction of "don't teach them anything".

With that said, I don't think learning about the whole spectrum of sexual preference and identity is a bad thing. There's a lot of really awesome people out there to love and have sex with, it'd be a shame if someone wasn't told it's OK to pursue what your heart desires.

@zaryia: I think you’re being a bit mischievous there. Your headline clearly mentions one sexual orientation only. But hey, I don’t care which orientation people have I don’t think it’s a primary school teachers job to bring it up….too early, and more important things to teach.

What happened in Virginia is going to play out all over the country in the midterms, and those on the far left pushing/spinning this stuff will probably blame white supremacy or racism or some crap for it. Do none of these people have kids?

Do none of them understand that dishonesty like this turns people who are generally pretty indifferent/neutral towards LGBTQ people AGAINST them?

Sometimes I wonder if it's actually conservatives spinning this, banking on a very predictable response from a whole ton of parents. That would be some hilarious 4D chess.

That seems narrow in scope - do you believe conversations topics on this matter only briefly touch on it? What sort of definitions are appropriate, how much detail can be observed to establish the objective facts, how much time should be spent on it? And more importantly, is sexual orientation even relevant to the curriculum itself?

Those are rhetorical questions, obviously. The point is that this is not a clear "black and white" issue - and teaching children hot topics remains a debated issue regardless of party or feigned tribalism. But you do your shtick.

@mrbojangles25: Great post, looks like you actually bothered to read the bill.

Yeah, we were taught right around the start of puberty age 12-13 iirc. And it was more about how to not get someone pregnant, how to not get STDs, proper condom use. Just the stuff you need to know from a healthcare perspective. The only thing I would say that's missing, is maybe warning boys just how much condom use reduces sensitivity, and to be prepared for it, and not to ever use it as an excuse to not use one?

They even allowed a *gasp* conservative viewpoint by starting with "So, the only 100% fool proof way to avoid STDs and pregnancy, is to remain abstinent until you're married/committed. But here's what you need to know if you're not going to do that".

How exactly is this not appropriote for eleemntary schoolers?

These stuff manifest themselves already back in elementary school. And if it manifests it is best to let them know why things are the way they are. Teaching this stuff in sex ed class has been shown to reduce suicide rates. And it is better they understand it than being intentionally kept in the dark. Because as mentioned, this has been demonstrated to save lives.

Hell, in Elementary School Sex Ed class over here, people are also given a pretty detailed course on anatomy.

Prudishness, does no one any good, there is a strong correlation (and arguably causation) of prudeness and all sorts of problems.

Yea, why not?

@Maroxad: And if it manifests it is best to let them know why things are the way they are. Teaching this stuff in sex ed class has been shown to reduce suicide rates.

So you haven't provided any actual proof for this, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that you have.

Following the logic of wanting to prevent as many suicides as possible, should we study suicide rates by belief system a bit closer, including religiouis beliefs?

If it turns out that religious people commit suicide at the lowest rates, does that mean all kids should be indoctrinated with religion from an early age? I mean, if it saves even one child right? There are conflicting reports on this, but there is definitely enough evidence out there showing that teenagers who have religious beliefs are less likely to commit suicide. Enough evidence to warrant further investigation to try to get conclusive data anyhow.

https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

So would you be in favor of rigorous investigation of this, and then indoctrinating all children with whichever belief system has been proven to have the lowest suicide rates?

Do you believe in the concept of age appropriateness at all?

@appariti0n: Being informed of LGBTQ stuff is not indoctrination... on the other hand, trying to shield someone from certain facts, very much is.

And here is the source,

https://www.thetrevorproject.org/research-briefs/lgbtq-youth-suicide-prevention-in-schools/

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to decide how its drawn?

Kids these days have cell phones/internet they are exposed pretty quickly to things teaching them about LGBTQ is not a big deal this isn't the 1950's anymore as much as conservatives wish it was.

Odd thread. Allowing that more than one sexuality exists is not going to change the sexuality of the child. Stop making policy based on fear.

I get the entire "Shield my children from outside influence" mentality of the bill, but let's be honest, it's a waste of time and only gives another example of how out of touch Boomer politicians are with the real world.

69% of 12 year Olds have a cell phone now(1 in 5 eight year olds now have one too). Even if the subject isn't taught in schools you have an overwhelming majority of kids who are still learning about the subject because of a constant connection to the internet and social media, making the bill completely ineffective. The 31% who don't have access will surely hear about it from the 69% that do. Shit, the internet wasn't even a thing when I was in elementary school and we still knew what a clitoris was at that age because we had older siblings and rap music.

Your own source really only proves a reduction in suicide attempts for students in schools that discuss suicide in general. And notice it says "odds of reporting", not even "odds of attempting".

Not to mention, the methodology behind it is incredibly shaky, as it's not a random sample of actual suicide attempts, but rather an elective survey, via a targetted social media campaign. Which is about the weakest methodology one can use other than a free for all opt in survey.

"Methodology:

Data were collected from an online survey conducted between October and December 2020 of 34,759 LGBTQ youth recruited via targeted ads on social media. These analyses included 19,175 youth who were currently enrolled in middle or high school at the time of survey completion. Classroom experiences with LGBTQ material were assessed by asking “Have you ever learned about LGBTQ people or issues in your classes at school?” with response options: No; Yes, in health class; Yes, as part of sexual education class; Yes, in history class; Yes, in another class; Yes, but I don’t remember which class; and I don’t remember if I learned about LGBTQ people or issues in school. Youth could select all that apply. Participants were also asked “Have you learned about suicide prevention in school?” and, separately, “How prepared do you feel to help a friend who is struggling with thoughts of suicide?”. The latter had response items “Not at all,” “A little bit,” “Somewhat,” and “Very much.” Our item on attempted suicide (“During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?”

Given this shaky methodolgy, a whopping 16% vs 19% is hardly conclusive. In fact, far less conclusive than what I already posted regarding suicide rates among religious vs non religious people.

See for yourself. The difference between "learned about suicide in school vs didn't learn", and "learned about LGBTQ issues vs didn't learn" is almost exactly the same.

Yeah, Social Media will mean that pretty much anyone will learn about them pretty fast. Even if you discount social media, entertainment too.

Nintendo Stuff may often be seen as kiddy, and even they have on occasion included transgender characters, as well as gay and bi. Hell, Banjo Tooie (which is more Microsoft these days), had a gay bar in it.

That just means we need to ban smartphones at school next, but for different reasons. Smartphone usage in kids has been shown to DRASTICALLY affect attention spans, and social development, increased anxiety and self harm attempts, especially in teenage girls.

Well, it's not actually the smartphone itself, it's having access to social media via a smart phone.

@Maroxad:

"Yeah, Social Media will mean that pretty much anyone will learn about them pretty fast. Even if you discount social media, entertainment too."

Have you watched The Social Dilemma yet?

I'm honestly just as concerned about social media being in the hands of kids, as underage drinking, drug use, etc.

@appariti0n said:@rmiller365 said: I get the entire "Shield my children from outside influence" mentality of the bill, but let's be honest, it's a waste of time and only gives another example of how out of touch Boomer politicians are with the real world.

69% of 12 year Olds have a cell phone now(1 in 5 eight year olds now have one too). Even if the subject isn't taught in schools you have an overwhelming majority of kids who are still learning about the subject because of a constant connection to the internet and social media, making the bill completely ineffective. The 31% who don't have access will surely hear about it from the 69% that do. Shit, the internet wasn't even a thing when I was in elementary school and we still knew what a clitoris was at that age because we had older siblings and rap music.

That just means we need to ban smartphones at school next, but for different reasons. Smartphone usage in kids has been shown to DRASTICALLY affect attention spans, and social development, increased anxiety and self harm attempts, especially in teenage girls.

Well, it's not actually the smartphone itself, it's having access to social media via a smart phone.

I honestly don't think that would make a difference. I don't know of a school that doesn't have a ban on phones during class already, and they will still get the same influence outside of school and bring that knowledge into school anyway, and again, I still knew of all of it in elementary school before cell phones, the internet, and social media where in existence.

The only real way I see to approach this topic would be the parents to take an active role in teaching their child these lessons at home in a preferred and controlled environment. This won't happen because this entire issue stems from parents being inactive in the learning process with their kids, giving them a phone and allowing them to have social media to distract them. This bill won't do anything but waste tax dollars because these Boomer politicians either can't grasp the concept of how technology works, or they do and this is a big nothing burger to feed a base to stay in office. That's just my two cents on it.

@rmiller365: I honestly don't think that would make a difference. I don't know of a school that doesn't have an ban on phones during class already, and they will still get the same influence outside of school and bring that knowledge into school anyway, and again, I still knew of all of it in elementary school before cell phones, the internet, and social media where in existence.

For sure, I just think that if kids are strongly encouraged to interact face to face at least while at school, rather than be on their phones, the end result will be far better. I mean that's the main reason I send my little girl to day care, rather than just let her stay home and watch ipad. I'm fortunate enough that I could technically do the latter, as I have a work from home job. But I'd rather pay the money so she is constantly interacting with other kids. The benefits of having kids super late in life I guess.

I haven't.

However, I believe Social Media is behind a lot of ills, so if there was some way to stop children from creating accounts on facebook, twitter and so on that would probably not be too bad.

@girlusocrazy: I know it's crazy, but you can say boy/girl, king/queen, mother/father without ever discussing sexual attraction, or sexual orientation.

Somehow the teachers who taught my generation managed just fine. :)

@Maroxad: Yeah, not so much that social media created brand new "ills" that didn't exist before, rather it amplified the prevalence and severity of existing ills in unforseen ways. Which we really SHOULD have foreseen.

Bullying is far more insidious, since the bullies can do it anonymously much more easily.

Kids (especially girls) used to compare themselves to attractive but often fake women on TV and in magazines. Both much easier to control access to than social media.

Boys used to secretly pass around porn, and now they have access to pretty much whatever they want at any time, propogating an incredibly false/unhealthy sense of what actual intercourse is like. I could go on, bit I'm starting to sound like my boomer dad. 🤣

I agree. I have a little girl that I had late in life too. She's not allowed to have one or a social media account until she's older. I'm sure having a girl, you can agree it's a little more dangerous for a girl. The funny thing is is that people who aren't active in their kids lives and give them a cell phone want to tell me how to raise my kid. like, I teach my daughter how to defend herself. It's a skill I think that a girl needs to have. But they tell me that I'm "encouraging violence" in her doing that. They can piss off with that unsolicited bullshit.

I have no problem with it. This is a job for parents, not politicians and teachers.

But who would you rather teach your kids about these things? A teacher? Some bureaucracy like the Department of Education? Politicians? Or do you think maybe the parents are best suited for that, and for the 6 hours a day children spend in school, maybe we should start demanding better results? School systems and education in the US is struggling, and it's struggling because we have more and more teachers wanting to teach things that are irrelevant, or better left up to the parent than things children can actually use as adults.

It's brutally clear from my time on here that several people in the US on these boards don't even know the basics of civics. They do not understand how the separation of powers work, what the constitution says, or how elections are conducted. How many adults do you see out of high school and college that still don't know how to balance a budget, or do their taxes? There are far better, far more useful things that SHOULD be taught in school and isn't to accept teaching this irrelevant, largely political bullcrap that is better left up to the parent.

Things relating to ideology, beliefs, religion, even sexual orientation should be done by the parent, and if the parent is not willing to be the one to teach those things, them IMO, they're not ready to be a parent.

@eoten: I agree the educational system is pretty terrible in the US, but were your teachers really so bad you don't think they're trustworthy? Or is your issue more with the system?

Overall though I agree with your points. Would have been nice to been taught actual life skills in high school particularly. I was always jealous of the kids in shop class or woodworking class. I really enjoyed band class but I always thought it'd be cool to learn how to weld, fix a car, or build furniture.

@mrbojangles25:

Great point. Why isn't every kid also taught how to use credit responsibly, or even better, not at all? Save for maybe a mortgage?

Or how to put aside a bit of money every month in rrsps, the stock market, etc.

My son's school has the kids sharing a computer once a week to learn computer use and typing. Yet when I was in grade 4 onward, we had computer class several times a week, and we all had our own computers. In this day and age, it should start way sooner than that imo.

How the hell did that happen? I taught him to touch type when he was 5, so this weekly computer class is essentially useless for him.

A cheap chrombook is far less expensive relatively speaking to the computers I used in middle school like 32 years ago.

@appariti0n: Please don't tell people to teach kids not to use credit. This boomer advice has made the transition to adulthood unnecessarily difficult for scores of people.

Teach them how to use credit, yes. Don't teach them to avoid all credit.

I would argue that using credit irresponsibly has made far more lives miserable than not using credit whatsoever.

But yeah, when used responsibly, credit cards can build your credit rating. I would advise people to use a credit card to make their purchases, but only if they have the money in the bank to pay it off before they accrue any interest. That way they can build a credit rating without actually losing any money to interest.

@rmiller365: Too funny, I literally sat down and asked both my almost 5 year old girl, and my 7 year old boy if they want to take Muay Thai with me. Both gave an enthusiastic YES! :D

Republicans usually have the most backwards schooling ideas.

They should focus less on twitter bate culture was issues in the schools (or just being scientifically wrong) and try to increase actual educational outcomes.

The Education Gap That Explains American Politics - The Atlantic

Red States Least Educated in the U.S. | Time

Oh yeah push it on them! it's good cardio for both you and your kids, and it's a way to bond with them. Jujutsu and Muay Thai are good choices since they involve weak/pressure points and can circumvent the advantage a bigger and stronger opponent has. It's a good skill for them to have and I think it's good for everyone to do.