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

Yes, Jiu Jutsu is next, once they're older and their joints can handle it I think.

Too bad all I had access to as a kid was Taekwondo, but it's better than nothing! :P

My teachers were mostly teaching in the 1990s, and had no desire, requirement, or inclination to teach sexual orientation, period. So I didn't face this problem. I even had a principal in grade school tell me to beat the crap out of a bully who kept messing with me, and that certainly wouldn't be permitted today either. So how grade school went for me isn't what it is turning into today. So it's an apples to oranges comparison 30 years later. The system has changed, and that has resulted in a different breed of teachers all together.

As for skills, you're not the first person I've spoken to who wished their schools taught better skills. I was talking to a girl earlier this week who is now in college and said the hardest part of it all was being completely unprepared on how to do adult things like file their taxes. They also wish their schools had things like wood shop, and home economics.

But I was thinking of those classes, and well, they're kind of outdated at this point. Woodworking is a niche skill today, there just isn't a lot of use for it with CNC routers doing most the work. Learning how to design in 3D CAD/solid modeling software, and operating CNC based equipment such as routers, machining, or 3D printing would probably be more useful now. And with electronics becoming so commonplace, I wouldn't be opposed to classic that teach the basics of how they work. At this point I feel like I am the ONLY person I know in real life or online that knows how to solder a pin header or replace a capacitor on something.

But the point is, in grade school children do not need to be taught sexuality, religion, or political ideology, they should be taught the basics necessary to move onto more advanced classes in high school and the rest of the time they should spend having fun, playing. If schools have that much free time, they should have more recess. And in high school there's way better life relevant skills they could learn.

@eoten: The 90's were a good time to be a kid, I think. I graduated high school in 2002 so I was lucky enough to spend the bulk of my childhood in the 90's haha.

And I looked it up; kids don't hit puberty (on average) until age 12 or so. That's 7th grade, so yeah, elementary is too young imo.

All I remember about my elementary school sex ed is a.) laughing my ass off, and b.) my female teacher describing masturbation as "rolling your dick around in your hands" rofl

CRT should be taught beginning in pre-school. I'd teach that voting for anything but the democratic party represents fascism.

I remember starting sex ed at the age of 10, fourth grade, then later on at 13 as well.

No one found it awkward, and it helped prepare us for sexual relationships, those who choose to get sexually active that is.

And especially now, that people are hitting puberty earlier than ever, which I believe was due to a certain chemical that people are increasingly exposed to.

Anyways, as long as kids are taught medically accurate facts, and not preached an ideology then it is perfectly fine.

This is fine,

"Some people are attracted to members of the same sex, others may find themselves attracted to both sexes, and others, around 1% may find that their gender identity does not match the body they were placed in, and recommendations if one is indeed trans, with some explanation on various methodologies".

What is not fine is,

"Some people are attracted to the opposite sex, and you should respect their choice. Around 1% are transgender and you should all be looking to get puberty blockers".

@Maroxad: should elementary schools teach kids that gender is a social construct?

Should elementary schools teach children than Trans woman are "real" woman?

I doubt they are teaching any of that. It's another CRT case where it's made up culture war to scare parents for votes.

Yeah... it's odd how much people conflate their ideology with facts. To everyone, what they believe is based on fact and what everyone else believes is in lieu of fact. That's just peoples unrealistic perceptions of themselves. That's why hard lines are drawn and not "well if they do this, but that" sort of stuff. Also, the people pushing it in the first place are motivated by political and social ideology, so keeping ideology out of it is an unrealistic expectation.

@eoten: well that's the issue, we have adults working in schools who will see their personal social ideology as fact.

Can they not teach about the different sexualities in sex ed? Can they factually just say a historical figure was gay as part of their description if it's true?

The bill seems kinda nutty in these situations. That's sounds more like trying to push far right ideology in my examples. I guess it depends on the example right?

Yup. A solution looking for a problem. When they aren't making up lunatic bills due to lies about Covid science or 2020 election. This is the right now.

Depends on the context. If there is a student who is transgender in the class, it may be wise to bring it up. Otherwise it would be best to keep it at a surface level. Just let them know that they exist, same with LGBT people. Especially since this might even help them understand popular contemporary children's shows like Steven Universe. And references to LGBT in games like Fortnite, which we both know is EXTREMELY popular among children.

Edit: Also teaching that gender is a social construct and transwomen are real women is medically accurate.

In the end, students are going to be asking questions about LGBT stuff in sex ed class, they have been doing it for decades now. And teachers need to be allowed to answer these questions without risking their livelyhood.

In Finland sex ed starts pretty much at 3rd grade, which is about 9 years old. Kids should learn about those things as soon as possible, sexuality and knowing your own body are important things when growing up.

@Maroxad: "transwomen are real women is medically accurate"

No it's not and this is the stuff that should not be taught to elementary school kids

@Maroxad: Transwomen are not real women.

@Maroxad: Edit: Also teaching that gender is a social construct and transwomen are real women is medically accurate.

If people want to believe that, they're free to. But this has no place in schools whatsoever, as it doesn't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

"woman" is defined as an adult human female. And a female, is the half of sexual dimorphism that can create large gametes, as opposed to small gametes. Both of these definitions come from Oxford dictionaries, and other dictionaries say essentially the same thing.

If a female has an illness, or something goes wrong (surgery, cancer, genetic mutation, etc) where she is unable to produce large gametes, she's still a female. And if she's an adult female, she's a woman.

All of what I just typed is logically sound.

Compared to what usually happens when you ask pretty much any Trans rights activist "what is a woman?"

The answer is always circular reasoning, and goes something like this:

The distinction between gender and sex is real. Even according to Oxford,

gender noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced American Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

[countable, uncountable]the fact of being male or female, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology

sex_1 noun - Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com

[uncountable, countable]the state of being male or female

• We determined the sex of the birds from their DNA."

However, a transwoman being a real woman seems wrong, agreed. Although I know of no k-7 in FL that teaches this.

Again this is all a solution looking for a problem. Much like the CRT related bills. Much like the election lunacy laws.

If it is medically accurate, it has a place in schools. And as it happens, both of those are agreed on in actual academic circles, even if they are a bit... counterintuitive, especially if we stick to the oversimplified version of biology we learn in high school.

You dont seem to go by the X/Y justification (which falls apart at an advanced level of biology). So I will give you credit for going the linguistical path.

Anyways, female in terms of women typically refers to gender. Which is usually associated with Gender Identity and Gender Expression. This is because this is the part that manifests itself to most of us, unless we act like Goku from the original Dragon Ball.

Virtually every piece of information, and the medical and scientific consensus disagrees with you.

Here are just some of the many organizations who you disagree with,

• American Psychological Association
• American Medical Association
• American Psychoanalytic Association
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians
• United Nations
• United Kingdom’s National Health Service
• World Health Organization

I do admit I am using an appeal to authority fallacy here, but ultimately we are arguing semantics. So in this case I would argue it is apt.

@zaryia: That still doesn't make sense though:

"the fact of being male or female, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences, not differences in biology"

What does the second part even mean? It's being male/female, which we just defined as sex, which is defined based on gametes, but especially male/female when considered with references to cultural and social differences? Does it mean that one's "gender identity" somehow has an impact on their sex?

And if you or I can't come to a clear answer here as adults, how is this in any way appropriate in schools?

They clearly refer to gender as the social construct and sex as the biological fact. I'm fine with this distinction because now people can use different words and you now know what they are talking about. Instead of someone being wrong and suggesting someone Trans is actually a different sex. Which is untrue unless it's something like a hermaphrodite.

Are you saying Oxford is wrong? You just used them in a previous post as citation.

I'm just agreeing with a major dictionary.

@zaryia:

@Maroxad:

@zaryia: However, a transwoman being a real woman seems wrong, agreed.

At least we agree on that point, as if TWAW were actually true, then there would be no need for the "trans" modifier whatsoever.

Are you saying Oxford is wrong? You just used them in a previous post as citation.

Well, they can't be correct on both definitions, as they are contradictory.

If "woman" = adult human female, and "man" = adult human male, then there's pretty clear that man/woman (gender) = sex, but with an age modifier. Boy/Girl (juvenile human male/female) or Man/Woman (adult human male/female). This was the definition I posted.

For the definition of "Gender", which we have already established above, the definition you provided appears to directly contradict that. As it is now saying Gender is a social construct, rather than describing a juvenile/adult human of one of two sexes (male/female).

And now @Maroxad, you just said:

Anyways, female in terms of women typically refers to gender.

So what term describes the type of human that can produce large gametes? This essentially erases biological sex as a term, when for the purposes of most things, it's a far more useful classification than whatever "gender identity" is. See medical forms, police reports, census data, which sports category one should compete in, etc.

Credit for admitting you're using a bit of an appeal to authority here:

Here are just some of the many organizations who you disagree with,

• American Psychological Association

• American Medical Association

• American Psychoanalytic Association

• American Academy of Pediatrics

• American College of Osteopathic Pediatricians

• United Nations

• United Kingdom’s National Health Service

• World Health Organization

Which I would counter with, so what if they claim something that isn't true, and has a serious logical flaw?

I could theoretically find a few scientists who would agree to peer review a paper that the earth is flat. With social media these days, it wouldn't be hard. Are we to now accept the flat earth theory as fact?

Or how about the fact that at one time, all the prevalent studies pointed to the fact that lead wasn't harmful to humans?

https://www.inquirer.com/philly/blogs/public_health/50-years-ago-Building-the-case-against-lead.html

Or that smoking was good for pregnant women, as it calmed their nerves?

https://www.history.com/news/cigarette-ads-doctors-smoking-endorsement

The other thing is, I can't think of any other topic we could discuss, where even questioning what they say can get you labelled as "phobic", "bigoted" etc faster. Probably 99% of Trans people aren't like this, but their activists that claim to represent them are utterly vicious in attacking and attempting to cancel anyone who dares to raise questions.

So if this can't be explained in a clear, concise way that makes sense to your average Joe, I'm 100% against teaching any of this in schools until that time.

Contrast this with say... Climate change denial. I'm not a climate scientist, I'm nowhere near smart enough to understand the research that went into determining that humans are causing global warming.

However, it's relatively simple to explain it to me, and others like me nonetheless:

We have proof that the earth's temperature tracks directly with the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. We have proof that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas. We have proof that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased drastically since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

So while we cannot directly PROVE that humans are causing climate change, it's a pretty valid and fair assumption that pumping all of this extra CO2 into the atmosphere will lead to a rise in temperatures.

Ciswoman. If we wanna get specific.

And nah, it doesnt erase sex. Sex very much exists in the model that transmen and women adhere to. Woman just happens to include Ciswomen and transwomen.

We do this for a lot of stuff really. In terms of sexuality, we have aromantic asexuals, but most still just refer themselves to as asexuals.

Most of those things already primarily factor in gender identity or rather, expression, at least where I live.

When we are talking about teaching medical information, it would be the most apt to use the terminology and models used in medical academia, wouldn't you agree? And as it happens, transwomen are classified as women.

And that is not just a few fringe doctors, this is the medical consensus, which has the highest standards of peer review.

And yes, as you can probably tell I agree with their decision.

Neurological/Psychological: Manifests themselves into pretty much everything how they present themselves to the world. This will affect how others percieve tehm and what gender role will fit htem in society. It also sets up their psychological profile. I knew a few transwomen, before they transitioned, or even hatched. I thought they were women prior to them telling me they (then) identified as male. I also know a transman, same story. This is how we determine someone's gender.

Gametes: This is how we define the sex of someone. But because it doesnt have a fundamental role in determining who they are unless you are in an intimate relationship with someone, it is nowhere near as prevalent as the above. It is a good method because it is very useful, and consistant, which is more than I can say for...

Genetics: The more you learn about genetics the less impressive the whole X/Y argument gets. Did you know the SRY gene (testis determining factor) pretty much just blocks another gene, and the genes for our genitalia isn't even on the X and Y genes? The SRY gene literally just blocks another gene from acting at a very specific point in our fetal development. Again, I commend you for using the far better Gametes definition.

@Maroxad: And as it happens, transwomen are classified as women.

Ok, then this leads us back to "what is a woman"? See my flowchart from a few posts above.

Why is it ok to take kids to church and have them indoctrinated then?

@THUMPTABLE: I don't think it's a great thing, but it doesn't affect me when another parent takes their kids to church and indoctrinates them. Unless it's into something dangerous, like a cult/sect promoting violence. Because my kids aren't forced to go to church with them, and recieve the same indoctrination.

A person is classified as a woman if they adhere to the characteristics of women, which are socially constructed.

That is really all there is to it.

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/gender/gender-definitions

Gender is used to describe the characteristics of women and men that are socially constructed, while sex refers to those that are biologically determined. People are born female or male, but learn to be girls and boys who grow into women and men. This learned behaviour makes up gender identity and determines gender roles.

@Maroxad: back in my day we had another word for "Ciswomen".

Women

We called them Women. When I'm talking "back in my day" I'm talking like 2008 lol

@Maroxad: A person is classified as a woman if they adhere to the characteristics of women, which are socially constructed.

This is circular reasoning. What are the characteristics that women share, which classifies them as a woman?

Because "characteristics of women", if not based in biology, is starting to sound a lot like "stereotypes".

@sargentd we still call them women. Ciswomen is ONLY brought up in the context of transmen and women.

We are discussing terminology. Terminology has always been operated on "circular logic".

But that is how they are ultimately useful as they help us describe stuff. As it happens describing someone by what socially induced characteristics they fall into, rather than their gamettes is far more useful in day to day applications.

And I wouldnt argue stereotypes as much as socially defined norms. which again, brings us back to the sex and gender being different, with gender being a social construct.

@Maroxad: So if I adhere to the characteristics of a Pokemon does that mean I should be classified as a Pokemon? Do you not see how incredibly dumb that line of thinking is?

A real women is just that, an actual women who was born that way. No amount of make up, wigs, surgery, etc can change that. Transwomen are make believe women, they aren't real women.

Is there any evidence for people identifying as pokemon being a real thing? No?

Then find a better argument.

@vfighter: exactly, we know what a woman is. Mother's and daughters. They have vagina and a uterus, they can birth children , they don't grow beards and have a penis.

Never in human history has humanity defined a woman as also being men who wear dresses and identify as a woman. It hasn't been an issue untill the last 10 years. Humanity has always had a very easy understanding of what a woman is. This is so stupid, it's getting rid of common sense to make someone with a mental disorder feel normal.

Dog can't wear cat costume and become cat, doesn't matter if he pretends to be a cat. Dog is still a canine, it's a dog.

@Maroxad: I don't need a better argument though. Just because I slap a Ferrari emblem on a Ford pinto doesn't mean the pinto is now a Ferrari. Sorry you don't like reality, I do.

@Maroxad: We are discussing terminology. Terminology has always been operated on "circular logic".

Huh? Circular reasoning is, and always will be a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

If a term can be used to define itself, then the term itself has no actual valid, objective meaning. As it will always point right back to itself.

Try applying this line of thinking to literally anything else, and we end up with a completely fluid, post-modernist definition for everything. Resulting in communication being made impossible, since the definitions for everything are basically whatever each individual wants them to be.

That's why I posted that flowchart, as this is always how this conversation goes.

Funny how this wasn't complicated at all before the advent of social media.

Umm...

• Ever heard of Bottom Surgery?
• Women grow facial hair, for some there is enough facial hair to even form a proper beard.
• Not every woman is fertile, some never are.
• A transgirl who transitions becomes a daughter.

You clearly havent learnt about a lot of cultures then.

For starters, ever heard of Hijras?

Once again, that is how language works. Means of Classification too. Language is a descriptor, always has been.

Gender is simply put, due to reasons I have explained man/woman is simply much more useful to describe gender, rather than sex, in most day to day situations.

Even if Gender doesnt have much root in Biology, it has a strong root in sociology, where it does manifest. Unless of course we are talking about Neurology, where it has a very strong case, as our brains are to some extent sexually dimorphic. And as it happens, the brains of transgender men and women are akin to the brains of the sex they more identify with.

I agree, this was a lot less complicated prior to Social Media. With very little opposition from laypersons.

Seriously, the academic acceptance, and study of transgender people have been an active topic of research for decades now, since at least the 50s. Transgender people is nothing new at all and has been researched for nearly a century now.

While there was controversy within study of transgender people (like there is in anything academic), and still is for that matter. The amount of evidence piling up makes their validity completely uncontroversial, so much so to even form a scientific consensus.

I see where you are coming from, you base man/woman on sex, rather than gender. But quite frankly, you disagree with the medical, sociological, biological and psychological communities. And when it comes to academic lingo, I would argue that it is THEY who effectively decide the terminology.

I used to be a preschool teacher, and had several kids with same-sex parents. So I talked about this stuff with preschoolers, because they had questions.

Also, my daughter in kindergarden has a classmate with two moms, and since I've discussed the exsistence of gay people with her already, she didn't think there was anything weird about it.

I guess my point is kids are going to see this stuff whether you like it or not. We should at least explain the very basics at a young age. I mean shit, we've been reading them stories about girls running off with princes they just met that day for generations. Would it damage them to know about gay relationships on a basic level like that?

Why does there have to be a line?

Who woulda thought, the anti-trans crowd is out and using the same regurgitated arguments that failed against their anti-gay agenda. Quite a coincidence that it overlaps quite nicely with the GOP MAGA crowd.

We actually have proof of the opposite. But as typical with political tribalism, as you can see what people, especially on the left do when people do not take to their ideology, they get screamed at, accused, censored, demonetized, and deplatformed until they are able to create the illusion that anyone of importance is on their side and agrees with them. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and heavier than air. It doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect on this planet at all. Water vapor is the largest contributor to the greenhouse effect by far. Don't confuse correlation with causation between CO2 levels at temperature. Ice core samples have shown consistently that CO2 levels change AFTER temperatures do, not before.

@HoolaHoopMan: They need to focus on a new outgroup once berating the old outgroup is no longer acceptable.

Yeah, did you see the rebranded Attack Helicopter rhetoric? This time with Pokemon instead of Attack Helicopter.

But yeah, most of the anti-trans crowd here are very much arguing in bad faith. With the exception of Apparation. Unlike the others, he seems curious enough to be willing to learn. I dont think there is too much dispute on the facts, just that he would argue that Sex is what determines Man/Woman while I would argue it is Gender.

Thankfully, Sex Reassignment Surgery exists. Thanks to some very advanced scientific procedures.

It's just more bullsh*t from the evangelical right. They can't use any academia to bolster their arguments. It always boils down to the same old bigoted common denominator.

Their entire political philosophy is founded upon outgroup outrage and denigration. Ironic considering their constant whining of identify politics when their core principles of bigotry require it.

They're finding themselves the outsiders now, and they just can't stand it. Their own medicine tastes too bitter.

@Maroxad: You would argue it and that's why you're wrong. Sex is what defines a woman or man This is basic stuff some of you can't seem to grasp which is very disturbing.

Imagine not knowing what is a man and what is a woman and then calling everyone else uneducated and anti-science... yikes.

So ... Anything and everything should be taught to kindergarten children?

@eoten Uneducated and antiscience would be the one who is once again, arguing against what is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Just like you do with Climate Change, just like you do with COVID.

Research on transgender topics does not just pass peer review and get accepted into the scientific consensus, it also continues to manifest and research on this topic keeps providing positive results. If they werent valid this would not be the case.

Transmen and Transwomen are the gender they identify with, get over it.

No it is not, and has never been the case.

To help you grasp this since you seem to have trouble comprehending. For most people you do not KNOW the sex of the people you interact with. Instead, you infer based on how they present themselves to the world. Which is to say, the actual gender part.

In other words, we have always used gender to refer to man or woman.