Florida's LGBT School Censorship Bill Is a Lawsuit Factory That Overrules Many Parents
Under H.B. 1557, only the most conservative parents will decide what everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity.

When I was a closeted high school student in Florida in the late 1980s, discussions about gay people popped up in classes on a regular basis. Discussions about gay men, anyway. This was during the deepest, darkest part of the AIDS crisis, when gay men by their very existence were treated in some parts of American culture as threats to public health.
Many of the comments and observations by students—some of which were obviously parroting what they were told at home—were deeply ignorant, even at a time when we were still learning how HIV was spread. During a class exercise in which students decided what the laws of their own imaginary country would be, one of my classmates decided his regime would execute anybody who was gay because he believed it would prevent the spread of HIV.
Teachers by and large did not touch these conversations with a 10-foot pole, though at that point I was savvy enough to recognize the unstated distaste some of them expressed. The school didn't have any out gay students back then (much later, I'd find out that many of my classmates suspected I was gay anyway). Sodomy was against the law in Florida back then and the very idea of same-sex marriage recognition was absurd.
Times have changed a lot since then. Sodomy is legal and gay marriage is recognized in all 50 states (and supported by the vast majority of Americans—including Republicans). HIV hasn't been eliminated (yet!), but it is now manageable.
I bring all this up because I find it absolutely bizarre that some small group of lawmakers suddenly thinks people want to relive that era with a bill in Florida that aims to censor school discussions of LGBT issues. Somehow this part of the culture war is back, even though this part of the culture shift has been successful and is widely embraced and normalized—and that's not going to change.
In Florida, Republican lawmakers have introduced H.B. 1557, a bill that limits how schools and teachers may discuss LGBT issues with students. It pushes school personnel to violate student privacy by telling parents about the student's well-being even if the student doesn't want it (thus potentially outing kids who have turned to school staff for help on an issue they don't want to discuss with parents). And most importantly, it clears parents (and lawyers) to sue and get damages if schools break the extremely vague guidelines described in the bill.
The culture war has made evaluating the actual details of the bill a little challenging. It's being described as a "Don't Say Gay" bill—cultural shorthand for the types of bills introduced back in the '80s and '90s to try to stop LGBT issues from being discussed in the classroom. On its face, this description seems like an exaggeration. H.B. 1557 in its text doesn't fully ban discussions of LGBT topics in school. And the typical outrage-based response makes it very easy for its supporters to insist that the bill isn't about censorship but rather establishing appropriate guidelines for school discussions.
Here's what the text of the bill actually says:
A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.
While that sounds almost reasonable—it's not unusual or weird to push education on sexual issues to secondary schooling—the second part of the sentence is oppressively vague. The bill does not explain what sort of discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity is appropriate for which ages. The Florida Department of Education will hammer that out through policies. So, to be clear, government bureaucrats, not parents, will still be deciding what everybody's kids will be taught.
It's actually the next section of the bill that shows why the vagueness of the previous section is very, very bad:
A parent of a student may bring an action against a school district to obtain a declaratory judgment that a school district procedure or practice violates this paragraph and seek injunctive relief. A court may award damages and shall award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to a parent who receives declaratory or injunctive relief.
This bill is actually intended to serve as a lawsuit factory for culture war organizations to go after schools using parents as proxies. Because there isn't any objective measurement of "appropriateness," any parent can decide any level of discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity is too much and sue, forcing schools to have to shell out money to defend themselves.
Even if the school system can prove that its classroom discussion of LGBT issues is appropriate, it's a burden that schools will want to avoid. The subtext here is obvious: Don't bring up LGBT issues in the classroom at all. It's soft censorship via threats of lawsuits.
In the current culture war over whether critical race theory is or should be taught in schools, we're seeing the consequences. Any discussion of anything that touches on the issue of racism at all is being called "critical race theory." Schools are dealing with parents complaining about students simply being taught black history.
The fact that the bill authorizes lawsuits gives up the game that it isn't about setting "appropriate" boundaries for discussion. Lawsuits should be reserved for punishing behavior that is dangerous or threatening, not merely controversial. This is not about bringing parents to the table, despite Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' comments in support of the bill. Bringing parents into the discussion would mean recognizing that parents have differing comfort levels on the topic. This bill instead gives the most conservative parents the ability to veto school discussions that other parents are perfectly fine with.
It's worth noting that this same core conservative political constituency that says this is all about parents' rights are also the people who are pushing forward bills that would criminalize gender-affirming treatments for minors, completely overruling the decisions being made by parents on how to care for their children. The message here is clear: Only some parents' rights matter.
People who genuinely support school choice and parent participation in education need to understand what this bill does. It'll lead to the same terrible outcomes as lawmakers or school districts removing books from school libraries in response to some parents' complaints. While parents should have control over the educational opportunities of their own children, they should not have such power over other people's kids. H.B. 1557 actually takes power away from many parents, and if DeSantis were truly serious about parents' rights, he would veto this bill should it pass.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Eliminate government schools.
Then you can decide where to send your kids. Or teach them at home. Small classroom size. No gendered bathroom issues. No food allergy concerns. No molester teachers. And no CRT curricula battles.
This solves EVERY public school controversy. It's clearly the best thing to do and that's why it hasn't been done.
I think big oil is behind keeping government schools open. Those 4 mile per gallon diesel guzzling buses bring in a lot of cash. And as LoS has pointed out with the recent spike in inflation, there are even more profits to be had.
So in addition to the list above, closing government schools will help save the planet and reduce big oil’s profits.
I hear a guy invented a device that would allow you to educate kids with a glass of water and Exxon had him killed and the plans and prototype destroyed
Big oil Mobil-ized against him.
He’s swimming with the fishes in the gulf.
I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA03 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
For more detail ….. http://rb.gy/u603ti
This guy is asking for teachers to have the ability to override parents on education. reason should be ashamed for even running this article. read the actual bill.
Parents have the ability to override the teachers, the administrators and the school board. But they would need to unenroll their kids from those schools.
Public funded educations shouldn't be indoctrination camps decided by the government no matter if they are private or public. It is a misuse of funds entirely. The same way government isn't supposed to use taxpayer dollars to lobby for changes to the law.
Withdrawing from the school is one action, but not having the indoctrination schools in the first place is the better action.
If there is a means of common education they should stick with non controversial discussions like teaching educational basics like reading, writing, arithmetic.
Running away does not solve every problem.
Attempting to fix government schools is like trying to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. That ship will flounder regardless. Whilst many people debate which chairs should go where. “No no no. That one goes there.” “No. It goes here. You move it then.” Abandon ship.
The homeschool and Amish kids I sometimes run into are like a different, more capable species than the government school kids.
But everybody agrees there should be chairs. So stick to teaching kids about chairs.
That is the problem. Nobody is going to agree. And even if they also want chairs they will demand their CRT, LGBTQ+ bathrooms, elimination of AP classes because their kids are getting lapped etc. be added. So it will ultimately be left up to the administrators and union teachers most of the time. Good luck with that. Will there be some small victories? Yeah. Will there be a transformation where children will get a quality, undoctrinated education? Magic 8 ball says, “Signs point to no.”
Thats the arrangement part. That needs to be cut out. Schools should not be invested in the socio emotional bullshit. That's on the family. At most they should give the family options for support if a child needs. They should not design how that support is created.
Schools will always exist in a society of 2 household incomes. You can't deny reality to fight of idealism.
They will never separate the social programming part. That was and is the purpose of government schools.
It isn’t idealism when millions of Americans do this. And they all aren’t one percenters. Transition one of those incomes to a home business. A side hustle can be enhanced. Part of those homeschool studies can involve growing food for the table. Processing fuel for heating. Or assisting with that home business. There are many paths. Many in my neck of the woods do it.
Government schools aren’t going to change. Sarc isn’t going to stop drinking. Dee isn’t going to stop sealioning. Pluggo isn’t going to cease shitposting. Their cabal is ‘t going to stop supporting the indoctrination at government schools. And a generation of unionized teachers and progressive administrators are cheering them on.
Running away? Did we run away from the issue of hunger when we enacted food stamps because we didn’t create government grocery stores?
Can you imagine how hungry you would be if you had to shop at a government grocery store?
Standing in line for four hours to get three potatoes would likely count towards the recommended daily exercise.
My kids attended public school for a total of three months in their entire lives, so I agree in part with your approach.
The problem with it, although my kids are spared the indoctrination, I am still on the hook for paying for it.
As enrollment drops it becomes more difficult to justify and receive approval for funding increases.
Only in a world that responds to market forces, we're talking about government here.
In areas that vote for the budget, the increases get checked when the enrollment lowers.
He read what the White House said, and that’s all he needed.
It really is the only answer that can keep everybody happy. At the very least let education money follow the kid and unless gubmint skools change it will achieve the same result.
Not if sbp has kids and homeschools
That's not happening any time soon. Either get on board with laws banning liberal teachers from acting like gay retards, or get out of the way. This Cathy Young mentality which contends that taxpayer-funded employees can talk to your kids about whatever they want is beyond stupid.
I'm getting a bit perturbed with Reason's authors failing to provide the libertarian position/policy/solution for these problems. Separating school and state is the libertarian answer to this. Meanwhile Shackford writes the story from the government preferred liberal vs. conservative narrative.
As to his point this bill is a "lawsuit factory" that serves lawyers and conservatives, I agree. Just like a bunch of bills are lawsuit factories for liberal activists and trial lawyers such as all the employment laws, the product liability laws, and just like laws allowing environmental groups to sue companies for alleged pollution.
I'm getting a bit perturbed with Reason's authors failing to provide the libertarian position/policy/solution for these problems.
You can't be serious. Almost every article published on this website that touches on public education brings up school choice as the solution to whatever the problem is. Many have headlines or sub-headlines that state that explicitly. I guess even a single article that doesn't toe that party line is a huge oversight to you.
Apply that to marriage licensing and a bunch of other things too.
You know, I never knew Shackford was gay. Suddenly the rainbow alphabet homilies on the sexuality beat make sense.
Maybe Reason can get an evangelical vegan to tackle the food column and a devout Salafist to tackle religion.
Again things that can be addressed when we learn to cover the basics.
Are we still graduating kids from public schools with vastly underperforming math scores (2-4 years below standard) and near illiterate? Yes? Then I dont give half a flying fuck about gender identity and sexual orientation.
These are issues best discussed by the parents with their kid anyways, not a public school indoctrinator.
It's actually amazing to watch public-school-Dems fight so hard for the ability to talk to young children about gay sex.
As I say below, strange the left has a weird obsession with sexualizing (grooming?) kids in elementary school nowadays
How many CNN producers have been arrested for pedo behavior recently?
Those kids are online and losing their innocence at a young age. Kinda sad. So in that respect I can understand the point of view of wanting to educate them while/before they get all their information from other sources.
Not every parent is a bad parent just because you are.
I don’t believe he’s a parent at all.
"before they get all their information from other sources."
Like their parents?
Remember these 'educators' and 'other sources' are the same folks who think that there's 88 genders, biological physical realities are social constructs, and that chemically castrating children is a wonderful thing.
Yeah, maybe they are a bit better than you, but miles worse than normal people.
Um, remember back in the day when kids got their sex information by stealing their dads' dirty magazines?
Teaching my kids about sexuality is my business, not the state's.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1491982034851414020?t=QDF6piRB47woRRBsP_zfJw&s=19
What???
[Link]
@JimboJr
Telling kids basic facts about how sex works at a young age makes them harder to molest, not easier. It's the opposite of grooming.
A kid who knows how sex works is more likely to recognize an attempt at molesting them for what it is and report it to their parents or to the authorities. A kid who is totally ignorant of sex will likely not understand what a molester is doing to them and not be sure how to respond until it is too late.
And what happens when the teacher is the molester?
They begin a new career at CNN.
Being taught that no one should touch them is what prevents sexual molestayion of children. Being taught that anal is ok is sexual grooming. Being taught that oral is on is sexual grooming.
The only sex Ed my kids should be getting in elementary school is “no one is allowed to touch your privates and tell me if they do” and “anyone showing you their privates or pictures of privates is a creep. Tell me and stay away from them. In fact run from them”.
Cite?
All they need to know is that adults shouldn't be touching you on your privates, and shouldn't be asking you to touch theirs in any way. If somebody does that to you, you should tell another grown up inmediately. If someone touches you in a way that makes you feel bad, tell a grown up.
So in order to teach my kids to avoid sexual predators you believe it's necessary to instruct them about homosexuality and gender fluidity? I'm not sure how that will help my 10 yo daughter realize she is being groomed or molested.
Any teaching of sex ed should automatically be opt out and parents told before hand so that they have adequate time to opt out. Parents should also be able to review the material prior to see if they find it acceptable.
That's not what's happening. They're fighting for the ability to tell kids that people of the same gender can fall in love, go on dates, kiss, and get married. No one objects when heterosexual couples are shown doing these things in books aimed at very young children. No one thinks "Cinderella" is inappropriate for kids because Cinderella and Prince Charming kiss and get married at the end. All people want is to be able to explain that same-sex couples are capable of doing the same thing.
Of course the culture-war types this legislation would empower believe even this innocuous material is "inappropriate." Even if sex is not discussed at all, they will say that.
Ok, groomer.
Kids don't need to be told that. Homosexuality is widely accepted as normal in American culture, and American media has plenty of portrayals of homosexual people living regular lives. There are probably multiple kids in every grade that have same-sex parents, and nobody even cares. Gay people are not stuffed in a closet for fear of their lives anymore. We even have publicly gay Republicans.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/03/disneylands-snow-white-ride-attacked-for-consent-issues/
In the early Snow white tradition, it wasn't a kiss that woke her up. Baddaboom!
So, you decide what is moral for my 10 yo to learn and to normalize something other people may not agree with being taught? And you accuse others of being culture warriors? You are fighting just as hard to inflict your cultural norms on others as those you disparage, without even realizing it!
They can tell that to their own kids, or other kids whom they are mentoring.
In the classroom, their speech is state speech, and the state can properly tell them what to say and not to say. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
'No one objects when heterosexual couples are shown doing these things in books aimed at very young children. No one thinks "Cinderella" is inappropriate for kids because Cinderella and Prince Charming kiss and get married at the end.' This is not true, you are clearly among the group that find this objectionable, and it is a fairly large and vocal ignorant group.
Children don’t need the schools to expose them to deviant forms of sexuality, or really any overt depictions of heteronormative sexuality. Just leave the children alone.
What's important is how they feel about themselves!!!!!!!
These are issues best discussed by the parents with their kid anyways, not a public school indoctrinator.
You aren't understanding what schools are being asked to do by parents and the larger society. They are being asked to do much more than teach the three R's. (It is more than just liberals, as well. Conservatives want to get in on the "indoctrination" game too, by the way. And it isn't even a new thing for them.)
Schools and the educators at them are being held responsible if they don't recognize and do something about students being bullied or abused at home, when they have mental health problems, don't seem to have money for supplies or lunch, and the list goes on and on. This idea that schools are just for facts and skills and nothing else is outdated, if it ever really was that way.
This bill is actually intended to serve as a lawsuit factory for culture war organizations to go after schools using parents as proxies.
Good. Bog down the public school system in endless lawsuits and infighting til they fall apart. I'm all for it.
I mean...if the end result of this bill is that Public Schools eliminate discussions of gender identity and sexuality all together from their curriculum, I'm having trouble finding a down side.
"Sorry kids, the Gender Studies elective has been canceled. You'll have to choose between video production, welding and computer science. Fucking conservatives!"
Not sure what Shackleford would consider a proper enforcement mechanism? And what redress he feels parents should be able to use if the first part, which he admits isn't bad, is ignored by teachers?
Maybe it would be better if we sent in cops and hauled the teachers out in cuffs? If not, then the civil route is the best way to handle it.
The cops will be sent after the parents, because terrorism.
IMHO, the proper libertarian position is that laws are intended to codify when people/companies harm someone: murder, theft, fraud, etc. Allowing individuals to sue companies for violating some regulation with at most a tenuous connection to harming someone, is not a good idea if you want less government.
The government has already created laws allowing liberal activists to sue companies for violating regulations, as a favor to their political positions, fund raising via lawsuit, and kickbacks to Democrat politicians in campaign cash.
It'd be better the government enforce the law before we allow it to make people get into the business of suing people/companies who've harmed no one.
I kind of like the idea of being able to do this to government entities, but then if you win, the taxpayers lose. Individuals successfully suing the government for violating their rights should be compensated by those government employees involved. That would be a more libertarian approach to this kind of lawsuit, rather than making the taxpayer foot the bill.
I really do hope the democrats pick this hill to die on.
It would be an honorable fight to defend LGBT teens.
From what?
Having to grow up being treated like normal people and expected to live regular, priductive lives.
We had homos in my school. No one made fun of them any more than anyone else.
Nice to see that you are as dishonest as ever,
For molly
And ignorant, stupid, and failed to both read and comprehend the article. It never changes
How is this defending LGBT teens? Normalizing sex of any kind before 5th or 6th grade (as this is when puberty starts) is simply unnecessary. Parents have an absolute right to determine what their kids are learning.
As long as you're dead, I don't really give a shit what Hill you choose
Maybe Tony, and the rest of the Marxist idiots can join her.
I don't understand what... without this law, kids were "learning" about sexual identity.
Why should teachers be teaching kids degenerate nonsense? If parents want their kids to learn that so badly, they can teach it themselves. Not complicated.
They have to create more democrats.
Are we still doing the "if not part of mainstream coursework, it is censored" idiocy?
^ Yes and it will always be thus.
It's a Gag Order.
It's a funny gag.
Ball gag?
law for notifying a student's parent of
6 specified information; requiring such procedures to
7 reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make
8 decisions regarding the upbringing and control of
9 their children in a specified manner; prohibiting the
10 procedures from prohibiting a parent from accessing
11 certain records; providing construction; prohibiting a
12 school district from adopting procedures or student
13 support forms that require school district personnel
14 to withhold from a parent specified information or
15 that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a
16 student to withhold from a parent such information;
17 providing an exception; prohibiting school district
18 personnel from discouraging or prohibiting parental
19 notification and involvement in critical decisions
20 affecting a student's mental, emotional, or physical
21 well-being;
So we are still going with the whole "parents have no say in how their kids are raised" gambit Reason?
Requiring teachers to out LGBT students to their parents is just wrong.
Why are you always lying?
How can a statement of values be a lie? You might disagree with me and think outing LGBT is ok, but that does not me a liar.
You didn't say it is a statement of values, it reads far more as a statement of fact.
Why?
"Under H.B. 1557, only the most conservative parents will decide what everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity."
To quote Luke Skywalker, everything you just said is wrong.
All parents will have input.
The school boards still decide.
It only concerns what they 'learn' in school. There is no restriction on what parents teach at home.
Oh, wait. It's Scott. Never mind.
If a lie serves the narrative, it isn’t a lie.
even at a time when we were still learning how HIV was spread
Casual contact, per Anthony Fauci.
(Seriously. He said that).
Including school water fountains.
I remember them shutting those down for a couple of years when I was a kid.
And now they are shut down again most places I go. Maybe that has always been Fauci's goal
So did that noted science guru Neil Young.
Also this will be another example of them taking the wording of the bill and completely lying. Just like with CRT saying "you have to teach whitewashed history and lie about slavery!" when it was really "you cant be racist to kids".
The wording:
"A school district may not encourage classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students."
If you have a problem with that, you probably shouldnt be a teacher...unfortunately that isnt part of the activist agenda which is sexualizing and queer indoctrination of kids as early as possible
Strange that the pedos keep popping up on the left...
Your point that Shackford grossly distorted the essence of the bill is well taken.
However,
What I have a problem with is that it can't be left with, and entrusted to, the teachers-- rather than passed into state law by some political shitheads who are only doing it for grandstanding purposes.
If I were a parent and my grade school kid told me that sex came up for discussion in class, I would certainly hit the ceiling and head for the principal's office. But passing state law to codify what should be common sense is just dumb.
And your school principal would tell you to go f*ck yourself, and if you don't, go threaten you with child endangerment and child abuse charges.
The problem is that it isn't "common sense" anymore. Schools have been taken over by teachers with political agendas, and they can't easily be fired. Until that gets fixed, we need band-aids like this and force these teachers to limit themselves to teaching basic knowledge and skills, rather than abusing schools for indoctrination.
But passing state law to codify what should be common sense is just dumb.
Question: Why don't we teach race relations through a framework of National Socialism?!!
Answer: Because that's just ridiculous and racist.
Question: ...
Do you think a bill like this would get any traction if there weren't problems associated with all that? And that parents have been systematically kept from even knowing about it?
Did you think some politicians simply imagined these abuses to be occurring? I wouldn't rule that out of the realm of possibility, given the Satanic Panic and other bogeys that've been dredged up in recent decades, some of which continue to be in the news. But in this case we have well documented abuses, some of which have even been the topic of Brickbats, and which Thomas Szasz among other libertarian critics wrote about.
Shackford grossly distorts the essence of the bill because he is opposed to the true essence of the bill, but knows that he cannot remotely make a libertarian argument against the essence of the bill.
He is a dishonest agenda driven hack who is entirely in favor of schools being turned into LGBT grooming factories.
Strange that the pedos keep popping up on the left...
no shit. If you want to calm down the conspiracy theorists who believe pedos are running the world, maybe stop having pedos run the world...
Look- I think that Shackford does make a good point that "age-Appropriate" is vague enough that there will be plenty of room for parents to complain.
However it is noteworthy that they are not going to be suing schools. These are actions at the DISTRICT level. So what they are doing is requiring THE DISTRICT to put in writing what its curriculum is, and give parents the opportunity to sue if those procedures and curriculums are not "age appropriate".
I am not certain where the balance is here, but it was clear that School Boards were not listening to their parents, so the State is trying to offer a remedy so that the School Boards do their god damn jobs again.
Their job is to educate your children, without the over-the-shoulder pestering of ignorant parents who think they have some kind of authority over the minors in their temporary charge.
Ignorant parents.....I think the problem is ignorant and indoctrinated teachers who, at best, only know one side of controversial issues.!
I think you are totally confused about the difference between education and indoctrination!
You are clearly part of the problem and will not be part of any solution for the better.
Check out the new guy.
Waiting till he meets OBL.
i kind of like the cut of his jib
What possible justification is there for schools teaching kids 18 and under about sexual behavior and gender identity?
To be fair, sex education is age-appropriate for the 9th grade and up.
Make the case then.
We should let the teachers teach whatever because they’re educated professionals!!1!1!
Teacher are drawn from the education major which has the lowest standards, the most grade inflation and produces the least knowledgeable and least educated graduates that our universities put out.
Your confidence in our educators is seriously misplaced, as proven by the bad to horrible results these less qualified teachers are producing.
They are neither well educated or very professional!
There are two majors that graduate even stupider and less educated students than Education: School Administration and Social Work. All 3 of these majors are training programs for students barely intelligent enough to graduate from high school by working hard - but they have also become leftist indoctrination centers.
There is no age at which it is appropriate to tell children that men can have babies and some women have penises.
To be fair, during high school some girls do get penises.
It would be wrong if it is their teachers' penises though (even if the girl is at or above the age of consent).
This is the part of the article I got to and thought to myself "Fuck you Scott."
Primary school is kindergarten through 5th grade and there is no fucking reason they need to be talking about sexuality, at all. Southpark had a great episode about this.
Yeah, the bill is pretty straightforward. "Don't preach to 5th graders about how there are 119 genders" is a bit different from "Forbid high schoolers from talking about homosexuality" but apparently Scott needs therapy from the 80's.
Joe Biden: "Watch me go full retard on the national stage, sending every sane member of my party scrambling for the exits."
Terry McAuliffe: "Watch me go full retard on the national stage, sending every sane parent in my state scrambling to vote against me."
Florida legislature: "Hold our beer."
Read the actual bill.
Is it more than 140 characters?
The Bill is not nearly as bad as Shackleford misrepesentation.
But even the part he quoted was not bad!
Yeah, he says the first part is okay. But he disagrees with the enforcement aspect of it. But without an enforcement aspect, laws mean nothing. I personally think civil actions are far more acceptable than criminal enforcement.
Florida legislatureScott Shackleford: "Hold my beer."FTFY
beerZimaAnd then Florida proceeds to do the OPPOSITE of the things Biden et al support.
and America applauds
The author is wrong about the bill. It only states teachers cannot talk about sex or sexual identity in K through 3rd. Holy F***!!! Why would anyone do that in the first place?!?! The fear-mongering have raised the next alarm over NOTHING
"Under H.B. 1557, only the most conservative parents will decide what everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity."
This is stupid on a world-historical level. Do everybody else's kids live at the school, and only talk to teachers????
The law stops teachers from indoctrinating kids about sex when they likely haven't even entered puberty.
"People who genuinely support school choice and parent participation in education need to understand what this bill does. It'll lead to the same terrible outcomes as lawmakers or school districts removing books from school libraries in response to some parents' complaints."
My God, are you not PARALYZED WITH FEAR that this bill will allow open book-burnings and KKK rallies??? Are you blind?!?!
I so enjoy morons disguised as "editors."
In other words, not terrible at all 🙂
I am against book banning but also question if people who object to age inappropriate books being removed or limited would be okay with school libraries carrying Hustler, Penthouse Letters, 50 Shades of Grey, etc.
"Book banning" means government prohibiting adults from purchasing or obtaining certain books.
For local government select books available to students in public school libraries or in public curricula isn't "book banning". It isn't "banning" at all, it is prioritization.
True.
Firstly, I don't think this is accurate
Secondly, even if it was, so what exactly? Why is gender and sexual orientation being studied or taught in school? It wasn't for decades, I guess until 5-10 years ago.
Maybe stick with STEM stuff? Shop class? Practical skills? Kids are getting dumber and teaching crap like this is why.
Exactly. Maybe teach kids to read, write, and do math instead.
Yeah, bring back vo-ag, we are desperate, and growing more desperate every year, for well trained blue collar technicians.
Home economics should be brought back too. I would recommend every person, regardless of sex, take at least one semester of vo-ag and one semester of home-ec.v
I took home ec, mostly because tons of pretty girls took it, but I learned how to make a decent pie and beef stroganof.
I took home ec because ag welding was only a semester course and I needed a class for the next semester. My mother had taught me how to cook, but I learned more skills in Home Ec, and now most everyone agrees I am a fairly good cook.
and yet, they didn't teach you to make change for a 3 dollar bill as the lgbtqrsruvwxyz thugs would want taught......
I learned to use a sewing machine in that class. No pretty girls, though, the class was segregated by sex so the girls wouldn't be annoyed.
FWIW, I'm a gay man. I don't want leftist teachers indoctrinate kids about gay history, gay sex, or gay life.
For starters, gay kids get told the lie that somehow progressives, leftists, and Democrats are their friends and are somehow responsible for gay liberation, when the opposite is true.
I have a gay kid. She does not go to public school because I don't want her indoctrinated with the idea that the most important thing about her is that she's gay. I would rather have her be a well educated, successful person who is also gay.
Kids don't have any "privacy" vis-a-vis their parents as long as they are minors. The parents are responsible for the children's well-being, not school counselors. Parents are the only people who are likely to have a strong stake in the well-being of their children.
The school counselor at best has a personal agenda, if he cares at all.
That is the truly horrifying part....public school teachers deciding for parents what is in the child's best interest, and well-being. They truly want to substitute government for God.
I also need a more clear definition of "school censorship". "The school can't teach your kids anything they want" doesn't feel like a censorship issue.
I'm happy to admit that if a teacher is blocked, fired or barred from saying anything xe wants in the classroom that it does fit the broad definition of "censorship", but once we agree that a teacher's job isn't protected when xe says anything xe wants to your children (example: Hey, Suzie, your ass is fine in them jeans!
You're gonna be hot as fuck when you start high school!) then we're just trying to define what those limits are.
Or are we just taking the position that in k-12, there should be no limits on what's spoken inside the classroom by the teachers, or any other school official?
Or are we just taking the position that in k-12, there should be no limits on what's spoken inside the classroom by the teachers, or any other school official?
As Rossami points out below, the law doesn't apply K-12, every time the word 'grade levels' appears in the law 'primary' appears in front of it. So, Shack thinks male teachers telling K-3 grade boys their asses look good in jeans is a good thing. Because he's way smarter and his reading comprehension is way higher than the ignorant homophobes he went to HS with in the 80s.
Or are we just taking the position that in k-12, there should be no limits on what's spoken inside the classroom by the teachers, or any other school official?
I believe that is their position, yes.
The tweet from @RepSnodgrass posted and deleted today:
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1491855053501521921?cxt=HHwWgoCjhYuRkbQpAAAA
"If parents want to 'have a say' in their child's education they should home school or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget."
They ALWAYS, ALWAYS let the mask slip eventually lol
Just so we're clear, fat earth and geocentric theory are back on the table?
as the pedo/mental chimes in ..............
You don't get that I'm mocking Reason's take on this do you?
"Or are we just taking the position that in k-12, there should be no limits on what's spoken inside the classroom by the teachers, or any other school official?"
Jeff, and apparently Scott, agree with this.
Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006)
I just wish Christians conservatives and the libertine liberals would just get it over and fuck all ready. All this Sam and Diane nonsense is getting old.
I don't know what show you're watching but my TV has nothing but libertine liberals trying to force their bastardized conceptions of their father's conservative values on everyone on every channel.
^
This show has been on the air longer then the Simpsons and I still remember when the Simpsons first aired on the Tracy Ullman show. Just give it time. Not that your wrong, certainly libertines are the aggressor right now. Just tired of it.
Not Jack and Dianne?
I'm sorry about your experiences as a high school student in the 80s. You seem to be missing the point that this law is limited to elementary school students. Kids at that age don't even have a real gender identity and they are (statistically) completely unprepared to have informed conversations about it.
Yes, there are a few exceptions - and they can and should have those conversations with their parents. Regardless of what you or I think about homosexuality, this is not a proper topic for very young children.
I don't understand why there's an automatic presumption that what they're being taught in school will be the correct interpretation of homosexuality and the mores surrounding it.
While I'm no historian, I'm quite sure there was a time when The Science Was Settled, and children were taught in schools that Homosexuality was Wrong.
If we were to automatically defer to whatever was being taught in the school as the final stop on the moral highway of Correct Thinking, imagine where we'd be.
Douglas Murray proposes a great thought exercise: Try and think honestly about stuff we're doing now that we'll look at in 50 years and say, "What on earth were we thinking?"
Now, all of this could be a perfectly good argument IN FAVOR of teaching kids that sex isn't real, and gender is fluid (defined as a set or subset of (stereotyped) behaviors that we traditionally attribute to one sex or another).
Sure, maybe in 50 years, we will all be chicks and that will be normal. I guess I just don't understand why there's this sudden Libertarian deference to Experts when very young children are involved.
What's next, bitching about the Red State Governors "banning" schools from forcing a medical procedure on your kids because... the sanctity of the Teacher/Child relationship?
Because the totalitarian left has achieved almost universal institutional power, thus Reason will presume that what it teaches and what its experts say is correct and morally righteous.
It's especially ridiculous to assume the schools will get it right when the topic in question is something that didn't even exist in the mainstream culture 10 years ago. This is something society needs to digest for at least a few decades before considering universally teaching it to elementary school students.
Damn you people who were right about this being the next thing after gay rights got pretty much sorted out. I'm still not going to believe that normalizing pedophiles will happen next, but I won't be too surprised if it does at this point. Fucking Clown World indeed.
It's especially ridiculous to assume the schools will get it right when the topic in question is something that didn't even exist in the mainstream culture 10 years ago.
This is Douglas Murray's "things we don't actually know but we act cock-sure about".
I mean, clearly Shackford's high school years would have been way better if the state had held frequent public conversations with the students about homosexuality. Everything is better when the state is involved, every writer for the world's foremost libertarian magazine knows that.
Many of the comments and observations by students—some of which were obviously parroting what they were told at home—were deeply ignorant, even at a time when we were still learning how HIV was spread. During a class exercise in which students decided what the laws of their own imaginary country would be, one of my classmates decided his regime would execute anybody who was gay because he believed it would prevent the spread of HIV.
^What you say when you think you're really well informed about biology, physiology, virology, and epidemiology but really you've retarded yourself to the mentality of a HS student to support your homosexual ideology.
Shoot anyone and you've reduced their chances of contracting virtually any disease in the future to zero. Except maybe COVID.
As long as he includes closet cruising gays and IV drug users, he's good.
I'm as libertarian as they come. I hold positions on sexual freedom, including that of children, that would curl most people's hair. And by your description of this "censorship" bill, it's good, and all the criticisms you have of it are there because you decided in advance that it was going to be bad, regardless of what it's actually about. It's meant to attack the very regime that Thomas Szasz — about as stringently demanding as libertarians got — complained and warned about; see his Sex By Prescription.
So no more lawsuits about school prayer, or coaches kneeling on the 50-yardline after the game, or Nativity scenes on the town square, or crosses on the county seal. Got it.
Not to mention the content of state flags.
Take a good look at the nudity and violence in the state flag of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
No, no. All of that is dangerous.
when's the hate-piece on Fauci about aids?
That certainly wouldn’t further the narrative.
A lot of gay men were fucked by his decision making.
Yeah, but now he's St. Fauci, so they're expected to just bend over for it.
my uncle is one of them he's on the quilt.
Scott Shackford spent years sucking FBI dick, you think he'd do anything but kneel for Fauci?
a difficult position to be in ... to be sure lol
Do Reason's bosses think libertarians are stupid? That we come here looking for news of interest on developments affecting freedom, and analysis of issues from a libertarian point of view, and that we'll say to ourselves in the Pinto Colvig voice of Goofy, "Uhuhuhuh, this has Reason's mark on it, must be an aid to help us evaluate things liberty-wise because it looks at them the way we would," and never notice that on a wide range of topics, this is no longer true? And that we'll short-cut our thinking by coming to the conclusions the blog entries here steer towards?
Or is the audience someone other than libertarians, and it's all an attempt to sneak the libertarian wolf in wearing sheep's clothing, by convincing those people that libertarians agree with them on matters that libertarians actually strongly disagree with them on? Either way, they're trying to concern-troll one audience or another.
What's their game? Is it either of those things, or some other possibility I'm missing?
What's their game?
Clicks, dude. Just clicks.
This is a web site.
Surely there's a lot better clickbait they could use if that's all it is.
Yep. If that’s all it is they should have endless articles focusing on Penelope Cruz’ nude scenes.
Needz moar tits.
“Statists hate him!”
"Or is the audience someone other than libertarians, and it's all an attempt to sneak the libertarian wolf in wearing sheep's clothing, by convincing those people that libertarians agree with them on matters that libertarians actually strongly disagree with them on?"
It's the opposite.
Reason is attempting to mislead libertarians into promoting totalitarian leftism.
Then you're saying it's the first of the two possibilities I asked about, which means they think libertarians are stupid.
Not that present libertarians are stupid but that the next wave won't know any better after the skinsuiting. Same way you have "liberals" spouting censorious or racist marxist nonsense, they were taught that those things were what liberals (always presented positively) always stood for.
John Wayne Gacy Liberals
I think their intent is something like your second paragraph decides. I don't think it's been terribly successful though. I would prefer they kept writing things that libertarians would be interested in.
From a libertarian perspective, gay rights is done. There's legal equality and no criminalization of ass-fucking. What else do you want?
From what I can tell this law sounds like it applies from Kindergarten through third grade. At third grade, most kids are about eight years old. Honestly, I really don't think it's some sort of impingement on liberty to say eight year old children shouldn't be having classroom-led discussions of sexual identity. From the sound of it this bill is trying, if anything, to allow for some reasonable exception without making that standard Swiss cheese.
In the picture, I'm imagining a paleocon teacher in flyover country explaining why even looking at the flag could make you catch the gay. Then I'm imagining this lesson catching on like wildfire with the entire school-industrial complex in a kind of anti-social-justice movement. THEN I'm imagining some concerned liberals worrying that what's being taught in schools is ugly, divisive and hateful, homophobic and steps in to propose that you can't teach that looking at the Rainbow Flag (any version) will make you Catch the Gay.
Then I wonder what the Proper Libertarian Response would be.
Yes. In the public schools. Hence the need for school.choice.
But as long as public schools exist, *someone's* going to dictate the curriculum.
"LGBT issues" have no place in the classroom, especially in primary grades. Kids need to be learning fundamentals of reading, writing, and math.
This isn't the deep, dark 80s. As you said yourself, the majority of Americans are supportive of gay rights, we know gay people are not HIV plague vectors, and most people generally don't care who you fuck anymore. Gay Americans live normal, uncloseted lives just like everyone else now. They get married, buy houses and have kids like everyone else. Most kids and families probably personally know at least one gay person in their lives.
Stop living out your closet trauma on other people's kids.
During a class exercise in which students decided what the laws of their own imaginary country would be, one of my classmates decided his regime would execute anybody who was gay because he believed it would prevent the spread of HIV.
When I was in school, I got into a fight with a kid who was an outright sociopath. I don't mean I didn't like his political views or thought his home life was subpar or that he was the unfortunate result of the culture at the time's misunderstanding of future facts and norms. I mean he dropped (or got kicked) out of school and, shortly after the rest of us graduated, was shot dead by police after going on a 6-person interstate killing spree.
I also got into fight with another kid who was, maybe, less of a sociopath. He didn't go on an interstate killing spree, but he did time for assault and GTA and wound up dead of a heroin overdose before his 25th birthday. You want to talk about awkward closeted sexual situations? I had been dating his step-sister for about 6 mos. before we both discovered that we knew him.
This from a straight, white kid who grew up in a relatively non-shit hole/not-inner-city school district in the context, then and now, when the cultural perception of GTA, assault, and killing sprees was pretty clear.
All I can say is, GTFO out of here with your "OMG! I knew someone in HS who said mean things about gays when they didn't know I was gay!" bullshit. The only words I have to describe someone carrying that baggage on for 40+ yrs. is 'Weak. Just an abject wuss.'
It's just emblematic of the LGBT+++ inability to give up the ghost on their victim status.
Gay people faced horrible discrimination in the past. But that discrimination doesn't exist anymore. The distance between Shackford's closeted high school years and today is enormous, as far as acceptance is concerned. The majority of Americans are fully supportive of gay people, and gay people are a regular, normal part of everyday life for most Americans today.
This insistence on teaching "LGBT issues" is just their inability to accept their own, unexceptional normality.
I remain unconvinced of horrible discrimination. Not that they've never been discriminated against but that the way they themselves willingly treat felons, smokers, people on the sex offender registry, Christians that they perceive to be low-IQ, people who support Trump, etc., etc. tells me that they themselves don't really consider the discrimination they experienced to be 'horrible' in any 'nobody should be treated that way' sense.
I still wouldn't exactly call them normal (carries lots of connotations about statistical frequency and moral/social desirability) but agreed about their inability to accept their unexceptionalness.
As I indicated in the story above, I dated the guy's step-sister. Was she closeted or horribly discriminated against for not advertising that her step-brother was a felon? They weren't even really her crimes. Was she normal to keep them quiet? Most people don't have to keep stuff like that quiet, so no, not normal, but if they did have to keep something like that quiet, they probably would, so yeah, normal... but not.
I disagree. I do think gays were discriminated against, both socially and officially. A lot of their choice to closet themselves was in fear of discrimination. Gays weren't even able to legally marry until 2015. That's a clear violation of their civil rights. (I personally think the gov should have nothing to do with marriage, but as long as it's a state sponsored institution, it should apply equally to everyone.)
My point is, today is not 1980. It's not 2014. Gays enjoy the same legal rights as everyone else, and social stigma around homosexuality has all but disappeared. Most Americans know at least one gay person, and the majority of Americans support gay rights. There's no legitimate reason to continue to treat gay people like they're an oppressed class, because they're not. Not accepting and validating the more bonkers end of the lgb spectrum is not oppression. Not accepting that a 10 year old who hasn't even experienced puberty yet is competent to make life-altering decisions regarding gender amd sexuality is not oppression.
The problem is, they got everything they wanted and it's still not enough.
"Gays weren't even allowed to legally marry..."
You mean back when the definition of the word included "a man and a woman"? Not exactly a model example of civil rights violation since the reason they weren't allowed was because they didn't qualify definitionally.
Cole Porter was allowed to marry. Oh, you meant "weren't able to marry people they most enjoyed fucking." In that case, you must agree that it's an outrage that guys who enjoy fucking their adult sisters (or brothers, for that matter) still aren't allowed to marry them.
Why would a person only attracted to the same sex want fo marry a person of a different sex? Why should the same-sex attracted have to live a lie when Straight people don't?
And what kind of mental gymnastics is involved with conflating LGBTQ+ sexuality with incest?
Oh and how does promoting LGBTQ+ people living a lie constitute upholding the sanctity of marriage?
Gays weren't even able to legally marry until 2015. That's a clear violation of their civil rights.
Nope. Owning a gun that I'm unable to register with the ATF is not a violation of my civil rights. Getting arrested because I own a gun that isn't registered with the ATF is. Getting arrested because I claimed to own a gun that I didn't register with the ATF may or may not be. In any/all of the above, granting me the ability to register my gun with the ATF, even for the purposes of tax breaks, isn't an advancement of civil rights and is a lie told by people who really don't want the government out of the
marriagegun regulation business altogether.But Stonewall! Yup. But Prohibition (even if it's just tax evasion)! But War On Drugs! But smoking! But stop and frisk! But masks! But vaccine passports! But immigration! But sex offender registries!...
But Stonewall! Yup. But Prohibition (even if it's just tax evasion)! But War On Drugs! But smoking! But stop and frisk! But masks! But vaccine passports! But immigration! But sex offender registries!...
None of which is to say that we should be discriminating against gays or marijuana users, but to say that the discrimination against gays was a horrible civil rights violation when the number of homosexuals in prison in no way rivals the number of non-violent drug offenders or even people guilty of non-violent weapons violations. Even if you're opposed to the latter two, you're objectively granting an exceptional heinousness to objectively less heinous and more normal (by any definition) actions.
You know what? I am 100 percent in favor of educational choice in the form of private schooling, homeschooling, and unschooling.
If for no other reason thañ that I and others wouldn't be subject to reading this contortion of setting the freedom of LGBTQ+ people and pot smokers and gun owners against each other.
Remember the time when Libertarians thought all freedom was of a single piece? Pepperidge Farm Remembers...
You can draw the line on "horrible discrimination" where you want, but there was some pretty significant discrimination in the past. Hell, it was illegal to be actively gay in a lot of places until not that long ago. There has been a big legal and cultural shift. Which I think is good. Or would have been if the activists would just shut the fuck up and take the win.
Hell, it was illegal to be actively gay in a lot of places until not that long ago.
Do you need a list of places it's illegal to be actively heterosexual now?
Ummm. Yes?
Now this I gotta see...
I still wouldn't exactly call them normal (carries lots of connotations about statistical frequency and moral/social desirability) but agreed about their inability to accept their unexceptionalness.
Roger Scruton lost his job when he referred to a thing as 'abnormal' when he explicitly pointed out he was using 'normal' as statistical infrequency.
It's normal to die when struck by a car, it's not normal to be struck by a car and die, people getting struck by cars and dying shouldn't be normalized but 200 people dying on the streets of Chicago because of car accidents is pretty normal.
200 people dying on the streets of Chicago
Every year that is. Kinda sad that it's becoming the norm to make that distinction.
So Shackford pearl clutches about "gender affirming therapies" being made illegal while hiding what he means by that behind the link. The therapies referred are sugeries performed on miners resulting in physical alterations to healthy organs that cannot be entirely reversed if the child decides later that their gender identity matches their sex.
This is not something innocuous, these are life altering decisions that only an adult can be considered to be able to give informed consent about.
And the that this will take the decision away from parents who approve of treatment, I note that in his post yesterday Shackford seems quite sanguine about making "conversion therapy" illegal, whether parents approve or not.
Note that none of these pearl clutching articles mention that the bill includes an exception for situations where teachers or counselors believe sharing health information- including gender or sexuality- would result in abuse, neglect, or harm to the child. They're not sending kids to get beaten to death by their zealot parents for being gay.
The therapies referred are sugeries performed on miners resulting in physical alterations to healthy organs that cannot be entirely reversed
It's just so astoundingly backwards on so many levels it's borderline incomprehensible and revoltingly unscrupulous. The conflation of non-destructive treatment or therapy with destructive treatment or therapy, the conflation of treatment and therapy... by Scott's loose definitions, lobotomies and electroshock are therapies, even if non-reversible and even if they don't work, but Gay Conversion Therapy, which is completely reversible, even if it doesn't work, isn't.
Just. Fucking. Evil.
Can't get a tattoo until you're 18 or 21, but you can cut your tits off when you are 14. Seems legit.
“Under H.B. 1557, only the most conservative parents will decide what everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity.”
As opposed to having only the most liberal parents and school boards making that decision, which is apparently perfectly all right, I guess.
Satan is the father of lies. Lies require secrets and vice versa.
If students want to share secrets from their parents with their teachers, they are expecting to share lies. That makes the teachers complicit. Once adult they can have all the secrets they want.
Teachers being coerced into complicity undermines parenting.
How does a child know if they want to be biological parents one day? If they are anything but heterosexual that need will go unsatisfied.
Its terrible that people are coerced to stop trying to find cures for a disorder.
If students want to share secrets from their parents with their teachers, they are expecting to share lies.
Because nobody's ever kept the truth as a secret. Fuck, you are stupid.
The irony.
What did your mommy lie to you about? Did you find out your daddy wasn't really your father?
Satan does not exist, mein fraulein. *Clicks heels and tips Tyrolean Hat.* And you are self-deluding and need to report yourself to you self-created, self-appoijted Anti-Lying Agency.
So, children keeping secrets from their parents is lying? Since you favor criminalization of lying, wouod you make those children criminals too?
And what about surprise parties, which involve keeping secrets? Or companies securing Intellectual Property by keeping its creations as proprietary secrets? Would you send down your Jackbooted Thugs to smash these up and arrest all participants too?
And can't you let intelligent children to grow up and figure out whether they want children of their own? What gives you the authority to deem someone'sxsexuality a "disorder?" And why is it even your business anyway?
Fuck off, Nazi!
Under H.B. 1557, only the most conservative parents will decide what everybody else’s kids will learn about sexual orientation or gender identity.
We're currently allowing the furthest left activists decide what everybody else's kids will learn and the result is kids so stupid they don't even know if they're male or female. So I say let's give it a shot.
Ok, groomer.
I wonder if some of people who talked about how gay people should all be killed for spreading HIV in the 80s are the same people who today insist on their right to not get vaccinated and not wear masks.
Some of them probably are. Some probably aren't. But they all agree that you're an idiot.
Hahahahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahaha
>>gay people should all be killed for spreading HIV
same people who say I should be killed for spreading covid and they can all fuck off.
I wonder if people that post this kind of retarded shit were the same kids who would narc on you for chewing gum in the back of the class.
So insisting on individual rights is the same as promoting genocide in your book? That's a pretty far stretch.
It is when the conservatives only want individual rights for themselves, and not only do they want to oppress everyone else, they no longer even believe their own rights come with any responsibilities. It's rape and pillage at this point.
Nobody expected conservatives to handle a disease caused by gay sex the same way they handle one caused by breathing, even if the latter is far deadlier. The problem, of course, is that their brains don't work so good.
"LGBT issues"
This is where you miss the point. Hardly anyone anymore cares if you're Gay. There is no such thing as "LGBT"s. The "T"s are an entirely different subject. Parents are quite justifiably fearful of genderism being taught to their children as if the delusions of the genderists are established fact. Encouraging children to fantasize that they have a "gender" rather than a sex can lead to terrible harm, especially as medical and psychological professionals become increasing willing to offer "trans" or "gender affirming" "therapies" to minors. No, there is not a resurgence of "anti-gay" sentiment in this country. There is a new fear of a new danger. Parents can and should protect their children from it.
The vast majority of parents, correctly, do not want schools brainwashing their kids in radical trans and gay ideology (is there another kind?), which is what this shit is all about. The teachers unions have made it clear that is their goals in spite of what parents want, and they purposely try to keep it hidden from parents. The notion that parents should not know what is going on with their kids is just more commie bullshit. Kids do not belong to the teachers or the schools or the unions or the government.
If schools would focus on the basics instead of pushing their hatred and politics, none of this would be a problem. There is almost no reason to be discussing gay or trans issues in school, and if it does occur, it needs to be limited, age-appropriate, and fact-based. The left has created this problem and it is finally being addressed.
The irony is much of this was unearthed because of the pandemic and remote learning. The secrets were revealed.
Yes, there is another kind of "gay ideology": you leave me alone and I leave you alone.
The reason gays fell in with the left is because American Christian conservatives really were hateful and authoritarian towards non-Christians and, in particular, homosexuals.
Yeah, those evil Christians. We all set around discussing which group to hate and discriminate against. It's what we actually discuss at church rather than the teaching of Christ and his love.
I didn't call all Christians evil. I specifically talked about "American Christian conservatives". If you can't tell the difference between "Christians" (members of a religion) and "American Christian conservatives" (a political identification), you aren't much of a Christian.
I have no idea what you personally do at your church or what kind of "Christian" you may be. I come from a family of Christian ministers, and they, in fact, recognized the persecution of homosexuals more than half a century ago and tried to help. What have you done? What has your church done?
The fact remains: American Christian conservatives demonized homosexuality and made the lives of homosexuals a living hell. And they did that by hijacking the Republican party, just like war mongers, neocons, and corporate lobbyists did. That is why the Republican party has become so widely despised and why even otherwise fairly conservative and free market oriented people (like myself) still aren't joining the Republican party.
Now, if you want to turn the Republican party into a party that stands for individual liberties, I suggest you learn something about history and start thinking about what individual liberty actually means.
Forget it. The religious crowd whom you think are the sine qua non of civilization and morality are rolling. And would do it again if given half a chsnce.
Why stick with with and suck up to people who despise you? Come to the dark side...we have cookies! 🙂
I'm pretty sure I learned nothing at all in school about sexual orientation and gender identity. And I somehow managed to figure it out for myself. And that was pre-internet (or pre-ubiquitous-everything-on-the-internet anyway).
^Yes sir. Amazing.
Secondly, in learning about it I cared even less.
"Any discussion of anything that touches on the issue of racism at all is being called "critical race theory."" False.
Also, you can smash letters together all you want like LGBT, but T is very, very, very different from LGB. Their conflation is what has us in the transgender mess right now -- there is no logical piggyback or connection from the gay rights movement, to a "trans" rights movement.
It's worse than that—the "trans" concept is directly contrary to the ideal of sexual liberation. "Transitioning" affirms the idea that one's thoughts and feelings must be in accord with one's physical appearance—the very idea that those who fought for Gay liberation were fighting against.
Just think of all those transphobic lesbians who won't dutifully suck ladycock.
I agree, but the question that remains after all your bitching is "What do you want to do about trans people?"
Well?
Nothing? Mutual detente?
Mutual detente:
For them - Let them live their life. You be you.
For me/us - Do not let them or their allies control my behavior (treating the trans person as a man or woman based on their XY) or language (pronouns, sex-based language, everything except a proper name, which the trans person controls).
If you want a right to be rude to people, you have that right and always have.
I don't want that right, and I don't have it anyway.
I think it is rude to make me call you something you are not.
But my speech is policed to make sure I agree with you, or at least express that I do.
You got it backwards.
Can you think of anything that Tony doesn't have backwards?
I’m pretty sure the bigger issue is curriculum, not teachers. I know there’s definitely activist ones out there, but I think a lot of teachers don’t want anything to with this.
Shit, I work at a grocery store and I’m still forced to fill out surveys about how well the company has represented PRIDE this year. I don’t fucking know. I’ve got gay family who go. I know it’s a big raucous party and that’s it’s got nothing to do with me or groceries.
I wouldn’t know if they represented Sturgis well, either. I’m not a biker.
"have kids like everyone else."
Someone didn't pay attention in sex ed class.
Why are these issues part of any public school education? Youngsters especially going through puberty are dealing with all sorts of feelings, hormones, peer pressure and so on. An individual's sexuality has nothing to do with learning about math or science or language. No group with an agenda should be able to push a confused youngster into some life changing surgery at age 10 for gosh sakes. The issue here is Scott is a minority in his sexual preference and all minorities want to be majorities and hence want to ensure they maximize their "tribe." This is totally normal but sorry Scott..these issues should not be discussed in govt schools. It is a personal and family matter not some pop psychologist with an agenda
When I was in school the primary grade levels were 1-3 in an elementary school that went from 1-7 before commencement to a secondary school with grades 8-12 .
The only sex education we got about pedo-homos in primary school was from the horse:
Patch the Pony says "Nay ! Nay ! from strangers stay away"
None of us ended up interred in Shackford's crawlspace so I gues it worked.
Maybe parents are turned off by things like drag time story hour were kids are having balls flashed in the faces!
convincing a child of say 10 they are the wrong sex and to then take hormones and surgery is fucking child abuse. Kids don't know..that type of decision should wait until the Child is an Adult. Scott..it has nothing to do with the child determining that they like the same sex or not..it is about people with an agenda pushing it on confused kids. My god, that idiotic show on TV where the woke mother was so happy to have a kid who decided to have a sex change. The woke mom in the neighborhood..oh look at me..my kid is getting a sex change..I"m so woke...JC..leave kids alone to figure this out themselves. Schools should have nothing to do with these life changing decisions.
Today, this sort of sentiment is supported and buttressed by academic, media, and entertainment elites.
That's nothing new. Half a century ago, government and public school teachers had full on hate boners for anybody gay.
That's why public schools shouldn't teach about homosexuality (or sexuality) at all.
As opposed to how it normally is, where only the most Marxist teachers and administrators decide what everybody’s kids will learn about every subject.
Public schools are the problem, whether they're dominated by the right or the left.
How should poor children be educated?
Step one. Don't convince them they are victims who have no chance in life.
Step two. Teach them basic literacy and math.
Step three. Teach them work ethic.
Me? I have to teach all poor children literacy and math?
We're rapidly approaching an androgynous or genderfluid society, and the only thing reactionaries can do about it is to attempt to mass indoctrinate or intimidate children for not comforting to their old-fashioned social rules, and at the rates Trumpers are killing themselves off, particularly the culturally conservative old, I don't think they really have it in them.
We're rapidly approaching an androgynous or genderfluid society, and the only thing reactionaries can do about it is to attempt to mass indoctrinate or intimidate children for not comforting to their old-fashioned social rules,
Seems like the mass indoctrination is on the other side of the fence, Tony. And why is a gender-fluid society so important to America? Are we trying to stifle population growth? Weaken the family structure? Why are humans the only animal that, though we are born male or female, are really able to construct our own gender? That sounds like a social constuct too, just a different one.
Why do you think it is important for our society to behave like this? To what end? And what roots?
I find it interesting that poor societies who's main goal is breakfast and then lunch find little time for gender fluidity? Could it be just an extension of the privilege in our world? Are we so pampered that now we can play make believe as adults and expect everyone else to participate in the game?
When the culturally conservative work ethic model dies who is going to feed the gender-fluid class?
To no end. It's simply naturally evolving that way.
You're the one who needs to answer the question "What do you want government to force people to do?"
Because all I'm talking about is young people exercising their freedom. Gender roles make less and less sense to people as we've become liberated from them. That's all.
It's simply naturally evolving that way.
I'm pretty sure you don't know what the words 'naturally' or 'evolving' mean.
Hard-won liberties for women and gays in the 20th century have led to a loosening of gender roles. It's almost a tautology.
Again, you get it backwards. "Transgender" activists claiming that their bodies and appearance need to be adjusted to match their thoughts and feelings are AFFIRMING traditional sex roles. "Loosening of gender roles" and sexual liberation demand that anyone may feel, think, and behave any way they wish with regard to sex, regardless of whether they are male or female. Genderism is a setback for sexual liberation. The genderists are the ultimate sexists.
Maybe in the shithole where you live, and given your sexual kinks and fantasies.
In actual fact, non-binary gender is about 0.3% of the US population, mostly affluent white kids. It's a small minority even among "LGBTQ+" people.
The vast majority of Americans, men or women, gay or straight, identify as one gender or the other. In fact, it doesn't make sense to identify as gay and gender fluid. You're gay if you're a man who likes men or a woman who likes women sexually.
Maybe in your head....or those that listen to NPR and don't procreate. Seriously your statement is so bizarre it isn't funny. libs love to talk about science and evolution..sorry there are two sexes, and in a minority of time one sex perfers the same sex. But sorry there are two sexes biologically...
Cultural marxism in its final stage...denial of reality
Fully agree with this bill for obvious reasons. Strange article with a narrow sight.
"What do you want government to force people to do?"
I don't want government to force people to do anything, including indoctrinating children at a young age to comply to a fluid gender status. You see it as an expression of freedom, I see it as an oppression of the freedom to be who they are without the peer and adult pressure to fit in that exists in so many young people. Let the children make those choices later in life when they have matured and are not influenced by peers, or being a fashion experiment for a bored soccer mom's self approval.
Do you think the right question to ask an 8 year old who comes to school with a short, 'boy' like haircut "Are you Trans?"
I don't.
For Tony above
I'm just talking about what the youth are doing on their own accord. Like all children throughout history, they are influenced by peers more than parents and teachers, and it's a bit of a horse-has-left-the-barn situation, since they are getting these ideas through a global connected experience on the internet.
Only the reactionaries are writing laws trying to force children to learn only certain values (the reactionary ones), as discussed in this article. If you actually believe in freedom, then you're going to let new generations be less gender-conforming and be OK with it, because that's where it's going, and you can't do anything about it because it's evolving from the logic of ending the Judeo-Christian patriarchy.
because that's where it's going
I hate to break it to you but no, it's not. In the era of 2.3 kids per woman (or 1.15 kids per "woman") you could maybe make the argument that it was going somewhere, but in the era of 1.7 child per woman (or 0.85 kids per "woman"), it's not.
"Sorry, guys. The First Amendment says that your kids' teachers are allowed to teach your little kids about sodomy. The state sucks, but its employees have the right to use your tax dollars to talk about whatever they want. That's how free speech works."
The fact that the bill authorizes lawsuits gives up the game that it isn't about setting "appropriate" boundaries for discussion. Lawsuits should be reserved for punishing behavior that is dangerous or threatening, not merely controversial
Abusing students to the point of suicide attempts is dangerous & threatening. Here's one example from Florida. Here's one from California. If you're going to argue about this, make sure you're addressing the actual concern.
It seems to me that in addition to allowing conservative parents to sue because they don't like the standards set for school discussions on LGBTQ issues, it would also allow parents of gay students, or gay parents to sue because the standards set are too restrictive to be age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for the students in the classroom. This is a case where sauce for the goose can be sauce for the gander too, and I would expect to see gay parents using this law to sue because their child's school has set LGBTQ discussion standards for high school students that would be more appropriate for second graders.
What a surprise. A 'suing to compel service on the taxpayer dime is the same thing as suing to forbid it' BOWFSIDEZ! argument. Not even the age old "Not giving is taking" but "Taking is not taking and not giving is taking". How utterly stupid.
Lawsuits need to be based on some right that is violated or some demonstrable harm.
When schools teach elementary school students sexually explicit materials against the wishes of the parents, clearly a right is being violated and the students are being harmed.
What right is being violated by not teaching sexually explicit materials to public school students?
And as someone who grew up gay, I would have preferred my high school not to teach about homosexuality at all. The idea that government has any business teaching about sex or morality is an absurdity.
Interesting debate about whether public schools can work. However, one thing I like about DeSantis is that he's dealing with how things are, not how things ought to be. There isn't broad support to end public schooling, nor is there a functional framework for a replacement. Look at how directly education affects us just from COVID restrictions.
In terms of dealing with reality, using govt to disable govt overreach is the least worst option. I get it. The govt is censoring the schools from dissenting and that's not very libertarian, but I think there should be a distinction between the govt censoring itself and public entities vs. private entities.
The actual problem is that a large number of unwitting teachers, equipped with the full repertoire of post-modern, neo Marxist ideologies, are indoctrinating kids to believe that biological sex isn't real, that it's perfectly healthy to have anal sex, and that you should kill your parents if they aren't down for the revolution.
Reality is a bitch and no amount of rhetoric will ever replace it. You can pretend gravity doesn't exist, but you'll still die if you jump off the Empire State building. You can call LGBT ideology normal, but that won't get rid of your worms or give you functioning reproductive organs. Most psychological studies show that ordinary people react with feelings of disgust and that is expressly because our instinct tells us these are failed individuals, yet society is telling us to join the faith or die.
Keep in mind that I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to be LGBT. We're mostly libertarians here and I have no interest in banning objectively unhealthy behavior. I just expect you to mind your own business the same way that you wouldn't want me forcing you to say 'healthy at any size'.
"The actual problem is that a large number of unwitting teachers, equipped with the full repertoire of post-modern, neo Marxist ideologies, are indoctrinating kids to believe that biological sex isn't real, that it's perfectly healthy to have anal sex, and that you should kill your parents if they aren't down for the revolution."
You have got to get out of your barcalounger dude. None of this is true. Obviously.
You need to stop lying, Tony.
I had to look up a barcalounger, so that's nice, but it's extremely true. Easy to prove as well.
Anyone that cannot separate T from LGBT wants you to deny biological sex. Gender identities are entirely based on sex determining characteristics. You can't believe that a man is a woman and also believe that men and women are sexually dimorphic. It's an impassable contradiction, much like the people themselves, and you won't get a free pass on your bullshit.
Normalization of male homosexuality without adequate warnings about the health risks of anal sex can only be considered as propaganda. Throughout my education about the full LGBT+ rainbow, internal criticism never occurred and I knew better than to ask.
Killing parents who aren't down for the revolution is a very real phenomenon. North Korean Marxists were indoctrinated to report their own parents for violations and most certainly resulted in the deaths of them in certain cases. All Marxist based ideologies base their worldview around class conflict and elevate socioeconomic class above other considerations. Neo-Marxism has morphed this into the progressive stack and oppression olympics because the workers of the world did not unite. Turns out that without propaganda, you can't make kids hate their parents and a bunch of ignorant racists won't start liking people they hate just because they have the same job.
Do you want to do anything more than adhom? I'm well versed in post-modernism and neo-Marxism and I would love to help expose their insidious ideology to move conversation past the boomer tier hot takes about Democrats being the real racists.
When I read this I kept thinking “Apply this story to COVID.”
There's a great cartoon showing some scientist berating an unknown audience. He told them how to avoid the disease, what to do to stop spreading it, etc. Sounds like all the covid schlock, then at the end its a gay pride parade. Pretty funny. "Back when gay men were seen as a threat to society." Thank god we escaped those times!
This article is a total fabrication. What ever happened to journalism?
It is just all the fears, lies, and distortions from the left.
It will not effect older high school kids and their discussions. Only preadolescent children of K-3 or perhaps extended to 5th grade. It doesn't even mention sexual identity. It is just some parents want to educate their own kids when they think it is appropriate. This is just another grab by government schools to take over parenting. Elitist educators think that they know better than parents because they are just to stupide.
Only preadolescent children of K-3 or perhaps extended to 5th grade...
The law prohibits discussion for "primary grades", which is definitely extended through 5th grade, not perhaps. It then says "or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students." It is what is after the "or" that Shackleford is pointing to as problematic. Who decides what is "age-appropriate"? Kids start hitting puberty around or not long after the time they leave primary grades. (It varies quite a bit, so some kids start puberty quite young.) Talking about biological sex and gender differences and issues in the context of health and education can be important for students that age, so again, who is going to decide what is age and developmentally appropriate and when a teacher or school crosses the line?
It looks like LGBT will soon become a very common part of family feuds. https://or.av.tr/faaliyet-alanlari/ankara-bosanma-avukati-aile-ve-bosanma-davalari/
That's the reason they target children as young as possible.
In a little over a decade we went from "what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is none of your business" to "what we teach your 5 year old is none of your business..."