Ohio's Version of 'Don't Say Gay' Bill Undermines School Choice

It's not supporting “parents’ rights” to censor topics at private schools that families decide to send their children to.


Two Ohio Republican lawmakers are attempting to follow in Florida's footsteps with a bill that would censor some race- and sex-related content in public schools. Ohio's bill wouldn't just ban topics in public schools, though—it also covers private schools that students may attend through vouchers, thus undermining the benefits of school choice.

On Monday, State Reps. Jean Schmidt (R–Lakeland) and Mike Loychik (R–Cortland) introduced H.B. 616, which mimics parts of Florida's H.B. 1557 in that it forbids any sort of "curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity" for students up through third grade. Beyond third grade, the bill forbids teaching about the subject in a manner that's not "in accordance with state standards." (This is awkward wording because Ohio state law actually forbids the state Board of Education from establishing standards for health education.)

The phrasing is somewhat similar to Florida's bill, but the Ohio bill does not give parents the authority to file civil lawsuits against school districts and claim financial damages. That would be an improvement, but instead, the Ohio bill actually calls for teachers or school administrators who violate the law to be punished, possibly even by losing their teaching licenses. Schools found violating the law could lose funding. So while the "Don't Say Gay" description of Florida's bill was an analysis of the subtext and implications of the legal threats, the Ohio bill is much more direct and overt. Teachers and administrators who bring up these issues or provide materials about these issues could lose their jobs.

Outside of the "Don't Say Gay" component, the bill also completely bans any instruction that promotes critical race theory, intersectional theory, the 1619 Project, "diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes," inherited racial guilt, or "any other concept that the state board of education defines as divisive or inherently racist." None of these terms are actually defined in the bill.

The bill assumes that all parents of all children in Ohio are against their children learning any of this, which is bad, wrong, and untrue. Some certainly do want their children to be taught about these things. But the answer to the conflict should not be either mandating or banning all education and discussion of these concepts. Instead, school choice would allow parents and students to filter themselves into the schools that best suit their educational needs.

But H.B. 616, much like a similar bill in Georgia introduced by Republican state senators, actually attempts to undermine school choice from the right by prohibiting any school that receives any state funding from discussing these subjects. Private schools that allow students to attend through the state's education voucher program will also have to comply with H.B. 616.

This is not a bill that supports parents' rights to control and influence their children's education. It is the exact opposite—it's just coming from social conservatives rather than progressive gender and race activists.

NEXT: From Pat Toomey to Dr. Oz: The Pennsylvania Senate Race Reflects the GOP's Descent Into Madness

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow you guys are really going hard for teaching small kids about sex.

    1. ICWYDT

      1. Find fine ladies for sex contacts in EU sex münchen

        1. Always skeptical about sex in countries that use Umlauts in their language.

          1. Really have you seen Scandinavian women? While at least when they're younger, based on my Aunt's and Grandma, they don't age so well.

            1. Aww, poor grandmamedic!

              1. Well, she's been dead for 33 years and had a moustache, so....

                1. I just wanted to say "grandmamedic"

          2. All depends on what the double-dots of the Ümlaut mean.

            Maybe the Ümlauts stand for: "Üüüüüüümm!..."

        2. For the first time, ever, one of the bots dropped their advertisement in an appropriate thread. Kudos. Then flag, then mute, but good job.

    2. Do you think any discussion about "sexual orientation or gender identity" must necessarily include graphic details of sexual intercourse?

      1. Why does collectivistjeff want teachers talking to prepubescent children about their genitals?
        And why hide those conversations from the prepubescent children's parents?

        1. Why do you think discussions about "sexual orientation or gender identity" (a direct quote from the Florida law) must necessarily include graphic discussions about genitals?

          1. ^This is how leftists actually "think" to justify their evil.


          2. Why do you need to discuss sexual orientation with 5 year olds at all? Oh wait, you’re a proponent for unrestricted movement of child predators into the US.

            1. Sometimes 5-year-olds have questions like "why are those two men holding hands and kissing?"

              1. That's mom and dad's responsibility to answer. Not you and your creepy woke pals.
                If you ever approached my kids and started talking to them about sex, I'd kick your teeth in whether you have a bachelors degree or not.

              2. 5 year old child: "why are those two men holding hands and kissing?"

                Teacher: "Ask your parents."

                1. And if the teacher were to say, instead, "Because those two men love each other", then that would make the teacher, what, then? A "groomer"? A teacher who should lose his/her job? That discussion should be illegal and banned even though there is no mention of sexual intercourse or genitals?

                  This whole bill has absolutely nothing to do with supposedly keeping kids safe from graphic sex talk, since that isn't happening anyway. It really is a "don't say gay" bill after all, isn't it?

                  1. Sometimes 5-year-olds have questions like "why are those two men holding hands and kissing?"

                    Is two men kissing and holding hands a likely classroom experience for a young child?

                    1. I think kids tend to be very observant and inquisitive, and see things, and ask the authority figures in their lives questions about what they see.

                      I also think that there do exist gay teachers and their spouses, and that they are permitted to engage in reasonable displays of public affection for a professional setting just as much as heterosexual teachers and their spouses can, and that it is not some moral crime that kids may observe this at their school and ask questions about it.

                      So, would you fire the teacher who said "because the two men love each other" as a response to the question?

                    2. I say again. Is two men holding hands and kissing a likely classroom experience for a child?

                      From your explanation, on the oft chance that a kid at recess or something sees two gay teachers showing affection in public and the teacher is the only one around and the kid then asks her about it, you think the bill says the teacher will be fired if he/she says they love each other.

                      Correct me if I get that wrong.

                      So, would you fire the teacher who said "because the two men love each other" as a response to the question?

                      Then you ask if I would fire the teacher. No, I wouldn't be caught dead working as a school administer, especially in the public school forum in this day and age. I haven't read the bill but I would hardly think it would be a firing offense for a teacher to say two people love each other. Is that the extreme you are saying is likely with this bill? It couldn't be any of the other clearly more overt behavior that is taking place in the classroom today.

                    3. "So, would you fire the teacher who said "because the two men love each other" as a response to the question?"

                      You're so thoroughly dishonest. You know that the bill is addressing deliberate instructions rather than answering a question, but look at you lie to us anyway.

                      To play along with your irrelevant situation, if a child brought it up and asked "Ask your mom", is a totally satisfactory answer. But this situation has nothing to do with the bill you decietful fuck.

                    4. Shouldn't be just the same as it shouldn't be with a hetero couple. That they need to make laws on the subject tells us how much the Educrat establishment needs to be torn down. It's systemic rot like all things progressive. The cons will overdo it per usual but the progressive insanity needs to be ground into dust so they stay in their holes for at least a decade. They were warned and they doubled down on the stupid. Paybacks are a bitch and payback starts later this year. Squishy equivacators like Jeffypoo hardest hit. That anyone with a brain bigger than a gnat could see this pretty much explains Jeffypoo.

                  2. How exactly does the teacher know the two men love each other? They may just get off on being personal in public but just like each other for the sex. There are a lot of gay men (and straight folk too) who don't love each other but like having sex and pushing public boundaries, that's not love and teachers shouldn't be explaining that to other peoples 5 year old children or lying and saying they're in love.

                  3. 5 year old child: "why are those two men holding hands and kissing?"

                    Teacher: "Well, that one there is what many call a pillow biter and the other one looks like a cigar smoker. Trust me kid, you don't want to know details."

              3. Why would two men be holding hands and kissing in a kindergarten classroom Pedo Jeffy?

          3. loldude just stop

      2. Please stay away from little children pervert.

      3. Fuck off, groomer.

    3. The problem is that the word "sexual orientation" isn't just used to describe having sex. It's also used to describe people falling in love, getting married, going on dates, kissing etc. So a teacher could get in trouble "discussing sexual orientation" for telling kids that sometimes women marry other women and men sometimes marry other men, even if they never mention sex at all.

      This bill could probably be made acceptable if it was rewritten to make it clear that "sexual orientation" only refers to descriptions of sexual relations. Right now though, it's so vague that it sounds like it could prohibit any discussion of same-sex relationships at all, even totally platonic ones. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that it was written that way on purpose....

      1. And everyone knows that this law will never be used against heterosexual relationships, even though they also constitute discussions about "sexual orientation".

        1. I never had a teacher in 12 years of ELHI schooling bring up their personal relationships. Not spouses, not children, not boyfriends or girlfriends. These fucking teachers cant teach math or reading or writing or history that isn't written by hard left Marxists. They have no business spouting this bullshit.

          1. The only time I knew about a teacher's personal relationship was when she got married and changed her name.

            1. Same here. It just wasn't discussed.

          2. This is why we need to return to McCarthyism. America should be cleansed of these Marxists. It’s all just treason and sedition. With small children as just some of their victims.

            1. Glad you're enjoying your time here on Reason Dot Com

          3. So why do you need government censorship to enforce something that's already happening?

            1. Because we have grooming Dems that won't leave kids alone.

              So until you can keep your misgendered slimjim in your private business and out of school curriculum, the fight continues.

        2. There should be no discussion of sexuality whatsoever with such young children. Now quit trying to groom children.

          1. So, ban the words "husband", "wife", and "marriage" from grades K-3?

            1. Fuck off. That's not what this bill does, and your sockpuppet friend Ghatanathoah was outright lying by inferring it did.

              Here's the fucking bill:

              I want you to point out where it says you can't describe people falling in love or getting married or referring to them as "husband" or "wife".

              You're such a decietful sack of shit, but you're always trying to pull tricks a baby would see through.
              Take your middle-school sophistry and fuck off.

              1. You don't think people should have a right to decide for themselves whether to come out to their parents? That can be a life or death situation for some, yet this law says schools must tell on children to their parents, possibly ruining their lives, for rights purposes that are vague at best.

                Children are not the property of their parents.

                1. That's not what the bill says you dishonest fuck, and no five-year-old in the world needs your help with their sexuality, you dishonest fuck.

                  This isn't sixteen-year-olds, it's little kids, you dishonest shill. Why are you pretending otherwise?

                  I even linked the bill FFS. You could have read it and realized everything you said here is hot garbage.

                  1. With you, fuck these disingenous hacks. That they don't have the common sense of a fucking mosquito to recognize this shit has no place in an elementary classroom shows they need to be slapped upside the head hard. And that slap is coming and wailing, gnashing of teeth and lamentations will soon commence. I'm a live and let live kind of guy like most people but these dipfucks like toejam thought that meant they could push shit that undermines that tradition to force insane policies supported by a few wingnuts down the normals' throats. It's going to go too far the other way but these assholes asked for it.

                    1. Live and let live only applies if all abide by it.
                      But the left refuses to.
                      Thus we are all forced to kill or be killed.

                  2. I just don't understand what problem you're trying to solve with this government force.

                    1. Do you get aroused by lying?

                    2. Perverts and woke zealots grooming very young children.
                      It's only been mentioned about a thousand times in this thread, so you can quit pretending that you don't "understand".

                    3. Tony, you’re retarded. You really don’t understand much of anything.

        3. And everyone knows that this law will never be used against heterosexual relationships, even though they also constitute discussions about "sexual orientation".

          I wouldn't want teachers talking about hetero sexual identity at that age either, so not a gay only bill as you suggest.

      2. Whatever. While it sounds like a reasonable criticism, this shit's way beyond reasonable at this point. The "Don't say gay" nomenclature for a bill that never mentions "gay" tells you that.

        You shouldn't be sexualizing 6 year olds. Period.

        Likewise, you shouldn't be pushing the agenda du jour of whatever popular divisive thing progressives think everyone suddenly should not only be aware of but all for in all aspects. There's no way in hell a normal, typical 1st or 2nd grader considers themselves in terms of sexual orientation at all unless they're taught to think about those things, specifically.

        If a child asks about stuff like this, as a teacher you can be tactful and then tell them they should talk to their parents if they want to know more. There's nothing in the Florida bill that says otherwise and it is obvious they aren't going after anyone who tactfully answers kids' random questions.

        I don't know about ohio, really don't care because it is pretty obvious nobody gives a shit about the nuances in this debate anyway. As evidenced by the headline for this very article.

        1. You shouldn't be sexualizing 6 year olds. Period.

          Completely agree! And if the law had been something like "no discussion of graphic sexual acts with kids in grades K-3" then no sane person would have objected to its substance. But that isn't the real purpose here. The real purpose is:

          Likewise, you shouldn't be pushing the agenda du jour of whatever popular divisive thing progressives think everyone suddenly should not only be aware of but all for in all aspects.

          It's to ban what is perceived to be the "progressive agenda" with regards to "sexual orientation and gender identity" in grades K-3. Meaning, of course, banning discussion of "sexual orientation" other than heterosexual, and banning discussion of "gender identity" other than traditional gender roles. And the campaign to do this, as Nardz is very helpfully providing for us, is to equate any discussion of non-heterosexual orientations, non-traditional gender roles, as akin to "grooming" and pedophilia, even if there is no discussion whatsoever about graphic sex acts or genitals.

          1. Yes. It is to stop leftists from grooming children. Morality is not the purview of schooling you statist fuck. That is the domain of parents. Especially young children.

          2. You scumbags just can’t imagine having to restrain yourselves even around 5 year olds, can you? We don’t need any kindergarten discussions about homos, trannys, or anything they do with each other. Or anything about heterosexual sex either. BECAUSE THEY’RE LITTLE KIDS YOU STUPID, STUPID, FAT FUCK!

            We need to go back to when people like you even suggested this shit, that you got a severe beating. It’s the only way you progs will ever learn. We can only hope you are not legally able to be around children unsupervised.

        2. My church’s middle and high school group learned about Rahab a couple weeks ago and a 6th grader didn’t know what a prostitute was. The teacher sent them to their parents.

          That’s how we handle it when we all agree on the sexual ethics with MIDDLE SCHOOLERS.

          It is the parents’ decision, not the teacher’s.

        3. it's more accurate to call it "The Don't Make More Gays Bill".
          society has enough jumpers and leapers. how will theater performers ever get a raise?

      3. Fuck off and die, groomer.

        That teachers are losing their minds because DeSantis set a very basic boundary to protect children who can't protect themselves, proves how necessary the boundary is. Well adjusted people don't want drag queens to talk to six year olds about masturbation and genital mutilation.

        1. Pedo Jeffy is such a sick fuck. I’ve call3d him that for the last few years. Since he similarly advocated that the US had no right to keep known child rapists from crossing our borders.

          I’ll bet if pressed that he would do it to favor reclassifying pedophilia from a mental disorder to a sexual orientation.

      4. So a teacher could get in trouble "discussing sexual orientation" for telling kids that sometimes women marry other women and men sometimes marry other men, even if they never mention sex at all.

        It's not a problem because the word "discuss" is not included in the bill. It's about target instructional materials about gender identity or sexual orientation, or teaching specific units on that. Incidental conversation is not forbidden. This is a point a lot of people overlook: the words 'teach' and 'instructional material' are not casual terms. You can give a quick explanation to Tommy so he understands that Suzy has two moms, but you can't teach kids about sexual orientation at young ages. And why would you want to?

        1. You can give a quick explanation to Tommy so he understands that Suzy has two moms, but you can't teach kids about sexual orientation at young ages. And why would you want to?

          Kids seem to have a pretty clear understanding of their parent's relationship and the idea of two mom's and two dad's is not so taboo these day. Suzy is probably more than capable of explaining to classmate Tommy what having two moms means to her and the teacher can stay out of it altogether.

          The problem with the new prog thinking is they think because a child shows curiosity in something - 'Hey, Benji has two moms' - it is now their job to explain the adult perspective - two women marry, they can have children a different way, some girls like boys and some like other girls etc. etc. and now leading to why Benji wants to know and what he likes when all the kid is thinking is - 'Hey, Benji has two moms. His sandwiches look better than mine everyday.'

          1. two women marry, they can have children a different way, some girls like boys and some like other girls etc. etc.

            And this discussion is completely age-appropriate for grades K-3, has nothing to do with graphic discussions of sexual intercourse or genitals, and would be banned under Florida law.

            1. You're a sick pervert.

              Child: "Hey, Benji has 2 moms."
              Teacher: "Some kids have 2 moms."
              Child: "Why?"
              Teacher: "Ask your parents."

              Seriously, if you're going into in-depth discussions with children instead of telling them to go to their parents, you're a groomer. Your discussion is not innocent, it's inappropriate and predatory.

              1. I guess that would make Outlaw Josey Wales a "groomer" then since I was simply quoting him.

                1. The problem with the new prog thinking is they think because a child shows curiosity in something - 'Hey, Benji has two moms' - it is now their job to explain the adult perspective - two women marry, they can have children a different way, some girls like boys and some like other girls etc. etc.

                  Very disingenuous, Jeff. You weren't 'simply' quoting me. You actually made my point by validating what the prog values are on what is appropriate, while leaving out the bolded snippet that highlights my issue with the behaviour.

                  I think that makes you the groomer by your definition in this instance

                  1. Sure seems to be the case, at the very least he's supporting the playbook of a certain group of clergy that got panties in a big bunch.

            2. Nope. Why? Like you, it assumes it is necessary to provide that level of detail to kids that are too young to even be thinking about their sexuality. That's the issue, Jeff.

              Another answer that would probably elicit an age appropriate response might go something like this:
              Child - Why does Benji have two moms.
              Teacher - Why do you think Benji has two moms?
              Child - Cuz his two dads are astronauts and moved to another planet?
              Teacher - Could be. Let's get back to our math lesson now.

              See, it's too easy for the teacher to implant their values into that conversation and make it about sexuality when it really doesn't have to be. The issue is too often these days the teachers are choosing an elaboration at an adult level response rather than a neutral response to allow for other directions to influence the child towards.

              I get it, Jeff. You're gay. It was tough to be gay in your day and anything that helps people be themselves is great. Manipulating the pendulum to swing in another desired direction because it swang the opposite direction for so long is not the answer.

              1. Child - Why does Benji have two moms.
                Teacher - Why do you think Benji has two moms?
                Child - Cuz his two dads are astronauts and moved to another planet?
                Teacher - Could be. Let's get back to our math lesson now.

                So you'd prefer that the teacher promote a falsehood - that the two moms really are heterosexual with male husbands who are astronauts - and then change the subject to avoid talking about "gay issues". Huh. So I guess the critics are right - it really is a "don't say gay" bill.

                And if a teacher were to answer more honestly - something like "because they love each other" - should the teacher be fired?

                1. So you'd prefer that the teacher promote a falsehood - that the two moms really are heterosexual with male husbands who are astronauts - and then change the subject to avoid talking about "gay issues". Huh. So I guess the critics are right - it really is a "don't say gay" bill.

                  You're reaching dude. The point is it's not the teachers fucking business, job or duty to make sure the child has any more information that he/she happens to need at the time. She is not promoting anything. She is remaining neutral and letting the child make a discernment on his/her own. The child is making the assertion about the hetero relationship. It isn't the teacher's job to either confirm it or deny it. Just let it be and move on to educating the kid.

                  'Because they love each other' isn't an uncomplicated answer either. Mainly because your ilk isn't stopping there.

                  Your teacher's response would be something like this:
                  Child - Why does Benji have two moms.
                  Teacher - Why do you think Benji has two moms?
                  Child - Cuz his two dads are astronauts and moved to another planet?
                  Teacher - No child, it's because they love each other. Like your mommy and daddy, except differently.
                  Child - Different?
                  Teacher - Yes, child. Sometimes a man and a women will love each other, and two girls and two boys will love each other. Sometimes a boy may feel like he is a girl or a girl may feel like a boy. Some people don't feel like they are boy or girl and like to be different every day.
                  Child - oh
                  Teacher - What about you child, do you feel different? Do you ever feel like a boy or a girl?
                  Child - Uh...I don't know
                  Teacher - Well that's okay. Here let me give the whole class the presentation on the Gender Unicorn. That will help you understand why Benji has two moms.

                  1. He can’t imagine anything other than these brave prog teachers 3xp,aiming all kinds of deviant sexuality to kindergartners.

              2. See, it's too easy for the teacher to implant their values into that conversation and make it about sexuality when it really doesn't have to be.

                So let me get this straight. Correctly and factually describing a lesbian couple as lesbian is "implant[ing] values" and "making it about sexuality"?

                Is it "implanting values" to correctly describe a heterosexual couple as husband and wife? Should that be banned too?

                1. What's a lesbian to a five year old Jeff?

                2. Is it "implanting values" to correctly describe a heterosexual couple as husband and wife? Should that be banned too?

                  Same question. What's a heterosexual to a five year old.

                  Do you see how the honesty you are trying to simplify leads to the need for a more complex answer? That is the issue. See post above.

      5. Ok groomer. Keep away from the playgrounds like your release mandates.

        1. It is more apparent every day jeff has child porn on his computer and seeks to justify it.

          1. His computer, at this point I assume he has a couple of kids chained up in his basement in case one of his illegal alien buddies pops over for a quickie.

            1. Jeffy probably sits in the corner and watches.

    4. Couldn't you also call the bill the "don't say straight bill"? Or "anti pedo" bill as it would limit pedophiles from entering school and grooming five year olds?

      This whole thing is based on a very small group of confused sexually persons who think their actual numbers are in the millions and only parents are keeping little jimmy from her true know how this goes down...a "transgender" therapist is paid big money by some school board to educate and "protect" and shepard Jimmy to castration by age eight and his parents have no say.

      "Say you sometimes play with your sister's Barbie dolls"?
      "Yes I have GI Joe Dolls but my sister has Fighter Pilot Barbie and I want to be a fighter pilot some day"
      "Well Jimmy, your playing with Barbie dolls means....."

  2. What are the odds that Scott didn't read the bill and is only parroting what the pedofiles told him to say?

    1. I'm surprised, after this morning, that ENB has never tried to fact-check these bills.

    2. Considering he's saying taxpayers should be on the hook to pay educators to groom children I don't know that it much matters whether he read the bill or not.

  3. Time to stop lying about the bill, Scott, you groomer apologist.

    1. Where is the lie?

      1. None of the, say ‘don’t say gay’. Although you won’t accept that, as you’ve been commanded to think otherwise.

        1. No one is saying that the bill says "don't say gay". "Don't say gay" is the name given by non-bigots of these types of bills.

          1. Non bigots but down thread you object to being called a groomer. Fucking hypocrite I see.

          2. It is called that by people who don't actually understand the bills or by people purposely misrepresenting them. The bills don't actually ban the word gay or homosexual, just the teaching of any sexual orientation, including heterosexuality.

          3. "No one is saying that the bill says "don't say gay"."

            That's literally in the title of the article, and the implications it carries are disingenuous and purposefully decietful.

          4. isn't "don't say straight" just as true of the bill?

      2. "Don’t say gay" and then the rest of the article. Do you want me to repost the whole thing?

        Now Shrike, here's a far more difficult task. I want you to tell me what part of the article wasn't a lie or used to reinforce a dishonest narrative (lie).

  4. I appreciate when Reason lies right in the title so I save time by not reading the article.

    1. What lie? This bill does undermine school choice.

      1. Oh Molly, always taking up for the rights of groomers and child molesters. I shouldn’t be surprised. It is the democrat way.

      2. How does it undermine school choice, Shrike, and do you even know what school choice means?

      3. “Don’t say gay” is not present in any bill. It is a dishonest nickname given to it by child groomers who are against the bill.

  5. Reason continues to demonstrate how non-libertarians "think"

    1. Notice how Buttplug never has the guts to show up for these discussions?

      1. He's socking as Molly and Stroozele.

        1. Or he's just too busy "socking" over the thought of kids.

    1. "The reason to call them "groomers" isn't tit-for-tat over "racist," "fascist," "Nazi," "white supremacist," "whateverphobe," and all that. The reason is that it's actually true—in a variety of ways at once.
      The political and ideological grooming into Leftist Woke Marxism in schools is undeniable. This is cult grooming. The tactics are cult grooming. Whether through Freirean grooming programs like the "dialogical model" and "racial literacy" or the very manipulative (Trans) SEL.
      Under Critical Gender and Queer Theories (Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Marxism), there's undeniable lifestyle, self-image, dysmorphic, trans, gender, and sexuality grooming, which obviously leaves almost no barrier to pedo sexual grooming, which some predators take advantage of."

      1. "Within Queer Theory (Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Marxism), there's an explicit drive to create fluid identities, undermine or abolish childhood innocence, and a hostile rejection of anything normal. There's grooming into gender and sexual identities and mental illness, and worse.
        Also within Queer Theory, there's a concept of "adultism," an "unjust privileging of adults over children" and even that there's a bright line of difference between them. It's unbelievably easy to see how this can be taken advantage of by sexual groomers and is harmful anyway.
        Adultism grafts onto the Freirean "dialogical model" adopted almost universally by schools in North America now, which says educators and learners should learn together in dialogue as equals. This turns educators into groomers, in effect, sociopolitical, cult, and, w kids, worse.
        Given not only the presence of this gender, sex, sexual, and sexuality "education," but also the extremes to which Woke Marxists and their suckers are going to keep those materials in kids' hands, plus psychologically manipulative techniques, grooming is the only word.
        On top of this, the schools are abusing their position to groom children to be activists in the cult ideology they're also grooming them into. Activist grooming is a thing, a well-known thing, and it's explicitly their objective: "wed Theory to praxis." Project-based learning."

      2. "The reason to call them "groomers"

        ... is because you hate them and want to call them doody-heads.

        It is also because you want to emulate Chris Rufo's success with regards to CRT.

        Rufo's idea, assisted by right-wing media, was to take education about race and diversity, that went beyond what your typical white conservative would be comfortable with, and call it "Critical Race Theory" even if it had nothing to do with the actual theory itself, and therefore redefine all of it as scary extreme ultra-left-wing Marxist racist indoctrination propaganda. The only acceptable view on racism is what your typical white conservative believes, and everything else is CRT.

        So now it's the same idea again, but applied to sex ed in schools. The idea is to take all sex ed that goes beyond what your typical straight conservative would be comfortable with, and call it "GROOMING" and imply that it is about pedophilia and preparing little kids for sexual intercourse. It is a horrible slur to falsely accuse elementary school teachers of one of the worst crimes imaginable, but here we are. The idea is to redefine everything that is beyond the viewpoint of the typical straight conservative as being "extreme" and "dangerous for kids".

        That is how you all are planning to "win" the culture war. Everything that is beyond what your typical straight white Christian conservative would be comfortable with is demagogued and demonized as ultra-scary creepy radical left-wing unacceptable garbage, even if it's not that radical or particularly left-wing.

        The normative standard is the straight white Christian conservative one, and everyone else is a Marxist pedophile. That's where we are at.

        1. Gotta love it when people inject race into a discussion on sexuality.

        2. Groomers are groomers because they want adults to talk to small children about sex, then hide those conversations from the children's parents, you sick fat collectivist clump of cells.

          1. Your own quotes disagree with your claim.

            According to your own source, the accusations of "grooming" are accurate because it's about:

            political and ideological grooming into Leftist Woke Marxism in schools

            So it's NOT really about talking to kids about graphic sex. It is about redefining 'acceptable' discourse to be what the typical straight conservative believes, and anything else is "Leftist Woke Marxism", and a teacher that has a discussion beyond that is a "groomer" regardless of whether that discussion is about sexual intercourse or not. It is to slander everyone who disagrees with the normative right-wing viewpoint. That is the point of the "groomer" accusation.

            1. Nice how you had to qualify your assertion with "graphic" sex.
              You're a child predator.

              1. I doubt he’s ever had real sex with a woman. If he has a family, I’ll bet they don’t leave any children alone with him.

            2. no, this time it's really about the science. sorry.

            3. There’s a reason I call you ‘Pedo Jeffy’. And you keep on proving my point for me. If something is sick, perverted, and damages children, you’re for it. Which isn’t a surprise. I’m pretty sure you’ve never had a normal equal relationship with an adult female. Have you? Probably not.

              You’re likely as sick as your pal Buttplug.

            4. It's actually highly disturbing. Republicans are no exception when it comes to fascists. They always accuse their enemies of what they are most guilty of. It's a fact of fascism.

              So there are probably way more pedophiles among Republicans even than the ones we know about and have thrown in prison (which is already a disturbingly large amount).

              1. No, your party has grabbed a super majority of pedophiles and deviants. You’re living proof of this.

                1. I haven't even seen a child in probably 10 years.

                  1. If true, that’s for the best.

                    1. No kidding. I'm not a fan of their tendency to flout social conventions.

                    2. Another serious question for you Tony, if you don't like kids and won't ever have any, why should your opinion on certain issues being left to the parents to decide, matter? Isn't it progressives that keep telling us that males shouldn't have an opinion on abortion because we can't become pregnant? Or whites shouldn't have an opinion on anything to do with race because we supposedly don't suffer from racism?

                    3. Stop insisting that this insane QAnon shit is some kind of logical progression of civil rights. This is you wanting to use government violence to force teachers out of their jobs if they talk about things Republicans don't approve of.

                      I don't need to defend anything. You need to stop defending that, drop it, and put your brain back in your head.

                    4. Only in your conspiracy.

                  2. "and deviants"

                    Did you miss that part Tony?
                    And it's not because you suck cock, but because you shill for your chickenhunting pals and old school pederasts.

                    1. I would never shill for Dennis Hastert, Donald Trump, Matt Gaetz, Mark Foley, the Republican party of Tennessee, and countless local Republican officials.

                    2. Don't forget the Lincoln Project and this guy. But say, weren't you just squealing the day that accusations that the government and clerisy being full of pedos was a conspiracy theory?

                    3. Or Biden. He’s a pedophile according to his own daughter.

              2. Just out of curiosity, since you use the word so often, can you actually define the underlying political stances and mechanisms of fascism? What are it's governing principles and economic principles?

                1. Republicans, of course.

                2. dude, you are trying to deprive liberals of their use of language.
                  "fascist = bad, trump = bad, racist = bad, republican = bad"
                  "adjectives = good, victimhood = good, redefining words = good"

        3. "It is also because you want to emulate Chris Rufo's success with regards to CRT."

          How dare they cite primary sources.

        4. OK Groomer.

        5. Imposed Diversity is a marxist disease based on "group" identity and is anti-liberty. It exists because the left didn't get the outcomes it wanted after 1970. Liberty cannot exist with imposed Diversity. No libertarian can defend the DIE is against the basic tenets of a free society.

  6. OK Scott, from now on you can't say you don't know what is actually in the bill.
    Any more blatant lies are on you.

    1. A Reason writer actually read a bill instead of just getting the gist from activist talking-points memos and Twitter?
      I don't think that you understand how journolisming works.

    2. You're assuming a good faith "don't know" as in "I'm ignorant" rather than a bad faith, "I don't know and I don't care".

      1. I don't assume anything; I just want to be sure he has no excuse whatsoever from here out.
        And to do it with witnesses.

  7. how is third grade a cutoff?

    1. If you're going to draw a line, it has to be somewhere.

      It may be arbitrary, but that's the way it works.

      What is 3rd grade? Like 8 year olds? It's kind of hard to say "We can teach sexual orientation to people younger than 8" without sounding creepy. So maybe they were just picking a random age or a grade that was before the grade when they do the whole "your bodies are changing" classes, which I recall happening to my elementary and junior high classes when we were 10 or 11, just before most girls hit puberty.

    2. The distinction between primary and secondary education varies widely from district to district, state to state, and country to country (decade over decade). When kids 4-18 are all educated in a one room schoolhouse, the distinction is largely moot. When/where I went to school K-6 was in one (several) building(s). 7-12 was all in one building. Larger schools in the same district had K-6, 7-8, and 9-12 in separate buildings.

      Despite the variance, primary = K-3 is generally true/accurate.

  8. Say "Government Control"

  9. Why is it bad for agents of the state in education be subject to civil liabilities, as opposed to those in say, law enforcement?

  10. I can remember a time when Scott would've been mortified, even righteously indignant (or at least pretended to be) at the assertion that being gay meant he really wanted to steal from people and have sex with their kids.

    An abundance of Pride leaves you with no shame. Who knew?

  11. I believe the proper term we're looking for here is "shemale".

    1. If you're looking for shemales in Paris (Ohio) check this thread later (probably tomorrow) for a link.

      1. Is that where Jeffy lives?

    2. Like assault rifle, there ain't no such thing.

      Men are men.
      Women are women.

  12. Democrat/Republican legislator (both sides): Public schools must be one size fits all institutions of ideological conformity!

    And this is why public schools need to go the way of the dodo. Hell, I'll let them skip in line in front of the post office. Abolish public schools and the state governments OUT of education.

    Literally the last people we want choosing our children's curriculum are politicians.

    1. I can actually agree with Brandy on this one…

  13. Get rid of public school entirely. Problem solved.

    1. So then only kids of rich parents would get an education?

      1. I could explain this to you, but you’re too stupid and Marxist to possibly understand.

      2. I suggest to look up the works of James Tooley.

      3. ^. that's not what i said

      4. "So then only kids of rich parents would get an education?"

        Talk about a bien pensant thinker. No out of the box there.

      5. Easy, all the money currently spent on kids education is attached to the kid, and the parents choose how and where they spend it on the kids education. People will come forward to teach, and they'll be money available, and it doesn't require a massive bureaucracy to administer. And if those people don't do a good job, parents will find someone who does a better job.

  14. Maybe the more progressive states can get their school resource officers to teach the third graders BDSM. They have the handcuffs and know submission holds.

  15. Don't you think libertarians, or any sane person, should be automatically skeptical of using government force to punish people for their speech? Even if in the final estimation you find some value to these laws, shouldn't you start out skeptically?

    Nope, because Republicans are doing it, and they are so fuuuuucking stupid that it makes you feel better about yourself to know that people with power are so fucking stupid. Maybe you're not doing so bad.

    1. This isn’t about free speech. It’s about protecting small children from being sexualized by deviant groomers, such as yourself.

      1. And tomorrow it will be about the next random thing Tucker Carlson shoves into your earholes. You're not a smart or good person. You need to come to terms with that.

        1. Tony, you’re a sociopath. You have no concept of good. You’re also an idiot. So your perception of intellect means nothing.

          Mostly you’re just frustrated that Tucker won’t fuck your ass. So you should just kill yourself. Your obsession with him is going nowhere.

          1. I would do it for the blackmail. He's a dangerous fascist. He probably would be flattered to hear that.

            Keep calling every second person a pedophile. I hope you're all bankrupted by libel suits.

            1. How is he dangerous and how is he a fascist?
              And no, I don't want you to make up some guilt by association nonsense. What has Tucker Carlson done that is actually dangerous, and what has he said that comports with historical fascist doctrine?

              Remember, merely opposing the Democratic Party and it's narrative doesn't count.

              1. His declaration that he supports Putin for one.

                Thanks for telling on yourself. He's a far-right propagandist. Everything he says is a lie. You've been had.

                1. "His declaration that he supports Putin for one."

                  Really?? Wow. Can I get a quote on that Tony? You know, where he says he "supports Putin" or something to that effect.
                  You lie here constantly, so maybe a little citation with a link might be in order.

                2. You got a cite for that? Or are you just being a raving faggot again?

        2. I haven't heard Tucker Carlson's take on the bill. I did get Scott's "Regardless of what the bill says, taxpayers should be on the hook for providing sex ed to kindergartners." take. I can't imagine Carlson, as bombastic and outrageous as he is, possibly having a worse take. And not that I can't imagine a worse take, "Taxpayers should be on the hook for decapitating grooming parents and their kids." would be way worse, but the only person I could imagine being stupid enough to take a stance that absurd would be yourself.

    2. Eight-year-olds, dude. Why is sex talk with third graders the hill you want to die on?

      1. Why do you assume discussions of "sexual orientation and gender identity" must necessarily equate to "sex talk"?

        1. You’re one sick deviant Pedo Jeffy.

        2. "Why do you assume discussions of "sexual orientation and gender identity" must necessarily equate to "sex talk"?"'

          Discussions of sexual orientation is by definition sex talk, you dishonest fuck.

          1. Maybe the question is: Ok chemjeff, please provide an example of an interaction where you think it is Ok for a teacher to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity with a child, aged 5-8?

        3. there is no sexual orientation or gender identity for a five year old..there is biology (boy and girl) and that is it. A small confused group is not entitled to troll for new inductees in schools.

        4. Why do you need to have these discussions with little kids? You can’t even leave them alone until they’re nine. This kind of shit is why you and your fellow travelers belong in landfills.

      2. How many draconian anti-gay laws do Republicans get to pass before it's a hill I should die on? They're the ones using state force to censor people and create an atmosphere of bigoted religious oppression. They're the enemy of freedom. Not me. There is no hill to die on, there is a side to choose. The right one or the wrong one. And it's not a difficult choice.

        I had sex ed in 5th grade I believe. Of course, the internet exists now, and one gets the impression that these Christ freaks have never ventured beyond Facebook, so maybe they don't know how easy it is to learn about sex, and then some.

        But if this is just culture war bigotry for midterm politics, it begins to make sense. I mean, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't have to. The only point is to get your abnormally enlarged amygdala firing against "them" in time for election day.

        1. So not in kindergarten? Good. You sick fuckers just can’t keep your talons out of all that young boy flesh, can you?

          1. Projection is not just a river in Egypt.

            1. Says the poster who is infamous for projection.

        2. "please dont talk to my kindergarten about butt sex, just teach the ABCs"

          "draconian anti gay laws"

          1. Nobody is talking to kindergarteners about butt sex you fucking lunatic.

              1. Tony always lies.

              2. Couldn't find anything about butt sex in there, but I just skimmed.

                1. You use fascism for shorthand, he uses buttsex. I did post one that mentions anal sex, masturbation, and bondage to be taught by California schools, luckily the California school board dropped that part after parents raised hell, but they originally did want to teach that, not to five year olds thank God but starting in middle school. I don't see why those subjects need to be taught in public schools at all. And I enjoy every one of those things. But I don't discuss them with my kids.

        3. Sex Ed starts in middle school..where the hell did you go to school..Ithaca NY or Berkely? And teaching sexual reproduction is not the same as having "gender experts" trolling the hallway and interviewing little Jimmy to see if he is "trans"..and then convincing him to get castrated w/o his parents consent. JC...this is child abuse. A youngster will come to terms with their sexuality on their own...the vast majority will be hetro, a smaller minority will be homo and a very very small group will be unhappy with their own gender. Trolling schools to increase your "tribes" numbers is sick.

          1. Just stop being such a sad social conservative reactionary moron and grow the fuck up. Nobody was ever hurt by learning about sex. You are just expressing a desire to control your theoretical women. Your attitudes are not coming from a good place.

            1. That's what's its all about isn't it Tony, you don't want conservatives having any say, and only want your voice heard. And so you try and deflect. First it's not a problem. Second, well it's being taught but it isn't bad. Third, well it's really just making sure right wingers have no say. You have gone from step one to step four in less than an hour.

            2. No. Instead, why don’t we round up your Marxist pedophiles, throw you into dump trucks, then dump you face down in to landfills until you’re no longer a problem? How would that be Tony? Because if you and your fellow travelers keep going after the kids, it’s very likely that where you will end up.

    3. I'm a government employee, and an educator, should I be able to tell my students that evolution is bullshit (I don't actually believe this I'm just using it as an example) or can my university and the state that pays my salary forbid me from teaching creationism?

      1. I'm just wondering when the fuck you people are going to be the ones against government meddling in people's private lives. I come here to talk to libertarians. If I want to talk to Christofascists, I'd go somewhere else.

        1. No one is mettling in private lives. We are saying in public schools. We don't fucking care what you teach your own kids, or who you fuck. We care what public schools teach our kids. You are the one mettling in our private lives by insisting you should get to teach our kids anything you want to and we have no say. Do you get it yet dude? Fuck how hard is that to understand? We don't fucking care if you were a gimp mask every night and get railed by seven men with at least ten inch dicks. We dont fucking care. And you already admitted you don't know what Fascism is (btw Christian fascist is an oxymoron, fascists believe in replacing the church with worship of the state). I don't want them teaching kindergartners about heterosexuality either. Got it? This has nothing to do with religion. Fuck keep straw manning (which you basically admitted that is what you are doing with your false charges of fascism and it all ending in camps was pure blatant scaremongering).

        2. You’re meddling with kid’s private lives. Leave them kids alone, or else.

    4. Here's another situation, say I believe beastiality is a sexual orientation, can I teach a five year old that some people like to fuck sheep? Or I believe incest is a sexual orientation, can I teach 5 yo that some people like to fuck their sisters, and that is okay?

      1. Or I believe that heterosexuality is the only true sexual orientation, would you be okay with me teaching that to 5 yo?

      2. There is already latitude to fire teachers for behaving inappropriately.

        The reason you are worrying about an issue you weren't worrying about six months ago is because your media diet has injected a horse syringe full of stupid into your brains.

        I don't know how you people sleep at night bullying teachers like you do. Is it because your educations didn't stick?

    5. Telling pedos not to talk to kids about sex is a free speech violation?

      Ok, groomer.

  16. What do the genitals of the other 98 genders look like? I am still waiting for a chart.

  17. Why do you want to have sex with small children?

  18. I’m all for regulating speech in a public school, since they shouldn’t exist anyway.

    But private schools are another matter. That should be between the employer and the customers.

    1. It's not all private schools. Just the ones parents get vouchers for. Don't take tax dollars and the school can instruct whatever it likes... passively.

      I say passively, because I'm pretty sure the school taking no public funds and teaching pre-K girls all to be good wives to the same husband has already been hashed out. Much to the groomer's schadenfreude.

    2. Yes, please argue for madrassa style schools here. That should go over just swell. They'll turn out more y'all qaeda morons like the ones sponsoring this garbage.

      1. Show me the data that demonstrates that a lack of public education produces religious terrorists. Because I’m pretty sure that’s made up.

  19. Ok groomer. Looks like the pedo apologists are out in force today.

    1. Hey look- it's another dumbass who sees pedos everywhere now since they read an article.

      JFC, do you people ever get tired of being so goddamn stupid? I feel like it must be exhausting. Or maybe this is the only speed you got and you wouldn't know the difference.

      1. So how is it not grooming to secretly talk to kids about their special places and LGBT eunuch-horns while explicitly telling the children not to speak to their parents about it?

        Stick your dick in a blender, Shreek.

  20. Public schools were a mistake. It's like arguments about what to spend government largess on except the recipients aren't even a part of the argument (because they are literal children). It's just two people who don't receive something arguing about what a third person will provide to a fourth.

  21. The the ROOT of the problem?
    And the more Commie the USA gets the worse the battles and contention will get.

    As-if history hasn't shown this time and time and time again....
    It's pretty simple really; Just ask what are GUNS (Gov-Guns) doing "teaching" other people's children???? What are the purpose of those Guns??

    Because; the fact that government is nothing at all special without the legal use of GUNS is undeniable.

    1. "Communism is when gay people" - Karl Marx

  22. The proper response to this article is to link to the interaction between Governor DeSantis and some brainless reporter who used the 'don't say gay' term and got destroyed.

  23. No matter- this is the party of "free speech" right?

    None of these things are happening anyway but they'll allege they are, sue, defund schools, then shift taxes to charter schools where their rich buddies can make some money.

    Tale as old as time and all the dumbasses here will support it 100% of the way.

    1. Ironically; Loosing the [WE] mob-vote of being entitled to set Commie-Education Curriculum isn't a "free speech" issue... Funny how diluted a simple subject can get by media narratives.

      Humorously; The phrase "create your own internet" fits perfect in this example... If leftards don't like it; "create your own education" 🙂

      Frankly; The real issue is Commie-Education and the vast swaths of Commie this and Commie that governments are doing... Get those GUNS out of Commie-Businesses.

    2. Teachers are paid instructors. They have no ‘free speech’ when they’re on the job. And no one is arguing they can’t talk about whatever they want on their own time, away from the children.

      Like you would give a shit about free speech anyway.

    3. Fuck off, groomer. Hang yourself before midterms and it won't sting so badly.

  24. Here is the thing, I really don't know how I feel about these kinds of bills, or anti-CRT bills. I find the idea of teaching racism (and I consider CRT racists as it takes away all individuality and mechanism from blacks and teaches them they can't achieve unless whites allow them to achieve, that all their problems are the fault of white supremacy and if they want to succeed whites have to end white supremacy) and sexual orientation to young children to be morally reprehensible. When it's done as part of a government approved curriculum I find it more reprehensible and indoctrination.

    I do believe as a public school teacher what you say and do in the classroom can and should be restricted. But the concept of banning outright an ideology makes me squeamish.

    That being said, however, I also believe that content should be age appropriate, and public schools should be answerable to the public.

    I'm not certain the majority of the country would agree that teaching kindergartners about sexual orientation and identity is appropriate.

    I wonder if there is a compromise, an opt in program, where parents can sign a permission slip allowing children to attend a lecture on these subjects (and I would make it opt in, and taught in a sitting other than the usual classroom, maybe in the gym or something) rather than an outright ban. I also believe that the parents should be able to attend these sessions. I also believe that there needs to be a mechanism in place for teachers to address when Robert suddenly wants to be called Roberta and wear dresses. It should be clear in the law as to what the parameters are. It should be simple, along the lines of "Robert is now going by Roberta, and wears dresses, and some people choose to do that, and we need to treat her with respect, no name calling or other bullying". It doesn't need to be a long discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity and cultural norms, just a simple reminder that just because they're different doesn't allow them to be harassed or bullied (these rules have always existed, and no they don't stop name calling or bullying, if you're different it's going to happen, no matter what, teaching kids simple respect doesn't require a long discussion on every single way people are different).

    Of course there will be parents who complain. Some will believe it's offensive Roberta wears a dress, when last week they were Robert and wore pants, some people will believe that the teacher should use that as a opportunity to teach kids about gender identity. Both of these types of parents are pushing an ideology not what kids really need or are capable of learning.

    When my kids were 5-8 yo and they ask me where babies come from, I would give them a long discussion on the follicular waves and cycles, spermatogenesis, implantation (not mention how the sperm got into the mother) about the corpus luteum and the formation of the placenta and the regression of the corpus luteum, etc. It was in jest because I knew they wouldn't comprehend it. It's really was 300 level biology of reproduction. When I was done, (they knew I was not seriously expecting them to understand, and it irritated my wife at times, and she finally asked me to stop because it wasn't as amusing as I thought it was). Invariably my wife would tell them that babies came from Mommy, and if they ask how the babies got there, would say it takes a mommy and daddy, and we'll explain it more when you're older and can understand better, but you don't have to worry about it now because you're to young to have a baby. We usually had the first talk about sex with them when they were 10 or so. And even that is very basic. Your body is going to start going through changes, and explain what some of those changes where and why they were happening. However, being country kids, by that time they had a pretty good idea how babies were made. The point is that at 5 or 6 kids aren't old enough to understand the complexity of the issues. If you care to teach your kids about it, don't be surprised if they don't understand it. Chances are they won't.
    Most do know about boys having penises and girls having vaginas.

    As an adult we need to consider if what we are teaching a young kid is something they would really understand. If we teach that sometimes boys can become girls, because they're really girls on the inside (or vice versa), I can imagine some kindergartners will get scared and believe that they could change even if they don't want to. Some kids are going to be more ready to learn that than others.

    Bathroom and locker and sports issues are far more difficult to find compromises on and I lean more towards using their biological sex rather than their assumed gender, for a variety of reasons, but that isn't the discussion.

    1. On further reflection I don't know if the school even needs to hold a lecture opt in or otherwise, if a parent believes it's important they can teach it themselves or arrange a group or other form of education. But I wouldn't be opposed to having an opt-in lecture that parents can attend, either.

    2. The problem is these "educators" believe they know better than you about everything, including what's best for your kids and they want to program your kids in secret.

      Sticking this shit front and center in your curriculum and having the board approve and not be recalled, go for it; anything shy of that GDIAG you Marxist pedo POS.

      1. I know the problem. I am not blaming anyone for their reactions. I don't blame the legislatures that have passed these laws. That doesn't mean they don't make me squeamish, as in I worry about the precedence if they stand. Maybe they're necessary and no compromise can be made. It really is too bad if that is the case, but it is a strong possibility. I really am still trying to figure out how we arrived here, and why anyone would feel the need to discuss this with children. I know the answers many have given. And they may even be correct, but it just escapes me to empathize with people who would utilize children to achieve their political agenda.

    3. It just doesn't matter dude. We all went to school, some shitty schools and some good schools, and somehow we managed to come out perfectly aware of our genders and perfectly unwilling to rape children. For the rest, their mental problems did not stem from some teacher who mentioned he was gay.

      You people are positively obsessed with the fallacious notion that things people learn in third grade have some profound intractable effect on people. Is that how it was with you? Did your intellectual development stop at learning cursive?

      There just isn't a problem to solve except Republicans having nothing else to run on.

      1. If there is not a problem than the laws shouldn't matter, because no one could be punished under them.

        1. A libertarian sentiment if I ever heard one.

          Pass unnecessary laws bullying people for no reason!

          1. We aren't bullying anyone. Public schools already have laws on what people can or can't reach, we've already established that, and down below you are the one who admitted your whole point is to prevent people you don't like from being able to have a voice in education. You seem to be the only one advocating for bullying. We just said don't teach this until after third grade. If you do, you could be punished, and there are laws like that on a whole host of subjects. You can sue a teacher for teaching kids about the Eucharist and baptism, and get them fired. Isn't that bullying them? But it's okay to bully them because you don't support them and they are probably right wing crazies, but don't you dare touch something you believe in.

          2. The only bullying comes from progs.

      2. You don't understand. It isn't the teachers place to even discuss it. It's the parents place. You don't get to decide what my kids learn. No one is trying to eliminate gay people or any other part of the alphabet. It has nothing to do with that. You think it does, but no one is saying that. People can come out, kids can come out. We just don't want anyone discussing sex period with our 5-8 year olds. That is all. We don't want them discussing heterosexuality or homosexuality or anything else. Period. It isn't some grand scheme to punish gay people. I could give a fuck who you fuck, as long as it's consenting. I just don't want you teaching my kids about it. I don't want the straight teacher teaching my kids about straight sex either until at least 5th grade. Do you get it yet? Or is it to hard to fucking understand? It isn't don't say gay. It's don't say any fucking thing about sex until after 3rd grade. Do you fucking understand or is that to fucking hard to get?

        1. "It isn't the teachers place to even discuss it. It's the parents place."

          Says you. I say children may trust a teacher over a parent, and a gay child might trust a gay teacher over a religious nut parent. You are not in a position to make all of these decisions for other people. How about not legislating the matter the moment some Republican cunt politician wants to throw some culture war smoke in your eyes? You clearly haven't thought this through beyond some faux-commonsense platitudes that aren't even true like "parents are authoritarian dictators of their children." Nope. Actually, it takes a village.

          I of course expect people to sue the shit out of any conservative teacher who dares mention their heterosexual spouse in casual conversation. I will donate to the legal fund.

          1. You still don't know what these laws say? You just are using examples of stuff these laws don't actually prevent. But here is a bigger clue. Yes, says me, because I am there parent. You don't get to decide that. Why is that so hard? The bills don't stop you from mentioning your spouse (but it's weird if a teacher does, I've never actually seen it happen) nor do they ban teachers from counseling kids in private. They don't. Period. They stop teachers from teaching the whole class about every single sexuality. Nothing more. And only until they are out of 3rd grade. But you admitted you don't care what the bills actually say and do, you are upset and facts don't matter.

          2. There aren’t gay kindergartners you sick deviant. You should be grateful you’re allowed to live in peace. In most of the world you wouldn’t, and in many countries you would be in prison or dead.

    4. "The point is that at 5 or 6 kids aren't old enough to understand the complexity of the issues. "

      I understand you want to protect the innocence of children by drawing a veil over matters of sexuality. That's been the case since at least the Victorian days when, I shit you not, 'sleeves' were used to slip over and cover table legs, the sight of which was thought to lead to impure impulses. But if children don't understand the complexity of sexuality, the groomers certainly do, and will certainly exploit the ignorance of the children you've tried so hard to maintain.

  25. Once again lets point out that calling people who oppose these bills "groomers" is an age old, and debunked homophobic slur.

    1. The same as you calling them bigots, homophobic, transphobic, etc. If you don't like others doing it, don't do it yourself. And especially don't whine about it.

      1. Nope. Correctly identifying someone else as a bigot is not the same as being a bigot.

        1. But the fact is your definition of bigot isn't mine. So yes it is the same thing idiot.

        2. You label your political opponents but don't like being labeled yourself. That is hypocrisy. You consider your cause noble, so does the other side. They believe teaching young kids about sex is grooming them to accept a certain world view. They aren't saying they are grooming them exclusively to have sex with them. You call people who disagree with teaching sex to 5 yo bigots. They aren't bigots. They don't want their kids taught this stuff at that age. That isn't bigotry.

        3. You don't get to define language or police it. Nor do we have to accept your definitions of what is right and wrong.

        4. You’re a bigot. All democrats are bigots.

        5. MollyGodiva: you are a homophobic leftist bigot who uses the pretense of standing up for minorities in order to advance your ideology. People like you are worse than Fred Phelps: at least he was sincere in his beliefs and statements, misguided as they were.

        6. Ok, you’re a fucking bigot. Just like every other democrat.

      2. Homophobia isn't even a thing anyway. Disgust and fear are not the same emotion.

        1. Same part of the brain, the one that's abnormally active in conservatives.

          1. Don't try to act like you understand the least little bit about neuropathology. You just heard someone say that and it made you feel good and superior, so you parroted it.

            1. I don't think it's a pathological condition, except to the extent that we're a pathological species. I'm sure conservatism served our apelike ancestors quite well.

              Fortunately, we no longer live in a world where we're constantly competing with neighboring tribes for food and women. Conservative brains just feel like they are.

              1. See it is all about hating conservatives in the end and you just believe they should shut up and cave to you or that they are no longer needed or are everything wrong with this country... That is almost verbatim what Hitler actually said about Jews to convince Germans that Jews needed to be eliminated. That is actually closer to the kind of talk that ends in camps. You are really too uninformed to even understand that you and your rhetoric is far more dangerous than someone saying don't teach five year olds about sex.

              2. "we no longer live in a world where we're constantly competing with neighboring tribes for food and women."

                No, we certainly can't accuse you of that unless you count chickens and twinks.

              3. Tony, you’re functionally retarded. This, and your sociopathy, are what attract you to the democrat party. Like most democrats, you’re a sick, evil, perverted creature. This is why you want to groom and indoctrinate our children.

                Best that you and your fellow travelers stop. Or else.

          2. Tony, you’re a mentally inferior imbecile. You have no business judging or correcting anyone, ever. It is because of people like us that you are allowed to live. In much of the world you would have been killed by your own family, or fellow villagers by early adolescence. You should be thanking us every day for the safety and tolerance we provide for you. Especially as you produce nothing and are of no value economically, or as a person.

        2. Homophobia isn't even a thing anyway.

          Well, you used the term, not the people who stand up to you.

          Disgust and fear are not the same emotion.

          And teaching kids in elementary school about gay sex or straight sex is indeed disguisting. It is also something that parents rightfully fear. The fear isn't a fear of gay folks, the fear is of the damage this does to the innocence of children.

          1. "the fear is of the damage this does to the innocence of children."

            You want to preserve this innocence by keeping the child ignorant and uninformed. A dangerous and naive strategy for a commendable goal.

            1. You want to preserve this innocence by keeping the child ignorant and uninformed.

              (1) Saying that something shouldn't be taught in school isn't the same as saying that it shouldn't be taught at all.

              (2) Yes, you better believe it. Children in K-3 should be ignorant and uninformed about adult sexuality.

              A dangerous and naive strategy for a commendable goal.

              Can you explain what the "danger" is of third graders not understanding the mechanics of gay sex or sex change operations? Please be specific!

              1. "Can you explain what the "danger"

                The child will be unprepared for an encounter with a groomer or a pedophile or a rapist.

    2. It's really fascism. You have to dehumanize your enemy by accusing them of the worst crimes imaginable. The better to shove them into ovens and think you're doing the right thing.

      The reason Russians are fine with raping women after murdering their husbands is because they are actually convinced they are worthless Nazi scum.

      Fascist propaganda is an old thing but now it has the internet. See you at camp!

      1. You still haven't explained to me what Fascism is. I doubt you even know. You just know it's bad so you label others who don't fall in line with your thinking as fascist (which BTW is a Hallmark of fascism, just saying, you really should read what fascists actually believe beyond the simplistic right wing authoritarian racists, BTW Italian fascists didn't preach the whole master race bullshit, and neither did Spanish fascists). You should really understand what the policies of Fascism is, then you may understand that it really isn't American conservatives who are the closest to fascism.

        1. I'm using it in the colloquial sense for lack of a better term to describe what is apparently a rather ubiquitous political strategy.

          Unscrupulous monsters like Hitler, Putin, or Reagan stoke nationalistic fervor and tribalism, identify the enemy, dehumanize them, and people's brains go nuts for that shit. It works especially well on the half of the population prone to religion. As far as their brains are concerned, they're fighting over a tree stump in the African jungle. It's basically a brain hack exploited by asshole politicians.

          The whole point of fascism is that it comes with no ideology but power. It can attach itself to any nation or religion, and its tenets can change from one day to the next.

          And you're one of its victims. You actually believe there is a sexual grooming problem all over the country, something you didn't give a moment's thought to six months ago, because the fascists have instructed you to think that.

          Anyway, eventually there's camps and mass murder.

          1. You just admitted you don't like what someone believes so you label them the most evil thing you can and you accuse others of using the exact same tactic as being fascists. Here is a clue, that isn't even close to being fascism. Saying we don't want public schools teaching five year olds about sex isn't authoritarian or nationalism or scare mongering.

          2. I have seen the tapes. I have read the stories. I have read the actual curriculum some schools are using. I have read the progressive media celebrating the curriculum. You are the one who doesn't get it. You are the one believing false conspiracies. You are the one who has admitted you don't even care about the facts.

            1. Tony isn’t capable of learning, or changing. Democrats like him should be scraped off and thrown away.

          3. Bullshit. No one is making a camp for you. You sound as fucking stupid as the idiots who thought Obama was building camps. Fuck you are just as conspiracy minded and scare mongering as what you accuse others of. Fuck, you lack any sense of fucking self awareness. You sound just like fucking Alex Jones right now.

      2. You want to have the state to hide things from parents, to instruct young children about sexuality. We are saying no, that isn't the states job, especially until they're old enough to understand. Neither bill allows any discussion of sexuality, or gender matters, straight or gay or trans. It bans it all until the kids are past third grade. It bans it as official curriculum, they don't ban teachers from answering simple questions, nor do they ban any certain word. It is entirely about official curriculum. It's not some right wing tin foil conspiracy to abolish gays or punish gays. It's simply the state saying this shouldn't be part of the curriculum of K-3 graders. Fucking Shackleford is lying his ass off as to what these bills are. Read the fucking bills and you will find out the media is lying to you.

        1. You read the bills. I don't have to defend being against government forcing teachers what to say.

          1. The government does it all the fucking time idiot. It's called official curriculum. Every fucking state has laws as to what can and cannot be taught. Look it the fuck up
            Or would you be okay with me teaching creationism to five year olds in public school and teaching them that Odin is the All Father and we must sacrifice to him every Yule?

            1. And now that QAnoners have discovered this, they are out to turn school into the same culture war battlefield they've turned every other space into.

              These are not good people. Their ideas are not good. They worship Trump for Christ's sake. Paragon of sexual morality though he may be.

              1. No, it's not the Qanon or any other conspiracy, teachers have actually been filmed teaching sex to five year olds.

          2. I mean as a teacher you think I can say whatever I want and teach whatever I want with no fear of punishment right? Why can't I teach five year old the correct way to clear a weapons malfunction on the AR-15/M-16 platform?

            1. I think I don't have to respond to your every hysterical strawman before being against fascist QAnon legislation.

              1. No, it's that you realize you aren't being consistent so you call it a conspiracy and that way you don't have to admit you don't fucking even know what you're talking about,rather you are just taking other people's word for it. They've actually documented it, there is actual curriculum designed for five year old to discuss sexuality. And schools are using them. It is an actual fucking thing. It isn't a conspiracy created by some evil right wing cabal. It is actually happening in public schools.

                1. Then surely you can cite it.

                  1. Mother's Lament already provided a citation above. Did you read it?

                    1. Of course he didn’t.

                  2. Hint it was from the Huggington Post not Fox.

                    1. That article doesn't say what either of you claims it does.

                    2. It says they are teaching sex ed to kindergartners. What did I say it says?

                    3. The real solution is to get rid of people like Tony so this can’t happen. What does everyone think of a compulsory expatriation program? Just kick their asses out forever.

                    Here is another one on teaching sex ed to kindergartners

                  4. Want another citation, here you go:
                    Note none are from Tucker Carlson or Qanon which I don't even fucking know what it is.

                    1. I think Tony may already be dead from that stomping. Now you're just making the rubble bounce.

                    2. If only he would really die.

          3. And basically you just admitted you don't care what the bill says, you just oppose it because you don't like what it restricts. Or are you being consistent, can I teach that earthquakes are actually caused by Loki thrashing in his chains beneath the earth because he was imprisoned for killing Baldur and the venom of the serpent dripped in his eye? To be consistent you must say that the government can't stop me and it's my right.

            1. Keeping school curricula out of the grubby hands of right-wing freaks has been my life's work. Why on earth would I stop when they've decided to go full Trumple's Temple?

              You already came for science. You're still coming for science. You are a menace to schoolchildren everywhere. All you have to do is stop that.

              1. So you admit it is all about teaching your viewpoints, and banning views you disagree with. Thank you, for finally admitting the truth.

              2. You want to indoctrinate kids in other words, that is exactly why Nardz calls you a groomer. Because you are grooming kids to believe what you believe and keeping them away from ideas you don't like. Thank you for playing Let's See if Tony Admits the Quiet Part Out Loud. And now you are pissed parents won't let you.

              3. Do you realize you just admitted you don't actually care about authoritarianism, as long as it's the correct authoritarians in charge. It's all about making sure right wing doesn't get a voice in education for you. You just fucking admitted it. I am literally rolling on the fucking floor laughing at you. You just fucking proved Nardz et Al point for them. And I doubt you even realize it, you thought you were making a clever remark and just fucking proved their point.

              4. Tony - this also points out another of your and jeffies other lie which is the grubby hands of right wingers trying to take over school curricula. As pointed out above at the start of this thread, that this wasn't being done when we were in school and based on that jeffy said, so it's a problem that doesn't fixing and it's just right-wing overreach. Soldiermed's multiple examples shows that the problem is proggies grubby hands are actively trying on the federal, state and local level to actively groom very young children. It wasn't a problem until you and your fellow travellers stepped in in the last decade pushing this utter filth.

              5. Tony is,living proof that Marxist democrats are unreasoning monsters. Destroy them before they do the same to us.

      3. The reason people are calling you a groomer and others, is they question why we need to teach kids sexuality, any sexuality at five years old. It's bullshit to 90% of parents that a five year old even understand what their sexuality is. I've raised three kids. They don't know and don't fucking care. Anyone who says differently is pushing a fucking agenda. Five is to young to teach kids about this. The fact that some people are actually pushing for this to be taught to five year olds and younger is extremely weird. I don't want them teaching heterosexuality anymore than homosexuality. I don't want them teaching sex period or anything to do with sex at that age. That is the parents job, not the teachers. You're just worry some parents may not teach things you agree with, so you want the school to teach what you want them taught. Sorry, that is pushing an ideology. The parents are telling you to fucking stop teaching this to their kids. And you call them bigots and fascists and accuse them of genocide. I'm telling you, if I found out you were teaching my kids about sexuality, I don't care if you were teaching heterosexuality or homosexuality, and I didn't give you fucking permission, I would be hard pressed to remember I am a Christian and thus believe in forgiveness, and not revert to my pagan forefathers and blood eagle your ass. You think Christians are bad, you don't want to know what Scandinavian pagans did to people who messed with their kids.

      4. You’re not really human Tony. You’re a Marxist democrat. Soulless creature form a ,owner order of life.

      5. It's really fascism. You have to dehumanize your enemy by accusing them of the worst crimes imaginable.

        You mean like you regularly do?

        The reason Russians are fine with raping women after murdering their husbands is because they are actually convinced they are worthless Nazi scum.

        So Russians are fascists because they hate fascists?

        Fascist propaganda is an old thing but now it has the internet. See you at camp!

        Well, Tony, given that your beliefs are 95% fascist, you should know.

    3. Once again lets point out that calling people who oppose these bills "groomers" is an age old, and debunked homophobic slur.

      These bills prohibit the teaching of sexually explicit materials in K-3. And let me tell you this as a gay man in no uncertain terms: if you want to teach sexually explicit materials to kids in K-3, the term "groomer" applies to you. There is nothing "homophobic" about that observation.

      As a gay man, I wouldn't have wanted to learn about gay sex in elementary school.

      1. ^I'm not gay, but this completely. It's absolutely not difficult, for anyone acting in good faith, to understand the intent of these bills. Don't impose adult concepts about sexuality and gender on little kids in K-3 classrooms. If you want to do this, you're a groomer. Add in that the left want to do this without the knowledge or consent of parents, and the grooming just becomes that much more obvious. It's not a free speech issue, and it's certainly no more authoritarian than the idea that agents of the state can teach whatever rubbish they like to children regardless of what parents think about it.

      2. As a straight man I wouldn’t have wanted to learn about straight sex in elementary school either.

    4. You're a bigoted groomer, progshit.


    U.S. Dept of Education is holding a webinar for educators across the US on “supporting transgender and nonbinary students in K-12”

    They are promoting the idea of transgender kindergartners and nonbinary 8 year olds. There is no such thing. There is only abusive parents/teachers


    1. These people should be tried and executed for this. It’s monstrous.

  27. If you don’t want regulated schools, don’t have government-run schools. An unregulated government school is an oxymoron.

  28. It's not supporting “parents’ rights” to censor topics at private schools that families decide to send their children to.

    Sexually explicit materials are inappropriate for kids in K-3 no matter whether the school is public or private. This isn't a question of "school choice", it's a question of basic protections for children against sexual predators.

    1. "it's a question of basic protections for children against sexual predators."

      Ignorance is no protection. There are sexual predators who prey on children. And a child ignorant of the dangers is at more risk than another who is aware of them.

      1. And a child ignorant of the dangers is at more risk than another who is aware of them.

        And the Florida law doesn't outlaw teachers telling children about the dangers of sexual predators and how to avoid them.

  29. On the other hand, focusing only on the dangers of sex is probably going to inflict psychological damage to the children. A balanced, sex positive attitude is also important to instill in children.

  30. What a nonsensical article. A parent who chooses to abdicate their obligation to educate their young children as they see fit on matters of 'grooming them sexually', cannot possibly undermine school choice, because the State doesn't think 'grooming' children belongs with the three 'R's' at that level of education.

  31. And here you have it -- once private schools get vouchers, they ultimately fall under state control in terms of curriculum and discipline.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.