For the past few weeks the most extreme members of the anti-gay right have been busily trying to resurrect panic over the idea that gay people try to "groom" kids into becoming gay. This is an ancient fear that was popular in the '70s and '80s but had mostly subsided since then. So how is it doing now?
According to a quick-and-dirty look at Google Trends, interest in dog grooming has become steadily stronger over the past few years. However, interest in gay grooming has barely increased at all. More recently, interest spiked last week but has already fallen by half this week.
The whole "gay grooming" thing is stupid and repulsive. Luckily, it also appears to have no legs. With any luck it will go away soon.
I think you are misstating the gravamen of the charge. People are trying to redefine the word "grooming" as in adults preparing kids to be sex partners, to be instead about teachers "grooming" kids into becoming queer, transexual, or whatever.
It's rather like "sex trafficking" is now the cool way to talk about what we used to describe as "prostitution". Makes it sound more serious. (Also, notice how many conservatives are now describing public schools as "government schools".)
The people in question don't think the teachers are gay or transsexual, but that the teachers are ideologues wan count success as "turning" kids gay or transsexual or whatever. They aren't looking for sex partners, in this use, but converts.
To be clear, I'm pissed off about the usage. It's inaccurate and deliberately chosen to be inflammatory. That doesn't mean the underlying charge (teacher is looking for converts to boost her self-image) is wrong, but it's very rare. But the people using the word are doing so deliberately as a rhetorical device.
+1
...and as a socio-political cudgel. Their cultivated hysterics disrupting school-board meetings is absurd & creates concern for teachers & librarians. Their claims about being religious are repulsive.
just to be clear, sex trafficking isn't a "cool" way of saying prostitution. to me, at least, it's far more sinister. it involves taking a person either through force, coercion or deception for the purpose of prostitution. in a sense, it's a form of slavery.
Yes, the two definitely do not refer to nor are the same thing.
Yeah. What you said.
Wasn't Jeffrey Epstein on trial for sex trafficking? Because stripping away all the fuss, he was running a prostitution ring. He certainly wasn't the only pimp using underage girls.
They've just inflated the terms.
I get your point. I understand that you are repeating the generally accepted reason for the new terminology. Eh.
I have no idea who is making sex trafficking the new prostitution. I've not seen anyone but you do that. It definitely isn't the "cool" way to refer to prostitution.
No, it's the scary, "this is a widespread problem" way to refer to prostitution.
I don't care about this subject in the slightest, and educationrealist above may well be correct in their analysis of what's actually going on here.
However I do think it shows something of the intellectual incoherence of identity politics that this is even a cause for outrage. There's something deeply weird about insisting that male vs female behavior is absolutely, 100%, malleable, and that parents, society, and teachers are all correct is molding that behavior as they deem appropriates BUT at the same time, sexual choice is 100% non-malleable, and no-one should be making any attempt to affect it in any way.
This matters in that identity politics is both a set of ethical ideals and a political movement. But every time there is this sort of extreme insistence on intellectual incoherence, both the smartest people in society (the ones who live for philosophical coherence) and the most street-savvy segments of society can see the issue a mile away. And at some point you become a Fundamentalist, insisting on the Earth rotating around the Sun, or the non-existence of Evolution, because you've yoked your ETHICAL program to a set of absolutely non-contestable (but, unfortunately, empirically or logically testable) statements, and will brook no opposition.
Fundamentalists generally have a good run for a generation or two, but beyond that have to retreat to a few obsessives; mass society generally can't tolerate these blatant contradictions for too long. Eventually the ethics will go down along with the non-contestable statements.
Aaand, if you can cite actual examples of actual persons insisting on these, please do, otherwise, I will assume that this is a straw-person argument. I suppose straw persons are hermaphrodites, like the plants that we use for straw ….
OK, let's examine this claim.
ARe you willing to concede that men and women are (considered as groups, individuals may be different, blah, blah) born with different strengths, talents, and weaknesses?
(a) what are examples of these innate differences?
(b) if such innate differences exist, then how can one argue, *merely* from the low number of women in a particular field, for example STEM, that this proves some sort of bias in the field? In other words, why was Larry Summers crucified?
a) They do, b) They don't. This has been yet another edition of simple answers to stupid questions.
Now FOAD, troll.
For someone who doesn't care about this you sure wrote a lot of words about it. And those words don't really make any sense by the way.
One can care about the form in which an argument is presented, while caring little for the content of the argument.
At least one can if one is capable of abstract thinking; but of course that's a skill limited to a very small fraction of the population.
Nothing about 'Christian grooming', or 'church grooming', or 'conservative grooming'?
Nothing about their hate and home-school academies, and their disablement-focused education camps?
LOL
The whole "gay grooming" thing is stupid and repulsive. Luckily, it also appears to have no legs. With any luck it will go away soon.
Whew. The gay community is breathing easier on that news, I'm sure.
Except Don't Say Gay is now Florida law, so maybe things this week are not looking so bright after all. Not to mention, at least a dozen other states are in various stages of passing anti-LGBTQ legislation.
Sorry, but I find this whole discussion rather bizarre, starting with the idea that gay grooming and dog grooming are two things that ought to be compared -- and graphed? Did the editor go on vacation and leave the cats in charge?
Have you read the “Don’t Say Gay” Bill? If so, where in it does it say “don’t say gay” or anything close to it. If not, I’d suggest you do so.
“ n their attempts to deny that the legislation will have its precise intended effect, Republicans have insisted that it will merely protect children from lewd material and abuse. Critics of the bill are “in favor of injecting sexual instruction to 5-, 6- and 7-year-old kids,” DeSantis said. Pushaw has said the bill merely prohibits kids from being “exposed to sexually inappropriate content”; she accuses any opponent of being “a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.” Dennis Baxley, who sponsored the bill in the state senate, has said that being queer or trans is a “trend” that teachers are encouraging through “social engineering” and “sexual-type discussions.””
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republicans-mad-dont-say-gay-bill.html
Just because the law doesn’t explicitly say “Don’t Say Gay” doesn’t mean that that’s not the intended effect.
Why should public school personnel discuss sexual matters of any kind with children under the age of eight?
I’m not interested in the reasons and stupid logic of the bill’s supporters. I’m interested in what the bill actually does as written and passed. Eliminating sexual discussions in public schools through the third grade and then requiring such discussions in later grades be age appropriate shouldn’t be an issue for anybody.
No one is suggesting 3rd graders learn about gay or straight sex you twit. This bill doesn't even let teachers acknowledge gay people exist.
That’s not what it says.
Do you also think that The GQP introduced laws to eliminate voter fraud aren’t actually attempts to make it more difficult to vote for people who traditionally vote Democrat? Do you think they are honest attempts to eliminate voter fraud? Where in those laws does it say they are trying to keep democrats from voting?
If you’d like to discuss this on a case-by-case basis tell me which state’s legislation you want to start with. I’m not interested in a generalized discussion that is primarily fed by a propaganda campaign.
A kid says "my parents are gay", another kid asks "what's gay?" another says "my parents say they are the devil"?, and so on.
If a teacher tries to answer any of it, they'd be discussing gender orientation, which is a topic explicitly prohibited in the text of the law, which opens them to litigation if anyone thinks the manner in which we they explain things does not conform to some non age appropriate abstract standard.
An underpaid and overworked teacher would probably think:
"Gee, do I want to cross this minefield that could potentially cost me my job and land me in court with unbearable legal fees if I answer in a way that some parent might think is promoting gays, or is not perfectly in line with some abstract guideline, or do I better shut up, ask them to be quiet, and move on pretending the question was never asked?"
The intent of the bill is the latter, to pretend that LGBTQ+ people don't exist and that if you don't acknowledge that existence in schools, miraculously no one in the school will identify as one.
Read the bill. It prohibits classroom instruction on sexual identity and gender identity through third grade. It does not prohibit teachers from acknowledging gay people exist.
Why don't you actually post the parts of 'the bill' you are referring to in order to back up your contentions? Or is that too much to ask?
In any event, are you aware that your third sentence contradicts your second? Spouting a constant stream of inconsistencies is no way to go through life, son.
Only if you think the only thing teachers do is engage in classroom instruction. My memory is that teachers do a lot more than that. Maybe your experience was different.
You're not going to quote the part of the bill that supports your interpretation of it, are you, troll?
But go ahead, tell me how you define 'gay' without talking about sexual orientation. This ought to be good.
And for the record, troll? I have _very_ little patience with people who pretend to information/expertise they don't have, and you're quite thoroughly busted.
Ummm … I provided the exact language at issue in another comment. Keep reading.
Umm, try reading all the comments, troll. I just pointed out that you didn't.
“ Eliminating sexual discussions in public schools through the third grade and then requiring such discussions in later grades be age appropriate shouldn’t be an issue for anybody.”
Is this to say that you think teachers are currently having sexual discussions with children third grade and under and you believe they should be eliminated? Because I’ve seen no evidence of such discussions.
Who is deciding what “age appropriate” means? Particularly with the threat of a lawsuit if you cross an imaginary line, do you want to be a high school teacher who even broaches the subject? Best not to mention it at all.
Well, you kind of make my point for me. Thank you. If that instruction isn’t happening at those age levels, what’s the noise about?
Since it’s not happening why make a law in the first place? Why not make laws “eliminating” time travel?
The right wing have proven themselves adept at obscuring their true intent in laws they write. But they say what their intent is to their constituents so there is no doubt. But when a Democrat points out what the true intent of the bill/law is the Republicans point to the text and say “where does it explicitly say that”. They know what it means and they know what it will do. It is exactly the same with their so called “voter fraud” bills.
It's happening because DeSantis is whipping up support for his 2024 run. He's correctly calculated that Trump is out and his primary challengers are far right crazies. The GOP primary for 2024 is shaping up to be a spectacle for the ages.
I'm not sure he's "correctly calculated Trump is out.
I think more likely is: he's calculated Trump MAY be out or MAY not run or MAY be vulnerable.
But you're right that this law is about DeSantis's efforts to lock down the base for a run at the nomination. He plays the MSM as well as Trump does. Maybe better, because he seems to have more discipline.
One could say the same thing about hate crime legislation. Hate crime prosecutions are remarkably rare (about 100 a year), in part because it's very difficult to prove the motivations for a person's behavior.
But society deems it important to have hate crimes so as to send a message about what society believes to be important ethical principles. The same is true of, eg, anti-bestiality or anti-incest legislation which likewise result in few prosecutions.
In other words, one answer to the question "why make it a law" is to send a signal that this is something society (or at least Florida) considers important even if it is rare.
Now, you are welcome to dispute Florida's belief; to claim that, no, teachers should be discussing sex with children. But your claim that laws exist only to cover "common" misbehavior is not true, and I suspect that if you change it to "laws *should* exist only to cover *common* misbehavior" you'll be upset at many of the laws that then disappear.
it's not just k-3. the bill says discussions of "sexual matters" should be "age appropriate" and allows parents to sue if they believe the law is being violated. the problem of course is interpretation of "age appropriate." if you don't think that might have a chilling effect on teachers you are extraordinarily naive.
It allows for classroom instruction (I mistakenly initially referred to “discussions” when the bill actually is limited to “instruction.” I think there is a difference between the two. And I have no problem with limiting such instruction on the basis of being age appropriate. Isn’t that the foundation of all instruction?
Oops ... typo in that one ... it "prohibits" classroom instruction.
assuming you're right, so does the teacher not allow discussion during instruction? what does said teacher do in case a student has a question? does he or she do a stonewall jackson? if you're not aware, jackson was an instructor at vmi before the civil war. if a student had a question, jackson would go back and repeat his words verbatim, not expound, not expand, not clarify. just repeat word for word what he had already said. is that what a teacher is going to have to do or his he or her going to risk his or her job by going off script in order to make his or her point clear? the intent is to chill.
If a six-year-old asks a question during instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity, I see no problem with the teacher suggesting he or she can discuss the question/ issue with the student after school or something like that. Again, I really don’t understand how sexual orientation or gender identity are relevant topics for classroom instruction for children that age.
"I see no problem with the teacher suggesting he or she can discuss the question/ issue with the student after school or something like that."
So the instead of commonly calling the bill "Don't say gay" it should be called "Don't say gay in class"? Like that is any better. Because that is precisely what you just described. If a student asks "Teacher why does Jimmy have two moms?" or "Lucy said her parents were gay, what is that?" your suggested response is to stonewall and delay any discussion on the topic, and singling out children of gay parents by not openly talking about their family in class.
I have what is apparently an odd perspective. Teachers should teach. Classroom time should be spent on instruction. I met far too many teachers while my kids were in school who I wouldn’t want touching these kinds of issues with kids to believe teachers are the right people for these kinds of discussions.
It was kept intentionally vague; any sort of more specific guidelines from the state ed. dept. are at least months away, and who knows how those will help/hurt. Meanwhile, parents can sue for even the most baseless accusations -- a teacher says "gay" or "my husband" (for men), or says gay or trans people shouldn't be bullied, or that a teacher doesn't report to the district when a child idly mentions liking girls/boys, etc. really all the way through high school -- and immediately has standing for monetary rewards and can recover court fees, using the same mechanism as the Texas abortion bounty system. It's meant to silence any sort of of air of tolerance or humanizing of gay/trans people. If you haven't guessed by now that the GOP doesn't really care about children, it kinda shows you're jntentionally ifnoring it. I mean' did YOU even read it?
Of course it was kept purposely vague. And that's precisely why the midget won't quote the bits that supposedly back up his interpretation of it.
Here you go ... tell me what is controversial or wrong about this.
Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
The prohibition is limited to "classroom instruction" so it does not cover any and all discussions involving sexual orientation and gender identity and also does not cover school personnel who are not involved in instruction. So ... counselors, nurses, librarians, principals, and the school janitor could discuss these matters without fear of litigation. I don't see any reason why classroom instruction needs to include gender identity and sexual orientation through third grade. And have no issue with the instruction in later grades being limited to age appropriate and developmentally appropriate standards. As I said in another comment, all instruction is supposed to be age appropriate and developmentally appropriate. This is not a new concept.
IOW, it doesn't say what you say it does. Busted, troll.
How about you do something that isn’t troll-like and tell me what you think it says? I’ve stated repetitively what I think it says and why I don’t think it’s an issue. Meanwhile, all you’ve said is that I’m a troll. Share with me the specifics of how I’m wrong. Or you’re the troll.
Understand, I don’t expect you to actually do that. When I occasionally comment here contrary to the progressive orthodoxy, you typically show up with the exact same approach. I’m just a troll. And you never, ever offer a substantive response. Again, try not to be so predictable and incapable.
"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards." says exactly what people have been saying it does, not you numpty ball-bag. So no, you haven't supported your assertion. Care to try again.
I don’t see an issue with that language. What’s your issue with it?
It doesn’t prohibit teachers from saying gay, except during instruction. It doesn’t prohibit any other school personnel from saying gay. It prohibits instruction time for children eight and under from being spent on gender identity and sexual orientation while requiring it to be age appropriate and developmentally appropriate for older kids.
What specifically about that offends you?
Isn’t all instruction supposed to be age and developmentally appropriate? If so, the second half of that provision can’t be viewed as a problem. So, that leaves the first part. I’m still waiting for somebody to explain why sexual orientation and gender identity must be included in classroom instruction for children eight and under. Can you?
"tell me what is controversial or wrong about this."
That what constitutes classroom instruction is not defined anywhere in the law or Dept of Education materials. Is anything said within the classroom considered instruction or not? Some classes and other school activities take place outside a classroom, are those considered "classroom instruction" simply by not being constrained by the usual 4 walls? If a person needs to hire a lawyer to clarify that, and even if clarified they may end up in court because someone else took a different interpretation, it won't matter how likely an outcome in their favor is, most teachers and schools would rather self censor and simply stop any mention of the topic all together rather than risk a lawsuit.
Your objection then is to how laws are written.
I'm not talking about laws in general, I'm talking about this particular law.
So, what does it constitute "Classroom instruction" according to this law?
If you can't answer that, then what does it constitute according to Florida's Dept of Education?
And if you can't define that, then what does it mean according to your own definition?
Which again brings forth the issue I've been trying to explain, if people have to go to the third question to provide an answer, and that answer is not always the same, it means that teachers and schools are risking lawsuits if they talk about the topic in any capacity or form. Hence why the law is referred as "Don't say gay", which is how this entire back and forth started.
I spent a small amount of time trying to find if that phrase is defined in Florida and couldn’t find anything. But my search was far from complete. It may be buried in regulations somewhere that my search didn’t reach.
As for me, classroom instruction is instruction tied to the curriculum. Doesn’t always happen inside a classroom because of field trips and other outside activities that revolve around the curriculum.
A critical piece that you’re ignoring is that the original version of the bill referenced discussions rather than instruction. I think that change is critical and narrows the prohibition and the change can be used in litigation to combat spurious claims. It’s a meaningful piece of legislative history.
Come on, this is pure right wing gotcha style questioning. No, the bill doesn't specifically say "Don't say gay", but that is the public name that particular bill has received, because that is what some of the provisions included in it would amount to, and the intent behind them.
These are the two main provisions in the bill that allude to the "Don't say gay" moniker.
"prohibiting a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about specified information or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information;"
This means that if a student has questions about his or her sexuality (either in how they identify themselves, or who they are attracted to) and wants to talk to a counselor, teacher, or any school staff to get some advice because they don't feel comfortable talking to their parents, the school has to notify the parents about that discussion even if the student would rather keep things private for the time being. This is basically telling kids to stay in the closet and don't discuss this with anyone who might be able to help. School staff and parents are the two most likely sources of guidance for minors, and if they feel they can't approach the latter with the issue for whatever reason, now they won't be able to approach the former either.
"prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner; "
This is literally saying that these topics can't be discussed in classrooms, and intentionally leaves vague the "specified manner", which only serves to instill fear in teachers about these topics in their entirety. So if for example a kids asks why his friend has two dads or two moms, the teacher can try to answer and hope no one complains (since there is no clear or standard specified manner), or they can avoid an answer entirely (which is the intent of the law) lest they want to open themselves to job penalties and likely litigation if some bigoted parent complains about "indoctrination" or "grooming".
You’re reading somebody’s summary of the bill. Not the actual language itself. The prohibition on discussing sexual matters ends after the third grade. I see nothing wrong with that prohibition and am not sure why anybody would encourage or support such discussions in public schools with that age group.
Let me know when you’ve read the actual bill itself.
That's not the summary of the bill, I literally copy pasted it from the Florida Government website.
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
If you'd actually read the bill yourself, you'd know that's where I got it from. Good to know you are complaining about stuff you haven't rea yourself.
That’s a summary of the bill and not the bill text itself. I’ve read the actual bill text multiple times in the past few weeks. You haven’t.
Lines 11-16 of the actual bill.
"prohibiting a school district from adopting procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about specified information or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information;"
Lines 21-23
"prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner; "
If you'd read it multiple times you'd know it was actual text from the bill, not "somebody’s summary of the bill"
You’re still reading from the summary and not the actual text of the bill. If you read the actual text, you’ll see that it prohibits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity through third grade. Not classroom “discussion.”
Let me know when you figure out how to identify the difference between non-operative bill summary and actual bill text.
The summary you refer to is the preamble of the bill, which is often used to interpret what the specific statues in the bill mean, when they are written in a vaguely way. Since the word "instruction" is itself open to interpretation.
Is instruction only the stuff related to the prepared class materials, or does it include anything the teacher says in the classroom?
If the day's topic is say "addition by twos" because that is what the approved curriculum says and what the teacher prepared, is anything else said not related to that instruction? For example if a kid asks about subtractions and the teacher answers. Is that instruction response instruction or not?
Any lawyer worth its salt representing a bigoted parent, would argue that the preamble of the bill includes both the terms instruction and discussion, and thus the intent of the law is to prohibit both. Even if eventually a court were to side against that interpretation, the mere risk of having to go through that ordeal will make teachers just shut up entirely.
When you figure out why that matters you let me know.
The preamble, as you describe it, does not accurately reflect the contents of the bill as passed and signed by the Governor. Here's an example ... the preamble says that classroom discussions regarding sexual orientation and gender identity in primary grade levels are prohibited. Well, if you look at the bill as originally introduced (https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/Filed/PDF), that summary is accurate.
But, move ahead a few weeks and look at the version as passed and signed into law, the preamble still refers to "classroom discussion" but the actual bill text refers to "classroom instruction." Somebody recognized the difference between the two and recognized that "discussion" was too broad. In your example of kids discussing gay parents, as long as not a part of classroom instruction, the teacher would be able to discuss the situation with those kids. A simple discussion is not prohibited by the passed version of the bill, regardless of what the non-binding preamble says.
You are right that a preamble constitutes legislative history that could be used to define vague terms in the context of litigation and that an attorney for a bigoted parent might make that argument. However, the counter-argument, which is more powerful and should prevail is that while the preamble remained unchanged, the text of the bill itself did change (as described above) and that change has meaning that isn't reflected in the preamble. And that meaning is that the Legislature chose to narrow the prohibition from a discussion (which I agree comes very close to an outright prohibition of the topic) to instruction, which does not cover every element of a teacher's interactions with students. And it certainly doesn't cover other school personnel who aren't involved in active instruction.
Chuckle. "The Preamble to the Consitution is 'just a summary'". Yeah, you go with that, lazy troll. No, you don't get to appoint yourself Humpty-Dumpty. Though the fact that you're trying to get people to buy into that implicitly doesn't speak much for either your chops or your ethics.
Sorry for replying here to your other comment. WP doesn't allow more replies past a certain number of them.
"However, the counter-argument, which is more powerful and should prevail is that while the preamble remained unchanged,....."
This is the problem. Regardless of which way the argument goes, the law's language is vague enough that a final interpretation will require a court to decide when/if a teacher or school is in the wrong after a parent decides to sue.
Teachers and schools will rather shut up entirely rather than risk potential lawsuits, simply because going through them, means spending money and time they probably don't have, not to mention the added stress involved in the ordeal.
"And it certainly doesn't cover other school personnel who aren't involved in active instruction."
Same thing I mentioned above. What is "active instruction"? When any school personnel tells a student not to throw garbage on the floor at lunch time, is that considered active instruction? Is a nurse explaining anything to a student at the infirmary or anywhere else on school providing active instruction?
Depending on the definition or interpretation one uses "instruction" can mean almost anything any school staff says, and that is the problem with the vagueness of the law.
It does include that prohibition but also includes an exception that covers the reasons children may be unwilling to share such info with their parents. You apparently don’t think parents have a right to know what is going on with their children. I do except where the child’s interests aren’t served. This bill address that.
You apparently think that a small set of parents get to determine the classroom curribulum and bounds of discussion, you mean.
That's how you know you're dealing with a troll -- they don't talk straight when you actually try to pin them down. You do realize most of us here have advanced degrees, don't you? And some of us, for that matter, have taught at the college level for literally decades 😉
Do you believe that classroom instruction for children eight or younger should include gender identity and sexual orientation? If so, why?
You first - tell me why you think a small subset of all parents get to determine the curriculum and boundaries of discussion.
I mean, really? "I won't answer your questions but you have to answer mine" is the mark of a troll whose rhetorical chops have been in the deep freeze since the early nineties.
I’ve answered many of your questions and responded substantively your your comments and others. You asked me to provide the actual language I was referring to. I did. I explained what it said and then asked what was wrong with it. Your turn.
Blink. No, you haven't answered any of my questions. Prove your good faith by answering the one I just asked. Do that, and I'll promise I'll answer yours. Until then you get bupkis, troll.
By the way ... you seem to think that the Preamble to the Constitution and the "preamble" to the "don't say gay bill" are somehow comparable. Or something. You might be interested in knowing that the Preamble was never meant by the Founders to have the force of law. And at least according to one source, no court has cited it as controlling legal authority. Meanwhile, there is the Constitution and there is state statute. In the instance of this Florida bill, the preamble is a summary of the bill's text. Noticeably, it is only after the preamble that the bill says "Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida" meaning that it is the words that follow that phrase that are the actual law. But since you're so smart, you probably knew that, right?
Regarding the first “prohibition” you mention the bill allows for an exception where there are circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that sharing info with the parent or guardian might lead to abuse, neglect, etc. Given that exception what’s the issue?
Are this like the reasonable fears a person might feel before they decide to shoot someone in self defense? (Because we know in Florida those can mean almost anything)
The problem of such vague wording is that it means nothing and everything at the same time in practice.
Unless the school staff has a deep and corroborated knowledge of the family and their behaviors, how would a reasonable person believe that sharing that information might lead to abuse, neglect, etc. if all they have is a kid telling them "please don't tell my parents because they won't understand me"? Which is what they'll have to go on most of the time. Would a teacher risk legal action against them with just that? What if the kid says "they'll throw me to the street if they find out". Is that reasonable enough, or is the kid perhaps exaggerating things?
Taking your perspective, we should just not make laws anymore and delete all existing laws since they are filled with vague terms that reasonable minds can disagree about.
No, that is your reductionist nonsense. Laws can be written in a clear and specific manner when they are supposed to address a specific problem, or in a vague way open to interpretation either due to incompetency or to intentionally make life harder for some under the pretense of solving an abstract problem that may not even exist, as seems to be the case here.
Yes. The Legislature in Florida passed a bill that is ultimately meaningless in the real world to play to their base. And progressives screaming bloody murder over a meaningless piece of legislation have played right into their hands. Good job.
Do you care even care about being consistent within the same thread?
You go ahead and feel free to not play by the rules of rhetoric/logic/discourse.
And the rest of us will free to ignore you for the untalented and above all (You know what gets me about trolls these days? they're so goddamn unoriginal), lazy.
Once again … just accusations without substantiation and no willingness to actually engage in the substantive discussion in play.
Why do you think you get to decide what other people's judgement of you have to be?
Yep, troll, subtype Humpty Dumpty.
Not sure how you think this inconsistent with anything else I’ve said here. My consistent point has been that the noise about this bill is much ado about nothing. How are your reading compression skills?
It's meaningless in the sense that it wasn't created to address any real problem, but it is not meaningless in its intended effect, which is to instill fear of litigation in schools and teachers if they try to acknowledge or recognize that not everyone is straight, or if they don't out non-straight kids to their parents.
Troll harder, please.
Yes. I get it. I don't buy in on your orthodoxy 110% so I must be a troll. Try to be a little less predictable than the right-wing idiots I usually argue with and get called a troll. I note that you haven't offered a single substantive comment in this thread. Who is the real troll?
No, you're a troll because you don't know how to argue and you don't follow the rules of discourse.
You also appear to be more than a little bit dull ... especially if you claim you don't know what the rules are.
It's been a long time since I've been in school, but the teachers and counselors I remember are the last people I'd ever have asked about any such thing.
Good thing we didn't have a Don't Say Gay law in my suburban Boston high school back in the 80s. The entire senior class would've been thrown in jail.
This argument is at least as old as Anita Bryant. The problem for the bigots is that most straight people in America these days probably know a gay person in their family or at work and understand this isn't how it works. Heck, a lot of people probably know or have met a trans person and not one has a story that goes "I was entirely straight/cis until my 3rd grade English teacher, Mr. Limpwrist, read me "Why Johnny Wears A Dress" and introduced me to his rainbow filled den of depravity and gender fluidity and I never looked back." A more likely scenario is that "I was mercilessly bullied and persecuted for not acting like enough of a boy and considered killing myself until I found a book about people who felt like I did and who did cool stuff and helped me understand who I was."
These don't say gay laws will result in queer kids dying. And, indeed, for the legislators that write them, that's probably a feature not a bug.
Is this an ahead of schedule April Fool's article, because any person with an IQ above room temperature should be aware that google trends merely counts how often a specific word or in this case two words are used in google searches or other web media google quantifies, but they by no means represent the actual real life actions (like the myriad "don't say gay" laws, anti-trans laws, etc., being passed or in the process of being passed in Red States.
This, and it also doesn't reveal anything about *why* people are googling the term. Is it because they think is sounds horrible and want to learn more? Or because they want to find organizations that are fighting back against it? Or because they think it might actually refer to hair styling and personal hygiene and we all know those Queer Eye guys are all pretty sharp-looking, etc.? So it gages "interest" in a term, not necessarily whether its viewed favorably or unfavorably. I'm sure "Putin" is trending well now, too, but not because people are supportive.
Gonna give a bit of a contrarian take here:
I’m not a lunatic who thinks that kids are “groomed to be gay”, but like all (ok, most) controversies there’s a kernel of truth there. I have a sizeable number of gay friends and acquaintances and it’s alarming talking with them and hearing about the circumstances of their first sexual encounters. It’s very common among my gay friends (mostly early to mid 20s) for a mid to early teens child to get involved with much older men. A somewhat-close friend was thirteen and lost his virginity to a early 30s man. Many others in the 13-15 range with experiences with adult men
This is anecdotal, and should probably be studied further, but I wish we could have a calm national discussion on how to prevent predation upon children in gay communities. I had thought it was a result of the stigma of being gay, and that it would go away as being gay became more accepted, but it’s persisted and is still doing damage to gay kids
As is, I feel like if I bring it up I’ll get attacked for “calling all gay people pedophiles” by the crazy left wingers and “not acknowledging that gay people are just mentally ill” by the crazy right wingers. The truth is I don’t care if a kid is gay cause that’s just how he was born but I don’t think sex with underage children should be normal in any community
Ok now feel free to tear me apart, but this is a sincerely held belief of mine
The Florida bill is dumb though. Most predation on children similar to what I described happens online, not at schools
>> A somewhat-close friend was thirteen and lost his virginity to a early 30s man. Many others in the 13-15 range with experiences with adult men<> I wish we could have a calm national discussion on how to prevent predation upon children <<
If you had left out “in gay communities” I would have agreed.
Formatting problems that were not there when I submitted my response. It also Left out a portion of my response. Very weird. The gist of my response is that you are saying things about the gay people that also apply to heterosexuals.
I saw your second response and I’m gonna reply here. No worries on the formatting, I keep screwing it up too
It appears more prevalent in the gay community than others, which is why I said that. Not saying the problem is nonexistent elsewhere, but more normalized among gay young men and boys and the people who prey upon them
Your response is sort of the obvious fallacious (is that a word? Autocorrect says yes so I’m rolling with it) response to when someone points out a disproportionality in outcome. Agreed that any level of child predation is bad, so let’s engage with communities that have the biggest problem with it and see what we can do
The problem with your point of view (aside from being anecdotal), is that you are assuming:
a) That it is significantly higher in the gay community than in the heterosexual one
b) This is the more problematic one in my opinion, that you assume it is normalized or condoned in this group.
Predators exists in all groups, and no group is ok with it nor sees it as normal.
“ It appears more prevalent in the gay community than others,”
I think you are wrong about that. Most of the women I have known have stories about adult males attempting to hit on them or force themselves on them when they were underage. Most of the newspaper stories I have seen regarding relationships with students and teachers in public schools involve male teachers and female students.
So why do you think "It appears more prevalent in the gay community than others." Given the seriousness of the accusation, I'm assuming that you've done extensive research on the subject and are willing to share the data -- cites, links, and quotes, of course -- that led you to this conclusion.
What do you mean by "appears" more prevalent in the gay community? Is there evidence of this?
Just because you believe something doesn't mean it isn't horsesh!t.
It would be interesting to know if there are differences in the home lives of young gay men who have predatory experiences vs those who don't.
Teens who are gay, trans, queer, etc are more likely to experience things like being kicked out of their parents' home, which makes them easier targets for predators. It doesn't take that many predators to rack up a ton of victims.
It may also simply be harder for gay teens to find each other (not everyone is out in their teens), meaning they end up seeking out older potential partners.
We also have a huge double standard when it comes to teen boys and sex. People are definitely more accepting of adult women initiating relationships with teenage boys than when adult men go after girls.
"Luckily, it also appears to have no legs. With any luck it will go away soon."
No it won't. There is a feedback loop of motivated slandering and salacious gossiping that will keep it alive.
Once gays came out as a community, the moral panic that has followed won't be able to put that genie back in the bottle. DeSantis and the rest know this and are cynically using the moral panic for political and monetary gain.
If fundamentalists were really serious about "gay grooming" they'd go back to hating on the Catholic Church. But since they have RC allies on the SCOTUS for their other big issues, they won't.
It’s DeSatan. Let’s just all agree now to refer to them that way.
Republicans don’t want to validate any name sex attraction in kids. Even though most gay folks know they are gay from an early age. You certainly don’t want to catch our Kids playing doctor! 😂
And this whole trans thing is even more frightening to them. It’s fine. Gay boys and girls know the score by 3rd grade anyway. They don’t need teachers to validate their feelings.
Gosh I hate my cracked iPad. It’s a typo machine!
Dems need to come up with catchy, immediately understandable phrases and slogans of their own. Words that instantly communicate in a graspable, seemingly obvious way. Surely there are folks in the lefty community who are thus capable? We sure haven't seen any lately, though.
Maybe "It's Okay to be Gay". Beyond that, I got nuthin'.
You give far too little credit to Fox News. They are pushing this "grooming" idea 24/7. I think we'll start hearing it from some of the loonier Republicans in Congress soon.
This is an utterly homophobic concept, and reflects that folks have no idea what it means to be gay.