Just posting to agree, and in the real world I think most people do. I don't agree with the bill because this kind of heavy handed approach is just and escalation and doesn't solve anything. But it is an escalation, it's not like the bill has come out of nowhere, and I can understand why there would be immense public pressure to shield young kids from the ideological battle (and mostly trolling as I've said many times) that is going on.
I think objective sexual education is not only under attack by religious reservations anymore, there are also ideological elements.
Having two dads is not normal. It is ok and it is nobodies business to judge it. But there is a difference and it obviously does not align with biological realities.
So some people (not just the kids, they tend to not judge on these topics) need to accept realities that are not the usual case. Not being the the normal case is nothing intrinsically objectionable. But it is irrefutable that procreation between two men is not possible and it is not objectionable to teach that. On the contrary you would just obscure education like religious elements tried before.
> We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday.
Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
They also wore dresses, typically blue I believe.
As always, the people butthurt and complaining know literally nothing about what they speak.
>> This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday. Leave the kids alone.
> Something like 200 or less years ago boys were called girls until they went through puberty (or close to puberty) - speaking of puritanical England that is. Not sure about the rest of the world/continents.
The way you state that invites an anachronistic misunderstanding: it appears back then "girl" was a gender-neutral term for child:
> Nor have boys always even been called boys. Until the late 15th century the word ‘girl’ simply means a child of either sex. Boys, where they had to be differentiated, were referred to as ‘knave girls’ and girls in the female sense were called ‘gay girls’. Equally a boy could be a ‘knave child’ and a girl a ‘maiden child’.
> This is a deranged and nonsensical response. We all knew what boys and girls where until yesterday.
It is, in fact, a fundamental disagreement on this point (and a desire to impose one view on it by state power with the pretense of neutrality) that is (a major part of) the fundamental motivation for the bill.
It's more just an advancement on English really. Gendered terms aren't really useful. Especially with most written English being online now where no gender is known, it just becomes natural to use a non gendered term in all cases.
If you're thinking this would be a win for the D's then you're not thinking about the PR win it would give to the R's. Especially with Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine.
> 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.
I don't think "referring to" someone could be properly understood as "classroom instruction," unless those words are willfully misinterpreted to mean "anything done or said by a teacher in a classroom."
