I'm just looking at the bill [1]. It seems like a very straight forward reinforcement of a parents rights to oversee the education of their kids.
> any parent to sue to the teacher for mentioning basically anything involving sexual orientation
"prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
Presumably they can only sue if the teacher is going against whatever the normal standards are.
> little repercussions for a parent lying or embellishing
I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
> homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children
Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
> "prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
I'm not 100% sure what that means though. What if a kid draws a picture of his two dads or two moms; does the teacher just not allow him to present to the class because that might lead to a discussion of sexuality? It's not clear, and as a result it will probably lead to "othering" of gay parents.
> I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
Yes, but then (I believe) it's up to the school to actively countersue to retrieve legal fees for a frivolous lawsuit. Again, it's not really clear.
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation. I don't know enough about how laws are written to know if this standard or not.
This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse (which i don't agree with) that the only reason people would object to this is because they must be groomers. Seems like it was the law first and then this "groomer" thing.
> So I guess the main issue is that it is not specific enough and is open to interpretation.
It's open to interpretation, but in some cases it's actually more bluntly horrible. For example, it seems like conservatives are clutching their pearls about the possibility of a math problem mentioning two moms [1].
From the article:
> The legislation could also impact how teachers provide instruction on a day-to-day basis. At a Senate hearing on Feb. 8, Republican Sen. Travis Hutson gave the example of a math problem that includes the details that “Sally has two moms or Johnny has two dads.” Republican State Sen. Dennis Baxley, who sponsors the bill in the Senate, said that is “exactly” what the bill aims to prevent.
This seems to imply that my fears of othering of gay families is founded.
> This is what I was trying to say, the law was written, and then when people objected there began a discourse
I feel like the LGBT grooming conspiracies have been around for a long time. There are 50's era PSAs about how gays will show your kids porn and then try and molest them [2]. I don't think these sentiments ever really went away, at least not completely.
In more recent history I don't know if the "gays are trying to groom your kids" came before or after the bill.
> Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
Consider how much work you're doing to ignore the right's own self-proclaimed objectives and orientation in service of false lofty neutrality. Here is a tweet[1] from Desantis's press secretary on 2022-03-04:
> The bill that liberals inaccurately call “Don’t Say Gay” would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.
The bill was first filed on 2022-01-11 and signed on 2022-03-28.[2]
> It seems like a very straight forward reinforcement of a parents rights to oversee the education of their kids.
These bills are written precisely to allow people like you to draw this conclusion.
> any parent to sue to the teacher for mentioning basically anything involving sexual orientation
"prohibiting a school district from encouraging classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in primary grade levels or in a specified manner. ..... to adhere to standards developed by the department of education."
Presumably they can only sue if the teacher is going against whatever the normal standards are.
> little repercussions for a parent lying or embellishing
I don't know what you mean here, but presumably if the parents take a teacher to court and lose (because they lied/embellished) they would have just wasted their legal fees.
> homophobic conspiracy about gay people all being out to groom your children
Not sure about this. I think the bill came out before the whole groomer thing.
[1] https://www.scribd.com/document/559840370/House-Bill-1557-Do...