Don't say gay -- oops!

[Loren Pechtel]

They were careful to keep the law neutral.

Don't say straight, either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/04/15/florida-dont-say-gay-says-dont-say-straight-too/

I've been waiting for a blue state to make something as obnoxious as SB8 to give SCOTUS something they would hate to approve, but it looks like Florida has inadvertently obliged.

 

[Trausti]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

The right is trying to use this against things like examples that have two same-gender names as an apparent couple. Oops, it also works against things which use two opposite-gender names as an apparent couple.

Can't do gender identity--which means you can't direct them to the right bathroom.

 

[Metaphor]

Can't do gender identity--which means you can't direct them to the right bathroom.

What on god's green earth are you talking about?

You direct males to the male bathroom and females to the female bathroom, if they need such direction. Those are the correct bathrooms and they have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

[JohnG]

There is nothing in the law that says you can't say gay. It explicitly says “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3.”

You just cant identify anyone as Mr, or Mrs, or identify anyone as a boy or girl. That's all. Perfectly normal stuff.

Carry on

 

[Gospel]

Folks who think this law protects their children will only see this issue of not doing anything gender-related as an attack on their principles instead of an indication that the law is written poorly.

They're just too stupid to see it. It's hopeless.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is nothing in the law that says you can't say gay. It explicitly says “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3.”

That pretty much means they "can't say gay". That was implied with the issue on "sexual orientation".

 

[SLD]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

I actually agree. Sexuality shouldn’t be discussed at all in K-3. Gay, straight, whatever.

But that’s not the real reason behind this bill. It’s just another attempt to rally the base. The bill simply isn’t necessary. Thus they are trying to simply get homophobic people to rally at the polls in November. The Democratic response has been pathetic. They keep playing along with these games. By fighting these things head on, they are keeping the issue in the news and virtually guaranteeing a large conservative voter turnout. Hillary Clinton lost North Carolina because some doofus made a big deal about a transgender bathroom, when there was no need for that shit in an election year.

The Democrats need to focus on winning elections, not fighting issues.

 

[Politesse]

Folks who think this law protects their children will only see this issue of not doing anything gender-related as an attack on their principles instead of an indication that the law is written poorly.

They're just too stupid to see it. It's hopeless.

They no doubt think "that's not what we meant it to do" is a reasonable defense.

Luckily the court system must rule on slightly more substantive grounds.

 

[Bronzeage]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

Would this be all teachers, or just those of which you approve?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Folks who think this law protects their children will only see this issue of not doing anything gender-related as an attack on their principles instead of an indication that the law is written poorly.

They're just too stupid to see it. It's hopeless.

They no doubt think "that's not what we meant it to do" is a reasonable defense.

Luckily the court system must rule on slightly more substantive grounds.

Right-wing conservative judges have shown that simply isn't the case anymore.

 

[TomC]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

Would this be all teachers, or just those of which you approve?

All teachers.
It's one thing to describe your partner or something. But Mr Johnson saying that he's married to Joe isn't the same as discussing his sex life.
Similarly, I don't think that heterosexual teachers should be discussing their sex lives.

None of this has anything to do with sex lives. "I'm married to Joe" isn't a different statement coming from Mary as opposed to William.
Tom

 

[Bronzeage]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

Would this be all teachers, or just those of which you approve?

All teachers.
It's one thing to describe your partner or something. But Mr Johnson saying that he's married to Joe isn't the same as discussing his sex life.
Similarly, I don't think that heterosexual teachers should be discussing their sex lives.

None of this has anything to do with sex lives. "I'm married to Joe isn't a different statement coming from Mary as opposed to William.
Tom

That's pretty much the situation I recall from my school days, but the devil has been detailed. What does "discussing their sex lives" mean. If I meet a man and a woman who tell me they are legally married and have children, it implies they have had sex with each other at some time. If a couple says, "We're want to have a baby in the next year," that's pretty much a gold plated confession to carnal knowledge.

It's easy enough for sensible people to handle this sort of thing in social situations, but we're trying to write a legal statute that accounts for all foreseeable conditions. If "discussing their sex lives" is to be a crime, it needs to be a well defined crime.

 

[Gospel]

Folks who think this law protects their children will only see this issue of not doing anything gender-related as an attack on their principles instead of an indication that the law is written poorly.

They're just too stupid to see it. It's hopeless.

They no doubt think "that's not what we meant it to do" is a reasonable defense.

Luckily the court system must rule on slightly more substantive grounds.

Right-wing conservative judges have shown that simply isn't the case anymore.

"I have as much faith in our courts as I do in god". ~token black guy~

 

[TomC]

"I have as much faith in our courts as I do in god". ~token black guy~

Did your wife give you permission to say that?
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Err, okay. So we're all in agreement that teachers should not be discussing their sex lives with children? We're there now, right?

Would this be all teachers, or just those of which you approve?

All teachers.
It's one thing to describe your partner or something. But Mr Johnson saying that he's married to Joe isn't the same as discussing his sex life.

It can be if someone wants it to be. Especially when we know that this has nothing to do with fear of children being exposed to tales of graphic sodomy in the classroom, put on a path for grooming into the pizzeria.

This is about preventing the normalization that gay people exist... and even worse... they be like most other people.

 

[Gospel]

Can't do gender identity--which means you can't direct them to the right bathroom.

What on god's green earth are you talking about?

You direct males to the male bathroom and females to the female bathroom, if they need such direction. Those are the correct bathrooms and they have nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity.

I agree with you on sexual orientation but gender identity? Do you not have a personal sense of your own gender? Well, the rules ban mentioning gender identity. They'll have to remove the boy's and girls' designation from the bathroom doors or eat a lawsuit. It's how the law is written.

 

[Gospel]

For example, let's say a human child who self-identifies as female needs to go to the bathroom. The school ushers the child to X bathroom marked with X label. The child says "that's not the right bathroom" and the teacher replies," yes it is. This bathroom marked for X is for X".

LAWSUIT!!! They just taught gender identity.

 

[southernhybrid]

The right wing nonsense or play book is to continually accuse Democrats of corrupting, grooming or trading children for sex. If anyone saw Jordon Klepper's piece on "The Daily Show" recently, where he interviewed idiots that attended CPAC, you would see a little evidence of this. One asshole was wearing a T-shirt that read, "Biden Loves Minors".Then they claimed that everything is Biden's fault from the war in Ukraine to the price of oil.

I saw a Democrat on MSNBC, who was running for a state Senate seat in one of the midwestern states who has been accused of "grooming children" for sex by her Republican opponent. The R party has become the party of easily manipulated idiots who actually believe that Democrats are a Cabal of evil people who use children for sex, especially gay sex. It's sickening.

The R party has become a dangerous threat to the. US, moving us along the road to authoritarianism. This stupid "don't say gay" law is. targeting children again, using them to try and demonize Democrats. When Democrats object to this insanity, their reply is that Democrats want to exploit children by discussing sex with them when they are very young. The Republicans don't actually care about these children. They just use them to add to their heinous claims about Democrats. If they cared about children, they would support more bills that aide families with children. This stupid law does nothing to protect children.

Sometimes ya gotta laugh because you can't make this shit up, but at the same time, it can be scary as hell, metaphorically speaking of course.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It went from the Southern Strategy to the QAnon Strategy... "Won't someone think of the children?!" Except in this case, the GOP is making some viler than average accusations that really need to be prosecuted.