New "don't say gay" bill in Florida

[Loren Pechtel]

When adults want to talk about sex with kids without their parents’ knowledge we call them groomers.

No we don't.
When educators teach the curriculum we call them teachers.

The damage done to young people by ignorance about sex is huge. Not just the queer kids, all of them. And frankly, parents are generally less qualified to teach sex than math or language skills. That's why we have professional teachers.
Tom

Teachers shouldn’t be interested in a student’s sexuality. If they are, they shouldn’t be a teacher.

This isn't about teachers being interested in a student's sexuality. It's about teachers telling the truth about sexuality and answering questions.

A simple comparison: I've had more than one infectious disease specialist ask me about travel. Do they actually care where I have been? No--they care what I may have picked up along the way. And they very much care where I was when a certain mosquito bit me. How or why I came to be there has never been asked. The last one even asked me to skip ahead to the "interesting places"--she only cared about where I might have picked up something exotic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Parents send their children to school for an education, not for the teacher push to a sexual agenda. That’s not the role of teachers.

You're the one trying to push an agenda.

I've got a clearly lesbian SIL but so in the closest about it I doubt she has ever admitted it to herself, let alone anyone else. Does that repression help anyone?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

only a parent can provide the guidance they need (if the parent(s) are available and capable).

I enlarged the part you missed.

This. Most of the basic sexuality stuff shouldn't be needed in school. TomC's story covers it quite well--but there are far too many parents who don't walk to talk about such things so the schools are picking up the slack.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Okay.

Again, it is often necessary for teachers to preserve the confidentiality of their students, even in regard to their own parents. Kids are not always ready to come out to their parents.

And that's fine, however, as a parent, I have to say that the child's well-being overrides school confidentiality as their well-being is ultimately our resonsibilty. If there is a capable parent available (like the one in the video) I don't see how things should get to the point where a parent almost loses their child to suicide before they find out.

But the teacher has no way to evaluate how the parents will react. Telling when they shouldn't have can very well lead to a dead kid.

Not all parents are incapable parents and to treat students of capable parents with the same level of confidentiality you'd treat students with incapable parents is a big mistake. Parents are very important to a student's development so removing them from the picture when it's unnecessary (which seems to be the case in the video) by default lowers the students' chances to succeed whether it's an academic, cognitive, or sexual success.

Who is more likely to be right about how the parents will react: the teacher or the student? While the student's judgment isn't going to be as good they have far more data to go on so I think they're more likely to get it right. Furthermore, the teacher has no way of even getting data without giving a hint of the situation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Primary grade levels in Florida (to my knowledge) are Preschool, and up to 4th grade. I don't see much of an issue with that restriction as sexuality is reasonably expected not to be a subject in school or home up to the age of ten. I also don't see B removing gender identity from the discussion, as it only restricts the manner in which it is taught depending on the age-appropriateness & relation to the student's development. I'm just apprehensive about how age and development appropriateness is determined.

Edit: Sorry didn't mean to reply to Don2

Consider TomC's conversation in this thread. That would be outlawed by this bill.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Okay.

Again, it is often necessary for teachers to preserve the confidentiality of their students, even in regard to their own parents. Kids are not always ready to come out to their parents.

And that's fine, however, as a parent, I have to say that the child's well-being overrides school confidentiality as their well-being is ultimately our resonsibilty. If there is a capable parent available (like the one in the video) I don't see how things should get to the point where a parent almost loses their child to suicide before they find out.

But the teacher has no way to evaluate how the parents will react. Telling when they shouldn't have can very well lead to a dead kid.

Not all parents are incapable parents and to treat students of capable parents with the same level of confidentiality you'd treat students with incapable parents is a big mistake. Parents are very important to a student's development so removing them from the picture when it's unnecessary (which seems to be the case in the video) by default lowers the students' chances to succeed whether it's an academic, cognitive, or sexual success.

Who is more likely to be right about how the parents will react: the teacher or the student? While the student's judgment isn't going to be as good they have far more data to go on so I think they're more likely to get it right. Furthermore, the teacher has no way of even getting data without giving a hint of the situation.

This is one reason why coming out needs to be in the hands of the person that is coming out, but the core reason why I am insistent about confidentiality is also a little more subtle than that.

Even if the consequences of outing somebody seem to be good, it's a violation of trust, and no amount of superficially good consequences can mend that broken trust. If a teacher outed a student to their parents, then that student probably would not tell the teacher, "I've also been cutting a lot, lately." When the trust is no longer there, how can you expect the student to feel comfortable sharing other sensitive details about their existence? If the teacher cannot be trusted to keep that student's confidence about their gender or sexuality, then the student is not likely to tell that teacher about serious risk factors for suicide until it's too late.

Teachers have training for how to deal with suicidal ideation. I don't know the details of that training. I don't know how it's done in teacher instruction. I am just pretty sure that this is likely to be something that is covered in teacher training.

@Rhea, if I understand your role in this conversation correctly, you have some kind of knowledge of pedagogy. Is that correct? I'm not sure how much training they give to classroom volunteers, but I wonder how much you gleaned from your experience.

From my point-of-view, one very important reason for preserving a student's confidentiality is that students are significantly more likely to share life-saving information if they know that their teacher would never share anything personal about them if there were not a medically important reason. I think that that could satisfy @Gospel's concerns in a nutshell. There is a huge difference between outing a gay or transgender student and telling a student's parents, "We need to talk about your kid's scars, or I am going to contact the authorities. The nurse has also been notified, and they are coming, too."

They are two different subjects. One is in the "student confidentiality" bucket, and the other is in the "medically significant information" bucket. One of the reasons why you preserve confidentiality (besides the fact that outing people is some seriously creepy shit to do) is so that, if the student trusts you NOT to share the information that is genuinely personal (questioning about their gender identity), the student might tell you the really important piece of information that could save that student's life.

In a way, confidentiality is important as an intelligence-gathering tool. By not sharing the stuff that you do not really have a right to take action on, you are more likely to get the stuff that you MUST take action on.

 

[Gospel]

There is such thing as keeping confidentiality about a student's sexuality and still informing parents of the dangers of self-harm. The school & third party can only do so much without the assistance of a parent. If they have a capable parent they damn sure better be utilizing that parent as it is the child's greatest chance of success to have a capable parent involved.

If the mom in that video's words are true it sounds to me like the school fucked up by not involving the parent in the self-harm prevention efforts.

 

[Gospel]

I seriously question the judgement and fitness to be a parent of anyone who would post such a video on the internet.

The upset parent in question wasn't the one who recorded or posted it (you'd be able to tell if you actually watched it).

 

[Jarhyn]

only a parent can provide the guidance they need (if the parent(s) are available and capable).

I enlarged the part you missed.

This. Most of the basic sexuality stuff shouldn't be needed in school. TomC's story covers it quite well--but there are far too many parents who don't walk to talk about such things so the schools are picking up the slack.

But that's just the thing:

Basic sexuality stuff is needed in school because while adults cannot, should not, will not be allowed in any reasonable world to participate in that, that IS an environment designed for them to learn those things safely and IS something they need to be educated about before they make horribly regrettable mistakes.

And because most parents are woefully equipped to do so, that falls primarily on the school system.

Broaching the topic is a matter for parents.

But what percentage of parents do you think is going to say "99% of adults with penises admit that they masturbate, and 98% of adults with vulvas admit that they masturbate, and about .5% of adults with penises lie about it, and about 1% of people with vulvas lie about it"?

Maybe 20%?

And that's "just the tip" as it were.

Honestly, most of it could be accomplished these days with a watch through "Big Mouth" but I don't see that happening any time soon in most households.

 

[TomC]

I seriously question the judgement and fitness to be a parent of anyone who would post such a video on the internet.

The upset parent in question wasn't the one who recorded or posted it (you'd be able to tell if you actually watched it).

OK. My device is limited and I rarely watch such videos. That does change my opinion about the people involved.

But it doesn't change this. It's more derail than discussing the OP. However badly that teacher handled that poor kid, it's an anecdotal outlier. It's not particularly relevant to the issue @SigmatheZeta brought up. What she's talking about is broad policy concerning sex ed. Teachers are humans and prone to bad judgement calls like everyone else. But being educated and licenced makes them far more reliable at developing an age appropriate curriculum on sex than random parents. What this bill appears to do is give the most ignorant and backwards parents veto power over the teaching tools and syllabus if they're willing to get shitty with the school.

That's a terrible idea, IMNSHO. So bad, in fact, that the most plausible explanation for it is political opportunism on the part of legislators.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

It's more derail than discussing the OP

Yup. My reply to that video was to Truasti to basically say it doesn't show what Truasti thought it does. The fallout afterward was my just trying to clarify that.

What this bill appears to do is give the most ignorant and backwards parents veto power over the teaching tools and syllabus if they're willing to get shitty with the school.

Seems that way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

only a parent can provide the guidance they need (if the parent(s) are available and capable).

I enlarged the part you missed.

This. Most of the basic sexuality stuff shouldn't be needed in school. TomC's story covers it quite well--but there are far too many parents who don't walk to talk about such things so the schools are picking up the slack.

There is no such thing as "basic sexuality stuff" other than penis and vagina identity... and most kids are aware of what they have.

The trouble with sexuality is it is far more than just biology. There is a heavy sociology proponent to it as well, especially relative to pressure online and in person, online safety, alcohol, date rape, abuse, etc... Most parents are ignorant or naive on some portion of this. Other parents are stigmatized and don't want to address it. And worse, some could have very negative takes on any portion such as LGBT.

Schools provide a path for a comprehensive and uniform education on sexuality, both biology and sociology.

Children at an early age need to be taught about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult.

Older children need to be taught more specifically about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult.

Even older children need to be taught even more specially about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult or a peer.

I think it is ironic that Trausti is actually for a lack of education that helps people abuse children. If first graders are old enough to practice a Lockdown drill to help train them in the off chance they might be targeted by an armed person trying to kill them, they are old enough to learn about protecting themselves from familiar people that are predators. And that isn't as simple as tell the kid, 'just tell an adult'. They call it grooming for a reason, it is manipulative and set up to make children doubt themselves, blame themselves so that they stay quiet.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

There is such thing as keeping confidentiality about a student's sexuality and still informing parents of the dangers of self-harm. The school & third party can only do so much without the assistance of a parent. If they have a capable parent they damn sure better be utilizing that parent as it is the child's greatest chance of success to have a capable parent involved.

If the mom in that video's words are true it sounds to me like the school fucked up by not involving the parent in the self-harm prevention efforts.

The place where I can sympathize with your views is the self-harm aspect, for which there is a professional and authorized protocol that the teacher is expected to follow.

I cannot say either way whether or not I agree regarding the video becsuse I am not going to mess with the Twitterverse. Those people are crazy.

 

[TomC]

Parents send their children to school for an education, not for the teacher push to a sexual agenda. That’s not the role of teachers.

You're the one trying to push an agenda.

I've got a clearly lesbian SIL but so in the closest about it I doubt she has ever admitted it to herself, let alone anyone else. Does that repression help anyone?

I know nothing about your SIL, but I can totally empathize. I spent my life, from roughly puberty to my mid 20s, in a closet built like a bomb shelter. I learned to hide myself and lie, especially to myself. It's a really unhealthy development process.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And frankly,(I didn't watch the video, just heard it described) I seriously question the judgement and fitness to be a parent of anyone who would post such a video on the internet. That's before I get to the honesty question.
How does anyone know that the school didn't call her three times, trying to discuss her child's issues, and she blew them off because she didn't want to be bothered? I know I have relatives inclined to do that. Relatives who will also post stuff on FB and such looking for sympathy because they're always the victim of something or another.

Tom

This. I haven't watched it either but I can easily see it being a public face of simply wanting to be involved while privately intending to "fix" the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This. Most of the basic sexuality stuff shouldn't be needed in school. TomC's story covers it quite well--but there are far too many parents who don't walk to talk about such things so the schools are picking up the slack.

There is no such thing as "basic sexuality stuff" other than penis and vagina identity... and most kids are aware of what they have.

Look at TomC's conversation. That's the sort of stuff that I'm talking about--definitely appropriate for primary grade levels.

The trouble with sexuality is it is far more than just biology. There is a heavy sociology proponent to it as well, especially relative to pressure online and in person, online safety, alcohol, date rape, abuse, etc... Most parents are ignorant or naive on some portion of this. Other parents are stigmatized and don't want to address it. And worse, some could have very negative takes on any portion such as LGBT.

You're talking about stuff that comes later. The bill has a blanket ban in primary grades (up through 4th grade).

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Parents send their children to school for an education, not for the teacher push to a sexual agenda. That’s not the role of teachers.

You're the one trying to push an agenda.

I've got a clearly lesbian SIL but so in the closest about it I doubt she has ever admitted it to herself, let alone anyone else. Does that repression help anyone?

I know nothing about your SIL, but I can totally empathize. I spent my life, from roughly puberty to my mid 20s, in a closet built like a bomb shelter. I learned to hide myself and lie, especially to myself. It's a really unhealthy development process.
Tom

The continuous self-monitoring makes a person paranoid.

 

[Jarhyn]

only a parent can provide the guidance they need (if the parent(s) are available and capable).

I enlarged the part you missed.

This. Most of the basic sexuality stuff shouldn't be needed in school. TomC's story covers it quite well--but there are far too many parents who don't walk to talk about such things so the schools are picking up the slack.

There is no such thing as "basic sexuality stuff" other than penis and vagina identity... and most kids are aware of what they have.

The trouble with sexuality is it is far more than just biology. There is a heavy sociology proponent to it as well, especially relative to pressure online and in person, online safety, alcohol, date rape, abuse, etc... Most parents are ignorant or naive on some portion of this. Other parents are stigmatized and don't want to address it. And worse, some could have very negative takes on any portion such as LGBT.

Schools provide a path for a comprehensive and uniform education on sexuality, both biology and sociology.

Children at an early age need to be taught about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult.

Older children need to be taught more specifically about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult.

Even older children need to be taught even more specially about their body, their personal limits, being able to speak with adults if something happens with another adult or a peer.

I think it is ironic that Trausti is actually for a lack of education that helps people abuse children. If first graders are old enough to practice a Lockdown drill to help train them in the off chance they might be targeted by an armed person trying to kill them, they are old enough to learn about protecting themselves from familiar people that are predators. And that isn't as simple as tell the kid, 'just tell an adult'. They call it grooming for a reason, it is manipulative and set up to make children doubt themselves, blame themselves so that they stay quiet.

Which is why I have to wonder why grooming is Trausti's first thought as regards discussion of sexuality with kids.

Like I can't imagine that people can have so many neurons in their head and yet be unable to understand that ignorance of sexuality is what makes people sexually vulnerable...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which is why I have to wonder why grooming is Trausti's first thought as regards discussion of sexuality with kids.

Trausti's grooming witch hunt can also be seen as an example of why letting conservatives judge these types of things and write legislation can be dangerous for America.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which is why I have to wonder why grooming is Trausti's first thought as regards discussion of sexuality with kids.

Trausti's grooming witch hunt can also be seen as an example of why letting conservatives judge these types of things and write legislation can be dangerous for America.

I also wonder sometimes whether King James, eminent homosexual that he was, went after the witches so as to give the people something to go after that wasn't "sodomites".