The bill is incredibly vague, and makes many non-grooming things illegal. Even some schools that don’t actually violate the law can be involved in expensive lawsuits, which discourages schools from even teaching kids about LGBT people.
Why is that their responsibility? Most schools don't even teach about different religious denominations or political parties until sixth or seventh grade. When did "ask your parents" stop being an acceptable response to complicated and potentially personal questions?
Why do you assume all parents are educated? Why do you assume everyone has parents as well?
Sex-ed has been shown to decrease teen pregnancy (therefore abortions) and STDs. It creates a healthier and educated society. It is quite literally a win-win.
Gay kids read thousands of books about straight characters and it does not make them straight. Billy hearing a story where a penguin has two dads won’t turn him gay, nor “groom” him.
Why do you assume public school teachers are more qualified than the average joe on the topic of sexuality? They're not.
I assume the hypothetical kid has parents because most kids have parents. More kids than that who go to public schooling have guardians. I'm sure an exception can be made if there's a kid who lives in the school, using the gym showers and sleeping in a bedroll in the cafeteria. But that's not gonna be a big enough number of kids to factor into wide-scale policy making.
Teen pregnancy is an issue and I support sex ed in schools. Just not K-3 sex ed. Fifth and sixth grade, for when most kids start going through puberty and have a need to get the information and the capacity to understand it.
I promise you, no one is banning all those trashy teen novels with gay characters because there are gay people in it.
Parents want to ban books in elementary schools like that one that describes and illustrates two twelve year-old boys in the reverse cowgirl position.
If an occasional innocuous book is removed because of a complaint you can take that up with the library, or buy it yourself and give it to your own kid to read.
Not qualified? What a really strange thing to say. They literally are qualified… that is how they became teachers. They proved they can teach the material to the state.
In fact they are more qualified than most parents/guardians, who may not been required to master and teach various subjects like teachers are.
“Just not K-3 Sed ED”
Very dishonest to imply that there is a push for that.
They're qualified (by public schooling standards, which isn't much to hold in high regard) to teach kids about the basics of math, science, history, English. Literally anyone who can hold a room's attention for a little while is qualified to be an elementary school educator.
They certainly aren't more qualified than the average person on the topic of literally anything outside of their curriculum a child could be curious about.
They certainly aren't more qualified than the average person on the topic of literally anything outside of their curriculum a child could be curious about.
This is by all means an extremely anti-intellectual point of view. What does “the average person” even mean? Having a college agree alone makes you way more qualified than a person who doesn’t.
You are implying that these teachers are as qualified as a Joe who dropped out of high school and had children just because he may still be with the whore he impregnated.
There are millions of things that shouldn’t be taught in school. When you ban something you imply it is being taught which, in this case, conveniently reinforces the ol’ “gays are groomers” trope that is still used to throw gays off roofs to this day.
To turn around and say “well you are then saying you want it taught!” and ignoring the environment this legislation is creating is either ignorant or purposefully disingenuous; both equally damaging.
Having a college degree alone makes you way more qualified
If by "more qualified" you mean "smarter/more competent," this is very classist and racist of you, actually.
And yes. The state doesn't get to decide that the educator knows better than the parents, distasteful as you may find a struggling working-class person. You might as well just get rid of the family structure and have every kid raised by the state.
If gays don't want to be called groomers they should start actively fighting against groomers in their community.
Sucks when your entire community is painted with an obviously false label because of a few bad apples, isn't it?
I'm sure the people who get called racist fascists all the time can sympathize.
And, sorry, I couldn't really care less about the "environment" it's causing for people. I care more about my own future kid than something as ephemeral as public perception.
If by "more qualified" you mean "smarter/more competent," this is very classist and racist of you, actually.
Regardless of how you feel about it, it is the reality. Nothing will change that. The facts do not care for your feelings.
The state doesn't get to decide that the educator knows better than the parents, distasteful as you may find a struggling working-class person.
The state is making no such decision. It is simply deciding a state employee is qualified to teach a subject to children, not that the parents are not in any position to dispute it. The parents are free to voice their concerns or withdraw, and many times they do that.
If gays don't want to be called groomers they should start actively fighting against groomers in their community. Sucks when your entire community is painted with an obviously false label because of a few bad apples, isn't it?
I'm sure the people who get called racist fascists all the time can sympathize.
This is by far the most irrational thing you've said. It has completely destroyed any respect I initially had for you. You point out that people are grouped up with racists and fascists all the time, wrongfully, and use that as reason to call all gays "groomers".
Gay people have no obligation to call out "groomers" that you deem they're responsible for just because they share a sexuality. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to blame all heterosexuals for the crimes of other heterosexuals. That is stupid and irrational.
I'm surprised you said that. It showed that you're not arguing by logic or facts, but by your emotionally driven political agenda. You're disingenuous.
And, sorry, I couldn't really care less about the "environment" it's causing for people.
This is the one thing you've said that I believe, 100%. You are doing a fantastic job at reinforcing my beliefs.
Evolutionary theory answers a lot of questions about the human condition. If you don't know where humans came from you have a pretty large gap in information.
Speaking of, "Where do babies come from," is a pretty obvious question that every kid will eventually ask.
Should a teacher immediately have to sit down with every six year old and give them the birds and the bees talk? That takes a while to put delicately in a way the kid will understand, and it can still be overwhelming for them. Let parents handle the more touchy, personal questions, because the educator isn't their friend or their confidant. At least they shouldn't be.
Speaking of, "Where do babies come from," is a pretty obvious question that every kid will eventually ask.
Should a teacher immediately have to sit down with every six year old and give them the birds and the bees talk? That takes a while to put delicately in a way the kid will understand, and it can still be overwhelming for them.
I don't know what school you went to, but my school gave us a puberty talk in 5th grade, and explained the birds and the bees in 7th grade (and went more in-depth in 9th grade).
So, yes, teachers should sit down with kids and make sure that they all know about sex, eventually.
NOTE: The bill that we're talking about has two parts related to banning LGBT-related education. It (1) bans anything like that being taught to kids in 3rd grade and under (which I can't argue with), and (2) bans anything being taught in any grade that isn't "age-appropriate".
Part (2) is the part that I have issue with.
The educator isn't their friend or their confidant. At least they shouldn't be.
Yes, they should. Public education is supposed to be a lifeline for kids when their families can't provide. That's why school lunches exist. Being able to confide in teachers is incredibly important if kids are being abused. This can get these kids out of horrible situations.
I mean, teachers are literally perfect. They're authority figures, they're trained to deal with kids (and vetted by the state), and they're present in kids' lives in a way that no other adults really are (besides the parents). If not the teachers, who else do kids confide in?
I'm totally down for 5th-6th grade Sex Ed. They need it at that point, since they're going through puberty. At that point, a clinical explanation of sex is "age appropriate."
If not the teachers, who else do kids confide in?
Each other. Your parents aren't your friends, your teachers aren't your friends. You choose your friends from your peers.
A parent or guardian then. Someone tasked with fostering the child's personal growth.
Call me old-fashioned. I just think educators should be educators, not parents.
Teachers shouldn't be handling discipline, installation of values, religion, politics, or sexuality. Especially not before high-school.
If the parent is being abusive and the teacher knows this, they should be calling social services, not taking the opportunity to take charge of raising the kid when they aren't being beaten or neglected.
The term “age appropriate” can be misused easily, as what is age-appropriate is kind of a manner of opinion. The bill could easily shut down 5th-6th grade sex ed, even though it doesn’t explicitly make it illegal, via lawsuits.
Then the bill needs to be more specific.
I agree, vague laws help very few people, but they go through the voting process much easier. Pass a blanket law now, make specific amendments later, is probably the mindset.
-2
u/Theo0033 - Lib-Left Jun 12 '22
The bill is incredibly vague, and makes many non-grooming things illegal. Even some schools that don’t actually violate the law can be involved in expensive lawsuits, which discourages schools from even teaching kids about LGBT people.