Progressive Stupidty

[Tsing Tao]

Honest question... I have had teachers mention they went on a trip over the weekend or on break with their husband/wife and kids and talked about what they did on the trip. Kids also talk about their families in class when they re doing a discussion. It is part of that age group of circle time or when doing a book reading.

So if a male teacher says my partner and i went fishing and the kids ask about partner and he says my husband which indicates it is a man and there is a brief discussion the class moves on to the next item on the teacher's schedule..

Does that violate the law?

Its a fair question, but it doesn't violate the law at all. And that's the point here. He isn't being prohibited from talking about going camping with his partner.

When he starts talking about how great it is to be gay, or suggesting to little Johnny that he might be gay because of some behavior, we have a problem.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Its a fair question, but it doesn't violate the law at all. And that's the point here. He isn't being prohibited from talking about going camping with his partner.

When he starts talking about how great it is to be gay, or suggesting to little Johnny that he might be gay because of some behavior, we have a problem.

Yes I agree but the problem I have as a Coonstitutionalist is that this law is the fmaous slippery slope because a conservative cunt Karen will use the law like a weapon as it does chill free speech. A school can have a policy an talk to its teachers and say "We should limit the disucssions of our private lives as much as possible in the classroom because even the younger kids are more aware of things and social media and times have changed etc.."

Now how many teachers are actively saying it is great to be gay or indoctrinating kids to be gay becaue Johnny grabbed a doll instead of a football? it is a law in search of a problem that really does not exist statewide or easily handled at the School Board level.

If thew word gay is even uttered a karen parent can run to the Board or police and wave the law to support their made up christian values. The law did not say sex ed or relations shall not be taught in K - 3, it focused just on gay and trans.

I am not a fan of laws that begin a slippery slope of the government trying to legislate society via the school system as well as teachers pushing an agenda. This law is potentially as wrong due to misuse as teachers trying to push an agenda to kids rather than just making conversation.

Drafters always imagine some narrow perfect scenerio where their law works and can give you a shocking hypotehtical that shows why the law "protects children" But that is never how it works when a law is passed. This law is a slippery slope.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Yes I agree but the problem I have as a Coonstitutionalist is that this law is the fmaous slippery slope because a conservative cunt Karen will use the law like a weapon as it does chill free speech. A school can have a policy an talk to its teachers and say "We should limit the disucssions of our private lives as much as possible in the classroom because even the younger kids are more aware of things and social media and times have changed etc.."

Now how many teachers are actively saying it is great to be gay or indoctrinating kids to be gay becaue Johnny grabbed a doll instead of a football? it is a law in search of a problem that really does not exist statewide or easily handled at the School Board level.

If thew word gay is even uttered a karen parent can run to the Board or police and wave the law to support their made up christian values. The law did not say sex ed or relations shall not be taught in K - 3, it focused just on gay and trans.

I am not a fan of laws that begin a slippery slope of the government trying to legislate society via the school system as well as teachers pushing an agenda. This law is potentially as wrong due to misuse as teachers trying to push an agenda to kids rather than just making conversation.

Drafters always imagine some narrow perfect scenerio where their law works and can give you a shocking hypotehtical that shows why the law "protects children" But that is never how it works when a law is passed. This law is a slippery slope.

I respect your opinion - but given the examples I have seen where schools are sharing certain things or having parades, etc...I don't want my pre-K through 3rd grader dealing with that. They should just be a kid. I can post some examples if you'd like.

If some Karen, as you suggest, tries to overreach and prosecute the law - well that's what the courts are for: To determine whether a law was broken or not.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I respect your opinion - but given the examples I have seen where schools are sharing certain things or having parades, etc...I don't want my pre-K through 3rd grader dealing with that. They should just be a kid. I can post some examples if you'd like.

If some Karen, as you suggest, tries to overreach and prosecute the law - well that's what the courts are for: To determine whether a law was broken or not.

But that is my point, it can be addressed at the School Board level to say in the Elementary Schools we should avoid these topics/displays in the curriculum. It is just a decision on curriculum and extra activities.

Now most people have not even read the bill.

It is pretty vague:
The measure bans “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade. It also prohibits such teaching “in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students,” which critics say could be interpreted to extend to all grade levels. Parents can sue school districts for alleged violations.

who says what is appropriate.... the Governor? How many lawsuits are schools going to have to defend because a teacher mentioned gay to a 10th grader


Is it ok for your child to learn about man and woman marriages and boyfriends and girlfriends or is it equally fair to say that should not be allowed too.

To be fair the bill says it would not bar spontaneous discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools but instead is intended to prevent districts from integrating the subjects into official curriculum.

So if a teacher says he and his partner had a trip over the weekend, that is not part of the curriculum. But a karen can still sue the school and cost it thousands of dollars. What would happen to the teacher then after that? What happens to a female teacher who says they went on a trip with their husband and no one has a problem?


There are already laws barring discrimination in public schools at the federal level but this law creates a slippery slope because of the definition of curriculum and age appropriate and the fact that GOP says it does not bar discussions that come up. But it does because of the chilling effect of punishment.

 

[Tsing Tao]

But that is my point, it can be addressed at the School Board level to say in the Elementary Schools we should avoid these topics/displays in the curriculum. It is just a decision on curriculum and extra activities.

Now most people have not even read the bill.

It is pretty vague:
The measure bans “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity” in kindergarten through third grade. It also prohibits such teaching “in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students,” which critics say could be interpreted to extend to all grade levels. Parents can sue school districts for alleged violations.


Is it ok for your child to learn about man and woman marriages and boyfriends and girlfriends or is it equally fair to say that should not be allowed too.

To be fair the bill says it would not bar spontaneous discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity in schools but instead is intended to prevent districts from integrating the subjects into official curriculum.

So if a teacher says he and his partner had a trip over the weekend, that is not part of the curriculum. But a karen can still sue the school and cost it thousands of dollars. What would happen to the teacher then after that? What happens to a female teacher who says they went on a trip with their husband and no one has a problem?


There are already laws barring discrimination in public schools at the federal level but this law creates a slippery slope because of the definition of curriculum and age appropriate and the fact that GOP says it does not bar discussions that come up.

If we could count on the school board being fair and interested in parent's input, then I'd agree with you the board should handle it. But there are so many examples where the board is the problem, that i don't feel that was sufficient.

If teachers just focus on teaching the subject they are hired to teach, it all becomes much simplier.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Here is that slippery slope...

• A bill in Kansas would make it a misdemeanor for any teacher who uses materials depicting homosexuality in any way, not just if the depiction is sexually explicit or celebratory.
• Tennessee is considering a bill that would prohibit schools from using any books or instructional materials that mention "gay, bi-sexual, or transgender issues or lifestyles" in any way.
• Indiana's House Bill 1040 would prohibit teachers from discussing in any context "sexual orientation," "transgenderism," or "gender identity" without parental consent.

 

[El OchoCinco]

If we could count on the school board being fair and interested in parent's input, then I'd agree with you the board should handle it. But there are so many examples where the board is the problem, that i don't feel that was sufficient.

If teachers just focus on teaching the subject they are hired to teach, it all becomes much simplier.

I agree. If a teacher starts to talk about her husband and family she should be fired immediately. It is not always so simple when you chill free speech with a law like that. Parents are going to sue schools if a teacher has a rainbow sticker on their notebook or says they were out with their partner to see a play etc..

 

[Tsing Tao]

I agree. If a teacher starts to talk about her husband and family she should be fired immediately. It is not always so simple when you chill free speech with a law like that. Parents are going to sue schools if a teacher has a rainbow sticker on their notebook or says they were out with their partner to see a play etc..

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (I suspect you are). But a teacher talking about their family should not be fired immediately, and I'm not sure that's what anyone (other than rabid right wingers) are saying. I don't think people are going to sue like you believe, but we'll be able tio see pretty quickly if you were right or wrong.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic (I suspect you are). But a teacher talking about their family should not be fired immediately, and I'm not sure that's what anyone (other than rabid right wingers) are saying. I don't think people are going to sue like you believe, but we'll be able tio see pretty quickly if you were right or wrong.

I can hope so but Karens of either side of the spectrum know no bounds and the law has too much vagueness in it to pass muster from how parents have behaved at BoE meetings on both sides.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I can hope so but Karens of either side of the spectrum know no bounds and the law has too much vagueness in it to pass muster from how parents have behaved at BoE meetings on both sides.

No disagreement. Time will certainly tell.