Calling it anti-grooming only is ignoring its ability to chill free speech (people will avoid talking about things that might get them sued, even if they're permitted) and be weaponized to suppress speech ("It would be a shame if someone took that thing that you said wrong..." even if it's permitted).
Same with CRT banning. The existence of a law, even an ineffective one, on the books provides opportunity for abuse.
(Said as someone who thinks the parts of both parties who are loudest over these issues are childish demagogues who ignore historical peril)
This is a lie. It blocks not discussions about "sex" but "sexual orientation". It bans students from saying they are guy. Calling people groomers who disagree with you is despicable.
Sexual orientation is about sex, it's literally in the name. It's quite pathological to sexualize classroom discussion in early grades, there's no possible educational purpose and the kids cannot be expected to be able to understand and relate to that sort of discussion like an adult would.
The flipside is that people like him get called "transphobic" and harassed despite his very reasonable objections to the way his kids get educated. I don't know that calling him "transphobic" is any less (or more) accurate than him calling others "groomers".
This is pure bigotry. Allowing children to know that gay people exist is not grooming. It isn't even close to grooming. Knowing that two men or two women can be married isn't grooming.
Yes, but the commeter is saying that he's read the bill -- and it actually says nothing about whether you can tell children that men can be married. I personally dont see where it prevents this at all.
As far as I can see, the explicit wording of the bill is just to delay "social sex education" till c. 8/9 years old -- right?
I've also read the bill, and it's easy to quote. It explicitly says that any discussion about "sexual identity" is banned.
One of the requirement clauses states that the bill is "prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner". That quote is the whole clause. It doesn't ban instruction, it bans discussion. It is explicit. Those exact words. Anyone who says otherwise either did not actually read the bill, or they didn't read it very well.
I don't read that as saying a teacher can't say "men can be married" -- that isn't a discussion of sexual orientation. If I prohibit talking about atoms, I am not prohibiting talking about every physical object. I am prohibiting talk about the explicit concept of atoms.
Likewise here, how I read this is straightforward: explicit discussion of sexual orientation, ie., which genders/sexes people are sexually attracted to; must only occur from c. 8/9yo+.
Ditto for gender identity. That a person's born physical sex may deviate from their perceived sexual identity -- discussions about that don't seem all that urgent below 9yo.
The issue the bill seems to be addressing isn't mentioning that people are gay, are married as gay etc -- the issue is in having discussions about anyone's sexual preference "too early" with children. I think even saying "X person is trans" in classroom isn't forbidden -- rather just making "trans" or "gay" (or "straight") a topic of discussion.
The bill is a direct response to rare, but noted occurrences of teachers giving very young children lessons from highly controversial books on gender and sexuality at ages where those children are not being taught these subjects -- but necessarily, rather, being encouraged to accept (controversial) conclusions about them.
We arent talking about educating 5yos on the nature of sexuality. They don't have enough experiences and development to discuss this.
Lawyers completely disagree with your interpretation. Being say is part of someone's sexual orientation, so the don't say gay bill prohibits discussing it at all. Being trans is part of a gender identity so it is not allowed to be discussed. The law is very explicit in this, as I've quoted.
