Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Instead of building NS2 Germany could have built LNG terminals.

You are a teacher, and you enjoy indoctrinating them with your creepy white guilt nonsense as young as possible; where you parrot the left's rhetoric like a GD pull string dummy. So I have no doubt that you also support teaching homosexuality and transgender propaganda from Kindergarten on up. It's what you are; a creep who likes to indoctrinate everyone else's children in your leftist dogma, since you don't have any children of your own (Thank God).

Let's see, you want me to choose one extreme or the other....hmmm...tough one.

How about neither?

I see no reason for schools to teach about this at a young age AND I see no reason to make a law to ban it. 

I am certain that some kids deal with gender confusion at ages that young, but I don't think an academic lesson about it will help much.  If a kid "feels different," then they'll spend the next few years learning about themselves and the society around them, putting together pieces like a puzzle until they "discover" how they are or who they are and how that fits in with those around them.

The furthest I'd go with younger elementary if this topic came up would be to suggest it's okay with any kid to play with any toy.  Younger elementary students already have strong gender roles taught to them - so much so that if a male teacher wore something pink, they say, "but you're not a girl!"  I don't think that's good or bad, but it's inaccurate - females wear pink much more often than males do, but it says nothing about a male for him to wear pink.  Same with other gender-influenced things like a woman engineer or a guy teaching kindergarten. If a boy shares he plays with a Barbie, great, have fun with your doll and let's move on.  If a girl has 20 Hot Wheels cars at home, thanks, great share, let's move on.

It's useful that young children recognize the trends - it helps them navigate the world.  But they're not developmentally ready for all the exceptions or specifics, nor do they need to be, yet.

Florida is trying to pick one specific poor choice and making a law against it.  It's like making a law against getting engaged to an emotionally-abusive person or making a law against going to McDonalds twice in one day.  That's not a wise way to legislate.  Honestly, independent of any of the ethics of the bill, it's simply a poor way to govern. 

If you don't want teachers talking about this stuff, then parents need to.  If you don't want teachers talking about this stuff, tell them not to.  Tell them to send individual students who bring it up to the school counselor, who is trained.  This topic is so overblown because YES, the far-left is shoving it in everyone's eye AND the far-right is deathly afraid of all their kids "turning" gay.  It's absurd on both ends.

The far-left people are trying to legislate inclusion for every child out of a million so that none of them ever feels a moment of badness and the far-right is tryin to legislate away other adults doing their jobs for them when it comes to parenting.  Both can make sense in a vacuum, but the last time I checked, none of us lives in a vacuum.

All that being said, independent of party affiliation, the topic as a whole is not the most important thing.  If a kid has 2 dads and another kid doesn't get it, fine.  Uncertainty is not a problem when you're 7 years old.  It's called being 7 years old.  If a teacher is (in your eyes, for whatever reason) intricately describing genitals and whatever the hell your mind creepily invents, that teacher should be penalized or let go. 

Neither radical side is right.....neither radical side is ever right.
.
But please, PLEASE go on about how I'm one of the bad ones.  Ass hat.

The Florida law thing is interesting, separate from the hyped up questions of and rhetoric about its aims, in that it is phenomenally un-nuanced and built in that now-popular private action framework.

It does little (almost nothing) to lay out particularly clear ground rules, in essence just throwing it on the court system to craft the framework. I suppose a lot of laws do this to a degree, but this one does it to an impressive degree.

And because it's built on private action (litigious parents and someone who might choose to back them financially), it creates a sort of uneven enforcement. Even if experts are oft-bad, they're at least clear-eyed. The mechanism is the courts, which means the punishment is often the process (I can't recall if districts are on the hook as well, which more just creates pressure from the top).

For much of the laments about this, the law addresses neither genitals or really sex ed at all. The phrases in question are "Classroom instruction" "sexual orientation" "gender identity" "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate" and "state standards." None of these are defined, and are in essence left to the courts to shape as teachers and schools get sued. For what exactly? We'll find out.

If you're not cynical, you probably would read it as a failure of legislature to craft a law that's comprehensive and precise. The cynics say the aim it to use that broad language to chill a wide variety of speech for fear of lawsuits (the example might be if a child has two dads, and another child asks "why doesn't he have a mom?" Can a teacher answer that? Or is it "Classroom instruction" about "sexual orientation" that's not "age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate"? The only way we'll find out is teachers and schools getting sued).

If one must pass a law, at the least, a more precise one would be highly beneficial. On a personal level, I'm pretty uncomfortable flooding the zone with the widest spectrum of gender theories or orientation (it's a lot for an adult ). It also creates a weird distinction in that schools do and long have taught plenty about "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in the broad definition or the phrase.

Might need to give the Florida law makers a little slack in that who in their right mind would have ever thought it necessary to have a law against elementary school teachers examining a childs genitals or discussing with a child if they may be trans gender.

...

I dont agree with you that elementary schools have a long record of teaching sexual orientation and gender identity.  At least no elementary school around here does.

Might need to give the Florida law makers a little slack in that who in their right mind would have ever thought it necessary to have a law against elementary school teachers examining a childs genitals or discussing with a child if they may be trans gender.

Its sad that this law is needed.

This is new ground and there will be additional laws if needed to improve this one.

I dont agree with you that elementary schools have a long record of teaching sexual orientation and gender identity.  At least no elementary school around here does.