Grand Jury votes to indict Trump

[VakAttack]

On 4/10/2023 at 7:59 PM, mspart said:

 

3.   Would it be appropriate for K-3 who should be learning to read, write, and math it?   Or is it more appropriate for older kids?   Remember, the law only applies to K-3.   IMO, No need to confuse the little guys.   If they run into it with a friend, then they run into it with a friend.   Their parents can help them work it out.  Isn't that the way it has been since time immemorial?   Kid  has a question, the parents help them work through it.   What the law is preventing is requiring that book and the ideas in it to be taught and required reading for K-3.   That is all.  

mspart

 

 

I wanted to correct the record, my apologies @mspart.  I led you astray.  This law hasn't been expanded to up to 8th grade.  It covers all the way up to 12th grade (so that's all of school) and this is just a clarification, not an expansion.  According to the DeSantis administration official quoted here, it has always applied to all grades.

https://apnews.com/article/desantis-florida-dont-say-gay-ban-684ed25a303f83208a89c556543183cb

[mspart]

14 hours ago, VakAttack said:

I wanted to correct the record, my apologies @mspart.  I led you astray.  This law hasn't been expanded to up to 8th grade.  It covers all the way up to 12th grade (so that's all of school) and this is just a clarification, not an expansion.  According to the DeSantis administration official quoted here, it has always applied to all grades.

https://apnews.com/article/desantis-florida-dont-say-gay-ban-684ed25a303f83208a89c556543183cb

Vak,

The article you posted says it is an expansion approved by the Board of Education.  

The Board of Education approved a ban on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in all grades, expanding the law that bans those lesson up to grade 3 at the request of DeSantis as he gears up for an expected presidential run.

I did not find anything in the article that said the law always applied to all grades.  The only thing close I found was this statement.

“We’re not removing anything here,” Diaz Jr. said on Wednesday. “All we are doing is we are setting the expectations so our teachers are clear: that they are to teach to the standards.”

I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.    

My opinion on this is as follows:

1.  I don't mind the expansion of the law going for 4-12.    I personally don't think it is appropriate to discuss.   But I know it is being discussed so for 10-12, I would have less reservation.   I agree 100% with the K-3 law and think it should have been K-6 at the very least.  

2.   An additional item in the article concerned legislation on drag shows and children.   The drag shows get lewd and that is not appropriate for children.  That is adult entertainment in my opinion.

3.  An additional piece of legislation on bathroom policy I agree with.   I don't want a woman in my bathroom and don't want to go into a woman's room.   But the new law talks also about making unisex bathrooms and that is acceptable unless it is for groups.  Not into that. 

4.   No matter what is done, the activists on this issue will never be satisfied.   Even if they appear to be satisfied for the moment, they will find a way not to be.   It is their MO. 

mspart

 

 

[VakAttack]

25 minutes ago, mspart said:

Vak,

The article you posted says it is an expansion approved by the Board of Education.  

The Board of Education approved a ban on classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in all grades, expanding the law that bans those lesson up to grade 3 at the request of DeSantis as he gears up for an expected presidential run.

I did not find anything in the article that said the law always applied to all grades.  The only thing close I found was this statement.

“We’re not removing anything here,” Diaz Jr. said on Wednesday. “All we are doing is we are setting the expectations so our teachers are clear: that they are to teach to the standards.”

I'm not sure the article says what you think it says.    

My opinion on this is as follows:

1.  I don't mind the expansion of the law going for 4-12.    I personally don't think it is appropriate to discuss.   But I know it is being discussed so for 10-12, I would have less reservation.   I agree 100% with the K-3 law and think it should have been K-6 at the very least.  

2.   An additional item in the article concerned legislation on drag shows and children.   The drag shows get lewd and that is not appropriate for children.  That is adult entertainment in my opinion.

3.  An additional piece of legislation on bathroom policy I agree with.   I don't want a woman in my bathroom and don't want to go into a woman's room.   But the new law talks also about making unisex bathrooms and that is acceptable unless it is for groups.  Not into that. 

4.   No matter what is done, the activists on this issue will never be satisfied.   Even if they appear to be satisfied for the moment, they will find a way not to be.   It is their MO. 

mspart

 

 

Let me seriously apologize on this one, I misread what Diaz wrote.  It is very much an expansion, which is what it was always intended to do (the main point of what we were debating about on this subject, since you were saying it only applies to K-3) to cover through 12th grade.  it still doesn't define anything for the teachers, such as what "discussion means" and is creating again an environment of fear.  It's stil a curtailment of people's free speech rights.  It's still all of those things.  But it's an expansion.

[mspart]

I agree, it is an expansion.  

I think this applies to lesson plans, but what if a kid asks a question on this topic.  What is the teacher supposed to do then?   Refer the kid to their parents?   Refer the kid to the principal?   Refer the kid to the LGB focal at that school?   Or answer in some other way that does not promote it.  Or refer the kid to DeSantis?

I don't know.   It would seem to me that the teacher could address the question but not promote it.   Something like, 'yes, some people feel that way.'    Rather than, "yes, some people feel that way.   If you do, you should seriously look into gender affirming care including, chest binders or scrotum/penis hiders,  puberty blockers (if still in that arena) or gender reassignment surgery.   There is a clinic down the street on the corner of x and y street where you can get all of this taken care of for you.   And if you don't feel that way but know someone that does, let them know all this is available to them.  Any other questions that I can help you out with?"   I would think the first response would be acceptable where the second would not be.   It is not like if a kid asks the question, the teacher must put tape on his/her mouth. 

You make it sound like 1st amendment rights are being taken away.   Would you want your kid's teachers to swear like a sailor in class and call the kids foul names?   Of course not.   There are codes teachers must follow and saying these thiings is not following the code.  Is that a curtailment of their 1st amendment rights.   Maybe.   But it is common courtesy.   I believe the above would fall under the same umbrella.  It is common courtesy not to promote this gender dysphoria stuff in the classroom or outside the classroom in a professional capacity.  

Here in WA, they just passed a law that will allow the state to hold kids without parents knowledge if they have expressed a desire regarding transgenderism.   This includes kids from out of state.   Is this right?   What gives the state this right?  Apparently the legislature.  I feel just as strongly about this.   This is legalized kidnapping.  The parents may never know where their kid ended up.  And this is progress.  I have a feeling this will be challenged either by referendum/initiative on the ballot or via the courts.   Just unconscionable. 

mspart