Wow.. way to escalate.
Maybe we should say the educator was teaching the third Reich was absolved of all their actions in Germany.
You choose an end of the spectrum, there's my corresponding one.
Is your opinion the same?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
- Status
Maybe we should say the educator was teaching the third Reich was absolved of all their actions in Germany.
You choose an end of the spectrum, there's my corresponding one.
Is your opinion the same?
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Yes, I escalated it. Because the kind of "parental control" this bill offers is the same as saying "we don't want LGBTQ+ families and students in our schools". Read the entire thread.
It looks like a mental health bill and the limiting of discussion of complex gender/sexual topics not meant for Grade 3 and below. Seems like a good area for parents to have control for when those discussions take place.
What's the agenda on telling every pre-k child they could be transgender or gay? They should only explore those concepts at an appropriate age.
Angel Ariel
Well-Known Member
That is not what this advocacy is about.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
I've already posted extensively on what the problems with the bill are in this very thread. Please go back and read the whole thing.
I was defending this bill as innocent at first, too, but once you see what's at play, you can't unsee it. The man behind the bill admitted that he created it because he's afraid that gayness is "spreadable" and that kids are picking it up in schools - I also posted the video of his admission several times in this very thread. This bill is nothing but a dog-whistle to people who fear the LGBTQ+ community and it targets them specifically for discrimination and also allows individual teachers to be sued for things parents think are inappropriate, with zero guidelines for what actually constitutes inappropriate. Also...there have been laws on the books for many years regarding parental rights and appropriate sexual education - why is this bill (that specifically mentions LGBTQ issues) suddenly so important?
DisneyHead123
Well-Known Member
“Enlightened centrist” here (yes, I know it’s a pejorative) entering to incur the wrath of both sides.
This strategy, with some modifications, won big for the GOP in Virginia last November. I think DeSantis observed this and is banking on the same. Basic recipe - take a vague concern that those in the far left bubble are out of touch on (meaning they won’t be able to defend themselves effectively and may in fact exacerbate fears via ham handed handling of the topic). Gin up concerns that parents and extended family of school aged kids have no way of putting in real perspective (i.e., find scary anecdotes knowing that actual statistics on teacher attitudes towards teaching about gender aren't available). Count on your opponents angering a silent majority by smearing them (in Virginia, as racists, in Florida, as transphobic) too aggressively. Count on this confirming the fears of said silent majority - Look at how angry and aggressive the Left is! - and for them to show up at the polls. Add a dash of unhappiness about inflation and oil prices to season.
I think the Left has fumbled on both CRT and transgender issues by refusing to condemn what may be outlier cases and saying that they are just that - outlier cases, not the norm. So that parents go home with the perception that all teachers are separating children by race and making white kids line up last while apologizing for being 'oppressors'; and that all teachers "totally stalk" students to recruit them for clubs where transgenderism is encouraged. Given that there is a hot debate about whether or not there is a social contagion factor in the sudden, huge spike in transgenderism among young girls, a little understood relationship between transgenderism in girls and autism (are autistic girls more likely to be transgender, or do they have a misguided hope that changing genders will be the thing that makes them feel as if they fit in), and a growing number of detransitioners who regret their decision, and even left-of-center parents are going to be a bit alarmed if they don't have good info on what actual teachers are saying in actual classes.
Bottom line - I think this strategy will end up winning for DeSantis. Possibly big. And Chapek is already hedging, trying to limit the fallout of Disney being labeled a "Woke" company, a label that is becoming increasingly toxic (notice DeSantis went straight to that term in responding to Disney). Notice that even his apology was very carefully worded - he didn't say the bill is problematic, he said it might be used in problematic ways. He's waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing, I think, and betting on a rightward shift at midterms.
This strategy, with some modifications, won big for the GOP in Virginia last November. I think DeSantis observed this and is banking on the same. Basic recipe - take a vague concern that those in the far left bubble are out of touch on (meaning they won’t be able to defend themselves effectively and may in fact exacerbate fears via ham handed handling of the topic). Gin up concerns that parents and extended family of school aged kids have no way of putting in real perspective (i.e., find scary anecdotes knowing that actual statistics on teacher attitudes towards teaching about gender aren't available). Count on your opponents angering a silent majority by smearing them (in Virginia, as racists, in Florida, as transphobic) too aggressively. Count on this confirming the fears of said silent majority - Look at how angry and aggressive the Left is! - and for them to show up at the polls. Add a dash of unhappiness about inflation and oil prices to season.
I think the Left has fumbled on both CRT and transgender issues by refusing to condemn what may be outlier cases and saying that they are just that - outlier cases, not the norm. So that parents go home with the perception that all teachers are separating children by race and making white kids line up last while apologizing for being 'oppressors'; and that all teachers "totally stalk" students to recruit them for clubs where transgenderism is encouraged. Given that there is a hot debate about whether or not there is a social contagion factor in the sudden, huge spike in transgenderism among young girls, a little understood relationship between transgenderism in girls and autism (are autistic girls more likely to be transgender, or do they have a misguided hope that changing genders will be the thing that makes them feel as if they fit in), and a growing number of detransitioners who regret their decision, and even left-of-center parents are going to be a bit alarmed if they don't have good info on what actual teachers are saying in actual classes.
Bottom line - I think this strategy will end up winning for DeSantis. Possibly big. And Chapek is already hedging, trying to limit the fallout of Disney being labeled a "Woke" company, a label that is becoming increasingly toxic (notice DeSantis went straight to that term in responding to Disney). Notice that even his apology was very carefully worded - he didn't say the bill is problematic, he said it might be used in problematic ways. He's waiting to see which way the political winds are blowing, I think, and betting on a rightward shift at midterms.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I've read several articles now (again, this wasn't a news topic here in California until the past 24 hours, so I'm still getting up to speed), and the language in the bill and the bill's supporters say that your statement on bullying and how teacher's handle "spontaneous discussions" is not at all accurate.
In short, the bill...
"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" - Representative Joe Harding, Florida legislator who sponsored the bill
And that's pretty much how I understood this bill from the beginning. It bars including sexual orientation into official curriculm from preschool through the 3rd grade. And I think that's appropriate, and subject matter that should be handled by the parents of those very young school children.
Whether I agree with the parents on that topic or not. They are the parents, after all. I'm not.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
You're going to take the word of a Republican about a Republican-sponsored bill that is purposely vague, and which the author himself admits was created because he's afraid that schools are spreading gayness?I've read several articles now (again, this wasn't a news topic here in California until the past 24 hours, so I'm still getting up to speed), and the language in the bill and the bill's supporters say that your statement on bullying and how teacher's handle "spontaneous discussions" is not at all accurate.
In short, the bill...
"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" - Representative Joe Harding, Florida legislator who sponsored the bill
And that's pretty much how I understood this bill from the beginning. It bars including sexual orientation into official curriculm from preschool through the 3rd grade. And I think that's appropriate, and subject matter that should be handled by the parents of those very young school children.
Whether I agree with the parents on that topic or not. They are the parents, after all. I'm not.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
So, I've downloaded the PDF file of the bill's latest form, as of March 8th. It's a gorgeous Saturday afternoon here in SoCal, and I'm reading Florida legislation.
The bill allows parents to access their children's health and psychological records from school districts, and prevents children from being able to withhold school records from their parents, which is something I can't imagine why a parent wouldn't be able to have access to. The bill's language is thus...
"2. A school district may not adopt procedures or student support forms that prohibit school district personnel from notifying a parent about his or her student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring, or that encourage or have the effect of encouraging a student to withhold from a parent such information."
That seems completely reasonable to me, until the student turns 18. However, your point about having some homophobic family upset that their child is gay is understandable. The child plays a part in that, and there's a carve out for children who tell a teacher or school administrator that there's a danger at home. The bill's language on that, just below the bill's language I quoted above, is this...
"This subparagraph does not prohibit a school district from adopting procedures that permit school personnel to withhold such information from a parent if a reasonably prudent person would believe that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect, as those terms are defined in s. 39.01."
TP2000
Well-Known Member
No, I've been reading the actual bill itself this afternoon. I just quoted it at the same time you posted this.
The bill may be found here. It's double spaced and actually quite clear. There appears to be some scare mongering going on regarding what exactly is in the bill, and what isn't.
For example, there's several steps a school district accused of violating the bill is allowed to go through to fix the problem, before a parent is allowed to sue a school for allegedly violating this law.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Really…?!
Timmy told our Tommy that he has 2 mommies, so we’re suing…?!?!?!
Yeah, exactly. It has nothing about that. The bill's language seems to be mostly focused on parents having the ability and authority to have access to their child's mental health and wellness records that are kept by teachers and school administrators. And that seems entirely reasonable to me, because they are the parents.
Regarding angry Karen Parents suing their school... There's a fairly lengthy administrative process a school district, and the concerned parent, must all go through to prove compliance with the law before a parent can sue a school district for violating the law.
I've read the entire bill now myself. It's not an attractive font, but it's fairly easy reading...
TP2000
Well-Known Member
And now that I've read the bill and am about to go out into the sunshine for gardening, the only time in this bill that sexual orientation and gender identity are mentioned is in the subparagraph on preschool thru 3rd grade curriculum.
3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Those two phrases "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not mentioned anywhere else in the bill.
The rest of the bill concerns a child's mental health records and well being, and a parent's ability to have access to those records that are being kept by the school administrators. At the beginning of each school year, a school district must tell the parents what health services are provided to the students so that the parents can understand and approve, or opt out of, having their children receive such services. Obviously, you can infer that some of those children will be dealing with issues around homosexuality or sexual questions. But mental health can also involve many other issues a child faces that have nothing to do with sexuality.
The bill allows parents to have access to any records a school keeps regarding their child's mental health and well being. With a carveout for school administrators to protect a child with anonymity if they fear the parent will abuse the child if they don't approve of say, the child's budding sexuality.
Which seems perfectly reasonable to me, because they are the parents of the children.
3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.
Those two phrases "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" are not mentioned anywhere else in the bill.
The rest of the bill concerns a child's mental health records and well being, and a parent's ability to have access to those records that are being kept by the school administrators. At the beginning of each school year, a school district must tell the parents what health services are provided to the students so that the parents can understand and approve, or opt out of, having their children receive such services. Obviously, you can infer that some of those children will be dealing with issues around homosexuality or sexual questions. But mental health can also involve many other issues a child faces that have nothing to do with sexuality.
The bill allows parents to have access to any records a school keeps regarding their child's mental health and well being. With a carveout for school administrators to protect a child with anonymity if they fear the parent will abuse the child if they don't approve of say, the child's budding sexuality.
Which seems perfectly reasonable to me, because they are the parents of the children.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Read the concerns of the doctor that are written in the tweets above.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Yes, I did. I also read the bill in its entirety. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
The bill as writtens seems to be a reasonable attempt to establish parental rights to a child's mental health records and information on the child's well being that are being documented and kept by the child's school. Obviously, there's going to be some children that have sexuality issues as part of their mental health. But many children will have mental health issues that have nothing to do with sexuality, and I believe the parents have every right to know about what mental health services their child is receiving at school and why, and to see any formal records the school is keeping about their child's well being.
The bill also has that one subparagraph about not including "sexual orientation" into the official curriculum until after the 3rd grade. Which seems to have gotten everyone up in arms, and which I still don't think is a problem.
A teacher can handle spontaneous classroom discussions on why Billy has two mommies as the teacher sees fit, and can shut down any bullying about that just as quickly as the teacher would shut down bullying on Billy's glasses or that he wears cheap WalMart shoes instead of expensive Nike's. Kids can be cruel.
But sexual orientation and gender identity will not be formally included in planned curriculum for those very young students until after the 3rd grade.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Some of y’all don’t actually know what critical race theory is.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
Now you’re changing the topic. Come on.
That is clearly not the case when there are many examples of teachers trying to inject woke gender ideology into the curriculum.
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
No one is arguing that parents shouldn't have access to their children's mental health or well-being records.
No one is arguing that children need to be taught about sexual orientation outside of the already established sex-ed classes.
What people are arguing is that this bill is purposely FAR too vague and is ripe for abuse by people with bad intentions.
ETA: The bill went through several rounds of editing...and was purposely left vague and open to multiple interpretations.
EricsBiscuit
Well-Known Member
I know enough that it should be banned from every school. It should be fought and eradicated. It is disastrous.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Oh, well that's what this bill is mainly about.
That's what this bill also says. Although it's calling out that sexual orientation not be included in health curriculum until after the 3rd grade. Which seems appropriate. Why are we even formally discussing sexual stuff with 2nd graders to begin with?
Well, the bill seems pretty straightforward to me. It mainly lays out systems and processes that school districts must obey to allow parents access to their child's mental health records, if any, that a school district is compiling on their child. It also requires school districts to inform parents of the mental health services offered to their child at the beginning of each school year, and has a process for parents to opt in or out of those services.
For those of us of a certain age, all that seems a tad weird. But I guess that's what schools do now, employ psychiatrists and mental health counselors? In my day, there was only a school nurse in a starched hat who offered band-aids and Pepto-Bismol and could spot a fake doctor's note from 50 feet down the hall.
That's about all we had for "healthcare" in school.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Some of y’all don’t actually know what Critical Race Theory is.
- Status