The text of the bill targets public school instruction (up through third grade) regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". If "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" (which reference gay/straight and transgender/cisgender) is considered "qualities of humans" (as you say) then I suppose it could be said to target "qualities of humans". But that is far from discriminatory as you contend because no distinctions are being made between classes or types of people (straight v. gay, cisgender v. transgender)--it simply takes certain topics off the table for instruction (up through third grade) in a non-discriminatory way.
I do not see your point about changing the text to "genealogical background and race" showing me why the verbiage is problematic. If you can expand your thoughts on that, I would like to consider that point.
This bill wants to prohibit instruction by school staff or third parties on sexual orientation and gender identity before 3rd grade.
You are not seeing discrimination in the text because when you’re reading it, you’re putting everything in a vacuum. Everything regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, you are putting at equal standing, but that is far from our reality.
Starting with a little background, before a kid enters kindergarten, ALL will have ingrained into them, through family, cartoons, games, etc, that heterosexual couples, romance, and marriage is a thing and that it’s acceptable. All will have instilled in them that people who look and sound like a man, dress and like “boy gendered things.” But FEW will have instilled in them that sometimes a girl marries a girl, or that sometimes a person who looks and sounds like a woman dresses like a “boy” or even identifies as one. Also sadly, probably a lot of them will have instilled into them a disapproval of non straight or non cisgender people.
Now let’s get on to the bill. Let’s assume that “instruction” means a teacher formally teaching the kids, or discussing with kids, or answering the kids on the topic of sexual orientation and gender. There’s no way there would ever be any instruction like “today we will learn about how sometimes boys can marry girls” or “kids please stop bullying Nick, boys can like things that mainly boys like.” Instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity can only ever be instruction Centrally about lgbtq+ orientation and identity, because straight/cisgender orientation and identity isn’t a thing to have a lesson on, or discussed or answered, because it is already KNOWN by all kindergarteners. So yes it does read discriminatory.
Now had they changed the wording to say sexual intercourse/sexual parts, it would not have been discriminatory, because that would effectively put straight/cis and lgbtq+ on even standing, since kindergartners will not know a thing about the actual action of sex, for any type of person. In this case it would be acceptable (albeit useless cause what school even teaches young kids pre 4th grade about sexual intercourse). But that isn’t the wording for a reason, cause that isn’t what this bill is about.
Lastly, “Prohibiting instruction on genealogical background and race” is problematic because there is no reason why it should be prohibited, it is NOT inappropriate to children because it’s a quality of being human (as is orientation and gender identity). Is teaching children about Black American history inappropriate for them?
The topic of sexual orientation (gay, straight, or anything in between) is not to be part of the curriculum (thru grade 3). Same goes for transgender words. Not only can you not have a session about “transgenderism”, you cannot have a session on “cisgender” gender either!
As stated similarly above, why would there ever be a session about cisgender people when it is known by every kindergartener.
Many who oppose the bill also worry that some students who do not conform to straight, cisgender norms will not receive the words of affirmation from their teachers and that many will be bullied, feel shame, and/or attempt/commit suicide. But, at such a young age, what would be concerning about themselves to these kids that might make them depressed or seek self-harm is not some concept about “orientation” (they are not sexually or romantically attracted to anybody at young ages) or “gender identity.” What would cause them angst is that they have interests or proclivities that are unusual (not common) in others they deem "like" them. So, a boy would be concerned if he liked making jewelry and didn’t like wrestling. Or a girl would feel angst about liking playing in the mud and not dressing up. (These are just stereotypical examples.) They are not thinking in terms of sexual attraction or genitalia v. self-identity.
A boy being bullied due to “girly characteristics,” for example let’s say he paints his nails, is literally an issue regarding gender identity. The only reason he would be bullied is due to gender identity. He doesn’t fit the roles assigned to the gender of “boy.” If bullying like this happens, a teacher should be able to defend the kid in a simple way that ADDRESSES THE ACTUAL PROBLEM like “listen kids, it’s ok for boys to like things that girls like, it’s ok for boys to paint their nails like girls do.” Which is “instruction” on gender identity.
And, it seems to me, they are also free to communicate the message that not all boys like typically-boy things (and the same for girls) since this truth does not necessarily equate to transgenderism (and does not require the concept of transgenderism to explain). Messages like these help to safeguard the mental and emotional status of all kids. And this bill does nothing to stop this messaging. As the kids get older and their self-knowledge starts to expand into more sexual/gender identities, these topics can then be brought up. This bill allows that to happen from grade 4 and up in an age-appropriate way. I think that is wise.
Transgender can be and has been explained to 5 year olds before, and can be done without getting into anything inappropriate.
It is completely appropriate to tell a kid “ listen this person may sound and look like a boy, but their brain/soul is a girl, that is who they really are” etc. It is not inappropriate at all. And no this isn’t going to turn kids trans.
But if it just showed two characters of the same sex holding hands, I do not know what they would say about that. Holding hands is NOT sexual--especilly when viewed in a cartoon by kindergartners. Young children of the same sex hold hands all the time. I don't see why that would be deemed as "sexual".
Holding hands can still indicate attraction or a crush. Which is a thing young kids have. Doesn’t need to be “sexual.” So let’s rephrase that question, two boy characters shown being attracted to each other, how would that hold up?
There was nothing disingenuous about my use of the term "sexual". Feel free to read "sexual orientation" into that particular context. I was using a bit of shorthand. But clearly, sexual orientation requires the concept of sexual (attraction). It's right there in the name.
Sexual orientation is not just about having sex. It’s about who you are attracted to. A straight boy having a crush on a girl is innocent. A lesbian girl having a crush on a girl is innocent. “Sexual orientation” is not only about sex, it can be explained, discussed, instructed, in a non sexual way.
