Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[TP2000]

I've always seen Drag as a statement, a screw you to the confines of societal norms.

I think it was definitely that in the 1950's, 60's and even 1970's. But by the late 20th century it was changing and morphing into the broader culture, just as the gay community was changing and morphing into the broader culture.

And now in 2022? Drag itself is not much of a screw you to societal norms. Which is probably why so many younger Drag Queens now have to be vulgar and use female anatomy derogatorily in their acts and stage names. They have to make a statement somehow, since just wearing a glittery dress and a beehive wig to lip sync to Connie Francis' "Where The Boys Are!" isn't enough any longer.

When Drag Queens are the stars of one of the most popular TV shows in the nation, and Drag Queens now show up on perky mid-morning talk shows to discuss brunch recipes and makeup tips, Drag is no longer a shocking statement.

It was shocking in 1964. But it's 2022 and a Drag Queen singing Connie Francis isn't shocking.

 

[TP2000]

Blackface was yet another tool used by white people to crap on black people. That’s enough of a reason to explain why there’s no comparison.

Sure. It was a social power play by the media, and too many audiences laughed along without thinking.

But it was making fun of a minority of the population (9.8% of Americans in 1940, 13.5% of Americans in 2020), just as Indian graphic arts in advertising and industrial design was taking an entire minority group and devolving them down into a logo or a hood ornament.

And those things stopped when those groups had an activist base who could stand up and say "Stop using our culture and our humanity as a joke!"

Too many Drag Queens today make fun of female gender stereotypes and use female anatomy as punchlines and jokes. Replace those descriptors with a race, or religion, or unique minority culture, and suddenly it's not allowed.

But because it's using women as the subject matter for the entertainment and jokes, it's okay? I can't quite get my mind wrapped around how that would be okay, now that I think about it. I'm still a Coco Peru fan (I am reminded it's been too long since I've watched her YouTube channel and will tune in this weekend!), but the point here about using exagerrated and fabricated female gender as a form of often vulgar entertainment seems to be valid.

We seem to be willing to say "Well, it's only a few women who are offended by Drag, so it's okay."

 

[Magenta Panther]

If even ONE woman is offended by drag, then context doesn't really matter, does it? What do you say to that woman? "Oh come on, be a good sport! He doesn't mean any harm! It's just for laughs!"

Guess what else that phrase can be applied to?

I think it's very likely that those performers who wore blackface - like Al Jolson - didn't put on the grotesque makeup thinking "I can't wait to offend some black people!" It was just entertainment to them. True, audiences were tickled by the caricature of blacks...just like audiences are tickled by the caricatures of women performed by men. Why else would people watch them? Because they're poking fun at societal norms? Okay, then why wouldn't the guys who do drag just wear makeup without the wigs and the fake chest adornments (gotta keep it clean here) and without giving themselves female names and calling themselves "queens"? I mean, a guy could put on some mascara and a skirt and call himself "Mike" if he was poking fun at societal norms. But that's NOT what they're doing.

As for drag not being shocking...well, in that case, maybe context does apply. It's one thing to have drag queens on adult shows like Ru Paul's Drag Race. But...well, there's a kids' show on AppleTV+ (I think that's the streaming channel) that has two drag queens as hosts. One of them has all the usual drag accoutrements - heavy frightening makeup, wig, dress - plus a full beard. Now that creeps me out a little. That's taking something that is usually reserved for adult entertainment and putting it into a kids' setting. To me, it's like putting a stripper or pole dancer there. Or a "blue" comedian. I don't think most folks would be thrilled about that. Especially parents. Can't say I blame them.

 

[ParkPeeker]

This isn’t adding much to the convo but my young adult sister who is a cis female watches Ru Paul and isn’t offended by it

 

[Magenta Panther]

Sure. It was a social power play by the media, and too many audiences laughed along without thinking.

But it was making fun of a minority of the population (9.8% of Americans in 1940, 13.5% of Americans in 2020), just as Indian graphic arts in advertising and industrial design was taking an entire minority group and devolving them down into a logo or a hood ornament.

And those things stopped when those groups had an activist base who could stand up and say "Stop using our culture and our humanity as a joke!"

Too many Drag Queens today make fun of female gender stereotypes and use female anatomy as punchlines and jokes. Replace those descriptors with a race, or religion, or unique minority culture, and suddenly it's not allowed.

But because it's using women as the subject matter for the entertainment and jokes, it's okay? I can't quite get my mind wrapped around how that would be okay, now that I think about it. I'm still a Coco Peru fan (I am reminded it's been too long since I've watched her YouTube channel and will tune in this weekend!), but the point here about using exagerrated and fabricated female gender as a form of often vulgar entertainment seems to be valid.

We seem to be willing to say "Well, it's only a few women who are offended by Drag, so it's okay."

Yes, and, more's the pity, many women aren't being listened to these days, are they? Like those biological female swimmers at Penn U. But I digress...

 

[TP2000]

I will say however, my Mom loves Drag, but has felt offended by some of the Queen's on Drag Race where she feels they make fun of women.

I am much older than you, and was in gay bars a lot back in the 20th century. What your mom is probably also picking up on is the often open sexism (maybe even misogyny) that used to be rampant in the gay community, but still has a noticeable undercurrent today even though it's not so blatant. (Or the gays at least know we're not supposed to say it out loud so much.)

If you were in a gay bar decades ago, you know that gay men had a short list of vulgar and offensive names we called women. That derision and attitude towards women was widespread and rampant, based mostly out of jealousy because women could pursue men romantically without any repercussions. We couldn't do that openly, or admit it in the workplace or in casual conversation, and it was even illegal in many cases. But a woman could live her life much like we wanted to, and it was perfectly legal and acceptable for them.

It's also why gay bars and Lesbian bars were strictly segregated in all but the smallest of cities that only had one or two bars, where maybe one night a week was reserved for the Lesbians.

Even today, some gay bars are purposely excluding Bachelorette parties and gaggles of Sorority girls from invading their bar. They are unwelcome, and can be asked to leave. Keeping the straight girls out of the gay bar also makes it easier for the 11 o'clock Drag Show to use all their best jokes and insults if there aren't women in the audience.

Your mom has probably picked up on that undercurrent of sexism that is still happening in the gay community, especially by the younger Drag Queens.

 

[TP2000]

This isn’t adding much to the convo but my young adult sister who is a cis female watches Ru Paul and isn’t offended by it

No, that actually does add to the conversation.

Because now we've got comments that are analagous to "Well, my Black friend thought Dave Chappelle's jokes about Jussie Smollet were funny." or "I read online that a lot of Indians don't care that the team's name is the Washington Redskins"

I'm going to watch Coco Peru this weekend, because she's older, she's hilarious and she's not vulgar. But if enough women start to be concerned about what Drag Queens are doing, and how they are taking female gender stereotypes and turning them into bawdy to downright vulgar entertainment, then what?

How many offended women does it take to make a joke off limits?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This isn’t adding much to the convo but my young adult sister who is a cis female watches Ru Paul and isn’t offended by it

I'm not offended by drag itself at all, but there's a style of raunchy humor that I really don't care for because it's just there for shock value and there's no thoughtfulness or cleverness behind it. This opinion isn't limited to men in drag, or even just men...I just find that kind of humor tasteless for no reason and boring. This isn't to say that I'm against all dirty humor - because I'm not.

 

[Lilofan]

I'm not offended by drag itself at all, but there's a style of raunchy humor that I really don't care for because it's just there for shock value and there's no thoughtfulness or cleverness behind it. This opinion isn't limited to men in drag, or even just men...I just find that kind of humor tasteless for no reason and boring. This isn't to say that I'm against all dirty humor - because I'm not.

Raunchy or not I think humor appeals to many . It improves your mood and exercises your lungs and diaphram. George Carlin, Steven Wright, George Lopez, Richard Pryor are some of my favorites.

 

[TP2000]

Raunchy or not I think humor appeals to many . It improves your mood and exercises your lungs and diaphram. George Carlin, Steven Wright, George Lopez, Richard Pryor are some of my favorites.

I agree. But my tastes always ran to the comediennes for the best laughs; Lucile Ball, Irene Kampen, Carol Burnett, Gilda Radner, Madeline Kahn (a fave!), Catherine O'hara and Andrea Martin, Susan Norfleet, Molly Shannon, Kristen Wiig, Aidy Bryant.

But some of the bits and the jokes that those earlier ladies did in the 1960's, 70's and 80's would be off limits today. Or at least need to be edited to pass muster with the endlessly offended Twitter mob.

I used a Susan Norfleet joke from about 15 years ago here recently, and I actually got a DM Conversation thing from a very earnest young person who was wildly offended that I would joke about gay acronyms. The joke from Ms. Norfleet (who is a 60+ year old Lesbian, by the way) was that she was tired of adding extra letters and symbols on to the LGBT acronym, so she was just going to call it Up With People!, which is hysterical for us older gays or anyone who remembers Up With People!.

But many of the kids today don't dare joke about anything, and they take everything very seriously, and will report you if you don't take things as seriously as they do. Because humor is now forbidden and a sign of being unserious about how awful the world is to be a 28 year old with an iPhone and $8 Vegan Eggs in their fridge who spent their 3 o'clock coffee break Tweeting out in front of the building.

For your records, the correct acronym in 2022 is 2SLGBTQQIA+, and if you don't type that in full you are a hateful bigot. And if you don't adapt instantly to the extra letters, numbers and symbols that will be added to it in 2023 and 2024 you are a neanderthal who deserves to live in... Florida!

 

[Lilofan]

I agree. But my tastes always ran to the comediennes for the best laughs; Lucile Ball, Irene Kampen, Carol Burnett, Gilda Radner, Madeline Kahn (a fave!), Catherine O'hara and Andrea Martin, Susan Norfleet, Molly Shannon, Kristen Wiig, Aidy Bryant.

But some of the bits and the jokes that those earlier ladies did in the 1960's, 70's and 80's would be off limits today. Or at least need to be edited to pass muster with the endlessly offended Twitter mob.

I used a Susan Norfleet joke from about 15 years ago here recently, and I actually got a DM Conversation thing from a very earnest young person who was wildly offended that I would joke about gay acronyms. The joke from Ms. Norfleet (who is a 60+ year old Lesbian, by the way) was that she was tired of adding extra letters and symbols on to the LGBT acronym, so she was just going to call it Up With People!, which is hysterical for us older gays or anyone who remembers Up With People!.

But many of the kids today don't dare joke about anything, and they take everything very seriously, and will report you if you don't take things as seriously as they do. Because humor is now forbidden and a sign of being unserious about how awful the world is to be a 28 year old with an iPhone and $8 Vegan Eggs in their fridge who spent their 3 o'clock coffee break Tweeting out in front of the building.

For your records, the correct acronym in 2022 is 2SLGBTQQIA+, and if you don't type that in full you are a hateful bigot. And if you don't adapt instantly to the extra letters, numbers and symbols that will be added to it in 2023 and 2024 you are a neanderthal who deserves to live in... Florida!

If I want to laugh and put me in a good mood I watch The Birdcage with the famous Robin Williams and Nathan Lane. Brings back memories vacationing in Miami South Beach.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There is shocking ignorance on display on this page, and its a testament to why we need better education on the history of race in this country - and why certain groups are desperate to block that education. There is NO comparison between minstrelsy and drag.

People need to read up VERY thoroughly on the history of minstrelsy. It was THE dominant pop culture form in America through much of the 19th century. It was prevalent, inextricably intertwined into society. Many (if not most) of the old, familiar songs we think of as pure Americana were written for Minstrel shows. And a large part of the intention of these shows and a massive part of their impact was to establish and reinforce stereotypes of African Americans that could justify their enslavement. The shows also worked to unite urban workers in the north and wealthy southern plantation holders into a political coalition that could ensure the continued oppression of an entire race. After emancipation, the content of minstrel shows (still the single most dominant form of US pop culture) changed slightly with the introduction of new core characters - now the goal was to define African Americans as inherently violent and irrational and justify horrible, widespread violence against them and to perpetuate massively unjust laws that violated their most basic rights.

Again, the fact that most Americans don't know how absolutely central minstrelsy was to US culture is a shocking indictment of our education system - and a testament to how important understanding historical context is in grasping modern political issues.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Andrew Sullivan of The Dish on this topic, fwiw:

There’s also been some new polling on the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law just passed in Florida, and for those in the woke bubble, it is sobering news. Most people — believe it or not — don’t think kindergartners or second- or third-graders should be introduced to the concepts of critical gender and queer theory. They believe that the issues of homosexuality and transgender experience should be taught in a way that is “age-appropriate.”

Who would have thought that? Here’s the Morning Consult poll, which finds 51 - 35 percent majority for not teaching K-3 about trans or gay identity; and a 52 - 33 percent majority in favor of “age-appropriate” teaching thereafter. In what I take as a hopeful sign, though, a 44 - 40 percent plurality oppose the ability of parents to sue teachers — which is also part of the law.

A Daily Wire poll provided the actual wording:

“Below is a passage from a new state education law. Please indicate whether you support or oppose it. ‘Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

That passage had a 64 - 21 percent majority support. Another ABC/Ipsos poll has a quite different response. Here’s the question, without the context provided in the other polls:

On another topic, would you support or oppose legislation that would prohibit classroom lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary school?

That got a different result: 62 - 37 percent opposition.

What to make of all this? I’d say simply: people don’t want to ban teachers from doing their job, but they’re leery of indoctrination of the very young. And the context for this leeriness is a revolution in the teaching of these topics to incorporate critical queer and gender theory — that relegates biology to an afterthought, describes sex as a “spectrum,” and conflates sex with gender.

There’s an obvious sane compromise on this — age-appropriate sex ed in the most neutral manner possible after elementary school — but the radicalism of the critical queer and gender theory left and the moral panic of the religious right precludes it. Yes, the bill is too vague and encourages chilling lawsuits, which is why I’m against it. But yes, too, telling 5 year olds that boys can have periods and girls can have es is completely inappropriate. It’s bewildering and, more to the point, untrue.

And the rhetoric on both sides is disturbing. The alphabet movement calls any restrictions on teaching sex ed to elementary school kids a form of “hate” and argues that the law “will kill kids.” How’s that for crude emotional blackmail? And the Christianist right has now deployed the slur “groomer” to any teacher instructing on homosexuality or transgender identity. The deployment of the pedophile smear against gay and trans people, especially teachers, is from the very bottom of the barrel — rendering any compromise completely impossible. It’s disgusting.

This is why we’ve ended up where we are in Florida — a chaotic way to organize the teaching of children. With any luck, this will calm down, some lawsuits will backfire, an equilibrium will emerge. The good news is that most Americans support equality for trans and gay people (and, in terms of civil rights, we already have it); they’re just leery of the extreme forms that queer ideology is taking, and certainly don’t want their young children caught in the crossfire. If we start from that premise, there are places we can go and compromises we can reach. If we don’t, it’s culture war all the way down.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Andrew Sullivan of The Dish on this topic, fwiw:

There’s also been some new polling on the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” law just passed in Florida, and for those in the woke bubble, it is sobering news. Most people — believe it or not — don’t think kindergartners or second- or third-graders should be introduced to the concepts of critical gender and queer theory. They believe that the issues of homosexuality and transgender experience should be taught in a way that is “age-appropriate.”

Who would have thought that? Here’s the Morning Consult poll, which finds 51 - 35 percent majority for not teaching K-3 about trans or gay identity; and a 52 - 33 percent majority in favor of “age-appropriate” teaching thereafter. In what I take as a hopeful sign, though, a 44 - 40 percent plurality oppose the ability of parents to sue teachers — which is also part of the law.

A Daily Wire poll provided the actual wording:


That passage had a 64 - 21 percent majority support. Another ABC/Ipsos poll has a quite different response. Here’s the question, without the context provided in the other polls:


That got a different result: 62 - 37 percent opposition.

What to make of all this? I’d say simply: people don’t want to ban teachers from doing their job, but they’re leery of indoctrination of the very young. And the context for this leeriness is a revolution in the teaching of these topics to incorporate critical queer and gender theory — that relegates biology to an afterthought, describes sex as a “spectrum,” and conflates sex with gender.

There’s an obvious sane compromise on this — age-appropriate sex ed in the most neutral manner possible after elementary school — but the radicalism of the critical queer and gender theory left and the moral panic of the religious right precludes it. Yes, the bill is too vague and encourages chilling lawsuits, which is why I’m against it. But yes, too, telling 5 year olds that boys can have periods and girls can have *****es is completely inappropriate. It’s bewildering and, more to the point, untrue.

And the rhetoric on both sides is disturbing. The alphabet movement calls any restrictions on teaching sex ed to elementary school kids a form of “hate” and argues that the law “will kill kids.” How’s that for crude emotional blackmail? And the Christianist right has now deployed the slur “groomer” to any teacher instructing on homosexuality or transgender identity. The deployment of the pedophile smear against gay and trans people, especially teachers, is from the very bottom of the barrel — rendering any compromise completely impossible. It’s disgusting.

This is why we’ve ended up where we are in Florida — a chaotic way to organize the teaching of children. With any luck, this will calm down, some lawsuits will backfire, an equilibrium will emerge. The good news is that most Americans support equality for trans and gay people (and, in terms of civil rights, we already have it); they’re just leery of the extreme forms that queer ideology is taking, and certainly don’t want their young children caught in the crossfire. If we start from that premise, there are places we can go and compromises we can reach. If we don’t, it’s culture war all the way down.

Putting aside the reliance on a Daily Wire poll, a completely untrustworthy organization, this is an odd piece. Sullivan opposes the bill because of its vague language, but seems not to fully comprehend that that vagueness is the point of the bill. The vagueness exists to get precisely these kinds of poll results while hiding the true, intended impact of the bill. Opponents of the bill tried to expand its language to include all discussion of sexual activities in K-3, but oddly, the very concerned legislators pushing this bill shot those down - why would they do that? Because the bill is not targeting "critical gender or queer theory," as Sullivan disingenuously suggests, trying to invoke the fears surrounding CRT. It's targeting very specific groups in ways the majority might not like if the legislators were honest - which Sullivan acknowledges in his last paragraph, but fails to make the connection to the vagueness of the bill.

Sullivan points out how disgustingly odious the slurs coming from the bill's supporters have been - and one of the main folks slinging those slurs is the Governor's own spokesperson. He then engages in "both-side-ism," trying to equate a vaguely defined left to a very specific bunch of legislators (in multiple states) using the power of the state to define certain people as abnormal and exclude them from society, and makes a lot of claims about what children are being taught. So I ask - we've had the example of the high school teacher in Washington, but what are some other SPECIFIC examples of the problem this bill is meant to address?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Raunchy or not I think humor appeals to many . It improves your mood and exercises your lungs and diaphram. George Carlin, Steven Wright, George Lopez, Richard Pryor are some of my favorites.

Me too! I just don't like obvious shock humor...the "low hanging fruit", so to speak. I prefer humor to have some cleverness behind it. Pun not intended, lol.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Sure. It was a social power play by the media, and too many audiences laughed along without thinking.

But it was making fun of a minority of the population (9.8% of Americans in 1940, 13.5% of Americans in 2020), just as Indian graphic arts in advertising and industrial design was taking an entire minority group and devolving them down into a logo or a hood ornament.

And those things stopped when those groups had an activist base who could stand up and say "Stop using our culture and our humanity as a joke!"

Too many Drag Queens today make fun of female gender stereotypes and use female anatomy as punchlines and jokes. Replace those descriptors with a race, or religion, or unique minority culture, and suddenly it's not allowed.

But because it's using women as the subject matter for the entertainment and jokes, it's okay? I can't quite get my mind wrapped around how that would be okay, now that I think about it. I'm still a Coco Peru fan (I am reminded it's been too long since I've watched her YouTube channel and will tune in this weekend!), but the point here about using exagerrated and fabricated female gender as a form of often vulgar entertainment seems to be valid.

We seem to be willing to say "Well, it's only a few women who are offended by Drag, so it's okay."

If even ONE woman is offended by drag, then context doesn't really matter, does it? What do you say to that woman? "Oh come on, be a good sport! He doesn't mean any harm! It's just for laughs!"

Guess what else that phrase can be applied to?

I think it's very likely that those performers who wore blackface - like Al Jolson - didn't put on the grotesque makeup thinking "I can't wait to offend some black people!" It was just entertainment to them. True, audiences were tickled by the caricature of blacks...just like audiences are tickled by the caricatures of women performed by men. Why else would people watch them? Because they're poking fun at societal norms? Okay, then why wouldn't the guys who do drag just wear makeup without the wigs and the fake chest adornments (gotta keep it clean here) and without giving themselves female names and calling themselves "queens"? I mean, a guy could put on some mascara and a skirt and call himself "Mike" if he was poking fun at societal norms. But that's NOT what they're doing.

As for drag not being shocking...well, in that case, maybe context does apply. It's one thing to have drag queens on adult shows like Ru Paul's Drag Race. But...well, there's a kids' show on AppleTV+ (I think that's the streaming channel) that has two drag queens as hosts. One of them has all the usual drag accoutrements - heavy frightening makeup, wig, dress - plus a full beard. Now that creeps me out a little. That's taking something that is usually reserved for adult entertainment and putting it into a kids' setting. To me, it's like putting a stripper or pole dancer there. Or a "blue" comedian. I don't think most folks would be thrilled about that. Especially parents. Can't say I blame them.

 

[Californian Elitist]

There is shocking ignorance on display on this page, and its a testament to why we need better education on the history of race in this country - and why certain groups are desperate to block that education. There is NO comparison between minstrelsy and drag.

People need to read up VERY thoroughly on the history of minstrelsy. It was THE dominant pop culture form in America through much of the 19th century. It was prevalent, inextricably intertwined into society. Many (if not most) of the old, familiar songs we think of as pure Americana were written for Minstrel shows. And a large part of the intention of these shows and a massive part of their impact was to establish and reinforce stereotypes of African Americans that could justify their enslavement. The shows also worked to unite urban workers in the north and wealthy southern plantation holders into a political coalition that could ensure the continued oppression of an entire race. After emancipation, the content of minstrel shows (still the single most dominant form of US pop culture) changed slightly with the introduction of new core characters - now the goal was to define African Americans as inherently violent and irrational and justify horrible, widespread violence against them and to perpetuate massively unjust laws that violated their most basic rights.

Again, the fact that most Americans don't know how absolutely central minstrelsy was to US culture is a shocking indictment of our education system - and a testament to how important understanding historical context is in grasping modern political issues.

THANK YOU. I don’t have the patience to educate some of the folks here, especially because the bad comparison was so obvious.

Thank you for taking the time to write this post.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Putting aside the reliance on a Daily Wire poll, a completely untrustworthy organization, this is an odd piece. Sullivan opposes the bill because of its vague language, but seems not to fully comprehend that that vagueness is the point of the bill. The vagueness exists to get precisely these kinds of poll results while hiding the true, intended impact of the bill. Opponents of the bill tried to expand its language to include all discussion of sexual activities in K-3, but oddly, the very concerned legislators pushing this bill shot those down - why would they do that? Because the bill is not targeting "critical gender or queer theory," as Sullivan disingenuously suggests, trying to invoke the fears surrounding CRT. It's targeting very specific groups in ways the majority might not like if the legislators were honest - which Sullivan acknowledges in his last paragraph, but fails to make the connection to the vagueness of the bill.

Sullivan points out how disgustingly odious the slurs coming from the bill's supporters have been - and one of the main folks slinging those slurs is the Governor's own spokesperson. He then engages in "both-side-ism," trying to equate a vaguely defined left to a very specific bunch of legislators (in multiple states) using the power of the state to define certain people as abnormal and exclude them from society, and makes a lot of claims about what children are being taught. So I ask - we've had the example of the high school teacher in Washington, but what are some other SPECIFIC examples of the problem this bill is meant to address?

Well said. That article wasn't nearly as slick as the author thought.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Putting aside the reliance on a Daily Wire poll, a completely untrustworthy organization, this is an odd piece. Sullivan opposes the bill because of its vague language, but seems not to fully comprehend that that vagueness is the point of the bill. The vagueness exists to get precisely these kinds of poll results while hiding the true, intended impact of the bill. Opponents of the bill tried to expand its language to include all discussion of sexual activities in K-3, but oddly, the very concerned legislators pushing this bill shot those down - why would they do that? Because the bill is not targeting "critical gender or queer theory," as Sullivan disingenuously suggests, trying to invoke the fears surrounding CRT. It's targeting very specific groups in ways the majority might not like if the legislators were honest - which Sullivan acknowledges in his last paragraph, but fails to make the connection to the vagueness of the bill.

Sullivan points out how disgustingly odious the slurs coming from the bill's supporters have been - and one of the main folks slinging those slurs is the Governor's own spokesperson. He then engages in "both-side-ism," trying to equate a vaguely defined left to a very specific bunch of legislators (in multiple states) using the power of the state to define certain people as abnormal and exclude them from society, and makes a lot of claims about what children are being taught. So I ask - we've had the example of the high school teacher in Washington, but what are some other SPECIFIC examples of the problem this bill is meant to address?

Further...it seems Florida is ignoring a real problem in favor of passing laws for a problem that doesn't exist.

Recent incidents in Florida have involved male teachers and female students or a person posing as female student.

FBI arrests St. Augustine teacher accused of trying to meet ‘teen’ for sex

The FBI on Friday arrested a St. Johns County private school teacher accused of trying to meet a teenager, who was actually an undercover agent, for sex, according to federal court records.

www.news4jax.com

MSN

Former Pasco substitute teacher arrested after allegedly groping two girls

A former substitute for Pasco County is behind bars after two girls accused him of groping and fondling them on school grounds.

www.abcactionnews.com

 

[JohnnyAmerican]

Where is the moderator to put this back on track? Is all of this extra info that just to deter from the fact that the Florida “don’t say gay” bill really doesn’t say “don’t say gay”??

Using the same logic, it could also be called "don't say straight"...